PDA

View Full Version : Supporting attacks through larger-than-infantry bases



Yehoshua
16-11-2010, 03:16
Can infantry make supporting attacks from behind, say a Palanquin?

Are there any rules on this beyond pg. 48-49?

D'Haran
16-11-2010, 03:44
It's not the unit behind "x" that makes a supporting attack , but the model in the second rank that gets to. If you have a model that takes up multiple ranks because of it's size then there is no supporting attack from the second rank since there's no models there to make such an attack.

Obviously this is only the case in an example where there's models of varying base sizes in the same unit, and even then if you have more than 2 different sized bases in the same unit it can get very sketchy what the second rank is comprised of but I believe this to be the basic principal.

honorandglory
16-11-2010, 05:03
The rule book would disagree with you.
Supporting attacks are made "If a model is directly behind a friendly model that is itself fighting an enemy in base contact" Brb Pg 48/49

stripsteak
16-11-2010, 06:05
The rule book would disagree with you.
Supporting attacks are made "If a model is directly behind a friendly model that is itself fighting an enemy in base contact" Brb Pg 48/49

look right above that "Warriors in the second rank do not sit idle whilst their comrades battles away ... We refer to the attacks made by these models as supporting attacks"

and also under The Horde "Warriors in a horde can make supporting attacks from the third rank, not just from the second"

honorandglory
16-11-2010, 06:55
I'm failing to see your point. One does not invalidate the other.

T10
16-11-2010, 08:32
Check out this thread.

Supporting attacks behind large bases (http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=281745)

To sum up the final post: The rules defining supporting attacks appear to assume that the unit consists of models with the same base footprint.

There is only one section of the rules that deals with mixed base footprints in a unit. This section does not directly address the issue of supporting attacks, but it does describe how the larger base footprint model affects ranks.

And working out supporting attack based on the unit's ranks works quite nicely.

-T10

T10
16-11-2010, 08:52
Notice that the rules for horde formations do specify which ranks may make supporting attacks. I've made a diagram that should nicely illustrate the oddity that comes with the literal interpretation of standard supporting attacks and larger base footprints.

Notice how the two guys behind the 2x3 base character suddenly don't get to fight in a horde formation, a formation specifically designed to provide MORE supporting attacks.

-T10

theunwantedbeing
16-11-2010, 09:07
It's dependant upon which rank your in, not how many models you are behind.

Might not be 100% RAQ but when an Errata eventually appears this will be how it is ruled.

Yehoshua
16-11-2010, 11:21
Thanks T10, reference to the horde rules does make things pretty clear.

I don't think the thread you linked is the thread you are thinking of, however.

T10
16-11-2010, 11:54
I don't think the thread you linked is the thread you are thinking of, however.

It is now. :)

-T10

honorandglory
16-11-2010, 12:14
It's dependant upon which rank your in, not how many models you are behind.

Might not be 100% RAQ but when an Errata eventually appears this will be how it is ruled.

And until it is FAQed you are completely wrong. It is predicated on if a model is in base to base with an enemy in front of you, not what rank you are in. Printed in black and white, right there in the rule book.

T10
16-11-2010, 12:35
It is true that the initial description of supporting attacks does not mention ranks. However, ranks are explicitly mentioned for supporting attacks in horde formations: Here only models in the second and third ranks make supporting attacks.

So either the supporting attacks work completely different in a horde formation, or the unwritten intent is that standard supporting attacks are in fact tied to rank.

The latter seems more likely.

-T10

TheRolfgar
16-11-2010, 13:36
And until it is FAQed you are completely wrong. It is predicated on if a model is in base to base with an enemy in front of you, not what rank you are in. Printed in black and white, right there in the rule book.

Why do you keep ignoring what that rule is referring to? The very first sentence regarding supporting attacks ONLY mentions models in the 2nd rank. The sentence about models behind other models in base to base contact ONLY applies to the models in the 2nd rank because that is what the rule is talking about. You cannot ignore the bolded text before the rule description because you like getting more attacks. The rule is very clear, you are only choosing to ignore the subject of the rule (the models in the 2nd rank).

honorandglory
16-11-2010, 20:37
The emboldened part you are referring to is filler and fluff text and as such is not admissible in a rules discussion.

Pg 98 tells us to "work out the units ranks ( and therefore rank bonus) as if the space was filled with rank and file troops".

Pg 48 tells us that supporting attacks are made " if directly behind a friendly model that is itself fighting an enemy in base to base "

EDMM
16-11-2010, 20:41
It could go either way, and needs a FAQ.

Kevlar
16-11-2010, 20:48
I think "Warriors in the second rank" is quite clear on p48. And if that wasn't clear enough for you p49 reinforces it with "Warriors in a horde can make supporting attacks from the third rank, not just the second!"

There really is no room to argue that from any angle. Not one single diagram or rule reference pushes attacks back to further ranks because of a model with a different sized base. If you were allowed to do so it would have to be stated someplace.

honorandglory
16-11-2010, 21:12
Except that it is stated someplace. right in the rulebook, on page 48 bottom of the page under supporting attacks. I have quoted the sentence multiple times. Here it is again"A model can make supporting attacks if it is directly behind a friendly model that is itself fighting an enemy in base contact"

Pg 98 further clarifies that if a model with a footprint that coincides with the units base size to "work out the units ranks ( and therefore rank bonus) as if the space was filled with rank and file troops".

theunwantedbeing
16-11-2010, 21:16
Okay,

So whenever your not in a haorde, the guys behind the screaming bell get to fight.
But when you are in a hoarde, they don't.

Makes sense.

EDMM
16-11-2010, 21:23
It makes more sense than Clanrats NEVER getting to use their Dhalsim arms to attack through the Screaming Bell!

Kevlar
16-11-2010, 21:24
Except that it is stated someplace. right in the rulebook, on page 48 bottom of the page under supporting attacks. I have quoted the sentence multiple times. Here it is again"A model can make supporting attacks if it is directly behind a friendly model that is itself fighting an enemy in base contact"

Pg 98 further clarifies that if a model with a footprint that coincides with the units base size to "work out the units ranks ( and therefore rank bonus) as if the space was filled with rank and file troops".

You are only satisfying a part of the supporting attacks rule with your position while totally ignoring the second part.

Models in the 2nd rank are always behind models fighting enemy models. This supports your part of the rule. Plus the rules for supporting attacks and the rules for horde formation say they get to make supporting attacks for being in the second rank.

Models in the 3rd rank (or the 6th rank if behind a screaming bell) may be behind a friendly model in base contact with the enemy, satisfying a part of the supporting attack rule, but they do not satisfy all of the rule, which also states they need to be in the second rank (in two places even!).

