PDA

View Full Version : Plague Furnace Recker Ball



Achor
26-11-2009, 23:44
Came up today and wasn't sure on the answer. The wrecker ball works on people in its front or something along those lines. Now i had a beast herd in the flank, and as my unit was large enough on model at the end was corner to corner at the front as shown below.

G
GPPP
GPPP
GPPP
GPPP
GPPP
G

Now im in the flank but one Gor is in an ambiguous position when it comes to the wrecker ball. As it was we played i could get hit and it wiped out my centagors on the other side in a similar situation but not important for the question.

Just thought id ask for the opinion here.


Edit: All the plague priests are dead

nosferatu1001
27-11-2009, 00:46
Fairly certain it mentions "in the front arc" of the Plague furnace - I;m not sure you position here but there should hopefully be more than 3 PP wide? from orientation it looks like you are in the front.

If you arent in the front arc and base contact you cant be hit by it - if the plague furnace was on the flank of the Plague monk unit and your Gor was in the position where it is corner to corner it *is* in the front arc of the Plague Furnace.

Something like: (use code tags, useful for diags!)




G
GPfPfPPP
GPfPfPPP
GPfPfPPP
GPfPfPPP
GPfPfPPP
G

G = Gor Pf = Plague Furnace P = Plague Monk

Assuming Plague unit is looking "up" then the "G" on the top left is in the front arc off, and in base contact with, the Plague Furnace.

Atrahasis
27-11-2009, 08:03
You must be in base contact with the front arc of the Plague Furnace to be affected by the Wrecker.

Units attacking the flank are not in contact with the front arc of the unit they attack, ragardless of whether they overhang. You wouldn't give a unit of swordsmen the hand weapon and shield bonus against that one gor would you?

nosferatu1001
27-11-2009, 08:05
Well you are defeinitely in base contact with teh one Gor, and he *is* in your front arc - the entire unit is not but one Gor is.

Atrahasis
27-11-2009, 08:08
The test is not "in base contact and in the front arc", it is "in base contact with the front arc".

If you charge the flank, you're in base contact with the flank - corners are "special" in that their status depends on where you started out, not where you end up.

Achor
27-11-2009, 09:28
Sorry wasnt to clear, all the plague priests where dead.

Anyways, from what i can see its gonna be argued both sides still, but i am leaning towards the it isn't the front arc as i was to begin with. I never thought of the hand weapon and shied example.

A problem i have is a friend is using the argument that if the overhanging Gor was in the same position but in the front he would be hit even thought the model didn't really move. My view on this is you can be in the same position but in a different zone, but its hard to explain to someone. The addition of the word arc in the wrecker ball confuses some people, even though there is no combat arc definition, bar maybe if you take it as just front/flank/rear in which case my gor would have been all good :P

dopacelat
27-11-2009, 09:48
The test is not "in base contact and in the front arc", it is "in base contact with the front arc".

If you charge the flank, you're in base contact with the flank - corners are "special" in that their status depends on where you started out, not where you end up.

This makes the most sense.

Revlid
27-11-2009, 19:49
I can only chime in my agreement with Atrahasis.

Shifte
28-11-2009, 14:53
As a counter point, I'd like to show two examples. Firstly, Achor's;

(Flank Charge)


G
GPfPf
GPfPf
GPfPf
GPfPf
GPfPf
G

Now, keep an eye on where the top Gor is, and compare it to example 2;

(Frontal Charge)


GGGGGG
..PfPf
..PfPf
..PfPf
..PfPf
..PfPf

The bolded Gor in the second diagram is stood in the *exact* same position as the bolded Gor in the top diagram. "Base to Base Contact" is not abstract - it's a physical, visible occurence. If the Gor in the second diagram is deemed to be in contact with the furnace, then why isn't the flank charging one? They're stood in the same position, and in base to base contact with the same things.

