PDA

View Full Version : Netters v's Ethereal



Nuada
14-06-2009, 20:32
....bit of a pedantic question here.

The rules for ethereal creatues states that they can't be wounded by a non-magical attack. Netters don't actually wound the enemy, they reduce the strength. So do netters affect ethereal creatues?


Doesn't seem right that they can. I imagine all non-magical attacks passing through them, so why would a net entangle them.

theunwantedbeing
14-06-2009, 20:33
Yes, they do work.

Da GoBBo
14-06-2009, 20:58
Silly, but true.

Nuada
14-06-2009, 21:00
I think that's a loop hole. I know the rule specifically says "can't be wounded by mundane attacks", personally i'd say the nets go through the ethereal creature. They aren't magic nets. (and this is from an O&G player)

It's reminds of the "flame cannons don't have flammable attacks" debate. Until GW released an FAQ saying "yes they count as flammable" people said they weren't

StanMcKim
14-06-2009, 21:43
I dunno, the ethereal creatures could be so busy laughing at the goblins trying to net them that they forget to hit as hard :P

sulla
14-06-2009, 21:53
Silly, but true.

:DAgreed. Besides, it's not like O&G don't need every advantage they can get vs VC...

xragg
15-06-2009, 01:17
You can also imagine the nets as a distraction (kinda like a bull fighter and his red cape) more then actually netting the attacker. The distraction is enough to equate to a -1str attack, but being goblins, they once in a while get tangled in their own "capes". Its all fluff; just another way to look to make the RaW fit with the fluff.

Lord Dan
15-06-2009, 01:32
Or you pretend the nets are something else entirely. Like those trapping machines used in Ghost Busters.

Kevlar
15-06-2009, 02:04
Or you just use common sense and say if swords don't work nets won't either. I'd take their rule to be them not affected by non-magical attacks to include attacks that don't cause wounds directly but have other effects. Unless nets say they work on creatures only affected by magical attacks then they don't. Attacks that count as magical even though they are from mundane sources are specifically outlined in their rules section, like warpstone weapons or grail knight attacks.

Lord Dan
15-06-2009, 04:38
I'd take their rule to be them not affected by non-magical attacks to include attacks that don't cause wounds directly but have other effects.

That's sort of a broad inference to make, especially since no where in the description for the "netters" special rule is it declared to be an attack of any kind. I've included the two sets of ellipses because the first part is fluff and the last part describes the rules for the goblins netting their own unit on the roll of a 1:

Netters (Pg 24, O&G Army book): "...At the start of each close combat phase, a unit that contains nets must attempt to entangle one of the units they are fighting. Roll a D6. On the roll of a 2-6, the enemy unit has become entangled and suffers a -1 penalty to their strength until the end of the turn. ..."

There is no "attack" made. In addition, the "Ethereal" rule is quite express in the fact that the rule ONLY pertains to wounding:

Ethereal Creatures (pg. 48): "Ethereal creatures can't be wounded except by spells and magical attacks or effects".

The implication from the fluff is something like: "because they are ghosts, clearly nothing can touch them." However from a rules standpoint, nowhere does it say they can't be hit by anything non-magical (In fact they actually can be "hit" in combat, you just won't hurt them in the subsequent wounding phase). The rule only pertains to them being wounded, but does not pertain to anything that would modify some other aspect of their statline.

As nets do not wound them, they are a weird loophole in the rule.

Kevlar
15-06-2009, 07:15
Unless the nets description says they work on ethereal creatures they don't. There is no loophole.

Milgram
15-06-2009, 07:40
uhm... why should they say 'it works on ethereal creatures'? it has no effect that is excluded by the ethereal rules. you just interpret something into the ethereal rules that is just not there. purely fluffwise argumentation. why should nets work on a bone giant? he is to big to be affected! why should a whiplash do any damage to a steam tank?

please stop arguing with fluff as if it would be rules. stating that 'put into the pocket' from the giant and 'nets' do not affect ethereal creatures finds no foundation in the rules.

neXus6
15-06-2009, 07:51
You can also imagine the nets as a distraction (kinda like a bull fighter and his red cape) more then actually netting the attacker. The distraction is enough to equate to a -1str attack, but being goblins, they once in a while get tangled in their own "capes". Its all fluff; just another way to look to make the RaW fit with the fluff.

I'd certainly see it that way, a ghost would probably find you waving a net through its head rather off putting. :p

As for the "pick up and" with the giant, I've got an image of the giant scooping up the ethereal target in something and pocketing that, or throwing that at the enemy. :D

Nuada
15-06-2009, 08:00
Yeah, it's a silly loophole Kevlar. I don't agree with it myself, but as some have pointed out at what stage do you stop with common sense rules.