D'Haran
16-11-2010, 21:56
The bold text at the beginning of the paragraph can't be discounted as merely fluff that doesn't mean anything. It's in the rulebook, it's apart of the rule they're describing, it gives the rules scope and depth so that we can take it in the proper context and understand the rules better. Merely dismissing it as irrelevant fluff reeks of someone trying to make the rules fit their own interpretation.

TheRolfgar
16-11-2010, 21:57
The emboldened part you are referring to is filler and fluff text and as such is not admissible in a rules discussion.

Pg 98 tells us to "work out the units ranks ( and therefore rank bonus) as if the space was filled with rank and file troops".

Pg 48 tells us that supporting attacks are made " if directly behind a friendly model that is itself fighting an enemy in base to base "

I completely disagree, the bolded part is NOT just for fluff it states what the rule is referring to. A reference point for the rule (in this case the models in the 2nd rank) is just as important as the rule itself.

You cannot use half of what is written in the BRB and ignore the other half to suit your needs.

Synnister
16-11-2010, 23:09
The reason they put 'if directly behind a friendly model that is itself fighting an enemy in base to base' is for situations where the units don't line up. To add a supporting attack you must be in the 2nd rank if in non-horde formation.

honorandglory
16-11-2010, 23:47
I completely disagree, the bolded part is NOT just for fluff it states what the rule is referring to. A reference point for the rule (in this case the models in the 2nd rank) is just as important as the rule itself.

It is just fluff, you are correct that it is a reference for the rule, but it is not part of the rule itself, and thus is not arguable as such, and has negligible importance. The rule is what I have quoted.

A model can make a supporting attack if it is directly behind a friendly model that is itself fighting an enemy in base contact

Nowhere in the actual rule does it state the word rank, or which rank you must be in to make use of this rule.


Models in the 2nd rank are always behind models fighting enemy models. This supports your part of the rule. Plus the rules for supporting attacks and the rules for horde formation say they get to make supporting attacks for being in the second rank.

Models in the 3rd rank (or the 6th rank if behind a screaming bell) may be behind a friendly model in base contact with the enemy, satisfying a part of the supporting attack rule, but they do not satisfy all of the rule, which also states they need to be in the second rank (in two places even!).

It does satisfy the entire rule. and is even mentioned here as well. See in two places.


Supporting attacks are made against models in base contact with the front rank model that is being fought 'through' . If the front rank model is in base to base contact with two or more enemies with different profiles, the attacking player can choose which model to direct the supporting attack against( before dice are rolled).

As the horde rule argument. Two completely different rules that work in a similar fashion, with subtle but large differences.

TheRolfgar
17-11-2010, 00:01
It seems you are not willing to accept what is written in the BRB. I'm not going to bother arguing with you anymore since you clearly want to play by whatever rules you feel like.

jatkins1177
17-11-2010, 00:01
Not only is the bold text at the beginning of each rule not fluff or filler, it is in fact a concise summary of the rule. The rest of the text only goes into more detail, offers additional explanation, and provides specific examples. I believe these bold sections were included to make it easier to look up rules quickly. Instead of wading through a half dozen paragraphs of text, just find the rule and read the bold section - only read on if you need further clarification.

Take for example the rule on p32 "Choose Number of Power Dice". The bold text there is anything but "fluff". It's what the rule says. The rest of the text merely provides additional detail.

That said, I do believe this particular situation is unclear. I do agree that when addressed by GW the ruling will be that only 2nd rank models may make supporting attacks (3rd rank for horde), regardless of whether or not they are directly behind a model in base contact. However, the last sentence on p48 states explicitly that a model may make a supporting attack if directly behind a friendly model in base contact with the enemy with no reference to what rank they are in.

honorandglory
17-11-2010, 00:41
It seems you are not willing to accept what is written in the BRB. I'm not going to bother arguing with you anymore since you clearly want to play by whatever rules you feel like.

I have quoted at least three time EXACTLY word for word what is written in the Rule book. so how am I not accepting what is written there.

For future reference, this makes absolutely no difference to me or my particular army, as I am lucky to have a third rank of Chaos warriors, I run most of my heroes on foot, or mounted inside a unit of Knights. So please feel free to comment on my play style and begin with the insults to my character . That is by far the easiest way to have a rules argument when you are in the wrong.:rolleyes:

TheRolfgar
17-11-2010, 00:53
I have quoted at least three time EXACTLY word for word what is written in the Rule book. so how am I not accepting what is written there.

For future reference, this makes absolutely no difference to me or my particular army, as I am lucky to have a third rank of Chaos warriors, I run most of my heroes on foot, or mounted inside a unit of Knights. So please feel free to comment on my play style and begin with the insults to my character . That is by far the easiest way to have a rules argument when you are in the wrong.:rolleyes:

*sigh* You cannot ignore the bolded statement. No one cares how many times you quote the few sentences after the bolded part because you NEED TO READ THE BOLDED PART TO UNDERSTAND THE WHOLE RULE.

You are half correct however, if you refuse to accept the bolded words in the BRB to exist the rule is "vague", but guess what? You have to read the bolded part, it explains what the rule is about, and no amount of you repeating yourself will change the minds of everyone else here.

You are wrong.

Edit: jatkins1177 explains the bolded sections from the BRB perfectly. You cannot ignore them, they are there for a reason.

honorandglory
17-11-2010, 00:57
Not only is the bold text at the beginning of each rule not fluff or filler, it is in fact a concise summary of the rule. The rest of the text only goes into more detail, offers additional explanation, and provides specific examples. I believe these bold sections were included to make it easier to look up rules quickly. Instead of wading through a half dozen paragraphs of text, just find the rule and read the bold section - only read on if you need further clarification.

That's true for most of them, however this is not one of those times.



Warriors in the second rank do not sit idly by whilst their comrades battle away,but muster forward to strike blows of their own.We refer to the attacks made by these models as supporting attacks

The entire first sentence if fluff and filler, the second sentence tells you what to call the attacks. Neither is actual rule. The actual rule is stated below all of this, which have quoted multiple times.

Chris_
17-11-2010, 01:02
I have quoted at least three time EXACTLY word for word what is written in the Rule book. so how am I not accepting what is written there.

