PDA

View Full Version : Fanatics hitting hills



ZoomDog
07-03-2009, 22:34
Quick question; Goblin Fanatics rules state that whenever they hit a terrain feature they die. I assume this includes hills? It seems a bit odd that going up a slight slope would kill the little guy, but the rules seem pretty clear (hills are terrain features).

And is there a thread for very quick questions, or do we need to create new ones each time? :)

Necromancy Black
07-03-2009, 22:37
Create new ones, and yeah, I assume hills would kill them. Either the combined effort of gravity stop the little buggers spinning or the sudden elevations causes them to go flying off with a helecopter blade.

Either way, hilarity ensures for everyone.

I honestly don't see why orc battles arn't just both sides having some beers while watching the fantatics go crazy. Probably why they invented Blood Bowl.

selone
07-03-2009, 22:40
I'd have thought it was only difficult terrain but hey the rules may be against me.

Ganymede
07-03-2009, 23:34
Page 16 - "Open Terrain is clear ground that doesn't impede movement at all. The battlefield is basically all open terrain unless otherwise agreed. This will normally include hills, as long as they are not too steep, as well as features such as roads and other firm surfaces."

If Fanatics die when they hit hills and roads, they also die when they hit the table top. Hills, roads, and the battlefield (tabletop) itself are all open terrain. Nothing in the fanatics rules indicates that they would be vulnerable to certain open terrain features while vulnerable to others.

theunwantedbeing
07-03-2009, 23:41
A fanatic dies when it comes into contact with a terrain feature.
The board is not a terrain feature, although any piece of terrain placed upon it is.

So they die when they come into contact with a hill I am afraid.

Look to page xib and xb in the rulebook under the heading The Battlefield.

Braad
07-03-2009, 23:45
If I place a patch of plain dirt instead of grass, this is a terrain feature, if you ask me? But it is just open ground that looks nice.
Will it kill the fanatic?

Ganymede
08-03-2009, 00:07
A fanatic dies when it comes into contact with a terrain feature.
The board is not a terrain feature, although any piece of terrain placed upon it is.

This is a false distinction that you made up.

The gaming table itself is referred to as a feature in the very first paragraph of the terrain section. The rules do not discriminate.

Page 16 - "As each player's gaming table and collection of scenery pieces is going to be very different, players should discuss before the battle begins which terrain features will be difficult, very difficult, or impassable during the course of the battle."

Oh yeah, Page XV does not have a single rule on it.

Either everthing (including the gaming table) kills fanatics on contact or everything but open terrain kills fanatics. I know what option I'm going to pick.

theunwantedbeing
08-03-2009, 00:20
Er Ganymede, would you care to quote where it states that fanatics are killed by contacting terrain that isnt open terrain? or where it states they are killed by contacting terrain?

I have the relevant books here to check the page references you come up with.

Ganymede
08-03-2009, 00:23
You misread what I wrote. Fanatics die when they contact a terrain feature, and the gaming table is a terrain feature as ennumerated on page 16. Therfore fanatics die when they contact the gaming table.

Naturally, this is a philosophically unacceptable way to interpret the rules as it results in fanatics being completely useless. The only reasonable alternative is to adjucate that fanatics only die when they hit non-open terrain features.

forthegloryofkazadekrund
08-03-2009, 00:25
what if the night goblin unit are archers deployed on a hill, the enemy comes within 8" does that mean the fanatics automaticly die as they have touched the hill as some people have sugested

ZoomDog
08-03-2009, 00:26
and the gaming table is a terrain feature as ennumerated on page 16.
Sorry, I still can't see where it says the table is a terrain feature.

I actually agree with what you're saying (that they should only die when they hit difficult terrain or worse), but as a house rule; the actual letter of the rules says otherwise.

Ganymede
08-03-2009, 00:27
Page 16 - "As each player's gaming table and collection of scenery pieces is going to be very different, players should discuss before the battle begins which terrain features will be difficult, very difficult, or impassable during the course of the battle."

ZoomDog
08-03-2009, 00:30
Page 16 - "As each player's gaming table and collection of scenery pieces is going to be very different, players should discuss before the battle begins which terrain features will be difficult, very difficult, or impassable during the course of the battle."
Yeah that's what you said above, but it doesn't actually say that the table is a terrain feature. When was the last time you said to an opponent before a game "Ok, so the table will count as open terrain, agreed?"

Ganymede
08-03-2009, 00:32
Yeah that's what you said above, but it doesn't actually say that the table is a terrain feature. When was the last time you said to an opponent before a game "Ok, so the table will count as open terrain, agreed?"

It refers to the table as a terrain feature as there is no reason to mention it otherwise. If terrain features are solely unattached elememnts you place on the board, there is no reason to bring up the table to begin with.

narrativium
08-03-2009, 10:54
Counting the table as open terrain is implicit, but there's nothing to stop two players agreeing beforehand to make it difficult terrain.

I assume the phrasing is there to help people with awkward tables at home being used as gaming tables, really.

Valaraukar
08-03-2009, 11:05
Or think of those tables made out of foam etc. where terrain is moulded into the table or even the new realm of battle board which includes four hills, are these then not terrain features as they are a part of the board?

Shamfrit
08-03-2009, 11:49
Okay, now we're getting into ruleslawyarseitus.

A terrain feature is a specific item you place as a player at the start of the game, when you go *plonk* a hill! Or *plonk* tier 1 house etc.

A Goblin Fanatic will die if it hits the base of a hill, as it is a terrain feature, according to the Release the Fanatics rule (or whatever it's called.)

It's been played this way for X time, called at GT's, argued forever. As the rules are written, they die when they hit a hill.

If you want to argue the board itself, the table/floor/pavement is a terrain feature, then what type of terrain is it, and what is it made of, because you just made The Lore of Life to borke!

Necromancy Black
08-03-2009, 12:05
Despite everything above about the game table itself counting as aterrain feature or not (which I say it doesn't based purely on the quoted text from the BRB) the fact is we've astablished that a hill is a terrain feature, which will destroy the fantatics.

Gazak Blacktoof
08-03-2009, 12:12
As somebody else mentioned though its a bit harsh to claim they die if the night goblins are standing on top of the hill when the fanatic is released. Again, it might be what the rules call for but its just not cricket.

Shamfrit
08-03-2009, 12:33
What have we learnt from this?

Don't put Night Goblins with fanatics on a hill...

Necromancy Black
08-03-2009, 12:37
What have we learnt from this?

Don't put Night Goblins with fanatics on a hill...

Correction: Steed of Shadows is a fun way of making night goblins on a hill pop and lose all fanatics on turn one.

Actually, this could be a use for a skink chief with the cloak of feathers. Not because it's going to help me win the game, but because it'll be funny as hell :D

danny-d-b
08-03-2009, 13:22
don't you have to cast steed of shadows on a frendly unit?

Necromancy Black
08-03-2009, 13:30
And fantatics have to be revealed the moment an enemy unit is within 8"

See what I'm going to be using Steed of Shadow for? :p

Gu Long: Ancient Dragon
08-03-2009, 13:36
LOL, evil tactic i like it :P

EvC
08-03-2009, 15:49
If you ever make an Orc opponent remove his fanatics for touching a hill, then don't be surprised if he uses the Fanatic slingshot on you in return...

theunwantedbeing
08-03-2009, 16:01
Hills are a terrain feature.
Fanatics die when they hit terrain features.

Nothing unfair about that at all.
The fanatic slingshot however is clarified to be "not in the spirit of the rules"

In anycase a fanatic hitting a hill is launched into the air and dies upon hitting the ground in as comical a fashion as possible.


If you ever make an Orc opponent remove his fanatics for touching a hill, then don't be surprised if he uses the Fanatic slingshot on you in return...

Anyone who uses the fanatic slingshot in return for having to remove a fanatic for hitting a hill is a jerk and isnt worth playing.

Ganymede
08-03-2009, 16:51
Hills are a terrain feature.
Fanatics die when they hit terrain features.

Nothing unfair about that at all.
The fanatic slingshot however is clarified to be "not in the spirit of the rules"

In anycase a fanatic hitting a hill is launched into the air and dies upon hitting the ground in as comical a fashion as possible.

The gaming table is also a terrain feature, as delineated on page 16. With RAW, fanatics die when they come in contact with the gaming table. See the implications?

forthegloryofkazadekrund
08-03-2009, 17:40
So like this i cant deploy my big unit of night goblin archers on a hill to get 2 ranks of shooting off if they have fanatics in it, well that sucks donkey dong.

well done GW for making hills useless for night goblin players

EvC
08-03-2009, 18:22
Hills are a terrain feature.
Fanatics die when they hit terrain features.

Nothing unfair about that at all.
The fanatic slingshot however is clarified to be "not in the spirit of the rules"

Who cares about the spirit of the rules (Not you, clearly). If you're going to tell a Gobbo player to remove a fanatic for "hitting" a piece of open terrain such as a hill or even a road, then he can do the same to you. It might be against the spirit of the rules, but that doesn't mean that can't do it- they're only encouraged not to, in the spirit of the game. If you decide the spirit of the game is to remove fanatics for hitting open terrain, then expect your opponents to play with the same level of "spirit" ;)

xragg
08-03-2009, 18:55
The gaming table is also a terrain feature, as delineated on page 16. With RAW, fanatics die when they come in contact with the gaming table. See the implications?

I dont see anywhere on pg16 where it says the gaming table is a terrain feature. Actually, I dont see anything on that page classified as a terrain feature. It is only definitions of how different types of terrain, not terrain features, affect movement.

Terrain features are defined on pg(xb). It lists many examples of terrain features and specifically states that terrain features are placed on top of the gaming surface.

Basically, the gaming surface is terrain, but not a terrain feature.

EVC-every tournament, gaming club, GT, and rogue trader I have ever went to has counted hills as a terrain feature that kills fanatics. Fanatics dieing on hills is the rules, while slingshots are a gray area of sportsmanship that everyone I know considers "cheating" even if strictly RAW-able.

EvC
08-03-2009, 19:07
And no tournament in the UK, including the Grand Tournament ran at GW HQ itself, would enforce such a stupid RAW ruling. We invented the game, so my fallacious appeal to authority trumps yours ;)

DirtJumper
08-03-2009, 19:22
And no tournament in the UK, including the Grand Tournament ran at GW HQ itself, would enforce such a stupid RAW ruling. We invented the game, so my fallacious appeal to authority trumps yours ;)

Have any evidence for this? As far as I know, the rules would be enforced as written, which quite clearly say that hills placed on the table are terrain features, and fanatics die when they contact a terrain feature. There is no grey area or uncertainty as to that, and "in the spirit of the rules" is just a childish thing to argue when rules don't go your own way, IMO, and outside of freindly games should have absolutely no affect of how a rule is read.

