PDA

View Full Version : Incantaion of Smiting and Close Combat Panic Tests



Gazak Blacktoof
09-06-2009, 12:44
I've been doing a rewrite of the tomb king rules at home (used in about a dozen games so far) which attempts to clarify a few rules as well as help to balance the book. Something popped into my head last night, I'm unsure what the interpretation is regarding the current rules and also which option to take when re-writing the rule.

The rules for the incantation of smiting (p.35 of the TK book) state that when used on a unit engaged in close combat the unit fights their enemy, however "There is no combat resolution, but if enough casualties are caused the enemy unit must take a Panic test."

However the BRB p.48 says, "units engaged in close combat never take Psychology tests (Panic, Fear, Terror and Stupidity)."


So, two questions-

1) Do the current rules indicate a panic test should be taken currently?

2) Should new rules remove the panic test implications in close combat or include an explicit exception to the BRB "no Panic" rule?



I found this (http://warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=90350&highlight=incantation+panic) thread on the topic.

Thank you for your time.

Gazak

kramplarv
09-06-2009, 13:05
I would say, to keep it smooth that the unit don't take a panic test. :)

Falkman
09-06-2009, 13:15
The Incantation of Smiting also works on shooting troops right?
Is it possible that the panic part refers to that?

Gazak Blacktoof
09-06-2009, 13:41
No it definitely refers to close combat attacks (though you can obviously cause them with shooting as well).

"There is no combat resolution, but if enough casualties are caused the enemy unit must take a Panic test".

I'll edit the first post to avoid further confusion.

Milgram
09-06-2009, 13:51
without having the whole paragraph right in front of me, it sounds to me like a conclusion sentence. 'there is no combat resolution (for close combat), but if enough casualities are caused (by shooting), the enemy unit must take a panic test'.

that would be stressing the point, that it is treated like a spell causing 25% casualties. iirc in the 6th edition, the 25% casualties per phase were not as clearly worded as they are now. I think there was only magic/shooting mentionned - while today it is just 25% casualties in any phase, no matter if your opponent or yourself cause then (yes, you can get 25% casualties in close combat phase without being in combat, e.g. fleeing chariots, falling giants and the like).

Gazak Blacktoof
09-06-2009, 14:09
As I mentioned, the context is clear, the text refers to close combat. The rules have changed so that in 7th a unit no longer (normally) takes panic, fear or terror tests in combat.

As can be seen from the link to the other thread the rules issue is whether the tomb king rules trump those of the BRB and count as an exception or whether they should instead be ignored as a legacy from a previous edition.

r019nd
09-06-2009, 14:13
The usual GW line is army book over rules the BRB. eg Mark of Khorne in the old Hordes of Chaos book

EvC
09-06-2009, 14:14
Old rule, units in combat never take psychology tests. As is mentioned in the other thread, no amount of casualties will ever cause a unit in combat to take a panic test, so it is never possible to cause "enough" casualties for a panic check to happen.

Falkman
09-06-2009, 14:47
The usual GW line is army book over rules the BRB. eg Mark of Khorne in the old Hordes of Chaos book
No, the usual line is "newest book first".
Back when the Tomb Kings armybook was written, units could indeed suffer from panic tests while in combat.
As 7th ed changed this, and Gazak cleared up the wording of the rule (thanks :)) I'd say that the attacks caused by Smiting in combat does not invoke a panic test, since the unit being attacked is immune to it.

Caine Mangakahia
09-06-2009, 22:37
No, the usual line is "newest book first".
Back when the Tomb Kings armybook was written, units could indeed suffer from panic tests while in combat.
As 7th ed changed this, and Gazak cleared up the wording of the rule (thanks :)) I'd say that the attacks caused by Smiting in combat does not invoke a panic test, since the unit being attacked is immune to it.

By that reasoning , does that mean that units affected (not targeted remember) by the Casket of Souls don't benefit from MR as per the new rules?

Falkman
09-06-2009, 23:09
By that reasoning , does that mean that units affected (not targeted remember) by the Casket of Souls don't benefit from MR as per the new rules?
I would say that is correct, yes.

Gazak Blacktoof
09-06-2009, 23:27
What about the second question? Should a new version provide an exception or should I remove reference to panic from smiting?

I'm thinking that to keep things simple and limit the exceptions to general rules it probably shouldn't cause panic- its rare that you cause enough casualties anyway so I'm not sure that it would be remembered and used anyway.

