PDA

View Full Version : Heroic and Epic Actions



CaseyNoVa
22-05-2009, 19:20
I've looked here and on other sites, such as the Last Alliance, for how Epic and Heroic Actions work. I believe that there seems to be no general consensus and, from what I've seen, the various opinions I've seen have been wrong.

Here is my read on the subject:

There are three different instances in which Heroic and Epic Actions can be declared and each window of opportunity is listed in the rule for the Action itself.

The three windows are such: At the start of phase, before something happens, and at any time during a phase.

Most Heroic Actions can be declared at the start of a phase and as such go into the stack of declarations and resolutions. Some Epic Actions, such as Epic Poison, operates this way as well. This operates with the normal queue and each effect is then resolved in the order it was declared and, as the rules state, these resolutions can negate the affects of further Actions that are resolved later on in the queue.

Many Epic Actions can be declared before something happens, usually before a Fight is resolved, and as such are resolved immediately. Epic Strike and Epic Rage are two such examples. These actions would have no effect if declared in the "start of phase" window of opportunity as their effect is dependent on the declaration taking place at a certain point.

Finally, there is Epic Shot which can be declared at any point during a Shoot phase. Epic Shot can literally be declared at any point and has a great deal of flexibility because of this.


This, I feel, is fairly clearly laid out in the rules.

The only point of contention that I've really seen is the way Epic Strike and Heroic Duel operate together. I'm here to argue that they don't ;)

Basically, Epic Strike can be declared before a fight. Fights, in the verb form, are clearly defined as the mechanics through which you resolve a fight during the fight phase. As a Heroic Duel does not utilize these mechanics it is not itself a fight and as such you would have no window of opportunity to declare an Epic Strike.


Now, I know a lot of people will post this quotation from p.69 "Epic Actions do not always have to be declared at the start of the phase, but are called when the hero's formation is due to act." This statement is a bit confusing as it seems to be a rule into itself but it is not. It is merely clarifying that Epic Actions are different from Heroic Actions and that sometimes they are not called at the start of the phase but are instead declared in a window of opportunity that is described in their specific rule. This statement is not a general statement saying Epic Actions can be called whenever and however.


This is such a fundamental part of the game and I feel it is important that everyone understands how it works.

Reinholt
22-05-2009, 19:27
A quick question, but first, some rules text:

Epic Actions:


Epic actions are treated like heroic actions, and require the expenditure of a point of might. Epic actions do not always have to be declared at the start of the phase, but are called when the Hero's formation is due to act.

Epic Strike:


If a Hero declares an Epic Strike before he fights, his Fight value is increased to 10 until the end of the phase.

So, let us say we've just had two formations ram together. One is six formations of Orcs with a captain, and the other is Faramir and four companies of Knights of Minas Tirith (with shields). For arguments sake, let's assume the cavalry charged.

If both sides wish to declare heroic actions, and good wins, what happens if this is the order:

1 - Faramir - Epic Strike
2 - Orc Captain - Heroic Duel at Faramir

Does Faramir fight the duel at F10?

Likewise, if it were reversed:

1 - Orc Captain - Heroic Duel at Faramir
2 - Faramir - Epic strike

What happens?

CaseyNoVa
22-05-2009, 19:35
Epic actions are treated like heroic actions, and require the expenditure of a point of might. Epic actions do not always have to be declared at the start of the phase, but are called when the Hero's formation is due to act.

I've already addressed this statement, but basically it doesn't mean what people have taken it to mean. All it is saying is that Epic Actions work the way each specific Action is stated to work. It doesn't follow the general rules dictated for Heroic Actions and instead it follows its own rules. It does not say, however, that Epic Actions can be declared at the start of the phase or before a formation acts. Instead it talks about Epic Actions do not always have to be declared at the start of phase, meaning that sometimes they actually do have to be declared then but not always. Meaning, read the specific Epic Action and it'll tell you when to declare the Action.

For the rest of your response:

There is no window to call Epic Strike at the beginning of the phase. Epic Strike's effect only works if it is declared in a certain time, "before he fights", and the beginning of the phase is not in that time frame.

It is somewhat debatable that a Duel is considered a fight because of the wording of Epic Strike (references to "he" instead of "formation"). If you could use Epic Strike before a Heroic Duel, which would require conflating Heroic Duel with Fight which I don't think is correct, you would not need to declare Epic Fight in the queue but instead would merely declare it before the Duel is resolved.

Epic Strike can't be declared at the start of the phase. It's actually better than that as it is only declared and resolved before the Fight is resolved, meaning it could not be bypassed through the resolution of queue effects in the order they were declared.

Jorgen_CAB
22-05-2009, 19:45
I'm totally with you on this one CaseyNoVa, that is exactly how I interpret the line at p.69 as well. The sentence does not tell you that you can freely choose when to call an Epic action. The text in the Epic action tells you whether it is called at the start of a phase or later, as is the case with Epic Strike. You call the epic strike when the formation/company that the hero is in are about fight. Thus, it does not have any effect what so ever in a Duel.

Tarrant
22-05-2009, 20:49
I agree but it would be nice for GW to clarify their wording a bit better. Epic Actions are not interrupts (to borrow a term from another game) but are used either when the formation with the Epic Hero is about to act (i.e. fight, move, etc.) or when the action's description states it is used (e.g. Epic Challenge at the start of the move phase).