To make it more realistic i suppose you could imagine the ethereal weapons become solid at the last second to wound their opponent, and this is when the nets reduce the strength. Clutching at straws there, but at the moment RAW does say they work .

PeG
15-06-2009, 08:13
I would say that this is an easy one. Etheral rules only talk about them being wounded by non-magical weapons and nothing else. If you want to interpret their rules as that this means that they are entirely ghost like and have no substance and therefore cant be effeced by nets or anything else maybe you should also considering making the conclusion that they actually cant hurt anything either since they dont have any substance in their weapons. Maybe they are ghosts carrying normal weapons which is why they can hit people and why netters can can have an effect.

Nuada
15-06-2009, 09:17
....you should also considering making the conclusion that they actually cant hurt anything either since they dont have any substance in their weapons. Maybe they are ghosts carrying normal weapons which is why they can hit people and why netters can can have an effect.

It does say in their fluff that the weapons are ethereal as well. The weapons pass through their victim and drain the life force.

I guess for them a double handed weapon just has more energy draining ability. Or something along those lines.

ZoomDog
15-06-2009, 10:46
Unless the nets description says they work on ethereal creatures they don't. There is no loophole.

It also doesn't say it works on Elves, so they don't! Sweet!

Personally I'd go with; They run around a lot (chasing squigs, running from Orcs, etc) so they sweat a lot. Since they eat a lot of magic mushrooms, it stands to reason that some of that magic juice comes out in their sweat. This magic sweat then seeps into the ropes of the nets, making them magic. Therefore they affect ethereal units.

Colonel Cleric
15-06-2009, 10:51
I dunno, the ethereal creatures could be so busy laughing at the goblins trying to net them that they forget to hit as hard :P

Rofl, that works.

Memnos
15-06-2009, 10:54
Unless the nets description says they work on ethereal creatures they don't. There is no loophole.

Yeah. Sorry, Kevlar. It hates to be the odd man out, but it's pretty unanimous. The rules mention that Ethereal creatures aren't affected by wounds, but say nothing about 'Not affected by strength penalties'.

Therefore, nets work on them. The rules are very clear on what Ethereal does for you, and 'Ignore goblin nets' is not one of the functions.

Griefbringer
15-06-2009, 11:10
Perhaps the night goblin shamans put some enchantments and wards to the nets before the battle to make them have an effect on the ethereals?

"Dem spooky gitz, dem is da skumboes. Ya clubba dem n' ya stikka dem, but dem iz all likez no hurty. Dis time we gobboez be really kunning sneakiez, n' we putz on da webz da magik WAAARGH glyphz dat makes dem spookiez go all weak n' panzy."

ZoomDog
15-06-2009, 11:46
Perhaps the night goblin shamans put some enchantments and wards to the nets before the battle to make them have an effect on the ethereals?

But then why wouldn't he put the same enchantment on their weapons?
Nope, clearly the magic sweat. :P

Nuada
15-06-2009, 12:16
So if you net a unit of dryads they don't get their ward save, because they are entangled by a magic net? :D (kidding)

Griefbringer
15-06-2009, 12:28
But then why wouldn't he put the same enchantment on their weapons?


Hey, we are talking about night goblins here - do not expect them to think too logically! We are talking about folks who think that having cave squigs as pets is a good idea.

And perhaps the said enchantment only works with nets? Magic is a fickle thing, and will not necessarily work everywhere equally.

Mercules
15-06-2009, 14:54
Unless the nets description says they work on ethereal creatures they don't. There is no loophole.

Backwards thinking...

Unless the Ethereal rule says it affects something it does not. The Ethereal rule clearly states they can not be wounded. It does not state anything to the effect that they can not be affected by non-magical means. If a model had a special rule: "Trap - The first time this unit is charged roll a D6. On any roll but a 1 the unit has had time to set traps and lure the enemy into them. Each model in the front rank makes an Init check or is removed from play. Characters and unit Champions get a LoS check as normal to avoid this fate." and Ethereal's charged it, they could be removed from play by it since it doesn't WOUND. :)

Lord Dan
15-06-2009, 15:49
Unless the nets description says they work on ethereal creatures they don't. There is no loophole.

I went out of my way to find rules justification for my position. Rather than completely ignoring my points and stubbornly repeating yourself, you might want to find some way to back up your claims.

IrishDelinquent
15-06-2009, 17:22
The big issue here is that everyone people still think of the netters like a special model in the unit, like they were in the old book. They are a unit upgrade, like buying a standard for the unit. The effect of said upgrade is to reduce the strength of one unit that the Night Goblins are engaged with by 1 on a roll of 2+. It is not an attack in any sense. Therefore, being Ethereal has no effect on netters.

