PDA

View Full Version : Steadfast vs Chariot/RIP recast



Noght
26-02-2011, 13:54
Hey all:

2 quick questions from a Battle last night:

1. Two High Elf Chariots hit my Detachment of 13 Halberds, doing 7 wounds total (only 4 impact hits) leaving me the front rank of 5 with 1 in second rank. I said I was Steadfast because of my single rank vs his Zero ranks. Several quick texts/phone calls confirmed my unit being Steadfast. Did we do it right?

2. High Elf Shadow magic spells Enfeebling and Withering both cast on a unit prior to his magic phase (the afore mentioned Halberd Detachment who were S2/T2). He rolled 4 on Winds, so I had 5 dice with Lector and he ended up with 6 total. He had Maisma and Steed of Shadow available. I had the Parent unit of Halberdiers buffed with Speed of Light (WS10/Init10) so even a juiced up Maisma (-3 to each) meant his just charged Swordmasters would need 4+, no re-roll, strike first (and we all know Elves can't do anything without all Three :p). He elected to end Enfeebling and re-cast it on my Halberdiers with 3 dice, I rolled all 5 and dispelled it. He then said he would take back Withering and re-cast...I said wait...I thought you would have to declare all the "self dispelling RIP" at the beginning (I would have held back some dice to dispel). He failed the Withering Cast. He said he could do it anytime during the phase. He's probably right. Did we do it right?

Thanks in advance.
Noght

theunwantedbeing
26-02-2011, 13:56
1. Yup, sadly.
2. Caster can choose to end a RIP spell whenever he likes.

T10
26-02-2011, 21:06
1. Yes. A single (1) rank is more than no (0) ranks.

2. That's a lot of superfluous information that probably seemed important during the game.

There are no rules that say you need to list all remains in play effects you wish to end at the same time. Quite the contrary: the player may elect to end these effects whenever he wants to.

Strictly speaking, a remains in play spell can only be successfully cast once per battle: The wizard is prohibited from casting the same spell again in subsequent turns (p. 36). However, most infer that this applies while the spell remains in play.

-T10

FestHest
27-02-2011, 08:45
Was that an attempt to open a can of worms T10 ? :)

On a side note;
If a wizard have a RIP in play, how should this scenario be resolved:
It is the wizards turn, and he have, say 5 power dice left, and can't cast anymore spells.
The opposing player can dispel his RIP spell, but then the wizard have a spell to cast and can cast it again in this turm. The question is, when do the magic phase end, when the wizard say "I don't want to/can cast any more spells" or what ?

T10
27-02-2011, 09:01
Just placing the can on the table and reading aloud what it says on the tin.

-T10

DaemonReign
27-02-2011, 12:25
Was that an attempt to open a can of worms T10 ? :)

On a side note;
If a wizard have a RIP in play, how should this scenario be resolved:
It is the wizards turn, and he have, say 5 power dice left, and can't cast anymore spells.
The opposing player can dispel his RIP spell, but then the wizard have a spell to cast and can cast it again in this turm. The question is, when do the magic phase end, when the wizard say "I don't want to/can cast any more spells" or what ?

This is a really good question. I don't think there's any RAW-solution really. If two really stubborn players run into this situation it could just turn into a silly waiting-game.

The dispelling player would have to attempt the dispel of the RiP spell while keeping enough Dispel dice to be able to dispel it "again". That might be hard. But it'd still be worth dispelling it, I think, because the casting player might fail even when using five dice, or score a miscast and get hurt by having to try and cast the spell again.

Ultimate Life Form
27-02-2011, 12:39
Dispelling is always better than not dispelling. You can't lose anything from a dispel attempt, but the opponent can potentially lose a lot from his casting attempt.

That being said, I believe it's fair to say that it's the active player who ends his Magic Phase, like with all phases. You cannot dispel after the end of the Magic Phase, so you will have to do so before it ends. This means that, since the phase has not yet ended, the active player gets another shot at casting.

