PDA

View Full Version : a couple of questions



Khorneflakes
22-08-2011, 06:50
1) if you have a unit in combat with a model in a fulcrum, or any building, can another unit charge the unit outside the building?

2) if a unit is fleeing and runs into a wood that makes them stupid how do you resolve their movement next turn if they fail their tests for rallying and then stupidity?.

Yrrdead
22-08-2011, 07:03
1.) Yes, believe that this is addressed in the rulebook FAQ. EDIT- pg 9 top right question and answer.

2.) Stupidity , from what I can tell would happen first as rallying is after Start of Turn (stupidity is here) and Charge.

The tricky part here is if Stupidity is failed. Per the Stupid rules , you may not take any further action this turn. My initial assumption is that you may not test to rally nor will you make a flee move as these both constitute actions. I'm nowhere near 100% sure with this.

If the Stupidity test is passed then there are no conflicts. You still test to rally during compulsory and still make a flee move if you fail to rally.

TMATK
22-08-2011, 07:39
Q: Can a unit that has failed a Stupidity test be forced to move,
or perform any other action, by a spell, or other special rule/magic
item? (p76)
A: Yes.

Rallying fleeing troops doesn't seem to be optional, so you might call it an action forced by a special rule?

Yrrdead
22-08-2011, 07:51
I wouldn't consider fleeing/rallying to fall under that purview. Fleeing/rallying would seem to be the general rule not a spell/special rule/magic item.

Though you would think that they would have left special rule out of that FAQ but then again , FAQ's aren't necessarily known for their rigor.

TMATK
22-08-2011, 08:09
Yes, it's a stretch to call it a special rule. However when I look at those 2 FAQ answers I get the feeling that when they say action, they mean voluntary action. Otherwise everything would really mean everything. ;)


EDIT: To be honest I didn't even realize that fleeing troops had to take stupidity tests. Is that new to 8th edition?

Mid'ean
22-08-2011, 10:58
Yes, it's a stretch to call it a special rule. However when I look at those 2 FAQ answers I get the feeling that when they say action, they mean voluntary action. Otherwise everything would really mean everything. ;)


EDIT: To be honest I didn't even realize that fleeing troops had to take stupidity tests. Is that new to 8th edition?

Fleeing troops don't. The OP's question had the fleeing troops in a woods that made them subject to stupidity.

T10
22-08-2011, 14:46
I don't see how the OP's scenario is different from normal Stupidity.

A unit of fleeing Trolls is as much subject to Stupidity as is a unit of fleeing Goblins that happen to start their turn in a Fungus Forest: Both have the Stupidity special rule.

-T10

Yrrdead
22-08-2011, 17:29
Well someone has to have had this happen then. I'm sure that someone has had a unit of trolls lose combat, break and successfully flee. Then in subsequent turns fail their stupidity.

What happened in Compulsory?


On a side note in 7th wasn't the order of these two things swapped? By that I mean that you rallied first and Stupidity wasn't until Compulsory.

jrodrag
22-08-2011, 21:12
Well someone has to have had this happen then. I'm sure that someone has had a unit of trolls lose combat, break and successfully flee. Then in subsequent turns fail their stupidity.

What happened in Compulsory?


On a side note in 7th wasn't the order of these two things swapped? By that I mean that you rallied first and Stupidity wasn't until Compulsory.

Nobody could have had this happen. Fleeing troops do not test for stupidity at all. They will test to rally and if rallied be able to reform as normal but do nothing else. In 7th it didn't matter either as fleeing troops did not take stupidity tests then either.

TMATK
22-08-2011, 21:19
Nobody could have had this happen. Fleeing troops do not test for stupidity at all. They will test to rally and if rallied be able to reform as normal but do nothing else. In 7th it didn't matter either as fleeing troops did not take stupidity tests then either.

Do you have any rules reference to back that up?

It sounds like it should work that way, but I don't see it.

Sent from my Comet using Tapatalk

Yrrdead
22-08-2011, 21:24
Nobody could have had this happen. Fleeing troops do not test for stupidity at all. They will test to rally and if rallied be able to reform as normal but do nothing else. In 7th it didn't matter either as fleeing troops did not take stupidity tests then either.

I think that you'll find that the rules disagree with you.

The movement phase has 4 parts (pg 15);

1.Start of Turn(Stupidity happens here.)
2.Charge
3.Compulsory Moves (Rally Fleeing Units(pg 24)happens here.)
4.Remaining Moves

I cannot find under either fleeing troops or the Stupidity rule anything that even hints that fleeing somehow prevents you from taking a stupidity test.

T10
23-08-2011, 08:00
I've always assumed that fleeing overrides stupidity since a flee move is worse than a stupid move (it brings you faster to the table edge and off).

-T10

Yrrdead
23-08-2011, 08:04
I never really encountered it either (too long playing undead/vc) but seems that in 8th that Stupid overrides fleeing.

Another of those subtle edition changes that has been overlooked.

SkawtheFalconer
23-08-2011, 10:00
Aren't you essentially immune to effects of psych if you're fleeing?

Eta
23-08-2011, 10:45
Aren't you essentially immune to effects of psych if you're fleeing?

Stupidity isn't a "Psychology" rule like Fear, Terror and Panic.

vinush
23-08-2011, 11:57
What category does stupidity fall under now? My gaming group have never played it that you take stupidity while fleeing in 8th edition.

THE \/ince

Yrrdead
23-08-2011, 18:12
Aren't you essentially immune to effects of psych if you're fleeing?

No you aren't immune to psych. Fleeing is simply a compulsory move that you may test to stop. That is it.(pg 24,25)


What category does stupidity fall under now? My gaming group have never played it that you take stupidity while fleeing in 8th edition.