++++++++++++

Yes, the casket avoids MR at the moment. I've altered it in our house rules so that it works with magic resistance and isn't nerfed by it- D3 targeted "shots" that hit units with LOS to the casket, striking the closest unit unit first, second closest next, etc.

tarrasque
09-06-2009, 23:42
i would remove the reference it clearly points to a 6th edition rule.
and seeing the rules of a casket does not mention MR the errata rules apply because they are 'younger' and errata >>>>>>FAQ

btw i am interested in this rewrite can you share this doc whit me or keep me posted on your progress/ problems?

Falkman
10-06-2009, 01:24
What about the second question? Should a new version provide an exception or should I remove reference to panic from smiting?
It doesn't matter whether you put it in or not, the unit is in close combat and thus immune to panic either way :p

Thus I would say any reference to panic is just wasted text space.

Isabel
10-06-2009, 08:06
If it's house rules, maybe just change it to allow any wounds to count towards that rounds combat results? It would seem GW intended for the spell to have some effect beyond just the attacks since it states(even though it's not valid any longer) that it can cause a panic. Maybe just translate that into combat results for the latest edition. TK are out of date and I dont think that is even close to over powering them. I know with a good player behind the army they can keep up with the majority of other armies but allowing 1 attack per model to count towards combat results isnt too bad. Unless of course you get real lucky with a bone giant and that 1 attack turns into alot more...

Gazak Blacktoof
10-06-2009, 09:50
It doesn't matter whether you put it in or not, the unit is in close combat and thus immune to panic either way

If its specific enough you can obviously negate or modify any preexisting rule so that's not a particular issue- in its current state its ambiguous, though the intent in 6th was obviously to have it cause panic (occasionally).


btw i am interested in this rewrite can you share this doc whit me or keep me posted on your progress/ problems?

Its not really ready for public consumption yet, one of the problems with the rules development forum is people posting ideas for alterations that are completely untested- sometimes they're good but in other instances they simply clog up the forum. I'd say its about 2-3 months of game play off being ready and I want to include some modelling and alternative model ideas for units that aren't available from GW.

I'll send you a PM when I post it.


If it's house rules, maybe just change it to allow any wounds to count towards that rounds combat results?

Its worth testing, though the Destroyer of Eternities might need to be modified.

Falkman
10-06-2009, 10:53
If its specific enough you can obviously negate or modify any preexisting rule so that's not a particular issue- in its current state its ambiguous, though the intent in 6th was obviously to have it cause panic (occasionally).
I do not agree here.
The Tomb Kings book tells you to take a panic test, but since you are in combat you can not take it, hence the effect from the Tomb Kings book is negated.
It's much the same as a Screaming Skull catapult shooting and scattering into combat, the unit getting hit does not take the panic test because the rules explicitly says they don't.

Isabel
10-06-2009, 12:11
There are many cases where army book rules contradict and override the core rulebook rules. The core rules even state that individual army book rules can override core rules. I believe that was his reasoning in that statment which is a sound argument to me. Though TK is definatly an outdated book and I wouldnt apply this rule in a game, I can see why someone would see it this way.

Outdated books need some love too.

Falkman
10-06-2009, 12:34
There are many cases where army book rules contradict and override the core rulebook rules. The core rules even state that individual army book rules can override core rules.
I am fully aware of this. However in this case there is no contradiction.
The TK rules tells you to take a Panic test, but the core rules make you immune to it.
It's the same as if the unit was attacking another unit that has ItP, the rules tell him to take a panic test, but ItP says he doesn't have to.

Tae
10-06-2009, 13:59
I am fully aware of this. However in this case there is no contradiction.
The TK rules tells you to take a Panic test, but the core rules make you immune to it.
It's the same as if the unit was attacking another unit that has ItP, the rules tell him to take a panic test, but ItP says he doesn't have to.


I agree. The only time I can see it overriding the core rules saying you don't have to take a test is if the spell/effect specifically overrode this exception.

i.e. "a unit suffering casualties must take an immediate panic test even if they are immune to panic" etc. (though I can't actually think of anything currently that includes such a wording)

EvC
10-06-2009, 14:19
The core rules even state that individual army book rules can override core rules.

I'm not sure it does actually say this anywhere to be honest... but it is usually the best way to play the game, anyways.

Avian
10-06-2009, 15:48
It's not really interesting, because it isn't possible to cause enough wounds to force a Panic test on a unit in combat. If it actually said that if a unit suffered 25% casualties, you might have a case, but as long as it says "if enough casualties are caused" and you can't ever get enough casualties in this case, you can't ever cause a Panic test. ;)

Gazak Blacktoof
10-06-2009, 16:18
25% casualties causes a panic test at any time "except the close combat phase" - however smiting is done in the magic phase so that's not an issue.

Avian
10-06-2009, 16:25
25% casualties is not enough to cause a Panic test in a unit that is engaged in combat.

:p

EvC
10-06-2009, 16:28
Indeed, if a unit never takes panic checks, then you can never do enough casualties to make it take a panic check.