T10
27-02-2011, 14:57
Well, since the wizard can't cast the remains-in-play spell again this shouldn't be a problem. :)

Or we can invent rules that allow the player to cast the spell more than once during the game, and at the same time invent rules that say the wizard can't cast a remain-in-play spell again in the same magic phase that it was dispelled or he decided to end it.

-T10

fastcarfreak
11-03-2011, 04:37
It appears that most of you are incorrect on thinking that one rank of models counts as steadfast vs monsters/chariots. If you look in this months issue of White Dwarf Magazine during the battle report on page 76 you will notice in the last paragraph it says "In the Combat phase, battle was joined across the table, but in the centre the Ironbreakers were still fighting for their lives against a monstrous spider (talking about the arachnorok). The Spider slew two more brave Dwarfs and the unit lost its steadfast status" Now if you look on page 78 in the last paragraph it says "Whilst the Orcs & Goblin players reeled from the loss of two Arachnarok Spiders, Matt h pressed home the advantage by having the LAST SIX Ironbreakers try to charge the savage orc horde in an almost suicidal manoeuvre"

Thus yielding the fact that even though the Ironbreakers had in tact earlier its full first rank of 5 plus whatever in the second rank, it was still not steadfast against the monster. This leads to the fact that the first rank of a unit does not count toward whether a unit qualifies as steadfast.

AMWOOD co
11-03-2011, 04:58
Well, since the wizard can't cast the remains-in-play spell again this shouldn't be a problem. :)

Or we can invent rules that allow the player to cast the spell more than once during the game, and at the same time invent rules that say the wizard can't cast a remain-in-play spell again in the same magic phase that it was dispelled or he decided to end it.

-T10

You mean the rule on p31, 1st and 2nd paragraph that says each spell may be cast once per turn?

Pointy Headed Elven Paladin
11-03-2011, 05:07
You mean the rule on p31, 1st and 2nd paragraph that says each spell may be cast once per turn?

AMWOOD co & T10 is right. Spells can only be cast once on the caster's turn per magic phase. While RIP spells can be cancelled at anytime by the caster if it was already cast in the same turn he could not cast it again.

As for steadfast ruling I think fastcarfreak is also correct:

Simply put, a unit is considered to be steadfast if it has more ranks than it's enemy. As with calculating extra ranks for the purposes of combat resolution, the ranks have to be five or more models wide for the unit to be treated as being steadfast. (p.54 of BRB)

If RAW then it appears that the steadfast rule applies additional ranks after the first.

AMWOOD co
11-03-2011, 05:24
Per the literal reading of the rules, you need more ranks, not a bigger rank bonus (or potential bonus if there was no cap). The first rank is still a rank, so a unit of 5 models in 1 rank will be steadfast against a single model.

Once again, it's the number of ranks, not the rank bonus, so the first rank counts. Check p54 for yourself to see if I have the wording wrong.

Pointy Headed Elven Paladin
11-03-2011, 05:42
Per the literal reading of the rules, you need more ranks, not a bigger rank bonus (or potential bonus if there was no cap). The first rank is still a rank, so a unit of 5 models in 1 rank will be steadfast against a single model.

Once again, it's the number of ranks, not the rank bonus, so the first rank counts. Check p54 for yourself to see if I have the wording wrong.

Hmm... I guess I stand corrected. So is this the only case were a single rank has any effect on close combat if it's against a single model figure? If that's the case does that mean the battle report fastcarfreak referred to is in error?

AMWOOD co
11-03-2011, 06:08
Warseer Rules forum rule 129: Never trust White Dwarf for rule accuracy.
It's right there next to rule 130: Never trust Army Builder for rule accuracy.

...cheecky, ain't I?

Mid'ean
11-03-2011, 12:42
Hmm... I guess I stand corrected. So is this the only case were a single rank has any effect on close combat if it's against a single model figure? If that's the case does that mean the battle report fastcarfreak referred to is in error?

Don't ever ever EVER try to use a battle report to prove a rule. They can sometimes be so full of inconsistencies and rule errors that the writer should have been bi@tch slapped.....:eek:

fastcarfreak
11-03-2011, 14:00
It was obviously the intention of GW to have it the way they played it in White Dwarf. The rules as written are too ambiguous to come to a conclusion other than an interpretation. That being said, I would trust the boys at GW, who did the battle report and have a hand in writing the rules themselves or are in direct contact with the writers of the rules over a forum of people who only come to their own conclusions.