T.

dvdhwk
22-05-2009, 21:25
So I'm running a league starting next week at my FLGS. The the other organizer and I wanted to put out an FAQ for issues that have come up. In the process we realized some issues with timing/resolution of H/E Actions.

As such we came up with a system that we think is consistent with the rules - we operated under the belief that the rules provided a framework, and the authors thought we could read between the lines (after all, GW rights rules for themselves). We provided the meaning between the lines. I realize that it can represent an actual rules change. But as organizers we believe that consistency and predictability in rules is important, especially if it can be accomplished with the least obtrusive means.

Here's what we put together, H/E Actions are on the last two pages.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/15100338/WotR-Escalation-League-FAQ-v11

Quannum
22-05-2009, 22:11
Kudos for the FAQ, dvdhwk.

I think you've produced something that GW couldn't better.

Although there is still a complication when you factor in that further H/E Actions (that falls under category 2 by your definition) can be called on top of an action that is called at the start of a phase, (category 1).

Q

Tarrant
22-05-2009, 22:16
Yes, excellent work, dvdhwk!! I'm still not sure about the ability to interrupt with some of the Epic Actions but your FAQ gives a nice, organized view of all the Actions.

T.

dvdhwk
22-05-2009, 22:56
Thanks to both.



Although there is still a complication when you factor in that further H/E Actions (that falls under category 2 by your definition) can be called on top of an action that is called at the start of a phase, (category 1).
You're absolutely correct. As other have alluded to in other threads, it seems that the authors intended for these mechanics to work like certain CCG mechanics, but lacked the ability to write them appropriately. In some ways I've supplied that, but have made the rules more complex (filling in between the lines, so to speak).



I'm still not sure about the ability to interrupt with some of the Epic Actions . . .
I hear ya. There are two ways for the rule to be played out as written, H/E Actions can interrupt or they cannot. I think the pure RAW seems to indicate that they cannot interrupt, but the spirit of the game and its fluidity seems to indicate that they should interrupt. It's definitely an interpretive decision that I've made, and I can see an respect the other interpretation.

Lardidar
23-05-2009, 12:23
Very nice FAQ.

Can I ask how you got your answer for question 4, was it your call or is there a instance where this interpritation is used in a battle report?

Reinholt
23-05-2009, 17:40
Mostly quite good. I approve.

A couple of quick questions:

1 - What about Epic Tranquility (Radagast)? If you can interrupt with it, that makes his formation essentially unable to be charged. If you put Gandalf in with him so that you can give him a point of might every turn, you now have a formation that can never be charged under any circumstances without an epic charge (and if your opponent doesn't have that ability, they might be screwed). I suspect that could prove extremely abusive, especially if one parks a large formation with this combination on an objective. My suggestion would be to put this in the queue at the start of the charge phase so that a heroic charge can also go off before it.

2 - How does resolving a Heroic Duel after a Heroic Fight work if you have the casualties from a Heroic Duel counting towards combat resolution, and that you break apart after a Heroic Fight? This seems odd. Should you not always say that a Fight is composed of: ( Duel > Fight > Resolution ), with the thing in the parenthesis encompassing the entire "Fight"?

3 - How does Epic Cowardice interact with Epic Challenge?

4 - If you are allowing Epic Strike to be an interrupt for duels, should you not also (in the name of consistency) allow Epic Sacrifice (and possibly rage / rampage / defense)?

5 - The more I read over the rules, the more I think Epic Strike was NOT meant to apply to duels (this would solve a lot of shenanigans), so that is my only literal complaint with what you have. I would allow it to be called before the fight, and apply to the fight (this also eliminates the need for question 4 above and enforces consistency across the board) only, not for duels.

dvdhwk
23-05-2009, 19:15
Lardidar - Q4 was just what made sense to us. It seemed like moving down the chart, rather than applying -1 to each roll made more sense. Ultimately it was an arbitrary decision.

Reinholt - All good questions, that I can't answer right now (on the way out the door for an anniversary weekend). But if time permits while the wife is sleeping later this weekend, I'm very interested to seeing about some of those interactions. The FAQ is a living document, and its definitely eligible for tweaking.

CaseyNoVa
24-05-2009, 01:19
Your FAQ has value but there are quite a few problems with it.

Question 2 is wrong as the Determine Victor section describes the victor of a fight being the player with the most kills in the fight, with the fight being described in the verb format and as such could only be defined as any actions taking place in the Fight Procedure. Knowing this, a Duel takes place before the Fight Procedure and as such isn't part of the fight.

Question 4 is wrong as a Two Handed Weapon would work in a similar manner as spending Might to boost rolls would. Meaning, you'd need a 5+ / 3+ with a Two Handed Weapon as it adds a +1 bonus to your To Hit rolls and each roll are to be considered a To Hit roll. This is also how it works in the LotR skirmish game. I believe Poisoned Attacks would also allow for rerolls if a 1 is rolled on the second die of 6/4+ as both die rolls are considered to be To Hit rolls.

Also, thinking of Epic Actions that can be declared before something happens, such as before a fight, as interrupts is slightly confusing. It is better to think that Epic Actions can only be declared in certain windows and their effect is immediate unless they are to be declared at the start of a phase, in which case they go onto a stack.