Also, page 16 makes absolutely no reference to the game board being considered terrain, it merely says that it is normally considered open ground. A terrain feature would be something you or your opponent set up on top of the game board.

Shamfrit
08-03-2009, 19:26
You are wrong on several accounts EvC, it has occured and been ruled, and the players at those tournaments have agreed with it.

There is no two ways about it, terrain features placed on the board kill fanatics, since virtually all other pieces except a hill are difficult or worse, this is simply a one off that is caught by a rule - it's not altogether that spectacular, there are plenty of ways around it (like, you know, leaving a small part of the unit not on the hill, to send the fanatics out.)

Storak
08-03-2009, 19:42
Hills are a terrain feature.
Fanatics die when they hit terrain features.

Nothing unfair about that at all.
The fanatic slingshot however is clarified to be "not in the spirit of the rules"

In anycase a fanatic hitting a hill is launched into the air and dies upon hitting the ground in as comical a fashion as possible.

the sling shot would be my reply to the "hills kill fanatics" interpretation as well.

and i would get slightly more explicit, about your interpretation of the "spirit of the rules", than i can get on this forum.

fanatics are horribly weak this edition. any attempt to weaken them even further will get the response it deserves..

sparkyinsparks
08-03-2009, 20:38
The actual rule states "it comes into contact with a terrain feature of any kind." OF ANY KIND, which means anything on the table excluding the table itself. If there is any question on this, discuss it with your opponent and 4+ it if you have to. Remember the object of the game is to have fun, compromise is key.

Storak
08-03-2009, 21:20
RAI is the right approach here. fanatics shouldn t die, when they cross a road, neither when playing on modular terrain.

obviously they are supposed to die, when hitting difficult terrain.

Harwammer
08-03-2009, 21:22
I disagree Storak.

Clearly fanatics are intended to be used with 8 inch deep orc units to fireman's chain the fanatic between the night goblins and the enemy troops.

Bodysnatcher
08-03-2009, 22:01
Ideal solution: Agree with your opponent to ignore this seriously daft piece of RaW and continue to have fun, or go play someone else. If it happens at a tournament, get the ref to sort it - they normally go with the logical version if there's much iffyness (or if it happens to be a big event at WHW, ask the guy who wrote the army book if he's around).

Necromancy Black
08-03-2009, 22:07
Ideal solution: Agree with your opponent to ignore this seriously daft piece of RaW and continue to have fun, or go play someone else. If it happens at a tournament, get the ref to sort it - they normally go with the logical version if there's much iffyness (or if it happens to be a big event at WHW, ask the guy who wrote the army book if he's around).

Correction, advise my opponant if he deploys his night goblins on a hill I'm going to fly up with a skink, pop and then destroy them, as per the rules in his own rule book.

We'll agree that the table itself isn't a terrain feature :p

Storak
08-03-2009, 22:11
I disagree Storak.

Clearly fanatics are intended to be used with 8 inch deep orc units to fireman's chain the fanatic between the night goblins and the enemy troops.

funny enough, RAW seems to allow fanatics to be channeled over hills (and through difficult terrain?!?) in this way:

"if ever a fanatic s move would end in the middle of a unit, then it automatically bounces through it - place the model 1 inch.."

the model never gets into contact with the "feature"....

Bodysnatcher
08-03-2009, 22:24
I curse the day some bright spark mentioned RaW.

Storak
08-03-2009, 22:30
I curse the day some bright spark mentioned RaW.

it is a pretty stupid approach, even when used by players. but it is extremely problematic, when used by developers, like GW does in their FAQs. simply doesn t make any sense.

Rolo Ramone
08-03-2009, 22:44
Come on, letīs have some fun playing warhammer. Itīs a game! Talk with your opponent before the game and Voila! No problem! Itīs the golden rule. Anyway, if your opponent go in the way of WAAC, then maybe itīs not the kind of person you would like to play.

Sometimes itīs all about getting advantage...

Shamfrit
08-03-2009, 23:17
What legal terrain features are there that arn't difficult, block LOS or buildings etc?

The only one I can think of is a hill. Bridges etc still affect movement as they close ranks and the like.

EvC
09-03-2009, 00:06
Which tournament did you play at where Fanatics were considered dead if they touched a hill? Unfortunately I cannot link you to previous discussions on fanatics at a site where such things are discussed as the site in question has undergone a revamp that seems dedicated entirely to ensuing their search function no longer works, but there's a massive UK tournament coming up in April and I'm friends with the organiser- I'll ask him if he intends to play it that Fanatics are killed on hills or not. I fully expect his answer will be something along the lines that anyone who thinks they should die is an idiot. (But then he has also ruled that putting one of your own models within 1" of a building prevents the enemy from going into a building, so who knows what other RAW idiocy might slip through?)

In the meantime, I shall bask in my own smugness at all the idiots out there who would have jumped on Orc and Goblin players to make their Fanatics take psychology tests before they received an errata giving them the ItP rule...

tinytim84
09-03-2009, 04:34
wow my brain hurts from reading this now i love fanatics but really come on this thread got way to compicated i hate rules lawyers they are annoying and need hit in the head with there own rule book when you play a game each player places an agreed number of terrain fetures those placed fetures kill a fanatic. i realize we play a game of fantacy but really people use some commin sence

Neckutter
09-03-2009, 05:07
the table isnt a terrain feature. fanatics die when they touch a terrain feature, like a hill forrest, water, rocks, herdstone, or whatever. :)

xragg
09-03-2009, 05:34
What legal terrain features are there that arn't difficult, block LOS or buildings etc?

The only one I can think of is a hill. Bridges etc still affect movement as they close ranks and the like.

Fog and similar that prevent LoS, but dont hamper movement.


For those who think a fanatic should be able to go up/down hills when any terrain feature destroys them:
So, if a hill isnt a terrain feature, what is it then?

Captain Plowman
09-03-2009, 06:00
i thought this was going to be a quick question...

Anyway, here is my two cents worth:


We encourage you to shape the game around your needs and your taste. We firmly believe that wargamming is about two (or more!) people creating a gaming experience they are both going to enjoy... apply the good old 'roll a dice' rule whenever you meet a problematic situation
-GW Games Development 2008

The best way to decide is to discuss any issue with your opponent. As long as you both agree and have fun, it doesnt really matter what kind of rules you use.

theunwantedbeing
09-03-2009, 06:28
Fanatics followed slightly different rules in 6th edition it seems.

If a fanatic moves into an obstacle, wood, building, impassable terrain of any kind or off the tabletop altogether he is slain.

Clearly those demmanding that a fanatic not be destroyed for hitting a hill are thinking of the older rules.

They used to be able to shoot their own fanatics for example, they cannot do that now.
Similarly fanatics prevented further movement, they dont do that now.
Rules change, people may or may not agree with these rules changes.

Wanting fanatics to be able to move over hills is like a dark elf player wanting his +1 to cast back. An old rule that doesnt exist anymore.

Devil Tree
09-03-2009, 06:57
I don’t think you can compare a +1 to cast to being able to run up a gentle slope, cross and empty road or walk across a bridge. Yes I know that rules are rules and all that, but you have to apply them in some sort of sensible manner. It’s pretty obvious from the outset that the rule is supposed to apply to difficult terrain. The only reason it got through is because GW did such a poor job of writing the O & G army book and only a rules-lawyer would think of applying something so stupid.

Necromancy Black
09-03-2009, 08:03
I don’t think you can compare a +1 to cast to being able to run up a gentle slope, cross and empty road or walk across a bridge. Yes I know that rules are rules and all that, but you have to apply them in some sort of sensible manner. It’s pretty obvious from the outset that the rule is supposed to apply to difficult terrain. The only reason it got through is because GW did such a poor job of writing the O & G army book and only a rules-lawyer would think of applying something so stupid.

It's clear that they destroy themselves if they hit a hill. It's perfectly clear. So why should an O&G player be suprised if this happens? It's their army and they have the rule book.

It's not stupid, it's written clearly. Keep your night globins off hills. Done.

Devil Tree
09-03-2009, 09:58
It's clear that they destroy themselves if they hit a hill. It's perfectly clear. So why should an O&G player be suprised if this happens? It's their army and they have the rule book.

It's not stupid, it's written clearly. Keep your night globins off hills. Done.

No offence Black but I have to disagree with you on this. The rules as you stated, are not in fact “clear.” Might I also remind you that saying something over and over again doesn’t make it true.

The term “terrain feature” is very vague. It could mean anything from a gentle rise to a steep cliff edge, not to mention open ground or tall grass.

GW itself admits that there are certain instances that can’t be covered by the rulebook. This is in addition to the things the desighners didn’t think of because it seemed obvious at the time and only the worst rules lawyer would try to put it in practice. For either case, you need to use simple common sense.

Finally O & G are hardly what you would consider a strong (or even mediocre) army. When you combine that with the admission of most gamers, that goblins and fanatics are already sub par choices, I find such draconian interpretations are poor sportsmanship at best.

Shamfrit
09-03-2009, 10:04
So we should ignore the rules and twist them to aid unit choices that arn't up to competative scratch? That makes no sense to me, if they were 3d6 str10 no armour or ward save hits, would people be so willing to twist the interpretations of terrain and features to 'improve sportsmanship?'

I'm not trying to flame, I'm just a little narked off that this sort of thing comes up - it's been resolved in our club (although I don't play Greenskins anymore so it won't be coming up again :p) a group of 8 people have agreed that they die when they hit hills...

I guess I'll leave it there, nothing else to add.

Gazak Blacktoof
09-03-2009, 10:13
If its resolved within your gaming group to your satisfaction there's nothing to get annoyed about.

Its important to know what the rules say but its also a good idea to ignore them if it improves the game.

Dogma
09-03-2009, 11:19
Could someone please tell me what the fanatic slingshot is as i have never heard this term used.
Dont worry I have found this on DakkaDakka now and it seems to be quite a disgusting tactic.

Also in my gaming group no one has ever suggested that a fanatic dies upon hitting a small hill or an open road. In fact this debate has never even come up and there is a couple of orc and goblin players. I think we all just assumed the same thing upon reading the rules.

Necromancy Black
09-03-2009, 11:37
GW itself admits that there are certain instances that can’t be covered by the rulebook. This is in addition to the things the desighners didn’t think of because it seemed obvious at the time and only the worst rules lawyer would try to put it in practice. For either case, you need to use simple common sense.


My common sense says follow the rules. The rules says terrain feature and it's common sense to me that a hill is a feature of the terrain, a feature that can be easily defined as such.

Also it doesn't matter if you think O&G arn't a strong army or a weak army, rules are rules. If you want me to apply common sense I have, the fantatics die on contact with a hill.