For future reference, this makes absolutely no difference to me or my particular army, as I am lucky to have a third rank of Chaos warriors, I run most of my heroes on foot, or mounted inside a unit of Knights. So please feel free to comment on my play style and begin with the insults to my character . That is by far the easiest way to have a rules argument when you are in the wrong.:rolleyes:The bolded paragraphs are a part of the rule, the boxes on the side in italic are fluff/tips/whatever. This is the way it is all through the BRB, the bolded part usually states the short form of the rule, maybe a reason, and then it goes on to explain it. Example is "Dispel Limit" on page 30, which with your reasoning would have no rules whatsoever. There are many many more, the bolded text IS part of the rules. Try and read the BRB if it wasn't... :shifty:

It is said in the rules for Supporting Attacks that the attacks made by models in the second rank are referred to as supporting attacks, this is part of the rule, simple as that. Horde formation rule supports this as well.

Synnister
17-11-2010, 01:44
In order to make a supporting attack you have 2 conditionals to meet:

1) Be in either the 2nd or 3rd rank depending on the formation.

2) Be behind a model in base to base contact

I honestly don't see why this is questionable. Reading comprehension for the win!!

Kevlar
17-11-2010, 02:14
In order to make a supporting attack you have 2 conditionals to meet:

1) Be in either the 2nd or 3rd rank depending on the formation.

2) Be behind a model in base to base contact

I honestly don't see why this is questionable. Reading comprehension for the win!!

eggsactly.

The 2nd condition is so you do not claim supporting attacks when you have a wider frontage than the enemy, say you are 10 wide and he is 5 wide. You may have no one in front of you in B2B but a rules lawyer could still claim he gets supporting attacks from the 2nd and 3rd ranks.

The first condition is self explanatory. Only those ranks get supporting attacks, barring special weapons that add a rank to them.

honorandglory
17-11-2010, 02:41
Incorrect, you have one condition to meet, and that is to be behind a friendly model that is in base to base with the enemy. As per the rule on page 48, not the fluff /filler headline above.

TheRolfgar
17-11-2010, 02:47
Incorrect, you have one condition to meet, and that is to be behind a friendly model that is in base to base with the enemy. As per the rule on page 48, not the fluff /filler headline above.

Edit: The rules have already been stated, by myself and others, do not pretend they haven't been. You are the one who refuses to read them. You continue to carry on about how right you are, when no one agrees with you. I think you are just here to argue at this point for the sake of arguing. Clearly I should have ignored you like I will be doing now.

honorandglory
17-11-2010, 03:13
No I am continuing this position because it is the correct position by the wording of the rules.
I could not care less how you house rule it in your basement. I am just letting you know that when you go out in to public and play other people, that you should not expect them to play by your special house rules ,as they will want to play Warhammer as it is printed in the rulebook

Again, thank you for the insults,they show a lot about your true character. Instead of proving me wrong with actual rules quotes and page numbers, you resort to insults, and hide behind the anonymity of a internet screen name, how very noble of you.

traeplien
17-11-2010, 03:15
Incorrect, you have one condition to meet, and that is to be behind a friendly model that is in base to base with the enemy. As per the rule on page 48, not the fluff /filler headline above.

I'd like to direct you to the third paragraph under "Combat" at this link:

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?type=article&aId=12400021a&name=name&projectId=prj213254a&atgPreviewId=390004

In short, supporting attacks are made by models in the second rank. Of course, "Combat" is in bold, so maybe it's just fluff/filler...

EDMM
17-11-2010, 03:15
That is pretty inflammatory TheRolfgar. You might want to be careful.

honorandglory
17-11-2010, 03:58
Edit: The rules have already been stated, by myself and others, do not pretend they haven't been. You are the one who refuses to read them. You continue to carry on about how right you are, when no one agrees with you. I think you are just here to argue at this point for the sake of arguing. Clearly I should have ignored you like I will be doing now.

What rule have you stated? You and a couple of others have tried to use the header to the section which is fluff and filler as a rule, I have shown you the actual rules that are written in the section, quoted them in fact, given you their page numbers. All I am asking for is the same courtesy.

T10
17-11-2010, 07:25
Please, guys. honorandglory is correct in what the rules say, and the rule say this:


Models support the model directly in front of them.
In a horde formation, models in the second and third rank get to make supporting attacks.


As for point 1. above, the rules do not make an immediate connection between supporting attacks and rank, and in most situations the absence of a restriction means that the restriction does not apply.

The broader context, however, is that we are dealing with models in the second rank and that the rules haven't even begun to address the issue of larger base footprint models in the unit.

Also, the literal interpretation is demonstrably flawed: I refer to the diagram I posted earlier. Whether or not this flaw is a problem, well, that's a matter of opinion.

So, faced with a simplistic literal interpretation that allows for "strange" results and a "holistic" interpretation that seems consistent, I'm going for the latter.

-T10

Chris_
17-11-2010, 08:32
What rule have you stated? You and a couple of others have tried to use the header to the section which is fluff and filler as a rule, I have shown you the actual rules that are written in the section, quoted them in fact, given you their page numbers. All I am asking for is the same courtesy.No, you are wrong. That is definitely part of the rule, just because you think it sounds kinda fluffy doesn't mean it isn't a rule. This is the layout in the whole rule book. Try reading all the rules without what you call fillers, in many cases there are no rules anymore.

Read rules on page 49 "The Horde", if you didn't have the "filler" (i.e. rules) there would be no information about how many models wide you would have to be to be a horde. There are tons of similar examples. Just because you would like it to be filler/fluff doesn't make it so.

honorandglory
17-11-2010, 08:51
If you look on pg 49 at the Incomplete ranks heading,"Strange gaps where models are missing from a rank do not prevent warriors from fighting" .

Would you consider this a rule, or a description of the rule that will follow?

Some/most are a synopsis of the rule and some are not. However looking at the normal text always has the rule , with how and when to apply it. In this particular case, the Header is Fluff and Filler, and the actual rule follows, as with the supporting attacks rule.

H33D
17-11-2010, 08:55
My opponents have never tried to attack with his rats behind his plague furnace. If they did and argued this point I guess I would give it to them, but it seems a little bit of a stretch to say a model can reach across a distance 5 times his own base size. That would be RAI, however, and RAW it does seem that models directly behind a model in base-to-base contact would be able to make supporting attacks. I haven't read anything in the rulebook that says to ignore the first parts of each rule no matter how fluffy it may be. If you really don't like it the rule should probably read the most important rule and study it hard until the FAQ for this comes out. Until then, cheers!

Chris_
17-11-2010, 09:01
If you look on pg 49 at the Incomplete ranks heading,"Strange gaps where models are missing from a rank do not prevent warriors from fighting" .

Would you consider this a rule, or a description of the rule that will follow?