Reinholt, I didn't write that FAQ but I know how your questions should be answered if that's of any help ;)

Epic Tranquility is annoying. It would go on the stack as normal. Charges can not be declared against Radagast's formation once this ability has resolved itself, meaning if this ability goes off in the stack prior to a Heroic Charge that it would negate the Heroic Charge and any further charge attempts.

Casualties from Duels should not be counted for the purposes of determining the victor as the Determine Victor section describes only casualties as taking place in the fight, meaning any casualties suffered while resolving the Fight Procedure, would be counted and as a Heroic Duel happens before that procedure they would not count.

You would not be able to Epic Cowardice out of an Epic Challenge as Epic Challenge disallows that Hero from leaving their present formation.

Heroic Duels take place before the Fight Procedure and, as such, do not grant a window of opportunity for such things as Epic Strike or Epic Sacrifice.


I hope I could be of some help.

Reinholt
24-05-2009, 03:11
Your FAQ has value but there are quite a few problems with it.

Question 2 is wrong as the Determine Victor section describes the victor of a fight being the player with the most kills in the fight, with the fight being described in the verb format and as such could only be defined as any actions taking place in the Fight Procedure. Knowing this, a Duel takes place before the Fight Procedure and as such isn't part of the fight.

I would not be so quick to conclude this. There are several pieces of conflicting evidence.

Namely:

Page 46


Fight Procedure
1) Choose Which Fight To Resolve
2) Determine Striking Order
3) Calculate Number of Dice
a. Fighting Directly
b. Combat Modifiers
c. Supporting Attacks
4) Roll To Hit
5) Remove Casualties
6) Determine Victor
7) Test for Panic

Page 50


6) Determine Victor

A fight's winner is the side that has inflicted the most casualties (not hits!). Total the casualties scored by each side in the fight - the side with the highest score is the victor.

Page 67 (under the Heroic Duel heading)


Once the Heroic Duel has been resolved, the fight continues as normal.

I've head people argue it both ways based on this - one, that the heroic duel should not count for precisely the reasons you indicated, and two, that the heroic duel should count because of the text on page 67, indicating it was part of the fight and that the fight is ongoing.

Who is right?

Your guess is probably as good as mine at this point. This is an area where there is inadequate clarity in the language of the rules (similar to the might point expenditure issue) until we get an FAQ ruling.

Speaking personally, I would prefer not to count them, for the reasons you said, but I do see the counter-argument here.


Epic Tranquility is annoying. It would go on the stack as normal. Charges can not be declared against Radagast's formation once this ability has resolved itself, meaning if this ability goes off in the stack prior to a Heroic Charge that it would negate the Heroic Charge and any further charge attempts.

I agree that is the way it should be played, otherwise the ability is insanely powerful (to a degree that it is quite literally game-breaking). However, if you make the sub-mechanic of epic things interrupting other things and then having their own sub-priority, and have Epic Tranquility fall into this, you create a very large problem, because then it becomes precisely what you do not want it to be:

A way to avoid being charged, ever, for any reason, period.

Edonil
24-05-2009, 08:13
5 - The more I read over the rules, the more I think Epic Strike was NOT meant to apply to duels (this would solve a lot of shenanigans), so that is my only literal complaint with what you have. I would allow it to be called before the fight, and apply to the fight (this also eliminates the need for question 4 above and enforces consistency across the board) only, not for duels.

Not disagreeing with you, more curious what it was that brought you to that conclusion.

Reinholt
24-05-2009, 16:29
Not disagreeing with you, more curious what it was that brought you to that conclusion.

A couple of different things:

1 - The segment in the paragraphs describing epic actions that says they may be used in the priority queue or when indicated, they are instead used in the moment when the formation acts.

2 - After researching it, I'm inclined to say that heroic duels should not have their casualties count towards combat resolution (there is no mention of them, at all, in the entire fight section).

3 - My opinion that the points for various characters make a lot more sense when you assume that's the case; for instance, Suladan is a terrifying, whirling, under-pointed machine of death if you can, but if you can't, he's actually pretty reasonably pointed.

4 - Some of the weirdness that ensues with Epic Strike needing to be declared in the priority queue, and the equal weirdness or flat out broken behavior that can occur if you assume Epic actions work as an "interrupt" and pre-empt other things when they are called (see my commentary on Epic Tranquility above).

When you roll all of those together, it seems to make a lot more sense that you would not use Epic Strike in a duel. I am not saying I have a clear ruling on it, but after playing with multiple possibilities, that seems to be the one that makes the most sense.

Emissary
25-05-2009, 00:53
The problem with epic strike is that it states


If a hero declares an epic strike before he fights, his fight value is increased to 10 until the end of the phase

Rather then declaring an epic strike before his formation fights. Hence only the hero has to fight to activate epic strike and not the formation proper. In addition, the heroic duel rules state that after the duel is resolved, the fight continues as normal. It does not state that the fight starts. Hence, one could make the case that the fight has started for the hero and he would be allowed to use heroic strike before the duel.

I'm not saying that either side is 100% right, but at the same time I'm not saying that it's as cut and dry as you're stating above. A good argument can be made about the rules either way mainly due to how they wrote out the rules in the first place.