EvC
09-03-2009, 14:45
Just out of interest guys, has anyone here gamed on the new battle board?

This thing is basically covered in terrain features, from gently rising slopes, to cracks in the ground, to regions of skulls layered across the ground. Basically, if you play that Fanatics are killed when they encounter terrain features, they won't last a turn on this board. Just to confirm as well Shamfrit and others, your gaming group had Fanatics taking psychology tests before the Orc and Goblin FAQ was released, did you?

[Also pretty telling that you made it sound like entire swathes of the gaming community and tournament scene had decreed that hills kill fanatics, telling me I was so wrong on that account, but when pushed you say it was one group of eight players... embellishing doesn't help your case, and lying actively hurts it]

Storak
09-03-2009, 14:52
My common sense says follow the rules. The rules says terrain feature and it's common sense to me that a hill is a feature of the terrain, a feature that can be easily defined as such.

Also it doesn't matter if you think O&G arn't a strong army or a weak army, rules are rules. If you want me to apply common sense I have, the fantatics die on contact with a hill.

your common sense also tells you, that fanatics get killed when crossing a road?

when crossing a river via a bridge, that isn t even an elevation but perfectly flat?

your common sense is very different than mine.

nosferatu1001
09-03-2009, 15:05
I've played on the new gaming board, and would definitely not say that fanatics are killed by the various interesting elements to it.

Discuss with your opponent beforehand, as the RAW (which I've never seen played) is that fanatics die if they touch anything that isnt pristine, dull grass.

EvC
09-03-2009, 15:12
Yeah, but you're a reasonable person nosferatu, I'm more interested to see what people who insist on fanatics being killed by hills have to say on the matter ;)

selone
09-03-2009, 15:35
This is a fairly absurd discussion. It doesn't make sense to me that they die when they hit a hill or a paved road but if you read the armybook thats an interpretation you can make.

I do wonder are the people arguing that a fnatic dies when they hit a hill or road or the same ones making fanatics take panic tests before they errat'd hem and insisting flame cannons weren't flaming attacks before that got FAQ'd too.

ALas this discussion is relavent because I'm due to play my friend's WoC tomorrow, and there may be hills involved !

Gazak Blacktoof
09-03-2009, 15:56
ALas this discussion is relavent because I'm due to play my friend's WoC tomorrow, and there may be hills involved !

I'd discuss it with your friend instead of saying "well warseer says..."

Tell him what the rule says and that you'd like to use them without being killed by X, Y and Z. I'd do it before you write your army list.

forthegloryofkazadekrund
09-03-2009, 15:59
Why did the Fanatic cross the road?

It didnt, it died the second it touched it :(


One thing fanatics have to watch out for even when they are playing on a table with no scenery, is the rabbit holes, badger sets and mole hills, let alone a dirt track (road) they might trip over

selone
09-03-2009, 16:12
I'd discuss it with your friend instead of saying "well warseer says..."

Tell him what the rule says and that you'd like to use them without being killed by X, Y and Z. I'd do it before you write your army list.

I'd never use warseer as rules gospel (no offence guys) but it's helpful to see the arguments for and against. I am emailing him as we speak :)

I have done my armylist and it does have fanatics in, I may take them out if we agree that hills > fanatics though maybe this will encourage him to allow me to have more hills ;)

moose
09-03-2009, 16:16
If chariots don't take hits when going up hills as it doesn't count as 'terrain', I'd say it's fair to say fanatics wouldn't go splat too.

Moose.

xragg
09-03-2009, 16:41
Just out of interest guys, has anyone here gamed on the new battle board?

This thing is basically covered in terrain features, from gently rising slopes, to cracks in the ground, to regions of skulls layered across the ground. Basically, if you play that Fanatics are killed when they encounter terrain features, they won't last a turn on this board. Just to confirm as well Shamfrit and others, your gaming group had Fanatics taking psychology tests before the Orc and Goblin FAQ was released, did you?

[Also pretty telling that you made it sound like entire swathes of the gaming community and tournament scene had decreed that hills kill fanatics, telling me I was so wrong on that account, but when pushed you say it was one group of eight players... embellishing doesn't help your case, and lying actively hurts it]

I am the one who said many places I have gamed have played it that way which includes: Chicago GT, 3 regional stores/clubs, and a couple regional conventions (one which is a RTT). While I never claimed that to be proof of a rule, it is a demonstration of how wide spread that a common interpretation of the rule is. Of course I have come across people who would like to have fanatics not die on hills, but also admit that they do to the rules. Wanting and wishing is not the same as reading the actually rule and abiding by it. By all means, feel free to play it where fanatics can go up/down hills, just dont expect that when you go somewhere you dont usually play games.

As far as the new game boards, you dont have to declare the built in hills as hills. We have some tables with built in streams and hills already too. We decide before every game if we are going to count them as terrain features or not.

And for the few saying a terrain feature is not defined, like its been said, read page(xb)!!! "Terrain feature is a term used to describe individually modelled pieces of wargames scenery--such as a simple patch of forest, a hill, or something more complex like a building..." How much more of a definition do you want?

xragg
09-03-2009, 16:43
If chariots don't take hits when going up hills as it doesn't count as 'terrain', I'd say it's fair to say fanatics wouldn't go splat too.

Moose.

They only take hits from difficult terrain or obstacles, not open terrain that most hills are.

EvC
09-03-2009, 17:15
I am the one who said many places I have gamed have played it that way which includes: Chicago GT, 3 regional stores/clubs, and a couple regional conventions (one which is a RTT).

Yes, I acknowledged that. I wasn't chiding you, as you did not tell me I was wrong for several reason ;)


While I never claimed that to be proof of a rule, it is a demonstration of how wide spread that a common interpretation of the rule is. Of course I have come across people who would like to have fanatics not die on hills, but also admit that they do to the rules. Wanting and wishing is not the same as reading the actually rule and abiding by it. By all means, feel free to play it where fanatics can go up/down hills, just dont expect that when you go somewhere you dont usually play games.

Thanks, I will continue to feel free to not force my opponents to remove their fanatics if they touch hills :)


As far as the new game boards, you dont have to declare the built in hills as hills. We have some tables with built in streams and hills already too. We decide before every game if we are going to count them as terrain features or not.

And for the few saying a terrain feature is not defined, like its been said, read page(xb)!!! "Terrain feature is a term used to describe individually modelled pieces of wargames scenery--such as a simple patch of forest, a hill, or something more complex like a building..." How much more of a definition do you want?

That's actually a VERY interesting quote. It means, that when you do play on the battle board, or any other table with built in streams and hills- these features do NOT kill Fanatics. This is because, as you yourself say, a terrain feature is an "individually modelled piece of wargames scenery", thus, if it's part of the table, it's not individually modelled, and so it aint a terrain feature.

So, who still want to play by RAW then? ;)

Ultimate Life Form
09-03-2009, 17:43
Now, seriously! Whatīs with all this hatred all of a sudden? Rules are rules and exist for a reason. Some rules may be flawed, and some may not even make sense, but theyīre rules nonetheless. Itīs a game, and itīs got nothing to do with logic, just playing along the rules will be fine!:) And if Fanatics hit hills, they die. Itīs really that easy. I donīt know how there can be a discussion about this. Simply put up with it. There are rules I donīt like, either, but Iīll still play along. Why can the Skink crew on the Stegadon Howdah only fire at things the Stegadon can see even though they clearly have a 360° panorama view? Because the rules say so, period. End of discussion. Now for those persistent lot among you who insist itīs not realistic: Please stop posting until you managed to climb a hill while being drugged whirling a 500 pounds steel ball on a 5 meter chain around. Then tell me how you worked around the momentum while avoiding the ground. Then Iīll admit itīs possible, and wonīt make you remove your Fanatics once they touch a hill. As soon as you want to move your Wyvern, however, I will point out that itīs completely unrealistic a beast of this size and proportions be capable of flight, and make you use your ground movement. And as a last piece of advice: How are fanatics useless because of the mere presence of a hill on the board? If you want to use your Fanatics to full effect, just STEER CLEAR OF HILLS for godīs sake! You canīt tell me your entire gaming surface is made from hills! Remove some, then! Seriously, sometimes...

SimonL
09-03-2009, 17:44
So fanatics should die upon touching the tabletop as it's terrain....

EvC
09-03-2009, 17:49
Now, seriously! Whatīs with all this hatred all of a sudden? Rules are rules and exist for a reason. Some rules may be flawed, and some may not even make sense, but theyīre rules nonetheless. Itīs a game, and itīs got nothing to do with logic, just playing along the rules will be fine!:) And if Fanatics hit hills, they die. Itīs really that easy.

As I just noted: they will only die if they touch individually modelled hills. If the hill is part of the gaming table, they're fine. That's the kind of dumb thinking that you get when you decide "rules are rules" and obey them to the letter without any critical thinking ;)

Ultimate Life Form
09-03-2009, 17:56
As I just noted: they will only die if they touch individually modelled hills. If the hill is part of the gaming table, they're fine. That's the kind of dumb thinking that you get when you decide "rules are rules" and obey them to the letter without any critical thinking ;)

I never said anything else. Of course, only real hills that are hills and were placed for the purpose of being hills and defined as hills kill your fanatics, not any random wrinkle in your gaming surface.

EvC
09-03-2009, 18:18
No no no, you miss the point (despite my laborious explanation). If a part of the gaming table you have decided is a hill is not physically a separate piece to the main gaming table, then it's not a "terrain feature" as described by the rulebook. And so it doesn't matter if you say it's a hill, or a forest, or quicksand or anything- it won't kill a fanatic. I'm not talking about little wrinkles, I'm talking about actual areas of terrain, played as terrain, that are part of a gaming table.

So for example at my club, some tables have rivers on them. This is not a "terrain feature" as defined in the rulebook. So if a fanatic goes into the river- it doesn't die. If it goes onto a hill placed on top of the table, which is a terrain feature, then it dies. Or the players can just agree to play it sensibly, and have the fanatic die if it hits the river, but live if it hits the hill, even though by strict RAW it should be the other way round.

Ultimate Life Form
09-03-2009, 18:40
So you would have two different kinds of terrain? "Built in terrain" and "terrain feature terrain"? One kind of hills that kills Fanatics and one kind that doesnīt? Okay, thatīs weird. I can see your point. So the problem is more the definition of a terrain feature here. This is obviously GWīs fault for writing crappy rules (again). Someone mail these guys! In the meantime, I suggest players define all built in stuff as either actual terrain features (which will have an impact on the game) or as just that - built in stuff which looks nice but has no effect at all - aka open terrain. So a built in hill could be defined as open terrain which wonīt kill fanatics but also doesnīt do the other stuff a hill usually does.