Some/most are a synopsis of the rule and some are not. However looking at the normal text always has the rule , with how and when to apply it. In this particular case, the Header is Fluff and Filler, and the actual rule follows, as with the supporting attacks rule.That is definitely part of the rules for "Incomplete Ranks" just as much as the bolded part under "Supporting Attacks" and "The Horde" and all the other numerous examples. If it was all fluff, why are they always referring to game mechanics in those bolded texts (compared to other places with real fluff/fillers)? And why would other rules make absolutely no sense without what you call "filler"? And why would it be like you say when everything else points to it being limited to second rank (when we take out the rules part of the rule...)? No, if you want to see real fluff then check the italics in the Special Rules section.

H33D: He can't do that as the rats behind the Plague Furnace would not be in the second rank (nor third for hordes).

theorox
17-11-2010, 09:01
C=Contact with enemy S=Supporting attacks T=Troops unable to attack P=Palanquin

Front is "upwards" on all formations

Regular formation:

CCCCC
SSSSS
TTTTT

Regular formation with Palanquin:

CPPCC
SPPSS
TTTTT

That's the only logical way i can see it be done. :)

Theo

honorandglory
17-11-2010, 10:27
Regular formation with Palanquin:

CPPCC
SPPSS
TSSTT

This is how the Rule tells us to do it.

Chris_
17-11-2010, 10:39
This is how the Rule tells us to do it.No, that is your house rule.

honorandglory
17-11-2010, 11:15
No, read the rule.

Chris_
17-11-2010, 11:34
No, read the rule.Yep, read it, still says you are wrong. Hey, man, it can happen to the best of us. Read it a few times more, maybe read some of the examples (that you blatantly ignored) I've given as to why your way is wrong and you will understand why I am right.

Kevlar
17-11-2010, 12:12
No, read the rule.

Do you have anything new to add? Or do you plan to copy + paste your response to everyone who disagrees with you?

It appears all you are doing now is trolling to upset people.

Ah well my ignore list has been empty too long anyway.

honorandglory
17-11-2010, 13:45
Yep, read it, still says you are wrong. Hey, man, it can happen to the best of us. Read it a few times more, maybe read some of the examples (that you blatantly ignored) I've given as to why your way is wrong and you will understand why I am right.

Then I suggest you do the same, you obviously do not comprehend what it is saying. Go back and read my quotes,it will help.


Do you have anything new to add? Or do you plan to copy + paste your response to everyone who disagrees with you?

It appears all you are doing now is trolling to upset people.

Ah well my ignore list has been empty too long anyway.

Of course I have nothing new to add, I have quoted the rule, there really is nothing more needed after that. You on the other hand have quoted some baseless fluff/filler and wish to call it the rule, that's all well and good when you play in your basement with friends. But when you go out to a tournament, or LGS you will run into people that are actually playing the rule correctly, I did not want you to be surprised. Like I said, I could not care less how you play Kevlarhammer, that's your prerogative, but not everyone will agree to play that way.

LAV-Kitsune-
17-11-2010, 13:55
I didn't notice anyone adding this from the previous conversation of the subject:
"Naturally, this gets a little more involved if the character has a differentsized base to the members of the unit. Here we have to use a little common sense to make everything work"

"if your character fit into the unit in this manner (with larger base), work out the units ranks and therefore its rank bonus as if the space was filled with rank and file troops".

This all was from page 98 where it tells how characters with different base sizes interract with the unit. These two parts in my opinion explain quite clearly (in addition to earlier rules) that models behind them cannot attack.
- You need some common sense, so rat behind screaming bell wouldnt naturally be able to attack.
- With large base character counts as space was filled with rank and file troops, which means it counts as an rank an additional models even though there is only one character and thats why models behind it can not attack.

T10
17-11-2010, 14:21
So by "common sense" a model behind a 2x2 base footprint character shouldn't ever be able to make supporting attacks.

But notice how the guy next to him gets to make supporting attacks when they're in a horde formation.

-T10

D'Haran
17-11-2010, 15:27
Lav wasn't discussing horde formations T10, in your scenario obviously those models in the third rank can support.

Honor, nowhere in the rulebook does it talk about 'fluff' (note I refer to the rules sections of the RULEBOOK, not the official army fluff which follows). If you refer to the Introduction under 'The Rules' second paragraph it states: To clarify rules along the way you will find both illustrative diagrams and helpful side notes with practical advice scattered throughout the section.

From that we can take that the diagrams and side notes are in fact apart of the rules, put there to clarify the rules. Granted the 'The Rules' quote doesn't mention the Bold text at the beginning of the rules, but that it doesn't mention it at all indicates they never intended for it to be taken as anything but the rules! In any case it is clear GW didn't intend for the Bold text to be ignored or considered fluff any more than they intended for the illustrations or side notes to be.

Further I direct you to the post on pg 2 by traeplien and the link provided to the GW website's easy to miss rules. In the third paragraph of the combat section it says: Models in the second rank can make supporting attacks.This is from the GW official website and even conceding all other points this official explanation of combat would be enough to prove that you have misunderstood the rules.

Kevlar
17-11-2010, 16:30
By the way guys my flails are +2 str all the time because i am only going to follow the +2 str part of the rule and blissfully ignore the first combat phase only part of the rule.

GrimmHammer
17-11-2010, 20:28
Not sure if this helps or complicates it more - Under monstrous infantry following the same logic as models needed for ranks and hordes would it also take into account that the one larger base model is assumed to be in just the front rank? or now does the one monstrous infantry base no longer count as being in one rank (as it would be under the rules for monstrous infantry)but now 2? - I think it should only take up the 1st rank but I can also see it taking up 2 - yep not sure - im out :)

GrimmHammer
17-11-2010, 20:33
I'd probably give my vote for it taking up 2 though-

Chris_
17-11-2010, 22:40
Then I suggest you do the same, you obviously do not comprehend what it is saying. Go back and read my quotes,it will help.This is just getting ridiculous, you have no valid arguments as to why it shouldn't be a part of the rule and now you are just being obstinate. If you want to play your house rule or whatever you have convinced the people you play with that is fine. But here on the rules section we argue the rules in BRB and the various AB, we do not ignore part of rules just because... Please understand that it is 100% clear that the bold part of all the rules in the Rule Book IS in fact part of the rules, you have NOTHING to contradict this so you are blatantly ignoring a part of the rules staring you in the face. And then to top it off you come on to the rules section and try and argue something based only on parts of the rules, that is like me arguing that "Oh! I have 20 dispel dice because there is no dispel pool limit" or "These guys are a horde, 2 guys wide, what you say? No there is no requirement for how wide a horde should be!", "Lets just pursue these guys in to impassable terrain!!" or maybe even "What is this 'model' they keep referring to all the time, doesn't say anywhere in the rules..." (which would all be valid with what you are saying). There are tons of examples, just because a lot of your friends are playing it wrong doesn't make it right.

