PDA

View Full Version : Peg knights and terrain



TAU AIR CASTE
29-12-2005, 00:43
Hi ya, peg knight or any unit of flers for that matter are skirmishing units right and they have to use thier ground movement when moving through terrain... well do they count as skirmishers for movement puposes? like peg knights moving 16" through woods ect.

mageith
29-12-2005, 05:21
Hi ya, peg knight or any unit of flers for that matter are skirmishing units right and they have to use thier ground movement when moving through terrain...

Just woods



well do they count as skirmishers for movement puposes? like peg knights moving 16" through woods ect.

From GW Website;

Q. Can a unit of Pegasus Knights move at double pace through difficult terrain using their ground movement, as they are skirmishers?

A. Oops. Although by the rules this would be the case, this was not what was intended. So, in this case, treat Pegasus Knights that are using their ground movement as skirmishes except that their movement is halved when moving through difficult terrain. Note this only applies to Flying Cavalry.

Mage Ith

Papa Onagal
29-12-2005, 05:24
BRB p.106..."Flyers may not move, land in or take off from within a wood. If flyers wish to enter a wood they must land outside it and walk inside using thier ground movement in the next turn."

Also, flyers do indeed always act as skirmishers. Skimishers suffer no movement penalties for obstacles, difficult, or very difficult terrain. Skirmishers may also move at double pace. (BRB p.115).

With all of this information, I would say, yes, they would move at 16" through woods.

Hope this helps.

EDIT: Looks like you posted while I was replying Mageith! If that is what the FAQ says, guess it supercedes the rules.....

I have often wondered if birds in the Warhammer world have to land on the ground and walk to their nests (if they are nested in woods of course!)

m1s1n
29-12-2005, 06:26
Yeah, I think if Peg Knights got double movement on the ground they would be . . . really . . . really powerful. Way to go GW, good thing you caught it for the FAQ.

Are there any skirmishers that are mounted (aside from ridden monsters)?

Festus
29-12-2005, 09:18
Hi

Are there any skirmishers that are mounted (aside from ridden monsters)?

Monsters are not Skirmishers.

And the only mounted Skirmishers I know of are the flying cavalry units.

Greetings
Festus

Griefbringer
29-12-2005, 11:43
Way to go GW, good thing you caught it for the FAQ.


I can neither consider it as a good thing or as the way to go.

- Very good thing would have been if the design studio would have realised it when actually writing the book (should not have been that hard).

- Good thing would have been that after finding about it too late, they would have put it into errata (since it is a change/addition to rules as written, not clarification) and put that into WD.

- Passable thing would have been that if they were too lazy to put it into proper errata, they would have at least printed the FAQ with it in WD.

- Poor thing would have been that instead of printing the FAQ in WD, they would have at least bothered to add it to The Official FAQ (available at http://uk.games-workshop.com/chronicles/faq/1/ on the GW website).

Atrahasis
29-12-2005, 12:03
Stuff

Couldn't agree more. The Bretonnian Book + Q&A are the best proof in the world that Anthony Reynolds should not be allowed near the rules unchaperoned.

Ganymede
30-12-2005, 00:03
So, does this rule extend to terradon riders and changebringers? Granted, their foot movement is only 1", but it could happen.

TAU AIR CASTE
30-12-2005, 04:13
And warhawk riders, So has this rule been officalised? if I go to g.t for example. As far as I know the rule has to be printed somewhere or on the f.a.q so is this rule on the f.a.q or printed somewhere because there is a guy I know going g.t with brets (peg army) and I can utilise the woods (if any) but not if the peg knights can move 16" through them.

Keller
30-12-2005, 05:29
According to the FAQ, only Flying Cavalry are restricted on ground movement. Most units are Flying Units, and would be considered skirmishers on the ground.

Gorbad Ironclaw
30-12-2005, 09:46
I can neither consider it as a good thing or as the way to go.