Da GoBBo
15-06-2009, 17:47
You can also imagine the nets as a distraction (kinda like a bull fighter and his red cape) more then actually netting the attacker.

That's why they are immune to psychology as well ;)



Or you just use common sense and say if swords don't work nets won't either.

Give the man a medal :) You can't touch a wraith, neither can a net. That doesn't make it true ruleswise though. Houserule material.


Unless the nets description says they work on ethereal creatures they don't. There is no loophole.

That's nonsens ... from a rules point of view. Nets work on anything unless said otherwise, which is not done by the rules for ethereal creatures.


It also doesn't say it works on Elves, so they don't! Sweet!

ROFL :D

Urgat
15-06-2009, 18:53
The nets are made out of those magic fungus, there you go if you want a reason :p
Anyway, Lord Dan resumed the thing pretty well.

Chicago Slim
16-06-2009, 01:34
Yeah, sorry, Kevlar-- you are, of course, welcome to play it however you want, and if you felt really strongly about it in a friendly game, I'd probably shrug and say "have it your way" rather than arguing the point.

That said, the rules are VERY clearly against you. If you feel a need to justify why the imaginary ghosts are affected by nets carried by imaginary goblins, then I'll suggest that the goblins wave the things around, making it harder for the imaginary ghosts to get a clear shot at the imaginary goblins... with the net effect that the real dice need an extra pip in order to justify removal of the real model... :)

Dranthar
16-06-2009, 01:57
I'd say that nets work on spirit hosts because the spirit hosts remember their traumatic deaths at the hands of the deadly, net armed night goblins. Such a terrifying experience does not leave you as you pass into the realm of the dead, and so the spirit hosts will cower in unbridled horror at the sight of the nets being cast over their ethereal bodies.

Either that, or they just dip the nets in holy water (holy fungus?), like every army does with poisoned weapons against the undead. ;)

Bac5665
16-06-2009, 02:42
This isn't a rules question. This is complaining that GW didn't think of every possible match up when writing their rules and let one rule combo go that is silly to people who think too much about the fluff.

Da GoBBo
16-06-2009, 09:09
It doesn't need a whole lot of thinking to reach this question since nets should indeed pass through anything ethereal. Common sense, just like Kevlar said. It is not reflected in the rules so it's allways fun to come up with fluffy explanations of why someting would work the way they do.

narrativium
16-06-2009, 09:39
A unit can charge an ethereal unit. It may not be able to do any damage against the ethereal models, but it can still win on combat resolution and it can hold an ethereal unit in place, since ethereal doesn't allow the unit to break voluntarily from combat. The counter-argument in this thread would seem to suggest the ethereal unit could move away freely if it wished.

The simple presence of the non-ethereal unit seems to be enough to restrict the ethereal unit's actions in some way. I see no contradiction in the netters being able to use their skill.

Da GoBBo
16-06-2009, 09:54
It's like Nuada said, where do you draw the line with common sense ruling to keep the game goin? Bein able to just walk out of combat is silly (nasty warhawks :D), but I don't see why making ethereal creatures unaffected by nets is either unfluffy or bad for the game.

Milgram
16-06-2009, 11:06
there is a bunch of other non-magical things that affect ethereal creatures. let us start with the MoN and some giant attacks.

I don't see why keep ethereal creatures affected by nets should be unfluffy or bad for the game. so why should we agree that it is common sense to assume there is a need for a new rule? why shouldn't we just stick to RAW when RAW is as common sense as non-Raw is common sense? I just fail to see why ethereals should get an exception for nets when other units, that shouldn't get affected by nets don't. e.g. should a wardancer get a initiative or WS roll in order to determine, whether he can get through the net or not, because he is oh-so-skilly and would evade the nets in 99% of the time.

selone
16-06-2009, 11:46
I don't see this as being the same as the flame cannon not doing flaming wounds debarcle. A flame cannon not doing flaming wounds was clearly an oversight of the rules, whereas nets reducing ethereal troops strength by 1 is quirky.
It may not make that much sense if you look at it too hard from a 'reality' perspective but I'm not sure it is intended that nets shouldn't work on ethereal troops. As said ethereal troops are just immune to non magic wounds.

Nuada
16-06-2009, 13:58
I don't see this as being the same as the flame cannon not doing flaming wounds debarcle. A flame cannon not doing flaming wounds was clearly an oversight of the rules, whereas nets reducing ethereal troops strength by 1 is quirky.
It may not make that much sense if you look at it too hard from a 'reality' perspective but I'm not sure it is intended that nets shouldn't work on ethereal troops. As said ethereal troops are just immune to non magic wounds.

Got to disagree with you there my friend. I think it's another case of a badly written rule. It's a regular occurance in the army books, when they write special rules they don't seem to consider existing books with rules that might clash.