Grimmhammer: It depends, is it a MI character in an infantry unit (20x20mm bases)? If so it is considered to be taking up both first and second regards to the topic at hand an for rank bonus and so on. But if it is in an MI unit it is only the first rank.

honorandglory
18-11-2010, 00:35
Wrote a bunch of drivel about nothing


The emboldened part at the beginning of the rule sections are at most a description of the rules , However, on page 48 and 49 they made the headers almost completely filler text. Be that as it may,in every single case you need to read the actual rule below the header to fully understand how to utilize , and in what context the rule is applicable. The same hold true here, the Header gives some vague example of soldiers fighting and just happens to mention the second rank. The RULE tells you exactly how this is accomplished on the table top.

So it is not me that is only reading part of the rule and then arguing for my particular "houserule", but you. And as I have said before that is completely fine for you to play this way in your local "click", although you may enjoy the game more if you utilize the whole and complete rule.

Chris_
18-11-2010, 02:36
....whole and complete rule.Haha, awesome :) You write a bunch of drivel argumenting to only use part of the rule and then you go and make this comment... F-ing hilarious. :D

honorandglory
18-11-2010, 02:42
No I write a bunch of "drivel "arguing to only use the rule itself, and not the header that at best is a descriptor of said rule.

Synnister
18-11-2010, 03:44
No I write a bunch of "drivel "arguing to only use the rule itself, and not the header that at best is a descriptor of said rule.

You have said earlier that some Bolded rules are actual rules and others are not. Perhaps you can fill us in on how to determine which bolded rules are actual rules and which aren't? Obviously there should be a rule somewhere describing which rules to ignore and which ones we have to follow. So, please provide the link or page reference (since I obviously missed it).

honorandglory
18-11-2010, 03:48
No, I said that at best they are rule descriptions, not actual rules themselves. The actual rules are beneath them.

Synnister
18-11-2010, 04:22
No, I said that at best they are rule descriptions, not actual rules themselves. The actual rules are beneath them.

Yeah you might want to rethink that.

Seeing as Jatkins says that the bolded parts are indeed the rules:


Not only is the bold text at the beginning of each rule not fluff or filler, it is in fact a concise summary of the rule. The rest of the text only goes into more detail, offers additional explanation, and provides specific examples. I believe these bold sections were included to make it easier to look up rules quickly. Instead of wading through a half dozen paragraphs of text, just find the rule and read the bold section - only read on if you need further clarification.


And you say:


That's true for most of them, however this is not one of those times.


So clearly, as I stated earlier, you agree that the bolded rules are indeed rules but only on certain times. You should not try to restate your position so early in a forum post. It makes it really easy to go back and copy your words and prove you wrong. Let me break it down for you, if you have a rulebook there are these things called rules in it. Whether they are bolded or not does not allow you to pick and choose which ones you get to follow. You have to follow all of them. Just like how they had to FAQ the 'fluff' about a bolt thrower needing 2 crew members to fire.

Chris_
18-11-2010, 04:26
Synnister, man, don't sweat it. Just ignore the people who make no sense. He is obviously not going to see reason anytime soon, if ever...

H33D
18-11-2010, 07:33
...H33D: He can't do that as the rats behind the Plague Furnace would not be in the second rank (nor third for hordes).

Agreed. Some would argue that because the Furnace is in base to base contact with the enemy, the models behind it would be able to make supporting attacks.

Unfortunately I believe the rules say to treat large models as though they were multiples of the small(er/est) models in the unit.

That pretty much blows the whole 'supporting attacks if you are behind a model in contact even if that model takes up multiple ranks' argument out of the water if you ask me. But people can find a way to argue with even the most irrefutable logic.

And be nice you guys. We are all here for the same reason. If you disagree with each other don't sweat it. It is not like you have to play each other in real life! (hopefully :eyebrows:)

honorandglory
18-11-2010, 13:24
Not only is the bold text at the beginning of each rule not fluff or filler, it is in fact a concise summary of the rule. The rest of the text only goes into more detail, offers additional explanation, and provides specific examples. I believe these bold sections were included to make it easier to look up rules quickly. Instead of wading through a half dozen paragraphs of text, just find the rule and read the bold section - only read on if you need further clarification.

I highlighted the relevant part to make it easy for you. They are not rules, most of them are a summery of the rule,but not all. You can read them to find what rule you are looking for, but you have to read the RULE itself to actually get all the details of how ,when and if to apply said rule.

GrimmHammer
18-11-2010, 14:24
on page 98 3rd paragraph down it says "If your character fits into a unit in this manner, work out the units ranks and it's rank bonus as if it was filled with rank and file troops"... If I am to work this out as the space being filled by rank and file troops - would it not make sense that those rank and file troops get to attack? So i guess the argument would be if it counts as rank and file troops for bonuses does it still count them as a rank and file troops for attacks?? Not that this is what honor and glory was saying but I can now see his side and am as of right now some what convinced that he is right.... Meh I'm still not sure - this needs a faq

T10
18-11-2010, 15:11
Not really.

Those models that have been displaced are still in the unit and may have the opportunity to make their attacks anyway.

Imagine a 8 chaos warriors arranged 6 models wide. The unit is the joined by a hero on a juggernaut (2x2 base footprint) that displaces four models. The displaced models are placed in a position for supporting attacks.

If there were "virtual" chaos warriors fighting from the positions occupied by the character then you'd get more supporting attacks than you have actual supporting models.

-T10

jindianajonz
18-11-2010, 15:35
First of all, I believe the rule SHOULD say that only models in the second rank are eligeable to make supporting attacks, unless they are in horde formation. However, that is not what the BRB says (Disclaimer: I don't have the BRB with me, so I'm going off of what was posted in this thread.)

As has been said, there are two rules coming into play here (yes, the bolded part is a rule, not just filler)

Rule 1: Warriors in the second rank do not sit idly by whilst their comrades battle away,but muster forward to strike blows of their own.We refer to the attacks made by these models as supporting attacks.

Rule 2: A model can make a supporting attack if it is directly behind a friendly model that is itself fighting an enemy in base contact.

Since these are both official rules, we must do our best to reconcile them. It is important to note that rule 1 merely defines units attacking from the second rank are called "supporting attacks," it does not say these are the only supporting attacks. I would argue that, RAW, allowing units behind a screaming bell to attack would satisfy both of these rules.

First off, lets say only units in the second rank can make supporting attacks. Rule 1 is clearly satisfied, but since units behind the screaming bell (assuming the bell is in base to base contact with an enemy) aren't allowed to attack, rule 2 is clearly being violated.