Shamfrit
09-03-2009, 18:49
It's not a terrain feature unless the players playing the game set it out to be at the start of the game. If I| go *Prod* This is difficult ground *smile* as my terrain selection then it very much becomes a terrain feature, as I featured it and outlined it as terrain.

If you didn't declare it at the start of the game, you play as if the stream were not there at all, impeding nobody's movement nor does the stream have any effect for spell effects or rules in any way shape or form.

But since you outlined it, it is very different to saying Fanatics don't die on any terrain on modular boards at all.

Malorian
09-03-2009, 19:00
Our group plays that hills doesn't kill but cliffs do.

Seems fair and makes the most sense.

Against people that think that all hills are covered with hidden ninjas waiting to kill your fanatics... look at my sig...

Urgat
09-03-2009, 20:23
That's actually a VERY interesting quote. It means, that when you do play on the battle board, or any other table with built in streams and hills- these features do NOT kill Fanatics. This is because, as you yourself say, a terrain feature is an "individually modelled piece of wargames scenery", thus, if it's part of the table, it's not individually modelled, and so it aint a terrain feature.

Lol, now I am among those who say fanatics don't die if they cross a hill (and, thankfully, my opponents do too), but that is really playing with words :p I know you're joking, but it really made me amused in all sorts of ways (because I can see people seriously using that >>).
Anyway, we all know that Ward wrote it this way to save space (his infamous goal of keeping the rules on one page no matter what), we can only blame him for that sillyness, and the fact it's been dragging on for so long w/o a FAQ is really unerving.
But, in all honesty, I'm praying it's not him that writes FAQs, because he obviously doesn't like O&G and/or fanatics (he admited himself to have never played them when he wrote the book, and the nerf of the fanatics w/o even a point drop is proof enough), and I'm willing to bet he'd go for the "fanatics die if they hit a hill" just for the heck of it. Imagine, that's one more threat for his beloved demons otherwise :angel:

Angelust
09-03-2009, 20:59
I think RAW, whether we like it or not, says they die on hills. THat doesn't mean we need to be draconian about our obedience to it however. How about RAI?

I personally think a goblin spinning a big ball on a chain would have a very hard time navigating an inclined hill. And these are not gently rising slopes, they're usually at a 15-30 degree incline. Try spinning a heavy ball around on an incline like that, fanatically insane or not. Just looking at the model move up a hill while whirling that ball around honestly makes me kind of shake my head at how ridiculous it is, even if it is O&G.


I'd say clarify it as a house-rule that bridges, hills, or whatever aren't terrain features for purposes of fanatics. And if it's truly the power-scale that has you wanting to give fanatics a little boost, why not just house-rules some other rules in as well, like no squabbling or higher leadership. (Not being facetious here). But I think the rules issue is somewhat debatable when it comes to RAI, so opponent agreement is just easy and simple compared to the alternative.

Devil Tree
09-03-2009, 21:37
Has Matt Ward done anything good at all, because all I ever hear about him is about how he screws everything up? I’m afraid I don’t have a list of his failures but most recently there was a rather harsh discussion on his handling of the Ultra Marines Codex. :rolleyes:

Anyway, what some posters seem to be forgetting is that you still need to use some common sense in the interpretation of the rules. The tern “any terrain feature” is just so hopelessly vague, it could mean just about anything. Yes if the little guy hits a forest or a wall then he’s clearly dead, but a road or a hill? No I don’t think so.

Shamfrit
09-03-2009, 22:09
Out of interest, who puts a road down as terrain...?

Storak
09-03-2009, 22:21
Out of interest, who puts a road down as terrain...?

we used to do this. the road pieces (some greyish cardboard, cut into "winding" roads) is always the first (and completely useless) terrain that i find, when i search for smaller woods... (we used to use huge woods as well. we started by using record covers as woods proxies, because i had a couple of green ones..)

the current system of placing terrain doesn t favour the use of useless terrain pieces. (unless you need a "fanatics barricade")

selone
09-03-2009, 22:26
I think angelust is pretty much right on this one sadly. I think alas by RAW (no matter how poorly) they do die upon hitting a hill. I'm not sure I think thats right but hey.

Urgat
09-03-2009, 22:47
II personally think a goblin spinning a big ball on a chain would have a very hard time navigating an inclined hill. And these are not gently rising slopes, they're usually at a 15-30 degree incline. Try spinning a heavy ball around on an incline like that, fanatically insane or not. Just looking at the model move up a hill while whirling that ball around honestly makes me kind of shake my head at how ridiculous it is, even if it is O&G.

Her yeah. The hills have steep borders because their top have to be flat. Otherwise they ain't steep or anything. They're barely reaching my orcs heads, if you want to go all literal like that :p


Has Matt Ward done anything good at all, because all I ever hear about him is about how he screws everything up?

Yes, I'm a bit unfair. He did the orcs right (if you forget the normal boar riders, but they were in line with what was supposed to be GW's policy concerning heavy cavalry, so I won't blame him for that), actually. But since I'm mostly playing gobs only and he (really) raped them, I hate him for that. Then there's the demon matter, but I don't care about them. The rest I don't know.

xragg
10-03-2009, 00:08
It takes up no more space and is just as simple if they copy/pasted the chariot rule interacting with terrain. If a fanatic comes into contact with any kind of difficult terrain or an obstacle, the fanatic is destroyed.

theunwantedbeing
10-03-2009, 00:09
Yes but then we can argue that it isnt destroyed by very difficult or impassable terrain :P

forthegloryofkazadekrund
10-03-2009, 01:16
Shamdits post number 6 in the thread

http://z3.invisionfree.com/Orc__Goblin_Warpath/index.php?showtopic=23955&st=0&#entry1395040

interesting

selone
10-03-2009, 01:32
I agree with their conclusion but alas Direwolf Faq does not = official rule.

Necromancy Black
10-03-2009, 05:23
your common sense is very different than mine.

And this is pretty much why RAW comes into play. It's a common set of rules for all to abide by, else you get constent disagreements and different ways to play the same rules, which I find very damaging to the game.

Also, yes, I would say they die on contact with a bridge. A road I would agree wouldn't destroy them as long as the road had absolutly no impact on the game in anyway sahpe or form.

Hills do have an impact on the game, which is why my common sense says they must be a terrain feature and would destroy the fanatics.

moose
10-03-2009, 07:26
Page 234 "terrain features like this hill" (perfectly normal looking wargaming hill).

By RAW it's a hill and it must be squished.

Though for RAI, I think i'd let it slide.

Moose

Sergeant Uriel Ventris
10-03-2009, 07:54
I find it sad and a little disturbing when folks say, "Yeah, this is really ridiculous and seems unreasonable, but that's what the rules say..." as if rules trump everything else. As I seem to be constantly typing onto this forum, the most important rule is to have fun. If the game designers or army book writers make a mistake, why would you just scratch your head and ignore it? It is a game of fantasy, but the people of the Warhammer world don't breathe methane, reproduce from giant egg-hatching machinery, or anything like that. Nowhere in the world is there a naturally occurring perfectly flat piece of ground, and I'm going to go ahead and assume the Warhammer world is the same. Unless it's difficult or impassible terrain, it is not reasonable (and therefore not fun) to assume that a fanatic would die swirling up a gently rolling hill, any more than he would die prancing across a road or a terrain feature with the properties of firm ground with delightfully soft grass.

Think outside the box, don't be controlled by the little printed words. It's your game.

Necromancy Black
10-03-2009, 09:31
Think outside the box, don't be controlled by the little printed words. It's your game.

Exactly! The fanatics die! :D

I'm going to go with what I said before to my opponants: Anything on the table that adds an additional affect to the game in some way is a terrain feature. That means hills, water, walls, forests, holes, etc.

That's a reasonable way to veiw the table top.

Ultimate Life Form
10-03-2009, 09:49
I find it sad and a little disturbing when folks say, "Yeah, this is really ridiculous and seems unreasonable, but that's what the rules say..." as if rules trump everything else. As I seem to be constantly typing onto this forum, the most important rule is to have fun. If the game designers or army book writers make a mistake, why would you just scratch your head and ignore it? It is a game of fantasy, but the people of the Warhammer world don't breathe methane, reproduce from giant egg-hatching machinery, or anything like that. Nowhere in the world is there a naturally occurring perfectly flat piece of ground, and I'm going to go ahead and assume the Warhammer world is the same. Unless it's difficult or impassible terrain, it is not reasonable (and therefore not fun) to assume that a fanatic would die swirling up a gently rolling hill, any more than he would die prancing across a road or a terrain feature with the properties of firm ground with delightfully soft grass.

Think outside the box, don't be controlled by the little printed words. It's your game.

This problem was discussed above. Thatīs a beautiful and idealistic vision you have in mind. I wish I could have preserved my dreams from an age when I was young and naive (which is not to say you are, just that I was back then). Especially the last sentence is nothing short of a poem. Nice one! Problem is, thatīs not how the world works, as I came to learn, and this is nothing but a beautiful yet futile daydream. Thereīs millions of idiots out there who either have no idea what theyīre actually talking about, trying to cheat you or are just plain stupid. Now if every other person on this planet was a clone of me (thankfully they arenīt), then I wouldnīt insist in any little printed word there is, because Iīd know my opponent shares the same feelings about the game i have, has the same view on things and wonīt try to outsmart me by creating funny rules that simply serve to benefit his army. In fact, when playing with my friends, Iīm willing to give in to a degree (only a smaaaaaaall degree though). Now, sadly, this is not the case. Now thatīs what we need the rules for, so no one can make anything up just because he wants to. Everyone playing by the same rules prevents you from bashing your heads more often than actually playing. Therefore, THIS IS the way to ensure everyone has the most fun. Partially responsible for my views may also be two decades of video gaming experience. If you donīt like how a game plays, well, tough luck, either put up with it or decide you donīt like this game and move on. You canīt just hack in and change the rules, right? Well, theoretically, you could, but at least I cannot and also I wonīt. Therefore, Iīd prefer people wouldnīt constantly try to hack Warhammer just because thereīs a teensy tidbit in the rules they donīt like, like in this example, an easily avoidable and totally optional piece of terrain impeding their most unreliable, most suicidal, and most situational army members who rarely live longer than one turn anyway. At your stomping grounds, you can play any way you want, you can make the Fanatics flying and immortal and 3D6 S10 hits, I really care not. However, if youīd play against me, Iīd demand you stick to the rules in the book, for I do the same.

Storak
10-03-2009, 12:17
Exactly! The fanatics die! :D

I'm going to go with what I said before to my opponants: Anything on the table that adds an additional affect to the game in some way is a terrain feature. That means hills, water, walls, forests, holes, etc.