THE \/ince
Stupidity is a special rule that occurs at the Start of Turn.(pg 76,pg15)

T10
25-08-2011, 06:40
However, failing a Stupidity test doesn't mean you rally: You are still fleeing when you come to the Compulsory Movement part of the Movement phase. You are still required to attempt to rally.

-T10

Yrrdead
25-08-2011, 06:45
Speaking of failing a Stupidity test.

Would you test to rally? My question stems from the part of Stupidity where you "cannot take any further action that turn".

And if yes you test to rally , would you make the flee move? I can kind of see how a rally test isn't an action (though I think it is). But a flee move definitely seems very actioney.(yes I just made that word up)

T10
25-08-2011, 07:07
As has been pointed out: Rallying is not voluntary.

-T10

Yrrdead
25-08-2011, 07:10
So , you perform all the associated actions related to rallying (pass or fail) even with a failed Stupidity telling you not to take any further actions?

BEEGfrog
26-08-2011, 15:08
Regarding question 1) This is another made up FAQ from GW without any basis in the rules, it is also very difficult for it to actually happen.

Building assaults can never be multi-turn events, if the assaulting unit does not cause the enemy to flee the assault is over, the assaulter is moved 1" away from the building and neither side counts as being in combat.

For an assaulter to be charged their enemy has to generate a charge during the assaulting player's turn. This hasn't been impossible in previous versions of WHFB where magic items or miscasts have allowed magical movement out of turn, I can't think of an example off the top of my head in 8th.

As far as I can see with RAW rather than FAQ writer's invention there is no reason to disallow the assault. The assaulter should probably still suffer the penalties for assaulting and the out of turn charger the full benefits of charging. At the very least, tactically acheiving an out of turn charge should be rewarded.

Archis
26-08-2011, 16:06
^^ Just in response to the frog, I think the issue arises from a pursuit from another combat that happened before the assualt but in the same combat phase

BEEGfrog
26-08-2011, 16:41
^^ Just in response to the frog, I think the issue arises from a pursuit from another combat that happened before the assualt but in the same combat phase

Yep, I was only considering charges not pursuits into fresh enemy. I know the other question was about a pursuit but didn't make the connection.

But I stand by my unhinged rantings on GW FAQs: find an existing, relevant rule and put a clarification or example in a FAQ, preferably referencing the rule(s) used; new inventions or changes should go into amendment or errata.

And in this case it is easy to follow RAW rather than inventing FAQs:

-if assault already fought then assaulting unit not in combat and resolution moved to next turn

-if assault not fought then pursuer joins in for second round of combat this turn, assaulter suffering assault penalties (should have chosen to resolve assault first!)

The building rules do not allow a pursuer to assault a building as this can only be done during the movement phase not the comat/pursuit phase. A pursuer has to stop 1" from a garrisoned building. This means that there are no assaults left pending from pursuits to be charged in the following turn.

Yrrdead
26-08-2011, 16:42
Regarding question 1) This is another made up FAQ from GW without any basis in the rules, it is also very difficult for it to actually happen.

Building assaults can never be multi-turn events, if the assaulting unit does not cause the enemy to flee the assault is over, the assaulter is moved 1" away from the building and neither side counts as being in combat.

For an assaulter to be charged their enemy has to generate a charge during the assaulting player's turn. This hasn't been impossible in previous versions of WHFB where magic items or miscasts have allowed magical movement out of turn, I can't think of an example off the top of my head in 8th.

As far as I can see with RAW rather than FAQ writer's invention there is no reason to disallow the assault. The assaulter should probably still suffer the penalties for assaulting and the out of turn charger the full benefits of charging. At the very least, tactically achieving an out of turn charge should be rewarded.

This isn't a made up FAQ. Nor is this an issue of an out of turn charge (which I can't think of how to accomplish). I think that you are missing the confusion associated with this issue.

The issue is that people are used to being "locked" in combat. Though most of us are aware that buildings are a unique case and that you aren't "locked" in combat when assaulting a building. This FAQ is clearing that question up. The OP is asking the very question that spawned the FAQ in the first place. Meaning people are assuming that both the units are fighting inside the building regardless of actual position of said unit outside the building.

BEEGfrog
26-08-2011, 17:46
I am not saying the FAQ is made up, nor there isn't a confusion at the heart of the question, what I am saying is that whoever wrote the FAQ ignored what it in the (admittedly excessively large and heavy) rulebook and invented new rules.

If the FAQ wasn't making up new rules why wouldn't it point out that the assault is probably over and doesn't apply? Why does it introduce a new rule of cancelling a pending assault?. Where is that covered in the rules in the actual rulebook?

The mechanism for rules changes is the amendment, see the new rules for power scrolls: in the right place in the amendments section because it is a change.

The only thing about charging assualters that should be in the FAQ is if the assaulter should get assaulting penalties with the models against the new charger.

One further example of why this FAQ is wrong: units contacted by pursuers can only hold, but assaulters, limited by all the confusion of the assault, can back out of the assault and regain their ranked formation and bonusses when they are contacted by pursuers.

Apologies if I have given any offence, but rules changes in FAQs or FAQs that don't follow the rules are a pet peeve of mine. I have enough trouble keeping the rules straight without backdoor alterations sneaked into FAQs.

Yrrdead
26-08-2011, 18:01
Oh I agree that FAQ's are pretty bad in many cases, I just don't find this to be one of them.

It must just be my interpretation of this FAQ. I don't see it as changing a rule at all. Simply making a slightly ambiguous rule more explicit.