The problem with the epic action rules is that at one point the rules state they are treated like heroic actions. Later they also say that they "do not have to be declared at the start of a phase..." How they word it really makes it sound that you can treat them like heroic actions and use them at the start of the phase like a heroic action or you can use them at the start of the formation's action.

Personally, I would like the rules to work like the way you're describing above but I think it's a stretch to say that they do by the way they're written. "Do not always have to" is a long way from "cannot, unless..." One is restrictive and the other allows for a lot more variance.

Another example would be on epic sacrifice. Epic sacrifice gives the 3+ save for the rest of the turn while the hero is removed at the end of the phase. By that wording, a good argument could be put forth that it's also meant to be used against spells in the movement phase and against shots in the shooting phase. Hence, if you use it in the movement phase, the hero is removed in the movement phase, but the 3+ save will last through the fight phase. One can make an argument that epic actions "do not always have to be declared at the start of the phase" but can be if they want to since the rules don't say "cannot be declared at the start of the phase except when..." If you used the heroic sacrifice in the movement phase, it is "declared before his formations fights" as the fight happens several phases later.

Jorgen_CAB
25-05-2009, 08:09
We currently allow Epic Strike to be used in a duel. We also deem that any hero only may call ONE (Epic or Heroic) action at the start of every phase. Any Epic action that may interrupt later in the phase may be called as well in addition to the one action called at the start of the phase. In addition to this every action in the queue are resolved fully before you move to the next. This resolves a lot of problem and seem to balance things out.
You could duel and epic strike to kill someone but if they manage to pull a Heroic fight before the hero called the duel it basically is canceled out. This seems to make the rules rather well balanced in regard to expensive heroes that does not have Epic Strike to defend themselves with. It also forces you to choose between using Heroic Fight and Duel unless you have two heroes involved in the same fight.

Also, you can only call Epic actions as they are stated in their respective description, that makes the most sense to us.

CaseyNoVa
26-05-2009, 15:52
I understand that argument, Emissary. My problem with it is it lies with reading "continues" in a very specific manner when it can be read in other ways. Basically, "continue" is a peculiar word as it implies going onto something else that's also in a larger framework but the framework in this case is not defined. Since this is the only item that really supports any notion that a Duel is a Fight I'd be inclined to say it's not.


The problem with the epic action rules is that at one point the rules state they are treated like heroic actions. Later they also say that they "do not have to be declared at the start of a phase..." How they word it really makes it sound that you can treat them like heroic actions and use them at the start of the phase like a heroic action or you can use them at the start of the formation's action.

I think you've misread this phrase. The phrase you're talking about, "Epic actions are treated like heroic actions, and require the expenditure of a point of might. Epic actions do not always have to be declared at the start of the phase, but are called when the Hero's formation is due to act.", does not mean what you think it means.

The phrase, "do not always", does not mean never nor does it mean always but instead it means sometimes. As in, "Epic actions sometimes have to be declared at the start of the phase. . .", or, "Epic actions are not always declared at the start of the phase. . .". Basically, it's saying that there are times when Epic actions do have to be declared at the start but not always but instead you should look at the individual action for when it can be declared.

Your argument for Epic Sacrifice peculiar but incorrect. Yes, the Movement Phase is before a Fight but there is no guarantee a Fight is going to take place by that point. How can you declare something before something that may never happen? You can't. It's one of the many reasons you can't Epic Strike during a Heroic or Epic Duel as the Duel itself may have an outcome that would take the participants out of ever being in a Fight and, again, how can you do something before something that never happens?

The rules are very clear about this. You call Epic or Heroic Actions when, and only when, the actual Action allows the Action to be declared. It is then resolved either immediately or in the queue system.

Emissary
26-05-2009, 16:05
The rules aren't very clear about it. That's the problem and why it's been played wrong by a lot of people in a lot of locations if you are correct.

The rules don't just come out and say that epic actions are only used when the epic action states. "but are called when the Hero's formation is due to act" doesn't allow room for epic actions that have to take place at the beginning of a phase like epic tranquility or epic challenge. "Epic actions do not always have to be declared at the start of the phase," and "if an epic (defense, strike, rage...) is declared before the formation fights..." does allow room for the epic action to be declared at the beginning of a fight phase before the fight are actually fought. "Before the formation fights" allows a lot of wiggle room as to exactly how far before a formation fights within the fight phase, especially when the rules don't say that epic actions cannot be called at the start of the phase along with the heroic actions, since "they're treated like heroic actions" and "do not always have to be declared" allows it to be declared if one wishes.

Emissary
26-05-2009, 16:20
Furthermore, the problem with epic strike is that the wording on it is "bofore the hero fights" rather then "hero's formation" which can allow one to argue that it can be done before a duel because it can be claimed that the hero is fighting at that point or the question can be raised what's the difference between a hero fighting and the hero's formation fighting if it isn't the heroic duel?

My biggest problem with the epic action rules is that they're very contradictory. One minute, they state that they act like heroic actions, then they state that they don't have to act like heroic actions, then they state that they don't act like epic actions. The phrase "are called out when the hero's formation is about to act" precludes the ability to act at the beginning of a phase for epic actions like epic tranquility or renewal or at any time like epic shot. When you combine this with wording like "before the hero's formation fights" without letting you know just how before a good case can be made for two different lines of thought.