The netters entangle the enemy, not distract them. As the rule stands now it's a loophole, with only one obvious answer.

Personally i think it's RAW v's RAI, but some may disagree :) But as was mentioned, it's not a rules query any more, it's turned into a complaint about one word.

Lewis
16-06-2009, 14:09
I think the ethereal rules are very specific for the very broad power they represent. Ghosts should be able to sink into the ground and jump out on people yelling "boo" from a fluff point of view. From a fluf point of view thy should be able to end their move inside impassable terrain but they can't. Ghosts should ignore armour saves as they can pass through the armour, logically speaking,but they don't.The rules don't represent "what a ghost would be able to do" but a set of very specific streamlined rules to give you the flavour of it. It says unaffected by attacks, that's what it means and nothng else.

EvC
16-06-2009, 15:36
Yarp. Either you accept that ethereal his its own limitations, such as NOT fully ignoring impassable terrain, not ignoring armour saves ("But it uses a chill attack surely?"), and not ignoring equipment that protects the enemy... or you open up a massive can of worms that sees the ethereals ignoring nets, armour, ending their turns (and their charges too!) in impassable terrain. I'd just go with the very clear rules...

Lord Dan
16-06-2009, 17:43
Yarp. Either you accept that ethereal his its own limitations, such as NOT fully ignoring impassable terrain, not ignoring armour saves ("But it uses a chill attack surely?"), and not ignoring equipment that protects the enemy... or you open up a massive can of worms that sees the ethereals ignoring nets, armour, ending their turns (and their charges too!) in impassable terrain. I'd just go with the very clear rules...

Including the fact that if ethereal units are entirely insubstantial, then they obviously can't physically harm others. ;)

sulla
16-06-2009, 19:28
It's like Nuada said, where do you draw the line with common sense ruling to keep the game goin? Bein able to just walk out of combat is silly (nasty warhawks :D), but I don't see why making ethereal creatures unaffected by nets is either unfluffy or bad for the game.

It's also stupid to allow rank bonuses against etherals... what are they all pushing against? Would you dissallow that too? What about armour saves? Surely the etherals could wait till they passed the enemy's armour before they solidified?

Just play the rules the way they are and don't fret it so much. There are plenty of silly things in warhammer, this is just one more.

Kevlar
16-06-2009, 19:29
We aren't talking about changing core game rules here. We are talking about a specific situation where an enemy model is engaging an ethereal creature with a non magical attack. Ethereal creatures are immune to this type of attack, but since this attack affects one of their stats besides wounds some people think it should work.

I disagree.

I am not looking at it from a rules lawyer perspective, I am looking at it as a game designer would, logically, if asked this question in the form of answering an FAQ.

Mireadur
16-06-2009, 19:45
RAW: netters affect ethereals.
RAI: If ethereals can cross any kind of solid barrier.. As an orc player i would be inclined to not let nets work.

Lord Dan
16-06-2009, 19:51
I don't think they usually FAQ questions unless they cause some kind of rules discrepancy that needs solving. I view rules "lawyering" as just that- arguing for the literal law of the rule when there is an argument both ways that needs resolving. Here there is no such discrepancy other than the fact that you disagree with the rule.

I'll rank this down around the fact that dragons have the same WS as swordmasters and lungless skeletons have horn-blowing musicians. Stuff that doesn't make sense, but certainly don't need FAQs for clarification.

chivalrous
16-06-2009, 20:02
We are talking about a specific situation where an enemy model is engaging an ethereal creature with a non magical attack. Ethereal creatures are immune to this type of attack, but since this attack affects one of their stats besides wounds some people think it should work.

Wrong, at the moment the nets take effect, it is the ethereal creature doing the attacking.

No attack has been made by the goblins against the ethereal creatures to achieve this effect and no attempt by the goblins to wound the ethereal creatures to achieve this effect.

I can understand this discussion continuing for three pages in order to discuss reasons for why ethereal creatures suffer the effects but the stubborn stupidity of people insisting that there's some rule based reason for the nets failing to work against ethereal creatures is moronic.

Mercules
16-06-2009, 20:05
We aren't talking about changing core game rules here. We are talking about a specific situation where an enemy model is engaging an ethereal creature with a non magical attack. Ethereal creatures are immune to this type of attack, but since this attack affects one of their stats besides wounds some people think it should work.

I disagree.

I am not looking at it from a rules lawyer perspective, I am looking at it as a game designer would, logically, if asked this question in the form of answering an FAQ.

Netting is not an ATTACK. If it was it would happen after the other unit's attacks if they had charged you or had ASF thus making it rarely useful. From a game designer position one would be very careful on their wording... unless they worked for GW.


... and lungless skeletons have horn-blowing musicians. Stuff that doesn't make sense, but certainly don't need FAQs for clarification.