Avian
11-03-2011, 14:21
It was obviously the intention of GW to have it the way they played it in White Dwarf.
Dude, remember rule 129.

It's far more likely that the people who did the battle report played it wrong than that the author wrote it wrong in the rulebook and neglected to alter it with any of the three rulebook FAQs.

T10
11-03-2011, 14:21
Wether or not the guys in that battle report have a direct line to the authors of the rules, we still need to use what's actually written.

-T10

H33D
11-03-2011, 19:22
The bretonnia player also broke the rules for using a magic lance. Just throwing that out there.

On another note, the magic phase immediately ends when the player whose turn it is says so (but after cast spells are resolved etc). This doesn't mean it is sporting to just skip your magic phase so your enemy can't dispel your RIP spells, but if you say 'im done casting' then your opponent just lost his chance to dispel anything RIP.

If you aren't casting anything that turn, I would suppose giving your opponent a chance to dispel would be for the best, but you can still cast all you want up until you say the magic phase ends, in which case no more dispelling.

fastcarfreak
11-03-2011, 20:11
Wether or not the guys in that battle report have a direct line to the authors of the rules, we still need to use what's actually written.

-T10

That's the point. The way it is written is too ambiguous to actually say one way is correct. It is completely open for interpretation... we had a group discussion about this ruling last week at a tourney and had to dispute this with the dice gods deciding our fate. i just think it makes sense that the battle report tips the interpretation to one side...

TMATK
11-03-2011, 20:20
There's nothing ambiguous about 1 rank being more then 0. The rules make a clear distinction between "ranks" and "extra ranks".

I think confusion comes from being hung up on 7th edition, when only "extra ranks" mattered.

Avian
11-03-2011, 20:21
It's only ambigous in your head.

Note that page 54 says:

"Simply put, a unit is considered to be steadfast if it has more ranks than it's enemy. As with calculating extra ranks for the purposes of combat resolution, the ranks have to be five or more models wide for the unit to be treated as being steadfast."

So with rank bonus, you are counting extra ranks behind the fighting rank and with steadfast you are simply counting ranks.

It's not rocket wizardry. ;)

Lord Inquisitor
11-03-2011, 20:42
On a side note;
If a wizard have a RIP in play, how should this scenario be resolved:
It is the wizards turn, and he have, say 5 power dice left, and can't cast anymore spells.
The opposing player can dispel his RIP spell, but then the wizard have a spell to cast and can cast it again in this turm. The question is, when do the magic phase end, when the wizard say "I don't want to/can cast any more spells" or what ?
Good question. It comes up a lot with Ogres - often you can reach saturation with the spells you want. There are basically 3 remains in play spells I care about and if I start my magic phase with them all in play, then often there's simply nothing for me to cast. But if my opponent dispels, then I'd like to cast them again!

This is how I've been playing it.

1) Casting player declares that he's done casting and if the opponent doesn't choose to dispel anything, he'll end the phase.
2) Opponent gets to choose to dispel existing RiP spells or not. If not, magic phase ends.
3) If the opponent attempts to dispel, the magic phase continues, and caster can attempt to cast further if he wants, potentially recasting a dispelled remains in play. Return to step 1).

This is a muddy area in the rules and the above steps seem to be supported by the rules and avoids a "aha I end the magic phase and so you can't dispel RiP spells" gotcha.


It's far more likely that the people who did the battle report played it wrong than that the author wrote it wrong in the rulebook and neglected to alter it with any of the three rulebook FAQs.
Pfff. Not being in an errata is not evidence that it was intended.

In any case, a FAQ on this would be an excellent idea as it causes a lot of confusion, however the RAW might read.


It's only ambigous in your head.

Note that page 54 says:

"Simply put, a unit is considered to be steadfast if it has more ranks than it's enemy. As with calculating extra ranks for the purposes of combat resolution, the ranks have to be five or more models wide for the unit to be treated as being steadfast."