So lets consider the scenario where the units behind are allowed to attack. Rule 2 is now being followed, but is Rule 1? Warriors in the second rank aren't sitting around idly; they are mustering forward to strike blows of their own. And we do call these attacks supporting attacks. Therefore, I would argue that this interpretation most closely follows all of the rules given.

If I wanted to take it one step further and explain how this is "common sense" I would argue that the screaming bell (and most large based models) also have large gaps in them. I could easily imagine Skaven behind the bell (or Saurus's behind a palaquin) scrambling across it to battle the enemy; in fact it would be odd if they didn't take every opportunity to surge forward that was available. I'd argue that this is much more realistic than expecting the units to sit back and wait their turn to fight.

In game terms, though, it doesn't make sense that switching to a horde would let less people fight. I hope this is errata'd, but as it is currently written this is the only interpretation that makes sense.

Synnister
18-11-2010, 16:59
Not only is the bold text at the beginning of each rule not fluff or filler, it is in fact a concise summary of the rule. The rest of the text only goes into more detail, offers additional explanation, and provides specific examples. I believe these bold sections were included to make it easier to look up rules quickly. Instead of wading through a half dozen paragraphs of text, just find the rule and read the bold section - only read on if you need further clarification.

I highlighted the relevant part to make it easy for you. They are not rules, most of them are a summery of the rule,but not all. You can read them to find what rule you are looking for, but you have to read the RULE itself to actually get all the details of how ,when and if to apply said rule.

I went ahead and highlighted the relevant part for you since apparently this sentence is hard to comprehend. Your stance is that the bold rule is just filler/fluff and not a rule yet in numerous occasions you have to get pertinent data from these bolded rules. And somehow you continue to assert that some bolded rules are actual rules and some aren't. Apparently, you are privy to some special rule that allows you to know which are actual rules and which are just filler/fluff.

I'll just list a couple that I've found that kinda just a little disputes the filler/fluff assertion:

1) Pg 27; Moving off the board - entire rule is bold so is this fluff or rule?
2) Pg 30; Power Limit - The limit of 12 is established in the bolded text and
reinforced in the non-bolded portion - so is the limit of 12 a rule
or fluff?
3) Pg 30; Dispel Limit - Same as power limit and only has a italic example as
its "rule" - so is the bolded section rule or fluff?
4) Pg 36; Spells and Panic - entire rule is bold for spells causing panic - fluff
or rule?
5) Pg 46; Who can Strike? - According to this bolded section you can
attack corner to corner - is that fluff or rule?
6) Pg 52; Wounds Inflicted - +1 CR for each wound is in the bolded section
but no where in the non-bolded area - rule or fluff?
7) Actually all of the combat resolution is only in the bolded section.

Honestly, I just flipped through the first 53 pages of the rulebook and found that many situations where you have to use the bolded section to find the rule. How do you really play this game lacking that many rules? How do you determine combat resolution if the 'rules' are actually fluff? Do you just arbitrarily decide who wins each combat or even the game? Is there at least a die roll or do you just tell your unfortunate opponent that you won and better luck next time?

You cannot determine which bolded sections are fluff because they are all rules. Whether they are just a synopsis or the actual rule itself they are rules and thus have to be followed. To do otherwise is playing by house rules which is fine however, coming to a rules debate putting forth YOUR house rule is kinda silly since we're here to debate the actual rules (bolded or non-bolded) in the rulebook.

Synnister
18-11-2010, 17:04
on page 98 3rd paragraph down it says "If your character fits into a unit in this manner, work out the units ranks and it's rank bonus as if it was filled with rank and file troops"... If I am to work this out as the space being filled by rank and file troops - would it not make sense that those rank and file troops get to attack? So i guess the argument would be if it counts as rank and file troops for bonuses does it still count them as a rank and file troops for attacks?? Not that this is what honor and glory was saying but I can now see his side and am as of right now some what convinced that he is right.... Meh I'm still not sure - this needs a faq

How is assuming RnF troops are in the place for the character for rank bonus even remotely confusing? It is talking about rank bonus only not number of attacks. How can a model that is not there count as a model that is there? If the rule had said for all purposes assume the area of the character as RnF troops then you'd be on to something. It doesn't so you have to use the rules as they are written. Which says for rank bonus only you count the area as being RnF troops.

honorandglory
18-11-2010, 17:58
I'll just list a couple that I've found that kinda just a little disputes the filler/fluff assertion:

1) Pg 27; Moving off the board - entire rule is bold so is this fluff or rule?
2) Pg 30; Power Limit - The limit of 12 is established in the bolded text and
reinforced in the non-bolded portion - so is the limit of 12 a rule
or fluff?
3) Pg 30; Dispel Limit - Same as power limit and only has a italic example as
its "rule" - so is the bolded section rule or fluff?
4) Pg 36; Spells and Panic - entire rule is bold for spells causing panic - fluff
or rule?
5) Pg 46; Who can Strike? - According to this bolded section you can
attack corner to corner - is that fluff or rule?
6) Pg 52; Wounds Inflicted - +1 CR for each wound is in the bolded section
but no where in the non-bolded area - rule or fluff?
7) Actually all of the combat resolution is only in the bolded section.



1)A clarification and sends you to the rules of when a model can leave the table Via pursuit/Flee. This one you may have gotten right as it may be a ruleor just a reminder, but it is far from the norm as I will show.

2) Tells you that your casting pool can never exceed 12 at any point in the phase. The rule below tells you that this includes Channelling,Magic Items, and special ability, which are advanced rules and normally supersede basic rules Which you would not know if all you read was the Header.

3)SEE ABOVE

4)Not a rule as such, as it redirects you to the actual rule for panic (where you may have actually gotten the Headers as rules part right,still not the norm though) so they did not have to print it twice.

5)Simply a reminder that corner to corner is considered base to base.

6) Also states this in the actual rule in the middle of the second paragraph. Though with the heading you would be left wondering about instakill,like Killing blow, does it do one wound or all the remaining wounds. You would also ,going by the header get +1 CR for wounds that are saved ,which you could infer from just the header.

7) Yes, but they are also just concise reminders as the true rule is printed below verbatim, and contains other vital info.such as

A)Extra ranks has the rules for disruption . Which the header does not allude to.

B)flank attack has a reminder to use the rules for disruption if you have 2 or more Ranks, the header does not even hint at that.

C) High Ground. The actual rule tells you that the Majority of the models in the unit must start the charge higher than the enemy. No mention of that in the Header.