- Very good thing would have been if the design studio would have realised it when actually writing the book (should not have been that hard).


Some of the guys playtesting it apparently raised it, but I guess it got ignored...

Griefbringer
30-12-2005, 13:50
Couldn't agree more. The Bretonnian Book + Q&A are the best proof in the world that Anthony Reynolds should not be allowed near the rules unchaperoned.

Well, at least on this case he admitted a mistake (unlike with the pegasus knights and killing blow question).

And as for the officiality of this ruling, the only place where I have seen it mentioned is on the thread "Q + A compilation updated" on the GW Warhammer discussion forum (http://uk.games-workshop.com/forums/warhammer/ ).

I would not count it as official, since it does not mention anywhere that it is in any way official (and there is an actual official FAQ on the Warhammer Chronicles section of the website).

So for the friendly games, talk with your opponent. For tournaments, it is up to individual tournament organisers to decide what is being used. Personally I think it is quite a tall order to require a tournament participant to venture to the wild, troll-infested, gretchin-invaded and poorly organised GW forums to get necessary materials (OTOH I think it is perfectly allowable for tournament organisers to require players to wear pink skirts and big hats and to disallow all other army lists than high elves).

Atrahasis
30-12-2005, 14:53
Well, at least on this case he admitted a mistake (unlike with the pegasus knights and killing blow question).

Or the MR characters in units question, or (the list goes on).

It was quite refreshing, I must admit, as the normal GW attitude is to answer as though the questioner was somehow deranged for even thinking that the answer might be anything but what they say.

mageith
30-12-2005, 15:27
[QUOTE=Atrahasis]Couldn't agree more. The Bretonnian Book + Q&A are the best proof in the world that Anthony Reynolds should not be allowed near the rules unchaperoned.

Anthony Reynolds is a reasonable man and not a lawyer. The BRB is not designed, as has been repeatedly stated by GW, designed for the kind of rules nitpicking we do. Personally I've grown to appreciate his easy-going and intuitive approach to the rules. I certainly would rather have settled answers rather than no answers at all, like we have now.

The BRB provides two internal guides to settling rules disputs:

1) Roll a die. (43) Very early in the rulebook and...

2) P 268: Remember, the spirit of the game is the best guideline to follow, so try to do something that looks right and is realistic, as opposed to trying to stretch the rules to create a weird situation which looks obviously wrong [...] and gains some unfair advantage to one player.

The last rule in the rulebook.

I like clear rules, but I like rules that make sense more.

Mage Ith

mageith
30-12-2005, 15:39
Griefbringer: And as for the officiality of this ruling, the only place where I have seen it mentioned is on the thread "Q + A compilation updated" on the GW Warhammer discussion forum (http://uk.games-workshop.com/forums/warhammer/ ).

I would not count it as official, since it does not mention anywhere that it is in any way official (and there is an actual official FAQ on the Warhammer Chronicles section of the website).

GW does have an aversion to clarity when it comes to making something official. But these Q&A have been on the GW website Since April of 2004 without change. I certainly consider them to be more authoritative then anything we come up with here, even if most folks think they're wrong.

My original statement for all occassions was:

We can only do what the rules say we can do and GW can make any rules they want.

It's their universe. We just play in it. Of course, any players can agree to play in a different way, but personally I'd rather have a clear set of rules so I can spend more time playing and less time negotiating.


For tournaments, it is up to individual tournament organisers to decide what is being used. Personally I think it is quite a tall order to require a tournament participant to venture to the wild, troll-infested, gretchin-invaded and poorly organised GW forums to get necessary materials
Or they can simply state that the rules there are official for their tournaments or they can say nothing and let players roll a die.

I like the rules online like this. I can find things easily with the find function as long as I have a word or two I remember. I just wish it were all in one place.

Mage Ith

Atrahasis
30-12-2005, 15:54
GW does have an aversion to clarity when it comes to making something official. But these Q&A have been on the GW website Since April of 2004 without change.