So with rank bonus, you are counting extra ranks behind the fighting rank and with steadfast you are simply counting ranks.

It's not rocket wizardry. ;)
The whole "as with calculating extra ranks" really does make it read like it is done in the same manner as rank bonus. I don't disagree with your conclusion, mind. The example on page 55 with bloodletters and halberdiers shows that it is ranks counted not additional ranks.

Avian
11-03-2011, 20:58
The whole "as with calculating extra ranks" really does make it read like it is done in the same manner as rank bonus.
The sentence reads:

"As with calculating extra ranks for the purposes of combat resolution, the ranks have to be five or more models wide for the unit to be treated as being steadfast."

I'm not sure how anyone can be confused by this if they read the part after the comma. It really seems like some people think it reads:

"As with calculating extra ranks for the purposes of combat resolution, only extra ranks behind the fighting rank count."

The similarity with rank bonus is how wide the ranks need to be, not which ranks are counted.

TMATK
11-03-2011, 21:02
...
This is how I've been playing it.

1) Casting player declares that he's done casting and if the opponent doesn't choose to dispel anything, he'll end the phase.
2) Opponent gets to choose to dispel existing RiP spells or not. If not, magic phase ends.
3) If the opponent attempts to dispel, the magic phase continues, and caster can attempt to cast further if he wants, potentially recasting a dispelled remains in play. Return to step 1).

This is a muddy area in the rules and the above steps seem to be supported by the rules and avoids a "aha I end the magic phase and so you can't dispel RiP spells" gotcha.


I like this solution. Noted for my next game.

Mr_Rose
11-03-2011, 21:26
The sentence reads:

"As with calculating extra ranks for the purposes of combat resolution, the ranks have to be five or more models wide for the unit to be treated as being steadfast."

I'm not sure how anyone can be confused by this if they read the part after the comma. It really seems like some people think it reads:

"As with calculating extra ranks for the purposes of combat resolution, only extra ranks behind the fighting rank count."

The similarity with rank bonus is how wide the ranks need to be, not which ranks are counted.

The simplest test in these types of situations is to reverse the clauses and see what happens:
"As with calculating extra ranks for the purposes of combat resolution, the ranks have to be five or more models wide for the unit to be treated as being steadfast."
Becomes:
"The ranks have to be five or more models wide for the unit to be treated as being steadfast, as with calculating extra ranks for the purposes of combat resolution."

Really, all that sentence is saying is that ranks must be five wide to count for steadfast in the same way that extra ranks have to be five wide to count for combat resolution (implying, but unfortunately not stating, that if you have a rule which changes your "ranking width" for either it also changes it for the other).

Lord Inquisitor
11-03-2011, 21:41
I'm not sure how anyone can be confused by this if they read the part after the comma.

Well look at it this way, it could have been so much more clear with less wording (as with much of Ward's writing, compared with Alessio's, for example).

If...

"Simply put, a unit is considered to be steadfast if it has more ranks than it's enemy. As with calculating extra ranks for the purposes of combat resolution, the ranks have to be five or more models wide for the unit to be treated as being steadfast"

...were edited to this...

"A unit is considered to be steadfast if it has more ranks of five or more models than it's enemy."

... would anyone be confused about it?

Just referencing ranks in combat is potentially confusing. And the fact that people ask this question frequently really means it ought to go in the FAQ! ;)

Chris_
11-03-2011, 22:05
Just because you can find a better alternative doesn't mean that this one isn't perfectly clear already...

And there will always be people asking questions about things that are blindingly obvious if you actually read the relevant section in BRB.

Masque
12-03-2011, 06:16
The bretonnia player also broke the rules for using a magic lance. Just throwing that out there.

I only skimmed the batrep. What did he do wrong?

AMWOOD co
13-03-2011, 06:49
I don't see how this rule could ever be considered ambiguous. The issue is simple.
5 models are needed to count as a rank (except for Monstrous X units who need 3).
A unit of 5 models in 1 rank has more ranks than a single monster which has none.
Therefore, the 5 guys are steadfast.
Simple and straightforward. Anything else is, bluntly put, wishful thinking.