For even more fun lets take the very first rule in the book, Forming units.
If you follow just the header, it is onot obvious that you have to Rank them up in a base to base formation. You would also have no clue about puting them in actual ranks and files, and that the same number must be in each rank,but the last.

Using just the ones you have put up, I have proven that the headers are not normally rules ,but synopsis of the rule and that you MUST read he actual rule below it to know how to apply them.

honorandglory
18-11-2010, 18:01
How is assuming RnF troops are in the place for the character for rank bonus even remotely confusing? It is talking about rank bonus only not number of attacks. How can a model that is not there count as a model that is there? If the rule had said for all purposes assume the area of the character as RnF troops then you'd be on to something. It doesn't so you have to use the rules as they are written. Which says for rank bonus only you count the area as being RnF troops.

Pg 98 that he is referring to says " Work out the units Ranks ( and therefore rank bonus) as if the space was filled with rank and file troops"Direct quote from the Rule Book. And if it were only addressing Rank bonus, why the (and therefore rank bonus) remark?

GrimmHammer
18-11-2010, 18:42
the bonus part is what got me confused a bit - i consider the extra attacks a bonus on top of the + to the combat resolution- however it still kinda seems off - which is why i said it could probably be faq'd - But knowing me I'm probably reading into it to much.

theorox
18-11-2010, 19:08
This is crazy. Let's get a dictionary, smoke crack and talk about unicorns, it would certainly solve more ruledebates than these petty arguments and flaming.

Theo

Synnister
18-11-2010, 19:17
1)A clarification and sends you to the rules of when a model can leave the table Via pursuit/Flee. This one you may have gotten right as it may be a ruleor just a reminder, but it is far from the norm as I will show.

2) Tells you that your casting pool can never exceed 12 at any point in the phase. The rule below tells you that this includes Channelling,Magic Items, and special ability, which are advanced rules and normally supersede basic rules Which you would not know if all you read was the Header.

3)SEE ABOVE

4)Not a rule as such, as it redirects you to the actual rule for panic (where you may have actually gotten the Headers as rules part right,still not the norm though) so they did not have to print it twice.

5)Simply a reminder that corner to corner is considered base to base.

6) Also states this in the actual rule in the middle of the second paragraph. Though with the heading you would be left wondering about instakill,like Killing blow, does it do one wound or all the remaining wounds. You would also ,going by the header get +1 CR for wounds that are saved ,which you could infer from just the header.

7) Yes, but they are also just concise reminders as the true rule is printed below verbatim, and contains other vital info.such as

A)Extra ranks has the rules for disruption . Which the header does not allude to.

B)flank attack has a reminder to use the rules for disruption if you have 2 or more Ranks, the header does not even hint at that.

C) High Ground. The actual rule tells you that the Majority of the models in the unit must start the charge higher than the enemy. No mention of that in the Header.

For even more fun lets take the very first rule in the book, Forming units.
If you follow just the header, it is onot obvious that you have to Rank them up in a base to base formation. You would also have no clue about puting them in actual ranks and files, and that the same number must be in each rank,but the last.

Using just the ones you have put up, I have proven that the headers are not normally rules ,but synopsis of the rule and that you MUST read he actual rule below it to know how to apply them.

How do you get that I am saying that the bolded rules are the all inclusive rule? I clearly stated that the bolded and non-bolded rules are in fact rules and thus have to be followed. You are the one that wants to pick and choose which rules to follow. Just to be even more clear than I have already stated: YOU HAVE TO FOLLOW ALL OF THE RULES IN THE RULEBOOK - whether they are bolded or not. YOU do not get to choose which to follow you have to follow them all. All of the rules -- do you get it? You have absolutely no way to determine which bolded section is rule and which is fluff.

honorandglory
18-11-2010, 19:45
And I am saying that the emboldened part in the majority, are not rules , but quick filler or a synopsis,at best to show you where to look for said rule. I have taken your own post and proven this fact. Yes there are some places (IE Panic) where the rule is stated only in the header, but this is an abnormality.However in the case of this particular rules debate about Supporting Attacks they are not written in the header,but underneath where all the other rules( sans Panic) are written.

Synnister
18-11-2010, 20:07
And I am saying that the emboldened part in the majority, are not rules , but quick filler or a synopsis,at best to show you where to look for said rule. I have taken your own post and proven this fact. Yes there are some places (IE Panic) where the rule is stated only in the header, but this is an abnormality.However in the case of this particular rules debate about Supporting Attacks they are not written in the header,but underneath where all the other rules( sans Panic) are written.

Alright given the fact that some rules are written in the bolded portions and some just contain synopsis, how do YOU personally determine which to follow? Without these rules you cannot play the game therefore you have to guess what treat all rules as rules whether they are bolded or not. Whether you agree with them or not you have to follow them. The rule for supporting attacks coming from the 2nd rank is just as valid as having to be behind someone that is in base to base contact.

honorandglory
18-11-2010, 22:04
Quite honestly, I read the entire thing, if the header is all there is to the rules(IE Panic section) then that is what I go by, as there are no following rules. However if the section below has the rules then I ignore the header as it is a summery/fluff/filler, useful only in finding the rule quickly on the page.

Synnister
18-11-2010, 22:37
Quite honestly, I read the entire thing, if the header is all there is to the rules(IE Panic section) then that is what I go by, as there are no following rules. However if the section below has the rules then I ignore the header as it is a summery/fluff/filler, useful only in finding the rule quickly on the page.

So if you skip the bolded rules you don't limit power pool nor dispel pool to 12? Since that rule is clearly in the bolded section with supporting rules underneath and no mention of the 12 limit in the non-bolded section. Just admit that you are wrong and move on dude. People will think more of you if you do than if you keep putting this nonsense out on this subject.

honorandglory
18-11-2010, 23:00
In this particular case I would do as I have stated in my post above. However this is not indicative of the way they write the rules throughout the book,but rather as I have said, an anomaly in the way they print their book.

I have no problem saying I am wrong when that happens to be so, but in the case of Supporting Attacks I am clearly not wrong. As the rule clearly and in Black and white states that, you get supporting attacks , "If a model is directly behind a friendly model that is itself fighting an enemy in base contact". Is any of this last highlighted sentence incorrect?

Chris_
18-11-2010, 23:19
No, you obviously have a problem saying you are wrong because you are very wrong right now.