You mean those skeletons walking around without muscles or tendons would somehow need lungs to blow a horn? :) Now who is being silly? :)

Chicago Slim
16-06-2009, 20:21
I am not looking at it from a rules lawyer perspective, I am looking at it as a game designer would, logically, if asked this question in the form of answering an FAQ.

Actually, I think that rules lawyers and game designers are pretty similar: they both analyze the logic of the rules. In this particular case, the rules are very clear, very solid, easy to understand, and present no problem whatsoever, unless and until you make up your own stipulations (unsupported by the rest of the rules, nor even the flavor text) about what "ethereal" *ought* to mean.

What you're doing, on the other hand, is easter egg hunting.

Mercules
16-06-2009, 20:53
You mean like someone trying to claim that the Vampire Magic Weapon: Blood Drinker doesn't restore wounds when he is fighting Dryads/Tree Kin/Treemen since they don't have blood?:p

EvC
16-06-2009, 20:54
You can't really bring the undead back to life therefore the walking humanoid fungus auto-wins IMO

Milgram
16-06-2009, 21:24
You mean those skeletons walking around without muscles or tendons would somehow need lungs to blow a horn? :) Now who is being silly? :)


the real issue is the "old" horn blower chaos knight with full plate helmet.

Da GoBBo
16-06-2009, 23:02
Just play the rules the way they are and don't fret it so much. There are plenty of silly things in warhammer, this is just one more.

Well, I'm not really fretting about the rule. It's fine, a bit silly, but fine. If anything, I fret about the fact that 20 people keep jumping up and down on this one poster who thinks nets should be dealt with otherwise. I think everybody here knows how the rule work, nobody is telling it works any other way. Lets face it though, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. You are right, a lot of the corerules should not apply to ethereal creatures, but altering al that would not help the game at all. Don't do that! :) But this net thing ... make a houserule out if it if you want to. It doesn't disturb the game at all since it's very specific. That's all Kevlar is saying and looking at the fluff I agree. Altering the corerules to suit the fluff though? Nope, that doesn't help anybody.

Urgat
17-06-2009, 09:36
Maybe it's also that ethereal units don't really need the extra help of ignoring nets too? I mean I can understand how frightning night gobs can be to cairn wraiths and the like, but still...

Lordmonkey
17-06-2009, 09:55
When there's something strange in the neighborhood...
Who ya gonna call?

NIGHT GOBLINS!

So perhaps the nets have been enchanted by a nearby shaman? Who knows? By the rules, though, they work.

rtunian
17-06-2009, 12:46
Well, I'm not really fretting about the rule. It's fine, a bit silly, but fine. If anything, I fret about the fact that 20 people keep jumping up and down on this one poster who thinks nets should be dealt with otherwise. I think everybody here knows how the rule work, nobody is telling it works any other way. Lets face it though, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. You are right, a lot of the corerules should not apply to ethereal creatures, but altering al that would not help the game at all. Don't do that! :) But this net thing ... make a houserule out if it if you want to. It doesn't disturb the game at all since it's very specific. That's all Kevlar is saying and looking at the fluff I agree. Altering the corerules to suit the fluff though? Nope, that doesn't help anybody.

actually, kevlar is saying that everyone else is wrong, employing the "common sense says this" argument. having a unique opinion on interpretation is one thing, but returning to the thread several times to reiterate "i'm right, you all are wrong" is not going to stop people jumping up and down.

everyone knows you don't stop jumping up and down until either you fail your fall down roll or the combat ends. i think if kevlar lets this combat end, people will stop jumping up and down on him.

EvC
17-06-2009, 13:01
Indeed, once you refer to "common sense" you are saying that anyone who disagrees with you does not have sense, which is a bit prickly.

Griefbringer
17-06-2009, 13:08
When there's something strange in the neighborhood...
Who ya gonna call?

NIGHT GOBLINS!


I think this definitely deserves the "Army Theme of the Week" medal: Ghostbusting Night Goblin army FTW! :evilgrin:

Da GoBBo
17-06-2009, 13:52
Indeed, once you refer to "common sense" you are saying that anyone who disagrees with you does not have sense, which is a bit prickly.

Well, where I come from ethereal means you can't touch etc. the ethereal something. Common sense tells you that such an object would therefor not be entangled by a net. They are immune to psychology so I don't think they will be overly distracted. Common sense tells me nets should not have an effect on wraiths.

Fluffwise I don't see why nets would effect wraiths either.

Gamewise you are correct of course with your earlier can of worms analogy. This only teaches us that rules do not allways display common sense. You agree to play the rules how they are, which is fine, but if someone else points out that the rule doesn't make a whole lot of sense, that doesn't mean said person tells ye you are being daft. It just means that this rule, like many others (Boooing! for squighoppers), doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

Personally I wouldn't alter the rule, but I don't think it would harm if you would alter the net rule if that makes ye happy.