That would be a very good argument, if the design team had anything whatsoever to do with the maintenance of the Q&A thread on the forum.

They haven't, in fact they try their very hardest NOT to become involved with it. There are answers in that Q&A thread which have been there since before the last Chronicles/Annual, but which did not make it into print while others did.

I'd say that was compelling evidence that the thread cannot be trusted.

Also, with regard to the quote from the rulebook page 268. Its a cop out. Its a blanket statement that excuses any and all failings in the ruleset.
It is possible to write a ruleset that has both clarity and sense. The fact that GW have failed in their efforts so far speaks more to their failings than to the possibility of the goal.

mageith
30-12-2005, 16:37
Also, with regard to the quote from the rulebook page 268. Its a cop out.
Somehow I knew you'd feel that way.



Its a blanket statement that excuses any and all failings in the ruleset.
It is possible to write a ruleset that has both clarity and sense.

Gav has saying. 'We'll never beat the rules lawyers. There's too many of them.' He's said to me personally when I got a litte too lawyerly.



The fact that GW have failed in their efforts so far speaks more to their failings than to the possibility of the goal.
They've only failed in their efforts if their effort was to create a perfectly clear rulebook.

What you deem a cop out is, per them, merely an allocation of resources. I do agree that if they'd let the rulebook out to such folks as you to edit, once you pledged to secrecy, and perhaps a dozen or half dozen others, they'd probably have less problems with clarity. But they all wouldn't go away either.

BTW: When GW does issue a Q&A, should it be based on their intention or on the hard wording of the rules? I think the answer depends on what one thinks their goals are. I play WFB because I want a simulation of a magical universe overlayed upon a romanticized medieval world. Maybe I'm too much of a dreamer. I'm not really interested in a game where I can pull a rule out of my book and hit someone over the head with it.

Mage Ith

Griefbringer
30-12-2005, 16:49
BTW: When GW does issue a Q&A, should it be based on their intention or on the hard wording of the rules? I think the answer depends on what one thinks their goals are.

I won't mind changing the occasional poor rule, but that is what errata is for.

Q&A and FAQ should be reserved for clarifications on vague points, not for introducing new or changing existing rules.

mageith
30-12-2005, 17:09
Q&A and FAQ should be reserved for clarifications on vague points, not for introducing new or changing existing rules.
Is the line hard and fast? In this issue, it probably is. I prefer errata but Q&A are good enough.

For example, this very issue of this thread, Peg knights running through difficult terrain almost as fast as they fly over it. How big a deal is this really? Apparently Anthony thought it was because he made a quick response to it.

GW's real 'mistake' is making heavily armored heavy hitting flying cav as a skirmishing unit in the first place. I've got them, but only used them once. They made me feel dirty.

We now have monster pegasi and skirmisher pegasi and folks are confused. IMO, they should have been monsters. Alas, it was not to be.

Mage Ith

Atrahasis
30-12-2005, 18:34
They've only failed in their efforts if their effort was to create a perfectly clear rulebook. If they don't care enough to want to produce a clear rulebook, then I would question their position.


I do agree that if they'd let the rulebook out to such folks as you to edit, once you pledged to secrecy, and perhaps a dozen or half dozen others, they'd probably have less problems with clarity. But they all wouldn't go away either.

The number of problems would be reduced by at least 90%, probably more. GW already release the rules to playtesters, but the system they employ is flawed, with the playtesting focussed away from making the rules clearer, and seemingly solely aimed at assessment of the mechanic. That would be fine, if the mechanic was clearly communicated in the rules. It isn't, and page 268 doesn't help either, as the "official" Q&A is often counterintuitive.


BTW: When GW does issue a Q&A, should it be based on their intention or on the hard wording of the rules?If they are issuing a Q&A, then it should be based on teh hard wording of the rules. If they want to change the rules to better reflect intent, they should use errata. Anything else only generates more conflict and confusion.