I'd like it to be the way you're stating and am making a case for it on our store's forums, but it is in no way clear about how it's supposed to be run. It's pretty much going to have to be a case by case, store by store basis until more concrete rules or an official faq is released.

CaseyNoVa
26-05-2009, 16:21
If you declare an Epic Strike at the start of the phase, which you can't do, and then a Heroic Duel is resolved and the effects of the Duel result in one party being destroyed (not an unlikely scenario with some Duels I've seen) then the Fight never takes place and you've never declared an Epic Action before something that never happens. That is logically impossible. Also, each Heroic and Epic Action is worded in such a way that "If such and such is declared <insert timing phrase> then such and such happens" that if they were to be declared outside of that window then there would be no effect. If you were to declare Epic Sacrifice at the start of the phase and a Heroic Duel would then resolve itself taking the two formations out of a fight then the effects of Epic Sacrifice would never go off as it has to be declared before a fight to have any effect and as there was no fight there would be no effect but the effect would have already resolved itself which is impossible.

Just because people have played the rules incorrectly does not mean they are not clear. We've all played various rules at one point or another that was otherwise clear because of various reasons, such as baggage from other games. I know it took my group quite a while to iron out 5th Edition of 40k before we understood the new rules and really came to terms with how the rules were changed.

CaseyNoVa
26-05-2009, 16:23
It is clear, however, as each Epic or Heroic Action follows the format of "If declaration equal <specific time> then <specific effect> takes place." If you were to declare an Epic or Heroic Action outside of the specified window of opportunity it would have no effect.

Emissary
26-05-2009, 16:38
An epic action states how long it lasts. Once declared, epic defense lasts until the end of the phase for example. The problem isn't how long something lasts, it's when it can be declared. If a hero"declares before a formation fights" at the start of the phase or at the start of that formation's fight, it's still done correctly by the way it's written either way.

Like I've said:


Epic actions do not always have to be declared at the start of the phase, but are called when the Hero's formation is due to act.",
Isn't clear at all. Either way you read it, it affects 1/2 the epic actions out there. If you take the stuff before the comma as the way to play, it affects everything that states "declared before the hero's formation fights." If you take the stuff after the comma as the way to play, it hoses everything that doesn't state it that way.

CaseyNoVa
26-05-2009, 16:47
I'm sorry but I don't think you quite understand what that line of text actually reads.

It should have been written in a cleaner manner but the actual text is still quite clear in what it says.

Let's break it down:

"Epic actions do not always have to be declared at the start of the phase," makes sense. Sometimes they do have to be declared at the start of the phase but sometimes they are not declared then.

". . .but are called when the Hero's formation is due to act." is also clear. When an Epic Action is not required to be declared at the start of the phase it is instead declared when the Hero's formation is due to act, meaning it can be declared before the listed event (usually before the formation fights).

Those define the two windows of opportunity you can declare an Epic Actions; either at the start of the phase or before the formation is about to act. The phrase is clear in that some actions are declared at the start of the phase while others are declared before they act. You should take the whole sentence instead of trying to break it down into two elements before and after the comma.

And no, if a hero declares Epic Rage at the start of the phase because that somehow works with "before a formation fights" which is clearly an application of ". . .are called when the Hero's formation is due to act" that would still not work as there is a possibility that the fight would never come to pass and you can not declare something before something that never happens.

Emissary
26-05-2009, 17:36
You're completly missing the point that that sentence can be read two very different ways. The whole point that a lot of people in very different geographical areas have all read that sentence the exact same way should clue you in on that. I understand how you're reading it. I'm trying to get it across how it can also be read and how others are reading it. You're making a lot of leaps of logic and faith based on your point of view. I'm trying to explain how others can read the same sentence and get something very different out of it. It's complete fallacy to believe that the rules are clear on that subject. Good arguments can be made for it either way.


And no, if a hero declares Epic Rage at the start of the phase because that somehow works with "before a formation fights" which is clearly an application of ". . .are called when the Hero's formation is due to act" that would still not work as there is a possibility that the fight would never come to pass and you can not declare something before something that never happens.
You have this wrong on two levels. First, the rules clearly state that you can call out heroic actions that never happen but still lose the might for it. For example, if we both call out a heroic charge, but I go first, we both lose our might but you don't charge. Gandalf could also use the epic focus reroll ability but could never cast a spell. Second, at the beginning of the fight phase, if I want to call out an epic rage with the other heroic actions, the units are already in base to base ready to fight. IE, if my unit is in contact with your unit, and I want Eomer to call out an epic rage with the heroic duels and heroic fights, the fight will happen and the epic rage will last the rest of that fight phase. Plus it's being called out "before the hero's formation fights."

CaseyNoVa
26-05-2009, 18:01
It's best to just end this discussion, then.

The English language is not as mutable as you would believe it to be. The rule is quite clear. It is phrased in a more technical manner than necessary but they are clear all the same.

You did, however, help to make my point quite well and helped to further clarify something that needed to be clarified, at least to myself. The statement about Epic Actions not always having the requirement of being declared at the start of the phase but instead sometimes having the requirement of being declared when the formation is due to act is incredibly helpful. This further illustrates the point that Epic Actions, such as Epic Rage, that need to be declared before a fight can only be declared the moment before the formation is due to fight as the statement above refers to the moments before the formation is due to act and not just some vague notion of the window being open for declarations at any point before the fight is resolved.