Nuada
17-06-2009, 14:12
Well, where I come from ethereal means you can't touch.

They need to bring out the M.C. Hammer ethereal rules :p

rtunian
17-06-2009, 14:14
common sense also says that the vampire counts, tomb kings, dark elves, high elves, wood elves, orcs and goblins, warriors of chaos, daemons of chaos, beasts of chaos, lizardmen, skaven, dwarves, and ogre kingdoms (did i miss any?) don't exist.

common sense does not apply in a fantasy setting. the end.

Da GoBBo
17-06-2009, 14:25
I can understand if this "debate" tires you, but this just lame. I liked your jumping up and down analogy a lot better :)

Mercules
17-06-2009, 14:38
Well, where I come from ethereal means you can't touch etc. the ethereal something. Common sense tells you that such an object would therefor not be entangled by a net.

e⋅the⋅re⋅al –adjective
1. light, airy, or tenuous: an ethereal world created through the poetic imagination.
2. extremely delicate or refined: ethereal beauty.
3. heavenly or celestial: gone to his ethereal home.
4. of or pertaining to the upper regions of space.
5. Chemistry. pertaining to, containing, or resembling ethyl ether.

Obviously not 3, 4, or 5. Probably not 2. Definition 1 is the winner.

ten·u·ous (těn'yōō-əs)
adj.

1. Long and thin; slender: tenuous strands.
2. Having a thin consistency; dilute.
3. Having little substance; flimsy: a tenuous argument.

This time it seems more like #3 fits them.

So we have beings that are not entirely there but do have a little substance. They can not be hurt by normal attacks. If we want fluff justification for this it is obvious that swords, axes, and such are passing through their tenuous form. It might disrupt it slightly, but not enough that the form breaks up.

They pass through terrain without affect so obviously they can filter what little remains of their form in the solid world past/through such things. They can not stop inside impassible objects, so it must take some effort to do so and while "at rest" or substantial enough to affect the physical world they can not be inside an object.

Now, following the rules we see that they are affected by the Netters rule that Night Goblins have. So the fluff justification for this... Well, while a swing of a weapon doesn't disrupt their tenuous form much, the nets are a weave and so as they are a lot of fibers. While a Ethereal creature can cause the nets to slip past their form, during that time they must cause their form to be less substantial and thus have less of an affect on the physical realm. That would be the reduction in Str.

rtunian
17-06-2009, 14:45
to paraphrase the argument that you are espousing:
"common sense says that nets don't affect ghosts"

meanwhile, i'm lame for stating that "fantasy doesn't abide by common sense"

whatever gobbo~

jirgaS
17-06-2009, 14:55
yeah that was funny. the jumping up and down bit. I think this should be seen as same way how poison is treated. It does not make much sense that poison affects undead, daemons or my hellcannon. but it does. same reasoning should be applied here.

Da GoBBo
17-06-2009, 16:42
Now, following the rules we see that they are affected by the Netters rule that Night Goblins have. So the fluff justification for this... Well, while a swing of a weapon doesn't disrupt their tenuous form much, the nets are a weave and so as they are a lot of fibers. While a Ethereal creature can cause the nets to slip past their form, during that time they must cause their form to be less substantial and thus have less of an affect on the physical realm. That would be the reduction in Str.

I like this, a sound explanation to the original question.

Rtunian, I'm sorry if you feel somehow offended, but saying you can't apply common sense to rules just because the whole game is fantastic doesn't really contribute anything. Not that I'm perfect and I am known to keep on ranting from time to time, but normally you have sound answers. Guess I just didn't expect that one comming.

rtunian
17-06-2009, 16:59
i'm not offended, but i am at least as stubborn as you are

fantasy indeed doesn't abide by common sense. i don't know how you can argue that it does. i don't know how you can argue "common sense" in an environment with ghosts and goblins... maybe "abide" isn't a good word for you, perhaps it doesn't translate. what i mean is "obey"

look at it this way: arguing common sense in wfb is like arguing with the plot of an action movie, saying "omg that couldn't happen! he totally would have been incinerated by that blast, not blown to safety!!!" an action movie is going to break the laws of reality. it's something that you expect going into it.

that's not to say that you have to like the movie and all it's plot holes. you totally don't. similarly, you can say "wow, netters totally shouldn't affect ethereals", because it's your opinion and you are entirely entitled to it. you can even make a house rule about it. what you can't do, however, is say that "logically, nets shouldn't affect ghosts", because logically, ghosts don't exist in the first place, nor do the goblins which are throwing the nets.

you can't argue logic in an illogical world.
you can't argue common sense in a nonsensical world.
at the same time, you can have all the opinions you want (because opinions are not arguments)

Da GoBBo
17-06-2009, 18:12
i'm not offended, but i am at least as stubborn as you are

:) Aye, you got that right.


fantasy indeed doesn't abide by common sense. i don't know how you can argue that it does. i don't know how you can argue "common sense" in an environment with ghosts and goblins...