That's a reasonable way to veiw the table top.

no, it isn t.

for some time, we played that road giving a bonus to movement along the road. (it was before we found out that "snaking" cavalry didn t make any sense, especially not on a road that was crossing the table from left to right..)
so we didn t bother with that rule any longer. according to you, the road killed fanatics, while it allowed faster movement, and didn t later. sorry, but this doesn t make sense to me.

our chaos player wanted to build a herdstone. it didn t get far beyond some rock mounted on a old board, that by chance was painted in red.
searching for an explanation for the rather ugly thing, he came up with a houserule, that non-khorne chaos units had to treat it as difficult terrain.
no effect, apart from non-khorne chaos units. and fanatics, according to your interpretation...

what is the additional effect of a bridge? it is just open terrain...


T. Therefore, Iīd prefer people wouldnīt constantly try to hack Warhammer just because thereīs a teensy tidbit in the rules they donīt like, like in this example, an easily avoidable and totally optional piece of terrain impeding their most unreliable, most suicidal, and most situational army members who rarely live longer than one turn anyway. At your stomping grounds, you can play any way you want, you can make the Fanatics flying and immortal and 3D6 S10 hits, I really care not. However, if youīd play against me, Iīd demand you stick to the rules in the book, for I do the same.

the rule that kills a fanatic crossing a road?

EvC
10-03-2009, 13:43
Exactly! The fanatics die! :D

I'm going to go with what I said before to my opponants: Anything on the table that adds an additional affect to the game in some way is a terrain feature. That means hills, water, walls, forests, holes, etc.

As long as they're individual pieces of terrain as listed in the rulebook, right? ;)

Sergeant Uriel Ventris
10-03-2009, 15:59
This problem was discussed above. Thatīs a beautiful and idealistic vision you have in mind. I wish I could have preserved my dreams from an age when I was young and naive (which is not to say you are, just that I was back then). Especially the last sentence is nothing short of a poem. Nice one! Problem is, thatīs not how the world works,... yadda yadda yadda

I'm certainly anything but young and idealistic. It seems that part of the reason why most people are stuck to this RAW approach is because that's how it would be in a tournament, or in a pick up game with someone you don't know. A.) I don't play in tournaments and B.) I don't play with people I don't know. If I can't have a reasonable conversation with the person across the board, I'm not going to play with them. It's that simple.

It's not living in a dream world of sunshine and rainbows. If you don't want to play someone, you don't have to. Like I said, it's your game.

Mercules
10-03-2009, 17:03
I have placed, "Tall Grass" on the board. Offers a cover bonus of +1 for troops inside it, but does not impede LoS or movement. It fit the theme of the battle. I am trying to think what in the "Terrain" piece would kill a Fanatic outright for touching it.

A Bridge is a Terrain feature that basically sets an area of Terrain back to Clear and Open like the rest of the board.

RAW states Fanatics die upon touching any terrain feature, so yes Hills would kill them. Most the people I have played, however, agree before game that things counting as "Open Terrain" do not count for Fanatics dying.

Malorian
10-03-2009, 17:20
Q: Why did the fanatic cross the road?

A: The chicken told him it wasn't terrain...


*Groan*...

Urgat
10-03-2009, 17:56
I have placed, "Tall Grass" on the board. Offers a cover bonus of +1 for troops inside it, but does not impede LoS or movement. It fit the theme of the battle. I am trying to think what in the "Terrain" piece would kill a Fanatic outright for touching it.

If you're making up terrain elements with custom rules, you may as well make a rule that fanatics don't die if they hit it, that'll save you some trouble, no?

Ultimate Life Form
10-03-2009, 19:07
I have placed, "Tall Grass" on the board. Offers a cover bonus of +1 for troops inside it, but does not impede LoS or movement. It fit the theme of the battle. I am trying to think what in the "Terrain" piece would kill a Fanatic outright for touching it.

Thatīs actually pretty easy; the chain gets entangled in the grass and he canīt swing no more. Remember, only because a model is removed doesnīt mean they have to be actually dead. Fleeing from the table edges, for example. Well, and for the bridge, I dunno. Just make something up. This seems to be "the spirit of the game" anyway. Maybe he trips over a stone and plunges to his doom. After all, he doesnīt watch where he sets his feet. But thatīs me getting into a discussion I never intended to take part in. As I said, have it your way, and Iīll have mine. Then weīll all be happy.

redben
10-03-2009, 19:15
Not that I want to get drawn into the discussion of whether they do or don't die, I don't care too much as long as there is a ruling, but am I the only person who thinks a Fanatic 'dying' when it comes into contact with a hill makes perfect sense?

As I understand it a Fanatic is much like a hammer thrower in track & field athletics. Hopped up on magic mushrooms, it twirls round-and-round with no control over where it goes, it's momentum generated entirely by swinging a large metal ball attached to the end of a long piece of chain. Should anything stop the Fanatic from spinning around then it is removed from the table and considered to be dead for game purposes. Remember 'dead' in WFB doesn't literally mean you've died, just that you can no longer contribute to the battle.

So, we have this Fanatic spinning towards a hill. What is likely to happen when it reaches it? Well, given that the largest part of it's span is the ball on the end of the chain then the Fanatic wouldn't simply just start walking up the hill. The ball would thud into the hill and stop, the Fanatic would stop spinning and to all intents and purposes would be 'dead'.

As I say, I don't really care. There are lots of rules in WFB that don't make much sense but this discussion seems to have degenerated into RAW on one side and a simulationist POV on the other which assumes that the Fanatic would start walking up the hill. It makes no sense to me that the Fanatic would start walking up the hill.

Just my two cents.

Urgat
10-03-2009, 19:20
How do you perceive hills in real life? Big things that just jut out from the ground? it's just the ground that is level and then starts rising, it's not like there's a seam between flat land and steep edge of the hilll. No it doesn't make sense that he dies if he hits a hill if you want to talk about realism, because I don't even know anybody who would be able to tell me when the flat land stops and when the hill starts to begin with. If you can it's not just a hill, it has a cliff or something.

redben
10-03-2009, 19:26
There is generally a tipping point where the ground starts to change from being roughly flat to being roughly of an upward incline. The exact gradation can vary from very gentle to very sharp. A Fanatic is only a few feet tall and the ball is likely to be only a couple of feet off the ground at most whilst the chain itself is a few feet long. It doesn't take the sharpest change in gradation for the ball to come into contact with the ground. Only the shallowest of slopes wouldn't cause a problem.

Negativemoney
10-03-2009, 19:43
How do you perceive hills in real life? Big things that just jut out from the ground? it's just the ground that is level and then starts rising, it's not like there's a seam between flat land and steep edge of the hilll. No it doesn't make sense that he dies if he hits a hill if you want to talk about realism, because I don't even know anybody who would be able to tell me when the flat land stops and when the hill starts to begin with. If you can it's not just a hill, it has a cliff or something.

A hill is defined by the hight at which it rises off the ground not by the degreen in which it does so. In many cases a hill could be rather steep and something wildly swinging a ball and chain around could easily stumble and kill himself going up or down it.

and yes a hill is a terrain feature as it has a different set of rules regarding line of sight even though it does nothing about movement.

Storak
10-03-2009, 21:06
i don t think this "realism" approach is of any help.

but any hill steep enough to kill a fanatic would cause serious problems to movement of armoured ranks of troops (and horses, btw)

what feature of a road is killing the fanatic again?

Malorian
10-03-2009, 21:12
what feature of a road is killing the fanatic again?

The cars driving by of course :p

selone
10-03-2009, 21:17
There is generally a tipping point where the ground starts to change from being roughly flat to being roughly of an upward incline. The exact gradation can vary from very gentle to very sharp. A Fanatic is only a few feet tall and the ball is likely to be only a couple of feet off the ground at most whilst the chain itself is a few feet long. It doesn't take the sharpest change in gradation for the ball to come into contact with the ground. Only the shallowest of slopes wouldn't cause a problem.

Like the ones we play on redben ;) I don't know if I'm going mad but I remember when it was only the fanatic hitting trees or other obstacles/difficult terrain that killed the fanatic. It was supposed to represent the fanatic getting tangled up in the trees/fence. It seems to have changed in this edition and I can't see why it would make sense from a is that intended or is that fair for game balance? The double on a roll covers the him dying from mishaps anyways.

However as has been said if you play RAW it does die when it hits a hill, whilst you may decry it, thats the case. It's not that simple to just say why don't you use common sense as everyones common sense is different and if I am to play against someone outside of my small group I can't count on using anything other than RAW.

Plus redben is a nasty RAW maniac :cries:

redben
10-03-2009, 21:33
I'm not if it allows you to do things which are clearly not in the spirit of the game and not the intention of the rule.

If the rules say a Fanatic dies when it hits a terrain piece and if* a hill is a terrain piece then ergo the Fanatic dies when it hits a hill. That seems to me to both RAW and RAI.



*I'm not saying it does constitute a terrain piece when determining if a Fanatic dies, just illustrating my point.

selone
10-03-2009, 21:36
What about a road redben ;) ?

redben
10-03-2009, 21:38
i don t think this "realism" approach is of any help.

but any hill steep enough to kill a fanatic would cause serious problems to movement of armoured ranks of troops (and horses, btw)

Which is actually covered in the rules. Page 16 of BRB in which it states open terrain includes a hill 'as long as it is not too steep'. If it is agreed upon by both players that the hill is steep then it would actually count as 'difficult terrain' and impede the movement of ranked troops.

Of course, GW doesn't give any guidance as to what is 'too steep' and leaves that up to the players to decide for themselves. More arguments ahoy!

Sergeant Uriel Ventris
10-03-2009, 21:49
Of course, GW doesn't give any guidance as to what is 'too steep' and leaves that up to the players to decide for themselves. More arguments ahoy!

Not more arguments. The game is meant to be played by two reasonable individuals. If you can't find a reasonable person to play with, or you yourself is not reasonable, you're out of luck.

"Is this hill so steep that it impedes movement?"
"I don't know, the book doesn't mention that."
"The rules are flawed, Games Workshop sucks! RAW is broken, the sky is falling!"

dingareth
10-03-2009, 21:50
It's great that they left too steep up to debate, but they didn't leave a road up to debate.

Now, using your realism approach, please tell us what part of a road kills a fanatic when he touches it.

redben
10-03-2009, 21:52
I feel I am being somewhat misrepresented. I am not arguing in favour of a hill auto-killing a Fanatic. I am arguing against the realism approach proving it does not. They're not the same thing.

Malorian
10-03-2009, 21:53
Alright alright picture this: a fanatic is wildly swinging around a ball and chain when he comes across a road. Now he remembers that his night goblin mom told him to look both ways before he crosses the road so the fanatic stops to look. Now that he has stopped moving the ball and chain wrap around his body and eventually the ball smacks him in the face and knocks him out cold.

Eh?

redben
10-03-2009, 21:58
Not more arguments.