Also, your argument about what I said in regards to declarations before an event that never transpires misses what I was talking about altogether. It is quite frustrating to argue a point when you refuse to actually read the argument I was making.

Jorgen_CAB
26-05-2009, 18:29
I agree with CaseNoVa on this issue 100%...

The sentence all the arguing is about is a description of the rule not the rule itself. The rules how each action is to be declared are found at the description of each Epic Action. I'm 99.99999% ;) sure that will be the case when an FAQ arrives to alleviate all doubts about this issue.

Though, on the other hand I do understand the confusion surrounding this and I do also understand that it can be easy to misinterpret the meaning of the sentence to be a rule rather than a clarification.

Emissary
26-05-2009, 18:33
I agree it will (should) be clarified that way once the FAQ arrives. We're starting to move that way at our store at the moment for that reason. It's just that it isn't clear or cut and dry right now.

SJBenoist
26-05-2009, 20:35
I read the language in the same manner as Emissary.

The language most certainly is NOT clear.

Emissary
26-05-2009, 20:55
It is quite frustrating to argue a point when you refuse to actually read the argument I was making.
I agree with this, as it's coming back to me in other places. The first example would be that the rules aren't nearly as clear as you'd like to imagine.

How most of the board has been playing this stuff isn't some "vague notion" at all. A "vague notion" isn't going to get a lot of different people from all over the world to play something pretty much the exact same way when they haven't talked with others. You've seemed to gloss over this point time and time again.

CaseyNoVa
26-05-2009, 21:20
Maybe clarity is a bad word. The words are precise in their meaning but reading what it says does require one to sit down with the text in a more meaningful way than would be ideal.

I've seen people play rules incorrectly, and in a similar manner, over various meta games numerous times. These misinterpretations stem from glossing over of rules or, as more times than not, taking previous rules knowledge into account with new rules and misinterpreting new rules because of this.

All I can do is point to the text and try to tell you exactly what it means.


Epic actions do not always have to be declared at the start of the phase, but are called when the Hero's formation is due to act.
This phrase, for example, has been taken to mean many things and most of them have been wrong. All it is saying is that sometimes Epic Actions do have to be declared at the start of the phase and sometimes they are instead declared when a formation is due to act. It does not say that Epic Actions can be declared in both time frames. The phrase "Epic actions do not always . . ." does not mean always or never but instead means sometimes, as in sometimes Epic Actions will have to be declared at the start of the phase but not all the time. The following bit further clarifies when they are declared in instances when they aren't able to be declared at the start of the phase. The language might not be clear but it is precise in its meaning.

The rules have already defined what happens to Actions that are declared at the start of the phase and examples in the book and battle reports illustrates this point quite clearly.

Other actions that are declared before the formation is due to act, such as Epic Rage, have to be declared before the formation itself acts. This means that it is declared before the resolution of a fight, in the case of Epic Rage, or before any other resolutions listed in the rule itself. Again, the rule may not be clear but it is precise.

To say this in a clearer manner, we have actions that are declared at the start of the phase and other actions that are ". . . are called when the Hero's formation is due to act." This is precise in its meaning as the Action can only be declared when the formation itself is about to act with the "act" referencing the particular action found within the Epic Action itself. You could not declare Epic Rage at any point except before the formation is due to act in a fight.

That's what the rules say. Again, the phrasing could have been better but when one looks at the wording there is only one conclusion that can be drawn from the statements. Yes, there have been a lot of people that have played the rule wrong. Yes, I played the rules wrong as well until I reread the rules for the 10th or so time and it started to make sense.



You have this wrong on two levels. First, the rules clearly state that you can call out heroic actions that never happen but still lose the might for it. For example, if we both call out a heroic charge, but I go first, we both lose our might but you don't charge. Gandalf could also use the epic focus reroll ability but could never cast a spell. Second, at the beginning of the fight phase, if I want to call out an epic rage with the other heroic actions, the units are already in base to base ready to fight. IE, if my unit is in contact with your unit, and I want Eomer to call out an epic rage with the heroic duels and heroic fights, the fight will happen and the epic rage will last the rest of that fight phase. Plus it's being called out "before the hero's formation fights."

This statement has quite a bit wrong with it. Mostly you argued for things I never said and when you did so you did so in an incorrect manner.

The queue system is in place for actions that are declared at the start of the phase. The method through which these are resolved is agreed upon, unless I've missed something drastic, and the resolution could result in various characters being killed or otherwise incapable of following through with their intended actions. This is very clear in the rules.

What I was arguing, however, is that certain actions that are declared before a formation is due to act require the actual action listed, such as the formation fighting, to occur or about to occur for the effect to resolve itself. As these Actions are not placed in the queue but instead are declared and resolved before the formation is about to act, usually participate in a fight, they could not be canceled out.

If we were to play the game incorrectly, however, and call these Actions in the queue order the game would logically not follow at all. Imagine if I called an Epic Strike in the queue and it was declared before my opponent declared a Heroic Duel with the same unit that had declared Epic Strike. The Epic Strike would resolve itself, giving the Hero Fight 10, and then the Duel would proceed. The result of the Duel could very well result Dueling formation to be destroyed and now the formation that declared and resolved Epic Fight would no longer have a chance to ever fight so the effect of the Epic Fight would never happen as the wording is such that "if declared when then effect" but the effect already resolved itself. That's logically and mathematically impossible and is a clear proof that the rules do not work that way.