This is not a discussion anymore, it is everyone vs honorandglory who just can't admit to being wrong. If you want to save even a tiny bit of reputation here you better just admit you are wrong, this is just silly. Some mod should come and clean this thread up after we are done so no one gets the wrong idea and thinks honorandglory's way is correct... (and take away all this nonsense about the bolded part of the rules not being rules :wtf: )


Synnister: Remember honorandglory's logic: "They are not really rules but sometimes you have to follow them as rules, and other times you can just ignore them alltogether. Oh, why you ask? There is no reason." Seriously... :wtf:

Synnister
18-11-2010, 23:23
So wait? Do you or do you not follow 12 power pool limit? I honestly have no idea how you decide which rules to follow and which ones you ignore. Regardless of them using the bolded section as a place to put rules in for only a limited number of rules does not remove the requirement to follow all the bolded sections as rules. As I have pointed out you cannot do many things in this game without following the rules in the bold sections. Therefore since there is no rule stating how to disregard certain bolded sections and follow others you have to follow them all. There is no rule saying you can't follow some of the rules because you think they are fluff or filler or whatever.

As for your statement as I have stated multiple times there are 2 conditions to providing supporting attacks;

1) Be in the 2nd or 3rd rank depending on formation (this is the rule in bold that you keep saying is fluff/filler or whatever)

and

2) Be directly behind a friendly model that is in base to base contact.

H33D
19-11-2010, 01:18
This is correct RAW. As much as it is absolutely wrong in my opinion to make attacks behind a model that takes up more than 1 rank. Unless that rank gets to make supporting attack anyway of course. I have yet to find a rule in the book that states to ignore certain entries within the book. Some of what people call fluff/filler in the book has even been faq'd (see the section about bolt throwers requiring 2 or more crew).

Synnister
19-11-2010, 01:47
This is correct RAW. As much as it is absolutely wrong in my opinion to make attacks behind a model that takes up more than 1 rank. Unless that rank gets to make supporting attack anyway of course. I have yet to find a rule in the book that states to ignore certain entries within the book. Some of what people call fluff/filler in the book has even been faq'd (see the section about bolt throwers requiring 2 or more crew).

What? you think that a model in the third rank behind a 2x2 model that's in base to base contact gets to make supporting attacks? If that is the case then how do you get around the rule in the opening of the supporting attacks section that states models in the 2nd rank get to make an attack and it is called a supporting attack? How is that statement confusing? Your model has to be in the second rank and behind a model that is in b2b contact to make a supporting attack barring formations or weapons or special rules.

Edit:

Oh right read through his previous posts and he's apparently on the right side. However, that last post was very confusing.

Chris_
19-11-2010, 01:53
What? you think that a model in the third rank behind a 2x2 model that's in base to base contact gets to make supporting attacks? If that is the case then how do you get around the rule in the opening of the supporting attacks section that states models in the 2nd rank get to make an attack and it is called a supporting attack? How is that statement confusing? Your model has to be in the second rank and behind a model that is in b2b contact to make a supporting attack barring formations or weapons or special rules.I think he meant when they are in a horde formation so they can make it from the third rank. It seems he is in agreement with us.

honorandglory
19-11-2010, 03:03
If you had bothered to actually read my last post then you would know how I play the 12 power dice section, and how I determine if the bold is a synopsis or not.However I will reprint it here to make it easier.

I read the entire thing, if the header is all there is to the rules(IE Panic section) then that is what I go by, as there are no following rules. However if the section below has the rules then I ignore the header as it is a summery/fluff/filler, useful only in finding the rule quickly on the page.

The same way everyone else does.

Synnister
19-11-2010, 03:27
If you had bothered to actually read my last post then you would know how I play the 12 power dice section, and how I determine if the bold is a synopsis or not.However I will reprint it here to make it easier.

I read the entire thing, if the header is all there is to the rules(IE Panic section) then that is what I go by, as there are no following rules. However if the section below has the rules then I ignore the header as it is a summery/fluff/filler, useful only in finding the rule quickly on the page.

The same way everyone else does.

So you play that there is no 12 dice limit on the power pool. The 12 dice limit is ONLY listed in the bolded section and not in the non-bolded section. Since, according to your 'logic' you dismiss the bolded section if there is non-bolded rules under the bolded section, you'd never get to use the 12 power dice limit.

I am highly discouraged that everyone does this since it absolutely makes no sense to me. It seems that you decide if you like the rule or not then arbitrarily decide whether or not to follow it.

I will agree that in most circumstances the bolded sections are just a summary of the rules for easy reference. However, as I have proven beyond any question, there are some rules that are only contained in the bolded sections. Since there is no rule telling how to interpret the bolded rules you have to follow them as legitimate rules no matter how fluffy they sound.

stripsteak
19-11-2010, 04:22
The same way everyone else does.

Thanks for speaking for everyone, when clearly as evidenced by this thread there are people who do not do as you say everyone does.

LAV-Kitsune-
19-11-2010, 06:39
The night goblin is almost completely unaware what is happening around him, and he has to be carried into battle by his mates. The night goblins wait until the enemy are close by, and then push the fanatic out towards the foe, giving him a good shove to start him off in the right direction. Free at last, the deranged night goblin starts to spin round crazily, swinging his ball and chain in dizzy circle of death. The fanatic really has little idea where he is going, and will happily plough through troops from his own side if they get in the way.
Quoted from O&G book. So as you can see it is impossible to reason with a fanatic, as his brains are clouded with mad cap mushroom. He will attack even his own troops in this craziness. He doesnt know whats happening around him, so he could continue same thing for hours, maybe for days even. It is more likely that if you try to reason with fanatic you will just get hurt from his giant iron ball.

And thats why warbosses dont reason try to reason with tr...fanatics and just let them be, as it really accomplishes nothing. Oh? This wasnt the fluff thread about one guy smashing around and everyone trying to reason him? But there was even flaming attacks all over the place so the tr...fanatic couldnt regenerate!

Well if it gunna be rulz question I gotz sumthin too:
Page 2, the most important rule.
If most humies like game, they play and happy. If one humie not like rulz dey roll dice and continue happy game. Den all can disguzz after and if fanatic still mad mad, hit him with choppa. Datz the rulz.

Fubar
19-11-2010, 08:43
I'm not saying I agree with Honorand glory on all his points, but you must concede that he does have a point.

But, can we not imagine for a second that "being in the second rank" although not being fluff as he is trying to say, could mean that second rank is a model behind one that is in base contact with the first? If I was being played against I don't think I'd have a problem with it.

Also we must also acknowledge that a model on a 40mm can receive supporting attacks when in a unit of cavlry.

For the point of skaven getting supporting attacks from behind a screaming bell, that's a different point entirely, the bell is classed as a chariot, and chariots don't receive or get to make supporting attacks.

Arnizipal
19-11-2010, 09:55
I think this thread has run its course.
The argument is going in circles since page 2.
I'm going to lock it before the mood goes down even more.

Arnizipal,

++ The Warseer Moderation Team ++