I'm not really interested in a game where I can pull a rule out of my book and hit someone over the head with it.Nor am I, which is precisely why I want the rules to be clear. If they are clear, then NO-ONE, rules lawyer or not, can twist the rules to their advantage.
Victory over those who exploit loopholes will not be gained by hand-waving and pompous postulating about the spirit of the game, but by removing the loopholes in a systematic and efficient manner. Beat them at their own game, as it were.

The attitude that "you know what we mean" is a worthy response to rules issues is fundamentally flawed. In a friendly game (and even after 4 years of committed tournament play, I have had scarce unfriendly games) it is rarely a problem, but in those few cases where an overly competitive attitude hold sway (or even where genuinely differing interpretations clash) there is little choice but to side with the more strict reading of the rules, especially in a tournament environment where walking away rewards the opponent rather than punishing them.

Intent is impossible to distil from ambiguous and contradictory rules without a hotline to the author. Most gamers are not fortunate enough to have access to such a facility, and so must rely on the rules. The rules should therefore be clear, and where ambiguity is found, it should be corrected.

For the most part, the Q&As are superfluous. Most answer questions that need no clarification that a slow and thorough reading of the relevant rule will not give, while the rest offer interpretations which cannot possibly be gleaned from the naked rule.

I do not expect that GW should produce a ruleset that is flawless, only that they make every reasonable effort to approach that goal. The current proofreading system is obviously flawed (if within 5 minutes of reading a book I can find a dozen problems, then the book has, quite frankly, not been thoroughly checked), as is the [almost non-existant] post-production support. Ogre Kingdoms still has no official clarifications/errata months after release, and I doubt Wood Elves will have any soon either.

mageith
30-12-2005, 18:57
If they don't care enough to want to produce a clear rulebook, then I would question their position.

Accountanst have a a saying when somebody wants something Right Now!

"Do you want it now or do you want it right?"

Many times I have read where the designers admit to being rushed into production. The real world all too often impinges upon our fantasy.



If they are issuing a Q&A, then it should be based on teh hard wording of the rules. If they want to change the rules to better reflect intent, they should use errata. Anything else only generates more conflict and confusion.

We'll just have to disagree here. The rules are so massive that intuitive Q&A would make more sense to me that rules based on the hard wording. In my experience, that's how players play anyway. Most of my opponents don't look up rules during the game.



Nor am I, which is precisely why I want the rules to be clear. If they are clear, then NO-ONE, rules lawyer or not, can twist the rules to their advantage.

I think you are a dreamer here. Theoretically what you say is true. There will always be rules to debate. Even you hope for only 90% improvement. :)



Victory over those who exploit loopholes will not be gained by hand-waving and pompous postulating about the spirit of the game, but by removing the loopholes in a systematic and efficient manner. Beat them at their own game, as it were.

"pompous postulating"! Very nice. Count me in!

This can be done with a computer game, but in a game with paper rules, I think its too much. But perhaps we will one day be able to Google our questions during a game and get instant answers.



The attitude that "you know what we mean" is a worthy response to rules issues is fundamentally flawed. In a friendly game (and even after 4 years of committed tournament play, I have had scarce unfriendly games) it is rarely a problem, but in those few cases where an overly competitive attitude hold sway (or even where genuinely differing interpretations clash) there is little choice but to side with the more strict reading of the rules, especially in a tournament environment where walking away rewards the opponent rather than punishing them.

I'd be interested in an overly competive rules question that would side with the more 'spiritual' side of things. I'm sure this happens, but when it does, I usually give in anyway, unless the rule is nearly perfectly clear that contradicts it.

I'm not saying that "you know what we mean" is the guide but that when a Q&A is issued, the issuer restates more clearly what they mean so we can get on with the game.



Intent is impossible to distil from ambiguous and contradictory rules without a hotline to the author.