It's all good, though. I think we're all more or less on board with how the game is supposed to be played even if some don't think the rules are explicit enough about it.

I'll be out for the evening, good debating you all the same :)

Reinholt
27-05-2009, 18:27
This can be debated until the cows come home, and there will be no resolution.

Why? Because both arguments are grammatically correct. The question is which was intended; of course, that can only be answered with 100% clarity by the one who wrote the book.

The problem comes back to a technical failure of language and writing. The fact that there is not a section with clear examples / diagrams of gameplay is very problematic, and the fact that language is not standardized is also very problematic.

The net result is that we have a situation where we don't have an answer. My view, ultimately, is this:

1 - I tend to believe that, to determine when each Epic Action should be called, you have to look at the Epic Action itself. For most of them, this is pretty clear (Epic Tranquility says it needs to be called at the start of the phase, so it goes in the priority queue, for example; Epic Defense is one that is pretty clearly intended to be when the formation is due to act). The problem comes with the ones where this is not clear (Epic Strike is the prime example because it says before the hero fights; given the poor choice of words, it's unknown if this means before a duel or before the hero's formation fights - your guess is as good as mine as to which it is).

2 - Those are the ones where either an FAQ or a discussion with your opponent should happen BEFORE the game if anyone is using a hero with that ability. My view is Epic Strike should not be allowed in duels (this makes a lot of the point values for heroes much more rational, as well, and is never done in battle reports that I have seen, so there is circumstantial evidence to support this... but it is only circumstantial, unfortunately), but that's just my view.

What is the real answer?

Who knows. Rather than argue it literally, though, I would advise considering which one will make WotR a better game, since this is one of the rare cases where both are totally plausible, and that we try to settle on that and maybe produce a solid FAQ for people to use.

What do you guys / gals think?

Jorgen_CAB
27-05-2009, 19:05
I agree with you. We really need an FAQ to solve this problem. It really would be nice to know how to play the game. Shame a rulebook is not enough.

I really don't understand how hard it would be to write the rules in a clear and cut manner so that there is no room for misinterpretation. A few good examples could also have been included in more places to clarify how the rules work.

Tarrant
03-06-2009, 18:17
The unclear wording issue has plagued GW for a long time and it is mainly due to their insular playtesting methods. The playtesters are also involved in writing the material so they have an unwritten understanding of what they want the rules to mean but sometimes the rules don't read clearly to those who lack that unwritten understanding.

Grant it, GW has improved this situation somewhat over the years but they still lack outside playtesting and will always have this issue until they do something about it (if ever).

I do agree that the Epic/Heroic actions questions will not be resolved without an official FAQ from GW.

T.

irishthump
03-06-2009, 19:04
Lardidar - Q4 was just what made sense to us. It seemed like moving down the chart, rather than applying -1 to each roll made more sense. Ultimately it was an arbitrary decision.



Sorry to jump in on this thread, but I'm afraid you are 100% wrong with question 4.
2 Handed weapons give a +1 bonus to your DICE ROLL, meaning instead of needing 6+/4+ you now need to roll 5+/3+.

Lardidar
03-06-2009, 22:19
Sorry to jump in on this thread, but I'm afraid you are 100% wrong with question 4.
2 Handed weapons give a +1 bonus to your DICE ROLL, meaning instead of needing 6+/4+ you now need to roll 5+/3+.

That is how it read to me aswell, but I am happy to play either way.

In my store we have been making 6/4 into 5/3 but I would be just as happy to play it as 6.

dvdhwk
05-06-2009, 23:01
Sorry to jump in on this thread, but I'm afraid you are 100% wrong with question 4.
2 Handed weapons give a +1 bonus to your DICE ROLL, meaning instead of needing 6+/4+ you now need to roll 5+/3+.

I absolutely disagree that I am 100% wrong. You should always be careful with absolutes. ;)

Seriously though, within the rulebook, there is no clear explicit indication to apply the +1 to each roll for 2HW's and Lances. There is a clear, explicit statement to apply might to both rolls. But there is no indication that it should be handled in the same way as might.

That being said, we have recent changed the ruling, to be consistent with the SBG. I like the consistency, but am not happy with the result due to the math:

6+/4+ = 8.3%
6+ = 16.7%
5+/3+ = 22%

It just feels wrong. But we went with 5+/3+ after some reconsideration. Hell, it helps me since I used Morgul Knights, but I still don't like it.

But 100% wrong? Nope, sorry. Feel free to show me where the rulebook absolutely, and unequivocally supports position (and you can't say that "dice" is used as the plural, because GW uses "dice" for both the plural and the singular). It doesn't, though I have come around to believe the weight of the evidence is on its side, but its not conclusive, therefore not 100% wrong.

Emissary
06-06-2009, 03:16
The reason why our store has been doing the great weapons make a 6/4 into a 5/3 is because that's what the book says that might would do on page 65. It just made sense that they'd both work the same way.

irishthump
07-06-2009, 13:14
Quote "A company armed with 2 handed weapons receives +1 TO IT'S DICE ROLLS to wound in close combat." I don't see how you could make a mistake with that one, the only way it can chnage to a 6+ is if you raise the companies STRENGTH.