It was meant to be light-hearted. Next time I'll put a :) at the end to avoid confusion :)

forthegloryofkazadekrund
10-03-2009, 22:03
Alright alright picture this: a fanatic is wildly swinging around a ball and chain when he comes across a road. Now he remembers that his night goblin mom told him to look both ways before he crosses the road so the fanatic stops to look. Now that he has stopped moving the ball and chain wrap around his body and eventually the ball smacks him in the face and knocks him out cold.

Eh?

lol brilliant :)

Necromancy Black
10-03-2009, 22:10
Malorian, that was pure brilliance!

I was thinking something a bit more crazy...like the mushooms he ate actually make his body get covered in more fungal matter that quickly absorb any plant matter, providing the energy to keep swinging. The rapid movement and spinning help crush the plant matter bellow him.

If he hits a paved or sealed raod there's no matter and the fungi very quickly dissolves the helpless fantatic.

If he hits a tree line he can't swing anymore and the abundance of plant matter send him crazy until he explodes in a cloud of spores.

Honestly the moment a midget starting swinging an overweight metal ball due to eating some mushrooms, real world logic went out the door.

selone
10-03-2009, 22:28
What size/height is a fanatic anyways?

semersonp
11-03-2009, 02:26
2' 3"...

don't you read your codex? :D

tinytim84
11-03-2009, 05:06
wow cant belive this is still going on ill tell you guys what im going to send gw an e mail tonight asking them to define terrain fetures and answer this rules question i would sugest you all do the same and we all can check notes then the argument is done and we can argue about biger and better things like inverce ward saves and -2 armr saves and how they are brokin like a bunch of good little gamers agreed cause wow i never thout this would go on this long

tinytim84
11-03-2009, 05:11
o yea and just for refrence i have always played they die when they hit a hill and it has never bothered me makes sence to me really for all of you that want to argue logic and commin sence take 4 cender blocks hook them to the end of a 6ft chian eat some realy good shrooms go out side and start swing the side blocks around in circles in your yard now when you get back from the hospital let me know how that turned out on level ground

nosferatu1001
11-03-2009, 06:34
Wow, please use spelling and punctuation! The edit function is there if you want to add to a post as well...

An email from GW will do nothing, by the way. Until it is in an open document somewhere everyone can see an email is only good for the person who receives it.

Urgat
11-03-2009, 09:22
Of course, GW doesn't give any guidance as to what is 'too steep' and leaves that up to the players to decide for themselves. More arguments ahoy!

You decide that when you deploy terrain, how can it lead to arguments?
I make my steep hills one hill on top of a larger one btw (GW does the same I believe), hardly mistakable.
(edit: I quote as I read, missed the joke comment)


I was thinking something a bit more crazy...like the mushooms he ate actually make his body get covered in more fungal matter that quickly absorb any plant matter, providing the energy to keep swinging. The rapid movement and spinning help crush the plant matter bellow him.

If he hits a paved or sealed raod there's no matter and the fungi very quickly dissolves the helpless fantatic.

Better not play against Tomb Kings or Dwarfs, heh? :p

Anyway, this thread provided me with one more good reason not to field fanatics: to avoid the hassle.

lybban
11-03-2009, 13:59
Just out of interest guys, has anyone here gamed on the new battle board?

This thing is basically covered in terrain features, from gently rising slopes, to cracks in the ground, to regions of skulls layered across the ground. Basically, if you play that Fanatics are killed when they encounter terrain features, they won't last a turn on this board. Just to confirm as well Shamfrit and others, your gaming group had Fanatics taking psychology tests before the Orc and Goblin FAQ was released, did you?

[Also pretty telling that you made it sound like entire swathes of the gaming community and tournament scene had decreed that hills kill fanatics, telling me I was so wrong on that account, but when pushed you say it was one group of eight players... embellishing doesn't help your case, and lying actively hurts it]

No, if what the lawyers are saying is true nothing on the modular board is a terrain feature since it is not PUT ON the table. It IS the table. Therefore if I model a house on a gaming board it is not a terrain feature and it does not kill the fanatic?

Am I correct if i say that fanatics are killed when hitting a hill on a normal table but not if hitting a hill on a modular table? If this is the case I would argue that anyone claiming hills kill fanatics is brain dead!

EvC
11-03-2009, 15:59
You're the only other person who seems to have grasped that so far, lybban. I think peoples' silence on that distinction (plus nobody has rushed to tell us if they'd have made Fanatics take terror tests prior to the O&G FAQ) speaks for itself.

theunwantedbeing
11-03-2009, 16:13
I dont think anyone is arguing that built in terrain is part of the board, and terrain so fanatics ignore it, while identical stuff that you just put there does kill the little whirling looney.

I never made fanatics take psychology tests. Why?
Well I tend to trust my opponent when he tells me a rule and has bothered to bring his book and I don't look into it further. Although the rules neglected to make them immune to psychology so they wouldn't have been. They're ld10, not like it makes a huge amount of difference.
That and most people just stopped using them as soon as the 7th edition rules appeared.

Not entirely unreasonable really to follow the rules given to us.
A player not familiar with the 5th/6th edition orc&goblin rules will have no real clue how fanatics used to work so wont think "hey, last edition hills didnt kill them and they werent scared of things....this edition they are, hmm maybe they made a mistake" they'll be thinking "okay I hit a terrain feature...whats that?" and "terror test? hmmm well I'm not immune to it so I guess I have to take one, good job I'm ld10"

So the only people having any real problem with the rule are those that had a different rule and want to follow the previous rule.
In exactly the same manner as if I wanted to get +1 to cast for my dark elves like I used to.

In anycase, Orc&Goblin player whines at me to let his fanatic live on a hill?
Fine I'll give in, no point having my opponent throw a temper tantrum when he can't get his way, that'll suck my enjoyment out of the game.

moose
11-03-2009, 16:39
As this is obviously a tiring rules question where RAW meets RAI. It's probably just best you chat to your opponent about it first before the battle.

Sometimes it's just easier that way rather than play ruleshammer :).

Moose.

Bodysnatcher
11-03-2009, 18:56
And don't forget that when you do get fed up the rulebook is handily bound in a nice hard cover for bashin' hedz.

Unfortunately I only have the skull pass thing, and it's no good at that job.

Ganymede
11-03-2009, 21:08
So the only people having any real problem with the rule are those that had a different rule and want to follow the previous rule.

I love it. You're actually arguing people in your own imagination. Whomever these people are, they certainly ain't posting in this thread.

nosferatu1001
12-03-2009, 08:24
I had noticed the "seperately modelled hills = terrain" bit from the rulebook, so make it 3 ;)

Again - this comes down to talking with your opponent. Autokilling just released fanatics on hills reallly doesn't make sense to me, so I'd probably let any O&G fairly freely move up and down hills etc unless they were obvious cliff edges. Actualy, going down cliff edges is probably ok, Goblin propellor! ;)

lybban
12-03-2009, 08:38
I dont think anyone is arguing that built in terrain is part of the board, and terrain so fanatics ignore it, while identical stuff that you just put there does kill the little whirling looney.

I never made fanatics take psychology tests. Why?
Well I tend to trust my opponent when he tells me a rule and has bothered to bring his book and I don't look into it further. Although the rules neglected to make them immune to psychology so they wouldn't have been. They're ld10, not like it makes a huge amount of difference.
That and most people just stopped using them as soon as the 7th edition rules appeared.

Not entirely unreasonable really to follow the rules given to us.
A player not familiar with the 5th/6th edition orc&goblin rules will have no real clue how fanatics used to work so wont think "hey, last edition hills didnt kill them and they werent scared of things....this edition they are, hmm maybe they made a mistake" they'll be thinking "okay I hit a terrain feature...whats that?" and "terror test? hmmm well I'm not immune to it so I guess I have to take one, good job I'm ld10"

So the only people having any real problem with the rule are those that had a different rule and want to follow the previous rule.
In exactly the same manner as if I wanted to get +1 to cast for my dark elves like I used to.

In anycase, Orc&Goblin player whines at me to let his fanatic live on a hill?
Fine I'll give in, no point having my opponent throw a temper tantrum when he can't get his way, that'll suck my enjoyment out of the game.

OK, but still. If following rules as written a fanatic wouldnīt die from hitting a house, tree, river or hill if it is built in terrain as it is not a "terrain feature" since it is not "placed on the table". Noone of the rules lawyers has answered this. Is it rules as written or not?

xragg
12-03-2009, 13:43
OK, but still. If following rules as written a fanatic wouldnīt die from hitting a house, tree, river or hill if it is built in terrain as it is not a "terrain feature" since it is not "placed on the table". Noone of the rules lawyers has answered this. Is it rules as written or not?

If its a built-in feature and your actually playing it as that feature, then it destroys the fanatic. If you choose to ignore the feature, as if it wasnt there (cause your tired of always using the "stream" that was cool the first few times you played on the scenic board), then it wont destroy the fanatic. Why? Because your choosing to not play it as a terrain feature.

The inability to change your modular game boards is not supporting your argument for letting fanatics go on some terrain and not others. By what your trying to say, all an O&G player has to do is glue their terrain peices onto the game board so they become permanent parts, somehow making fanatics immune to them?!?!?

All the description in the first section of the rulebook does is give examples of what terrain features are. If you cant grasp it and want to argue that built in features somehow break that rule, or create some mystic loophole, then your smoking some bad stuff.

We "rule lawyers" as you put have clearly quoted rules defining what the playing surface is, what a terrain feature is, and what destroys a fanactic. All you "spirit of the game" people have done is state what the rules used to be, try to bring what you feel is logically in, and introduce rules that clearly dont exist. While I have no problem playing where it takes obstacles and difficult terrain to kill fanactics like the older codexs for orcs, I also recognize this would be a house rule. House rules are fine. Just dont expect everywhere you go to know your house rule or even agree with your house rule.

Should I start making Demons start not being allowed to take ward saves vs magical attacks, since in an older codex it was that way? Its not different then what your trying to argue. Its clearly stated one way in an older codex, and clearly different in a newer codex, but I like one way better then the other.

I feel for you Orc players. Fanatics arent quite what they used to be, but still can be potent. Most of my skaven units of pretty crappy right now, should I bust out my 6th edition rules so people cant target my weapon teams? I mean, everyone knows its the intent of their rules not to be able to be targeted when near parent units, but 7th edition changed the rule they reference. Do I play that people still cant target them? Of course not. I suck it up and do my best to screen them now.

lybban
12-03-2009, 14:07
If its a built-in feature and your actually playing it as that feature, then it destroys the fanatic. If you choose to ignore the feature, as if it wasnt there (cause your tired of always using the "stream" that was cool the first few times you played on the scenic board), then it wont destroy the fanatic. Why? Because your choosing to not play it as a terrain feature.