I most definitely disagree here. We have lots of clues. There's fluff and there's reality that helps.



Most gamers are not fortunate enough to have access to such a facility, and so must rely on the rules. The rules should therefore be clear, and where ambiguity is found, it should be corrected.

I'm for that.



I do not expect that GW should produce a ruleset that is flawless, only that they make every reasonable effort to approach that goal.

I think they do with the emphasis on 'reasonable'. At least the designers, within their resources, do their best. Management makes decisions balancing profitability with product. For you and me, they could certainly put more resources to their rules product, but alas, you and I may not be where the profit lies.

Mage Ith

Griefbringer
31-12-2005, 18:43
Is the line hard and fast? In this issue, it probably is. I prefer errata but Q&A are good enough.


Well, I guess there is a gray area somewhere between errata and FAQ, but things clearly belonging to errata should be put there.

And for the flak given, I would say that rules wise the Bretonnian book is not that bad - the only really problematic point is the pegasus knights, most other issues are just minor vague wordings.

And happy new year for everyone!

Darius Rhiannon
31-12-2005, 20:26
An interesting point is raised here. Longelevity of products.

The Dwarf book (the only 6th ed re-leased) had a shelf life of 6 years. That means rushing it, or not hiring a proper editor is going to cause confusion for 6 or more years.

Is it perhaps better to spend more time on the books and less time on such things as "Zombie Pirate" and "Goblar Horde" lists?

So I think the solution is threefold
1) Make sure that the Army Book designers have a very good understanding of the rules and their interactions.
2) Make sure that rules which deliberately break the rules of the core game (Pegasus Knights US and skirmishing ground movement and -1 to hit as well as salamanders for similar) are clearly and unambigously explained.
3) Seperate the fluff of the rule, from the actual effect of the rule. Italics would be good for this.

Gorbad Ironclaw
31-12-2005, 20:58
And for the flak given, I would say that rules wise the Bretonnian book is not that bad - the only really problematic point is the pegasus knights, most other issues are just minor vague wordings.


Well, no. There is still the issue of the Grail Shield(I think thats the name), and how that actually work(it's a yes and no question for god sake!).
And of course, someone also rewrote the magic resistance rules in a Q&A because someone couldn't write the damsel rules properly...

Griefbringer
31-12-2005, 21:38
And of course, someone also rewrote the magic resistance rules in a Q&A because someone couldn't write the damsel rules properly...

But is that a problem of the Q&A or the Bretonnian book? The damsel rules work perfectly fine straight out of the book.

Atrahasis
01-01-2006, 11:40
But is that a problem of the Q&A or the Bretonnian book? The damsel rules work perfectly fine straight out of the book.

Both. The book was written incorrectly because the designer didn't understand MR, and then the Q&A was written incorrectly because the designer didn't understand MR.

I'll admit that the Bret book is nowhere near as bad as the OK book, though, where Butchers have the privilege of paying 5 points to make spells harder to cast.

T10
01-01-2006, 22:31
Well, no. There is still the issue of the Grail Shield(I think thats the name), and how that actually work(it's a yes and no question for god sake!).

Huh? The Grail Shield out of the Bretonnia book has the effect that the bearer has a 4+ Ward save, courtesy of the Lady's Blessing. If the blessing is lost, so is the Ward save - as normal.

I cannot see how this can misunderstood.

-T10

Griefbringer
01-01-2006, 22:57
I think the Great Grail Shield Debate was about whether the enhanced ward save only applies to the shield bearer himself, or if it also extends to any pegasus/hippogriff ridden by the said shield bearer (since the regular blessing extends to such mounts). I guess it could be argued either way.

Other minor issues I have seen debated here on the Warseer include the details of the virtue granting killing blow, and the usage of Sword of Quest on foot one-handed with a shield (an occurrence rather unlikely to happen in an actual game, due to Bretonnian characters rarely fighting on foot).