I also disagree with the notion that this would mean the hand weapon and shield rule is flawed. The Skaven book specifically says "Arcs", which is not the same as "attacks from the flank and rear". Arcs are dealt with only in the shooting section of the rulebook, and before now have had nothing to do with close combat. Either the writer purposely used the word Arc, or has simply used poor word choice and the recker shouldn't work on the flank. However, because of the ambiguity of it all, I'd have to say that it works on the flank (if the model is touching the corner) as it is closer to the RAW than the other option is.

This is just how I'd handle it, and the FAQ'll probably answer it anyway.

Atrahasis
29-11-2009, 11:28
Arcs are also relevant for charges and the hand weapon and shield bonus.

Note also that the situation you have diagramed is impossible, as the Pf must be in the centre of the unit.

Consider the attached diagram.

One of the 2 chariots pictured has charged. You can't tell which one just from the picture, but only one gets the flank bonus (if we assume characters are present), and only one chariot's horses get to attack.

Arcs are important for combat.

Shifte
29-11-2009, 11:47
Arcs are also relevant for charges and the hand weapon and shield bonus.

Note also that the situation you have diagramed is impossible, as the Pf must be in the centre of the unit.

Consider the attached diagram.

One of the 2 chariots pictured has charged. You can't tell which one just from the picture, but only one gets the flank bonus (if we assume characters are present), and only one chariot's horses get to attack.

Arcs are important for combat.

It's certainly not impossible. Units can die, leaving the Recker alone (or one sided), as happened in the game Achor is speaking of. Moreover, the rulebook talks about regions, and not arcs, when it comes to close combat. It's the shooting section that mentions arcs.

Edit: Although I now notice the "P's" in the diagram. This is more of an error from copying and pasting the diagram from earlier posts >_> I'll edit those out. Still, the situation itself is not impossible.

Atrahasis
29-11-2009, 11:49
So you're saying that in the diagram neither chariot gets the flank bonus, and both chariot's horses can attack?

Shifte
29-11-2009, 12:01
So you're saying that in the diagram neither chariot gets the flank bonus, and both chariot's horses can attack?

Nope. I'm saying that the rules regarding the Recker are not the rules regarding the chariot. The rules for close combat flanks are not the same rules as those for "Arcs". The rules for the Recker specifically says "Arcs", whereas (and I wish I had a rulebook on me), I am fairly certain that there is no mention of Arcs in the close combat section. Merely the frontal region, the flank region, and the rear region.

Assuming I have not remembered that incorrectly (you can have a check if you like), that would mean that a unit can still be "in the flank" in terms of the +1 to combat, cancelling shields/ranks, and yet still be in the "front arc". The "Front Arc" is basically the unit's LoS forwards, and not a close combat parameter. The rules for the Recker says the recker need only be in "base to base contact with the front arc" - not the front, or front region. It's very specific wording, and potentially a writer's mistake, but that is what it says.

As for the mounts on a chariot in your example - I don't know. It depends on the wording of the rule. I can't really remember the Chariot rules too well. If it talks about Arcs, then sure. But as far as I am aware, the Recker is the first close combat ability that has ever mentioned them.

Disclaimer; A lot of this is memory from when it actually happened in Achor's game (I was there). We looked through the rules for a while for the two players and the conclusion we came to was that the rule was badly worded, or intentionally worded that way. The FAQ'll probably answer it.

Atrahasis
29-11-2009, 12:55
There is no such thing as a "front arc" in the rules - "arc" is only ever used in the context of "arc of sight", which is usually to the front, but the concept of "front arc" is entirely invention in the PF rules.

Now, since it is a combat ability, and "front zone" does exist in the rules, it only makes sense to assume that the "front arc" mentioned is what the rulebook talks about as the "front" or "front zone".

Shifte
29-11-2009, 13:01
I can't argue with you as I haven't got a rulebook on me, so I'll conceed the point for now. If I notice a counter to that I'll post it another time.