The inability to change your modular game boards is not supporting your argument for letting fanatics go on some terrain and not others. By what your trying to say, all an O&G player has to do is glue their terrain peices onto the game board so they become permanent parts, somehow making fanatics immune to them?!?!?

All the description in the first section of the rulebook does is give examples of what terrain features are. If you cant grasp it and want to argue that built in features somehow break that rule, or create some mystic loophole, then your smoking some bad stuff.

We "rule lawyers" as you put have clearly quoted rules defining what the playing surface is, what a terrain feature is, and what destroys a fanactic. All you "spirit of the game" people have done is state what the rules used to be, try to bring what you feel is logically in, and introduce rules that clearly dont exist. While I have no problem playing where it takes obstacles and difficult terrain to kill fanactics like the older codexs for orcs, I also recognize this would be a house rule. House rules are fine. Just dont expect everywhere you go to know your house rule or even agree with your house rule.

Should I start making Demons start not being allowed to take ward saves vs magical attacks, since in an older codex it was that way? Its not different then what your trying to argue. Its clearly stated one way in an older codex, and clearly different in a newer codex, but I like one way better then the other.

I feel for you Orc players. Fanatics arent quite what they used to be, but still can be potent. Most of my skaven units of pretty crappy right now, should I bust out my 6th edition rules so people cant target my weapon teams? I mean, everyone knows its the intent of their rules not to be able to be targeted when near parent units, but 7th edition changed the rule they reference. Do I play that people still cant target them? Of course not. I suck it up and do my best to screen them now.

No of course I would not argue that a fanatic is not killed by a house that is built in the board. Im just making a point that following rules that are badly written is stupid. If the rules as written is that a terrain feature is something you put on the board I am just as right as you are about what kills and doesnt kill a fanatic. If you claim he is killed in open terrain just because it is placed on the table I might be just as stupid by saying that a built in house doesn't kill him.

Try to understand that im making a point of how incredibly boring and stupid it is to ruin the game by finding illogical loopholes as you are trying to do. I hope an errata comes out soon to prove you wrong!!!

redben
12-03-2009, 14:42
For what it is worth I e-mailed John Spencer over at the 'askyourquestion' address GW have. It's by no means a place for hard and fast rulings, just like the published FAQ's aren't, so take this for what you will. I offer it out of relevence to thread rather than to decide the issue. That's best left up to individual house rulings.

His response was that Fanatics do die when they hit hills. Didn't ask about roads or what happens if the unit is on a hill when the Fanatic is released, feel free to ask him yourself if his opinion matters to you.

On another note, I did not know that Fanatics were no longer ItP. I've learned something on this thread.

Lorcryst
12-03-2009, 14:47
OK, I've tried to read all the thread, but failed miserably at the fourth page ...

I'll add my two cents nonetheless : I am a Night Goblin player, I only have a couple of unassembled orcs units in my drawers, and I *do* think that hills and roads should kill Fanatics (much to my own pain when choosing where to hide mine and subsenquently deploying my army).

Why ?

Because I remember playing with "spinning tops" (toupies, en franįais) when I was a child ... even the slightest gradient (like a sheet of paper when a pencil under it) or the merest "rough" terrain (like the dirt roads at the back of my garden) would stop and crash the top, every time, 100% guaranteed.

Yes, the Fanatics are a bit weaker because of that rule, but they are still a tremendous psychological weapon AND seriously painful for your opponent if they hit ... but logic and common sense dictates that a spinning top stops spinning with only a hint of "non-flat, not perfectly smooth" soil under them ... so, quite logically, do the Fanatics.

Draconian77
12-03-2009, 15:58
Honestly now...

Talk to your opponent before a game about what terrain features will kill a Fanatic. Saying "any" terrain feature brings up things like roads, modular boards and patches of daffodils.

For example, anyone remember when GW sold stone walls and hedges?
We still have those and our group ruled that the Fanatic can go through the hedges but not the stone walls. So I wouldn't remove it if it hit a hill myself.

Just use whatever feels right.

It's not like Fanatics are ruining the game, in fact they are probably one of the most enjoyable units in WHFB.

If your at a tournament accept whatever result is ruled but don't expect it to be the same everywhere because sometimes the rulings do differ from tournament to tournament(as any rational person would expect them to)

Urgat
12-03-2009, 16:01
On another note, I did not know that Fanatics were no longer ItP. I've learned something on this thread.
They are, it's been Faq'ed, they just forgot (lol) to put it in the book.

redben
12-03-2009, 16:04
The FAQ's are 'soft rules' so still subject to being over-ruled by the house (though in this case I'm more than happy for them to be ItP, it doesn't make much sense if they're not).

EvC
12-03-2009, 16:10
On another note, I did not know that Fanatics were no longer ItP. I've learned something on this thread.

They received an errata that made them ItP some time after their army book was released. Would just be interesting to see if any RAW enthusiasts will actually admit to playing other daft things by the book, as they insist! :)

redben
12-03-2009, 16:13
Ah, errata'd. That's a bit different.

If anyone does try to claim RAW means they're not then referring them to GW's comments about errata on their website should solve all problems.

narrativium
12-03-2009, 17:35
I'll add my two cents nonetheless : I am a Night Goblin player, I only have a couple of unassembled orcs units in my drawers, and I *do* think that hills and roads should kill Fanatics (much to my own pain when choosing where to hide mine and subsenquently deploying my army).

Why ?

Because I remember playing with "spinning tops" (toupies, en franįais) when I was a child ... even the slightest gradient (like a sheet of paper when a pencil under it) or the merest "rough" terrain (like the dirt roads at the back of my garden) would stop and crash the top, every time, 100% guaranteed. So... you're arguing that roads are rougher ground than the open battlefields being fought over? If that were true, what would be the point in anyone building a road?

TekDragon
12-03-2009, 18:11
I don’t think you can compare a +1 to cast to being able to run up a gentle slope, cross and empty road or walk across a bridge. Yes I know that rules are rules and all that, but you have to apply them in some sort of sensible manner. It’s pretty obvious from the outset that the rule is supposed to apply to difficult terrain. The only reason it got through is because GW did such a poor job of writing the O & G army book and only a rules-lawyer would think of applying something so stupid.

Roads have ditches. Hills throw the poor sod off balance.

Why can't you just follow the rules and have fun?

"Oh no! My fanatic hits the road, falls into the ditch, and his ball goes careening off"

"Oh no! My fanatic hits the hill and flies off like a helicopter!"

dingareth
12-03-2009, 23:02
Roads have ditches. Hills throw the poor sod off balance.

Why can't you just follow the rules and have fun?

Because the rules are standing in the way of fun... By all means if an opponent ever used Fanatics against me, I'd let them go across a road or a hill, in the name of fun. But of course, a Demon player could claim that his leadership bomb army is "fun," so apparently it's a subjective term...

But if you have fun with RAW :wtf:... Go ahead.

Necromancy Black
12-03-2009, 23:19
Because the rules are standing in the way of fun...

No they're not. You are. Your choosing not to beleive this rule and don't like, therefor it is your opinion that it isn't fun.

For me it actaully makes it more fun! Pity everyone around here stopped with O&G a while ago. Animonisty kills that army hard.

For me, any O&G player is going to have a talk before hand to clear up what will kill his fanatics as per his army book. If he then puts the unit on a hill it's not my fault if I fly to within 8" of it and instant kill all his fanatics :D

dingareth
13-03-2009, 01:16
Animonisty kills that army hard.

For me, any O&G player is going to have a talk before hand to clear up what will kill his fanatics as per his army book. If he then puts the unit on a hill it's not my fault if I fly to within 8" of it and instant kill all his fanatics :D

Animosity is the rule that make the army fun, if a bit unpredictable. It's all the smaller rules like Fanatics die when they hit hills and roads that kill the army when used in conjunction with Animosity. It's like kicking them while they're down.

"Haha, my Goblins have squabbled 2 turns in a row, so I couldn't take advantage of them being on the hill for extra shots, but here comes his cav, my Fanatics will get them good... oh wait..." :cries:

Lorcryst
13-03-2009, 07:02
Oh yes, it really fun to have a 1 in 3 chance of losing control of my units each turn, for each unit ... and NO, a "6" result on the Animosity table IS NOT beneficial ... once again, because of the wording of that rule ...

An opponent with 3 brain cells to rub together will use small sacrificial units to draw your battle line to the corners of the table, leaving your flanks exposed and your units unable to support each other ...

And if you seriously think that Goblins with short bows (range 16", remember) are a good unit to put on a hill, you must have missed something (hint : Orc Arrer Boyz ... better stats, choppas, BOWS with range 24").

I use units of Night Goblins with shortbows in blocks of 21, ranks of 5, with the purpose of crossing the table and shooting with all my ranks at the enemy hills or Large Targets ...

Urgat
13-03-2009, 08:52
Animosity is the rule that make the army fun, if a bit unpredictable. It's all the smaller rules like Fanatics die when they hit hills and roads that kill the army when used in conjunction with Animosity. It's like kicking them while they're down.

"Haha, my Goblins have squabbled 2 turns in a row, so I couldn't take advantage of them being on the hill for extra shots, but here comes his cav, my Fanatics will get them good... oh wait..." :cries:

The fact that animosity is fun is a total urban legend.
People on warseer can claim that they find it fun all they want, I've yet to see someone roll a 1 on their animosity, or have his trolls fail their stupidity test near their Ld8 general, or their shamans explode because of one fiasco, or a unit of boar boyz explode because they squabbled during a waaagh, explode with laughters thinking it was soooo hilarious.
But that's usually the people who never played them or, well, played them twice with the idea that they were there just for that who claim it anyway, so heck.

Lorcryst: while your point about the toythings is true, you're comparing a high velocity rotating object with a (more or less) sentient being with muscles, feet and a sense of balance.

wamphyri101
13-03-2009, 09:41
Frankly Orcs and goblins suck at the moment. I play them as my second army when not playing my high elves as its a change to play something different.

orcs and goblins cannot just charge forwards as they will be eaten alive by elves/chaos/lizardmen pretty much most armies now days. And with the bloody anomosity its very very hard to rely on your units. I had 1 game where my flankining spiderriders refused to move all game.

But i still like playing them as ... well they are crazy.

As for the fanatics, At my games club they take cliffs/trees/buildings as killable terrain and hills arnt. It would be pointless taking fanatics if once they leave the unit anything they touch kills them. We have a hard enough time not controlling them as it is without that added bugger

Gazak Blacktoof
13-03-2009, 09:43
I find animosity fun, though it was better last edition.



This thread can probably die now if everybody has stopped butting heads.

Lorcryst
13-03-2009, 19:39
Lorcryst: while your point about the toythings is true, you're comparing a high velocity rotating object with a (more or less) sentient being with muscles, feet and a sense of balance.