Well, I must say Mercules did a pretty good job :)


you can't argue logic in an illogical world.
you can't argue common sense in a nonsensical world.
at the same time, you can have all the opinions you want (because opinions are not arguments)

True, true. But (jup, stubborn old me again) you can argue about a set of rules that uses wording which have meaning outside the game, like Mercules did after a better founded fashion than I myself tried to do. Based on his argument I can't say I fully agree with Kevlar's reasonig any more, but I do understand where his views come from. Above all I don't think GW should alter the rules, but I never thought so.

rtunian
17-06-2009, 18:58
i didn't mean to imply that common sense and logic are useless concerning fantasy universe. they are tools that you can use to understand situations. what they are not is arguments in and of themselves. "common sense" isn't an argument, is what i mean. what mercules has done is use logic (as a tool) to contrive an explanation that makes sense. what he said and what i said are not mutually exclusive, in other words ;)

jackson11
17-06-2009, 19:11
Yes nets effect ethereals.

I know its hard to make sense of when thinking of "what would happen in the real world situation", but so is the whole game and rules system. There are loads of rules in the game that make no sense literally in the real world.

A major one for example is the entire range system of the game. Taking into account the scale of the human models and the REAL distance a lifesize longbow could fire, the game range of a "model size" longbow should be approx 200 inches or 16 foot when scaled down from reality but because this would make gaming tables the size of my back garden the "reality" of the situation is changed for the game, the same as the reality of throwing a net over a ghost is changed and the rule applies.

If we are to look at every situation as how it would be in the real world we would never get past the first turn, just accept the rule stands and have some fun with making up some fluff as to why.

Just my opinion, for the little its worth.

Griefbringer
17-06-2009, 20:47
A major one for example is the entire range system of the game. Taking into account the scale of the human models and the REAL distance a lifesize longbow could fire, the game range of a "model size" longbow should be approx 200 inches or 16 foot when scaled down from reality but because this would make gaming tables the size of my back garden the "reality" of the situation is changed for the game

This is only an issue if you presume that a single model literally represents a single combatant.

If you take the assumption (as presented earlier on in designers' notes etc.) that a 25x25 mm base actually represents 10x10 yards area with lots of combatants on it, the ranges suddenly start feeling more sensible.

Edit
17-06-2009, 21:01
since when is netting something an attack? it doesn't require weaponskill, you can'y get more of them via any means "frenzy,magic items,etc"(or less of them via all the "lose an attack items") its a function, not an attack

have to think of it that way to keep game balance, i can poison undead and a mechanical horse because denying the ability adds too many addendums to an already special rule. I understand the argument you are coming from, but real world logic just doesn't apply in many (especially physics-related rules) cases.

Nuada
17-06-2009, 21:14
People, please stop answering this question over and over again. Everyone knows the answer, we answered it on page 1.
Some people just didn't like the rule, that's all.

ScytheSwathe
17-06-2009, 21:26
If you take the assumption (as presented earlier on in designers' notes etc.) that a 25x25 mm base actually represents 10x10 yards area with lots of combatants on it, the ranges suddenly start feeling more sensible.
That and those 5 trees you have represent a forest, and that house represents, ummm, a MASSIVE house.

There will always be inconsistencies. Otherwise the game would be impossibly complex. For my money play the game how its clearly written, then afterwards try to agree how youll cope with it next time, personally im happy to imagine that the goblins have ghostbuster traps/nets made of magic fungi hyphae, it amuses me. If you think different, then go for it.

Lordmonkey
17-06-2009, 23:19
I think this definitely deserves the "Army Theme of the Week" medal: Ghostbusting Night Goblin army FTW! :evilgrin:

Woohoo! :D

jackson11
18-06-2009, 09:36
This is only an issue if you presume that a single model literally represents a single combatant.

If you take the assumption (as presented earlier on in designers' notes etc.) that a 25x25 mm base actually represents 10x10 yards area with lots of combatants on it, the ranges suddenly start feeling more sensible.

I have never heard of this before and i find it a pretty weird idea, are there meant to be lots of little vlad von carsteins on each one of his model bases and several karl franz on mini griffons for each model of him i play and lots of war machines on one of their bases, does this mean i can fire three or four times from one war machine as after all there are loads of them represented by the one model:)

This sounds very strange and pretty stupid to me. One model represents one person in all game terms that i can ever think of and therefore the range is way off what in reality it should be, but as i said before, i dont care as it makes the game go well.