I absolutely disagree that I am 100% wrong. You should always be careful with absolutes. ;)

Seriously though, within the rulebook, there is no clear explicit indication to apply the +1 to each roll for 2HW's and Lances. There is a clear, explicit statement to apply might to both rolls. But there is no indication that it should be handled in the same way as might.

That being said, we have recent changed the ruling, to be consistent with the SBG. I like the consistency, but am not happy with the result due to the math:

6+/4+ = 8.3%
6+ = 16.7%
5+/3+ = 22%

It just feels wrong. But we went with 5+/3+ after some reconsideration. Hell, it helps me since I used Morgul Knights, but I still don't like it.

But 100% wrong? Nope, sorry. Feel free to show me where the rulebook absolutely, and unequivocally supports position (and you can't say that "dice" is used as the plural, because GW uses "dice" for both the plural and the singular). It doesn't, though I have come around to believe the weight of the evidence is on its side, but its not conclusive, therefore not 100% wrong.

It's conclusive, get over it.

BTW... did you enjoy last month's Hair Splitter's Convention? :rolleyes:

dvdhwk
12-06-2009, 16:08
I don't see how you could make a mistake with that one,
Well, then you, sir, have a failure of imagination. For instance, "rolls" could have simply meant the bucket of dice that companies get to roll.


It's conclusive, get over it. Well, now that irishthump has delivered his commandment from on high, I suppose I have to obey.
This was a question that was on other sites, and had people going both ways. Shame on me for trying to make something to aid our local community play this horribly written game. Hell, I've stated that I have come around to your interpretation, all I'm stating is that it's not 100%. I'm not saying its 50-50, I did say that there is more weight behind your (and my) interpretation.


BTW... did you enjoy last month's Hair Splitter's Convention? :rolleyes: Is a personal attack really necessary? Oh, and guess what, people make a lot of money "splitting hairs" as you call it (I would call it parsing language, textual analysis, legal interpretation, but whatever). They're called lawyers. Oh, and technically, if someone is able to "split hairs" about a subject, then it isn't exactly conclusive on the face.

Oh and BTW, I posted the FAQ to show how my group is handling the epic actions, not so I could get called out on every decision. If you'd like to make a new thread called "dvdhwk iz teh stoopid" then feel free.

irishthump
12-06-2009, 20:12
Well, then you, sir, have a failure of imagination. For instance, "rolls" could have simply meant the bucket of dice that companies get to roll.

More like YOUR failure to read the rules. It's says you add +1 to your rolls, implying you may have to make more than one. Simple grammar, no?



Well, now that irishthump has delivered his commandment from on high, I suppose I have to obey.


Oh please....



Is a personal attack really necessary? Oh, and guess what, people make a lot of money "splitting hairs" as you call it (I would call it parsing language, textual analysis, legal interpretation, but whatever). They're called lawyers. Oh, and technically, if someone is able to "split hairs" about a subject, then it isn't exactly conclusive on the face.

I know you go to law school and you are obviously much more intelligent than all of us mere mortals, but please don't try to rub people's noses in it. It makes you sound like a d*ck.



Oh and BTW, I posted the FAQ to show how my group is handling the epic actions, not so I could get called out on every decision. If you'd like to make a new thread called "dvdhwk iz teh stoopid" then feel free.
Well you DID post you FAQ on a public forum, so I would say for your two cents you have to listen to everything. I was even going to tell you how I thought the rest of your FAQ was excellent, but since you decided to throw all of your toys out of your pram I don't think I'll bother now.

dvdhwk
12-06-2009, 23:14
A. It's not an issue of grammar. It's an issue of interpretation. This one has multiple ways to interpret it, albeit the way you want to interpret appears to be correct. The other interpretations exist, however less likely they may be.

B. "It's conclusive, get over it" ~ "because I said so" - just calling you on it, in a sarcastic way.

C. Being in law school doesn't make one smart. I have lots of friends who are much smarter than I am, who are not and have never been to law school, or any kind of graduate school. Some people in law school are kinda dumb. I'm not rubbing anyone's nose in the fact that I'm in law school, infact I never even said in this thread that I'm in law school. Someone would have to go out of his way to search my profile for that info or click on the blog link, which hasn't been updated in close to a year. I was simply pointing out that what you refer to as "splitting hairs" is known by other names, for which there are fields of employment, some of which are highly lucrative. I'm sorry if you took it as *******.

D. Well, that's childish. You can't separate your personal feelings for someone from work that they produce, when you admittedly think its "excellent"? And yes, I did post on a public forum. However the scope of my posting was to evaluate the Heroic/Epic action rules. Technically, anything else is off topic.

Speaking of off topic... Look, bottom line, this is wasting your time and mine. We're off topic, and we're either close to or well past the point of requiring mod action.

I see ambiguity (though again, not a lot of it) and you see none. We're firmly entrenched, and I don't think its worthwhile to take the effort to have either of us try to convince the other. And it misses the point, which ultimately is that we have both come to the same conclusion about the rule.

So for any hard feelings I've caused or ******* behavior I've displayed, I apologize.