Last words from me on the subject : I thought that Night Goblin Fanatics were described as high velocity items girating around heavy metal balls, while heavily intoxicated on 'shrooms, fungus beer and other potent concoctions ... the "spinning top" analogy isn't mine either, I got that from an old White Dwarf (granted, when Fat Bloke was still editor, and in a 5th or 6th ed Battle Report).

rottahn
13-03-2009, 20:13
if a fanatic hits a terrain feature it dies. a hill is a terrain feature. so is a road.

tinytim84
13-03-2009, 20:22
ok guys a calm response from me now sence i am finaly in a good mood for once (wifes not mad at me) but back on topic i sent GW an e mail the othere day and hear is the responce i go please excues my spelling.

fanatics page 25 under out of control a fanatic dies

if it comes into contact with any terrain feture dose this mean if i lay

down a road terrain piece to make my board look nice and it counts as

normal terrain that the fanatic dies when he hits it or is it soposed to

be when the fanatic hit diffacult terrain he dies as this question seems

to come up alot on forums i belive it really needs a faq telling us all

what the final word on this is.

This actually only counts difficult and impassible terrain as detailed on page 16.

im guessing he mean page 16 of the BRB

Mercules
13-03-2009, 20:29
if a fanatic hits a terrain feature it dies. a hill is a terrain feature. so is a road.

Every time I play my Orc/Goblin friend I am going to lay a white sheet on the table and call it, "Frost" now it is a terrain feature and Fanatics die upon leaving the unit.:rolleyes:

Neckutter
14-03-2009, 14:50
Every time I play my Orc/Goblin friend I am going to lay a white sheet on the table and call it, "Frost" now it is a terrain feature and Fanatics die upon leaving the unit.:rolleyes:

:)

you and your opponent must agree on terrain, and i wouldnt believe that the OnG player would agree that the whole table is a terrain feature. :P

Lorcryst
14-03-2009, 15:11
@tinytim84 : a bit more formatting of your post is necessary ... I cannot find the end of your query and the start of GW's response ...

tinytim84
14-03-2009, 15:20
This actually only counts difficult and impassible terrain as detailed on page 16.


This was GW responce.

EvC
14-03-2009, 17:55
So that's two GW guys asked about the issue, and both have given different answers. Shock!

selone
14-03-2009, 18:30
The fact that animosity is fun is a total urban legend.
People on warseer can claim that they find it fun all they want, I've yet to see someone roll a 1 on their animosity, or have his trolls fail their stupidity test near their Ld8 general, or their shamans explode because of one fiasco, or a unit of boar boyz explode because they squabbled during a waaagh, explode with laughters thinking it was soooo hilarious.
But that's usually the people who never played them or, well, played them twice with the idea that they were there just for that who claim it anyway, so heck.


Very well said and very siggable ;) Not being able to play your army isn't fun. Non O'n'g players who think animosity is fun are more than welcome to play using animosity against me. But I doubt they would as after all the fun thing about your opponent having animosity is that it makes it easier for you to win :p

forthegloryofkazadekrund
14-03-2009, 18:32
At our club, we sometimes get an independent person to deploy terrain for us to play, if he decides to deploy 2 hills near the centre of the battlefield or a road across it night goblin armies might as well not play using one of the best things about them as all the opponent has to do is sit a character the other side of the road and wave at the NG army.

theunwantedbeing
14-03-2009, 18:45
Erm...you can't deploy scenery within 12" of the centre of the table.
Gives you a sizeable area in which to have open ground giving fanatics plenty of room to move around in.
Also, it's highly unlikely that the everywhere on the board except that 24" circle is going to be entirely terrain.

forthegloryofkazadekrund
14-03-2009, 19:04
True normally you cant but what if you are doing a scenario with a road going down the centre, like "Take the road" representing you trying to cut the enemys supy line or "King of the Hill" with a large hill in the middle of the battlefield

EldarBishop
14-03-2009, 19:04
So that's two GW guys asked about the issue, and both have given different answers. Shock!

And that's exactly why comments like "oh, this red shirt said... blah blah blah" are largely ignored.

Urgat
14-03-2009, 19:42
Erm...you can't deploy scenery within 12" of the centre of the table.
Gives you a sizeable area in which to have open ground giving fanatics plenty of room to move around in.
Also, it's highly unlikely that the everywhere on the board except that 24" circle is going to be entirely terrain.

Yeah, like these dwarf and empire gunlines give a heck about that 24" circle.

EvC
14-03-2009, 19:45
Erm...you can't deploy scenery within 12" of the centre of the table.

Of course you can. The only time terrain is forbidden from being placed within 12" of the table is when you are placing terrain as suggested (but not inisisted upon) by the front of the rulebook. If you're having terrain placed in another manner, such as by a third party, then he doesn't have to follow the suggestion.

selone
14-03-2009, 20:27
And that's exactly why comments like "oh, this red shirt said... blah blah blah" are largely ignored.

Whilst I'm no fan of using spencer lad as gospel (whom redben is e-mailing) there's a lot of difference between asking someone working in a GW store and asking someone solely set up on his own to answer rules e-mails.


Of course you can. The only time terrain is forbidden from being placed within 12" of the table is when you are placing terrain as suggested (but not inisisted upon) by the front of the rulebook. If you're having terrain placed in another manner, such as by a third party, then he doesn't have to follow the suggestion.

I'm no fan of the official terrain rules taken literally, but I'd still not want terrain in the middle of the board.

EvC
15-03-2009, 20:05
So when making up your own version of terrain placement, you say, "keep the centre free please". Not exactly rocket science ;)

Grimgormx
18-03-2009, 18:07
thats why at the begining of th BRB it says "use common sense"

So if the fanatic is going down hill he has no problems and if he is going uphill then he may be removed.

If we are even farther why dont use an extra roll if down hill, an if going uphill just use the lowest roll from the 2 dices of movement.

Keep the game funny, GW cant resolve all the cuestions.

And remember if there is a doubt, roll a die, keep playing, and at the end check the rules, worst thing that can happend to a game is to stop it to check rules.

Urgat
18-03-2009, 18:18
If we are even farther why dont use an extra roll if down hill, an if going uphill just use the lowest roll from the 2 dices of movement.

That's actually a pretty cool idea, but I can see people moaning about night gob units deployed on hills :p

Grimgormx
18-03-2009, 19:09
Well a unit of night goblins with fanatics deployed in a hill wont see its fanatics released against what they need, and if you dont move them then your enemy will be able to outmanouver them... or they will have more chance to induce panic on them...

but if you get to move that unit to a hill in the middle of the table, they will be really dangerous.

the Nurge
19-03-2009, 15:42
I play OnGs and this issue has come up for me before. I usually just go with whichever way my opponent says it is.

I got tired of wondering, so I went to the GW site yesterday, and e-mailed the contact for rules clarification. I asked if open terrain, such as roads and hills, killed fanatics. This was the response:

"Open terrain does NOT kill fanatics." :eek:

That was the entire response. I hope this will end the arguement. If anyone thinks that a GW employee set up to answer questions about rules has it wrong, then that is fine. Take it how you will. I'm just happy I can play fanatics on hills. :evilgrin:

Grimgormx
19-03-2009, 15:57
Completely agree, but a lot of pople will write in few minutes and say.

"as long as there is no an oficial FAQ about it, fanatics die when they touch an scenary element"

Jajajajajajaja.

Thats why I said, common sense.

baronsmeg
19-03-2009, 16:15
Wow this has been a rather interesting argument.

so here is a scenario for you

you have 2 gaming tables.
one has a hill placed on it, and a road placed on it.
the other has some books placed under the mat which has a road drawn on it.

so on one the fanatics die and on the other one they don't?
if a terrain feature is anything placed on the gamming table - isn't a playing mat that is drapped accross the surface of the table a terain feature?

my friends table that we play on is made of modular 2' x 2' sections with terain built right on to them - so in this case my fanatics could scale mountains right, and go up floors in buildings because they are attached to the gamming table and not placed on it.

Rolo Ramone
19-03-2009, 16:17
"common sense is the most uncommon sense of all"

nosferatu1001
19-03-2009, 16:40
Thats that truth. Especially given the silly "only terrain if placed ON the board" BRB rule.

As usual - talk it over with your opponent. Personally i think fanatics charging out of arc hers on hills is a good thing, so i would always allow it.

beaumontbrawler
19-03-2009, 17:01
If you can't destroy them with terrain . . .

Use a unit of skinks to pul them out, and then drive the EotG up to nuke them . . . I killed about 6-8 in one shot a few weekends ago.

ZoomDog
19-03-2009, 21:20
I hope this will end the arguement.
Unfortunately not. :)
Having someone post "A games workshop person told me..." doesn't really have the same backing as seeing it in print in an official GW document.
I think there's pretty much a consensus here anyway; the RAW say they die when they hit the hill, RAI is that it's only when they hit difficult terrain. Friendly games will usually use the latter; it's only in tournaments or games with rules lawyers where the rule will be argued.

xragg
20-03-2009, 13:59
I got tired of wondering, so I went to the GW site yesterday, and e-mailed the contact for rules clarification. I asked if open terrain, such as roads and hills, killed fanatics. This was the response:



You really shouldnt word questions that way. You're influencing the response by how you ask a question. By saying, "open terrain such as roads and hills", you are making them out to be very similar in game terms when they really arent. Roads have NO EFFECT on normal game play. (I say normal cause some people may have house rules for roads.) While hills have an effect on game play, mainly line of sight and high ground issues. You really should have just asked if hills that arent difficult ground destroys fanatics.

Imagine if I asked the question this way, "Do terrain features such as forests and hills destroy fanatics?" Worded this way, the person who quickly responds would more likely say fanatics die opposed to the way you asked the question. Neither question is factually wrong, both both are misleading in different ways.

This thread really needs to just die. No one is adding anything new to it. The only reason I responded was just clarify how wording questions can influence the responce. This is not a dig at Nurge, a few others in this and other posts do it. I know I do it too, as it takes careful wording to avoid doing it. People do it ALL the time, especially journalists and pollsters.

EvC
20-03-2009, 14:53
That's a very good point, well made. Anyway it just goes to show, the same question asked three times, and different kinds of responses from different people each time.

forthegloryofkazadekrund
20-03-2009, 14:54
Maybe we should compose a proper comprehensive question to send in and get a good proper answer if the ones so far have not cut the mustard

nosferatu1001
20-03-2009, 15:36
However it wouldn't really matter - until it is in a FAQ then it is only a personal answer you have received, and wouldnt hold weight any wider than that. While the new rule boy seems pretty consistent (GW learning?) he is so far US only, and they havent decided to let him / her update FAQs...