Parallel example: if you killed a warmachine crew member with shooting smiting, would that mean you have to take a panic check? No, because the rules say that they don't take panic checks for that reason. So it doesn't matter how many you kill in either situation.

Gazak Blacktoof
10-06-2009, 16:42
Enough casualties is 25%, however you've then got the no panic in close combat rule + the tomb king rule- which is what the thread is about. If the tomb king rule is an exception to the no panic rule then we have a defined value for the number of kills required to cause a panic test. Keep up Avian ;).

Any opinion on clarification / development?

EDIT: Good example EvC.

EvC
10-06-2009, 16:44
Would you also be able to force warmachine crew to take panic checks, if smiting provides an exception?

It's one thing to be arguing that maybe this rules glitch exists, but the clarification/ development is obvious: correct the rule to remove the part about taking the panic check. So obvious you shouldn't even need to ask.

Gazak Blacktoof
10-06-2009, 17:08
Smiting doesn't provide an exception regarding war machine crews, it doesn't actually mention panic with regards to ranged attacks. However if the smiting rules said, "as an exception to the normal rules attacks caused by smiting can cause war machine crews to take panic attacks from ranged attacks" then my answer would be yes.

In the case being discussed (text already quoted in the OP) the tomb king books says that casualties being inflicted upon a unit in close combat through use of smiting can cause a panic test, whilst the general rules tell us that this is impossible.

The question being asked was, "does this constitute an exception?"

My last few posts have been in response to Avian's suggestion that there's no such thing as "enough". That argument falls away entirely if the Tomb King rules are an exception to the general rule.



The crux of the choice for clarification and development comes down to preference (which is what I was trying to establish), ease of use and balance. To refer to either choice as correct implies that you believe the other choice is inherently wrong.

Draconian77
10-06-2009, 17:18
Well, if it was me writing it I'd remove the reference to causing Panic checks in close combat, that is a hangover(or holdover ;)) from the last edition as far as I can see.

I would also be interested in getting a copy of this re-write, I could even do some beta-testing if you want, I've been itching to use my Tomb Kings for a while now. :D

EvC
10-06-2009, 17:22
The crux of the choice for clarification and development comes down to preference (which is what I was trying to establish), ease of use and balance. To refer to either choice as correct implies that you believe the other choice is inherently wrong.

Yes, I do believe that. It's clearly a 6th edition reference to a 6th edition rule that no longer exists. If you're updating an army book for clearer use in 7th edition, then you should obviously be removing 6th edition holdovers.

Avian
10-06-2009, 19:10
My last few posts have been in response to Avian's suggestion that there's no such thing as "enough". That argument falls away entirely if the Tomb King rules are an exception to the general rule.

There may or may not be such a thing as enough, but the TK book doesn't say what that IS. Thus we go back to the rulebook and find that in plenty of cases, you can't do enough wounds to cause Panic tests as the unit might not be taking Panic tests for whatever reason.

There is no contradiction between the army book and rulebook in this case, because the army book never gives a number.

lparigi34
10-06-2009, 19:42
@Falkman et al.

I think the OP is right when he thinks he can handle this via exception (anyway, it was allowed during 6th, so I do not see the issue here).

However, modifying that rule to make it as it is now was, IMHO a great move, since it make a few things a lot less complicated. So my position is that the panic test of units engaged in CC should be avoided at all (as should be avoided all rules that are blatant deviations from the game core mechanics).

However I think there are ways around to include its effect by, as an example, affecting the next CC phase. My ideas.

A) Negatively affecting an enemy unit.

1.- If a unit in CC is wounded, by IoS induced attacks, it will only hit on 6's in the next CC phase.

2.- If a unit in CC is wounded, by IoS induced attacks, it will attack last in the next CC phase.

3.- If a unit in CC is wounded, by IoS induced attacks, it has to take a Ld test, if failed the unit will not blow any hits the next CC phase.

or B) Positively affecting friendly units.

4.- If a friendly unit in CC wounds and enemy, due to IoS, it gains ASF (or hits on 2+, or gains Frenzy, or Poison, or KB, or more than one of this benefits) the next CC phase (I believe this is the most in line with GW current trend).

5.- If a friendly unit in CC wounds and enemy, due to IoS, all wounds will count for the CR of the next CC phase (already mentioned)

So, IMHO, and if you like any of the above, you can play test it and see which fits better and is more balanced.

Avian
11-06-2009, 08:37
There is no need to modify the spell - it is very rarely going to cause 25% casualties anyway because khemrian undead just aren't very good fighters. Thus not being able to cause Panic tests is an insignificant downside and it works just about the same in 7th edition as in 6th.