If we assume that one 25x25 base represents 10x10 yards as you say then the scale of all the buildings, walls, road signs, banners and trees etc that GW make are way off so they cant have it both ways, one way or another scale is not "life like correct" as i stated. I still love the idea of little mini vampires snapping at peoples heels on one Vlad model base though :D

Milgram
18-06-2009, 10:01
yes, it is very abstract, but they had it in 5th and 6th edition books I believe. they had it also in the 40k book once, but it did even make less sense there. IF a model represents 10 or 100 models, then you could be fielding a whole space marine chapter or more in a 2000 points battle...

this 1:100 idea only comes into play, when you try to explain things like the size of hills or certain other rules. normally no one would ever argue on that basis. :)

ScytheSwathe
18-06-2009, 10:38
To be fair id heard the 1 model represents 100 bit too, i assumed that means that characters come with their own vanguard, monsters may only be 1 dragon etc, but are simply huge, warmachines represent 5-10 and so on.

In fact this is the only way the battles would make any sense at all, pike formations of 15-20 men wouldnt be in the least bit imposing, a mighty battle justifying the presence of your king/wizard lord would need more than 80ish men my high elf army turns out.

jackson11
18-06-2009, 13:29
To be fair id heard the 1 model represents 100 bit too, i assumed that means that characters come with their own vanguard, monsters may only be 1 dragon etc, but are simply huge, warmachines represent 5-10 and so on.

In fact this is the only way the battles would make any sense at all, pike formations of 15-20 men wouldnt be in the least bit imposing, a mighty battle justifying the presence of your king/wizard lord would need more than 80ish men my high elf army turns out.

Then im sure you are right as a few people seem to be saying this but then that only shows that the scale of the buildings and scenery etc are all wrong in "real life" terms as i previously said, one way or another scale is not correct in "reality" terms but it all makes no difference as it means the game plays well, which was my original point.

I personally abhore this idea as it destroys the whole fluff side for me of naming the models and having a "man of the match" where one guy holds his own against a unit of enemy for two turns or where a single lowly archer picks off an enemy wizard, if you start saying "well it wasnt a single guy it was a group of about twenty represented by one model" it just loses a lot of the fun for me personally, plus it totally flys in the face of the what you see is what you get idea, "by the way that one model i spent ages converting to have one leg and an eye patch with a load of interesting background is actually 20 guys with unknown names etc represented by one model" is not too far away from "that matchbox is a chariot" in my personal opinion, no thanks, that doesnt do it for me. Like all these things though its all about opinion, the next guy might love the thought of a single base representing loads of models, frankly if i wanted this i would be playing epic or warmaster as that is what i think those games are for.

The rules dont always make direct sense when compared to "reality" but just go with it for the sake of the game and accept the rules apply, and invent some cool fluff to go with it...now how can i explain that my blood drinker sword works on treemen and bone constructs who dont have blood????? ;)

Urgat
18-06-2009, 15:38
Well, I heard that too, the 1 model = many guys thing. As for scales, well, yeah, it's off. it's like in all those RTS games where the units are either too big or two small compared to buildings (take, dunno, warcraft 2, a footman is huge compared to a farm, but then again an ogre cruiser is waaaaay too small). You just can't have everything at the right scale, or, as I don't remember which guy from GW stated, you'd have to play on a parking lot to have proper fire weapon ranges, monsters would be much bigger and powerful, etc, and it would be simply impossible to play that. If you want to have right scales for everything, you have to get the whole scale down, and then you already have that (Warmaster).

sulla
18-06-2009, 21:39
This is only an issue if you presume that a single model literally represents a single combatant.

If you take the assumption (as presented earlier on in designers' notes etc.) that a 25x25 mm base actually represents 10x10 yards area with lots of combatants on it, the ranges suddenly start feeling more sensible.


...dozens of chariots getting destroyed by dozens of cannons, and dozens of dragons all getting their riders shot off them simultaneously thunderers... Naah, I think I'll keep thinking one model equals one model. Works better for me.

Grimgormx
18-06-2009, 22:19
Actually a battle betwen 80 elf warriors and 140 orcs, isnt really a battle, is more like a fight betwen soccer fans.

Lord Dan
18-06-2009, 22:20
Actually a battle betwen 80 elf warriors and 140 orcs, isnt really a battle, is more like a fight betwen soccer fans.

You're thinking of bloodbowl. ;):p

Why is this thread still active?

Da GoBBo
18-06-2009, 22:58
Well, theunwantedbeing answered the question with post#2

Yes, they do work.
and than we all got a bit sidetracked. Perhaps we should alter the title of this thread to "Philosophy meets Warhammer - what if...?" and move it to general.