PDA

View Full Version : Bowmen Stakes



Elannion
13-04-2006, 20:40
Ok this isn't how i play them but after rereading the rules, i can see something where people might exploit them, that is unless thas how they are meant to be played.

"models may attack through bases of stakes in the same manner as second ranks of spears"

Second rank of spears cannot attack if that unit has moved and thusly people could say if you charged them, you can't attack first round.

Has this been corrected? cause unless that was meant it does leave it open.

samw
13-04-2006, 20:49
If you move you lose the spikes, so it doesn't come up.

Shield of Freedom
13-04-2006, 21:10
The rule about the stakes specificaly states that if you move for ANY reason, you lose the stakes permanently. So, if you charge a unit, the moment you begin your move the stakes go away and when you contact the enemy there won't be any between your bowmen and the enemy models.

Griefbringer
13-04-2006, 21:41
I guess Elannion was thinking of the situation were the bowmen themselves got charged.

Anyway, there is still no official FAQ or errata to the Bretonnian book (after 2 years, 2 months and 10 days from the release).

EvC
13-04-2006, 21:45
(To the first two posters) That's not his point, I think. I think he means that if the bowmen get charged, then the attackers supposedly act like a second rank of spearmen and so cannot attack. It's a silly point though, entirely based upon and solved by boring semantic discussion, along the lines of the classic thread, "you can't shoot ethereal creatures"... I mean, come on, the role of the stakes is to remove charge bonuses, which is not something any infantry I can think of ever benefit from, and cavalry can't fight in ranks, so you'd have to take stakes to mean that mounted models can NEVER fight the bowmen. Ohokay.

SuperBeast
14-04-2006, 10:29
(To the first two posters) That's not his point, I think. I think he means that if the bowmen get charged, then the attackers supposedly act like a second rank of spearmen and so cannot attack. It's a silly point though, entirely based upon and solved by boring semantic discussion, along the lines of the classic thread, "you can't shoot ethereal creatures"... I mean, come on, the role of the stakes is to remove charge bonuses, which is not something any infantry I can think of ever benefit from, and cavalry can't fight in ranks, so you'd have to take stakes to mean that mounted models can NEVER fight the bowmen. Ohokay.
Alternatively, it's already been answered by Samw...
The statement at the start of the thread is only regarding the unit containing the stakes; it doesn't give any indication it has similar effects on the opposition... :)

Elannion
14-04-2006, 15:14
I don't think it would mean that you can never attack. it would mean they are treated like spearmen which can only attack in ranks the turn after they charged i think, its not about fighting in ranks perse but its treated similar to the second rank of spearmen. Also the opponent also has to attack through the stakes, so technically it would effect them as it doesn't specify it just says attacking through the stakes. Also it doesn't have anything to do with charge bonuses.

Though as i said thats not how i play it but i think you could certainly read it that way. :P i don't want you lot to think im some sort of rules lawyer, i just found this and thought its interesting.

EvC
14-04-2006, 17:07
Your repeated use of the word "it" is far too vague, and lacking so much context. And I can't be bothered to get out my Bretonnian book...

Elannion
14-04-2006, 22:37
"models may attack through bases of stakes in the same manner as the second ranks of spears"

Saying in the same manner as second rank of spears would imply, that rules applying to the second rank of spears attacking would apply to the situation and the phrase doesn't descriminate between friend or foe, infact before in the paragraph it is talking about charging the stakes, so that would again imply that we are talking about opponents. It does say in brackets after about being able to attack models directly infront, it doesn't say that no other rules spear rules apply and infact there is little point bringing up spears if no other rules apply. Aswell as the main fact that the main sentence says "the same manner" not similar.

Sorry again i am just trying to show what i am saying :P i don't condone the use in this way though.

Elannion
14-04-2006, 22:37
"models may attack through bases of stakes in the same manner as the second ranks of spears"

Saying in the same manner as second rank of spears would imply, that rules applying to the second rank of spears attacking would apply to the situation and the phrase doesn't descriminate between friend or foe, infact before in the paragraph it is talking about charging the stakes, so that would again imply that we are talking about opponents. It does say in brackets after about being able to attack models directly infront, it doesn't say that no other rules spear rules apply and infact there is little point bringing up spears if no other rules apply. Aswell as the main fact that the main sentence says "the same manner" not similar, which isn't corrected or modified to prevent this meaning or change it so it doesn't allow what i have put forward later on in the paragraph.

Sorry again i am just trying to show what i am saying :P i don't condone the use in this way though.

Mad Makz
14-04-2006, 23:59
It implies that you may attack a model that is not in base to base, in the same manner as secondrank spearmen can attack a model not in base to base.

Simple enough. Attack through bases is something that spears allow you to do, attack through bases of stakes is something stakes allow you to do. Attacking with the second rank when you move is something that you could not do with spears. HOWEVER, if you were to be VERY stringent and try and be stupidly rules lawyer like and try to apply that rule to the stakes, then I would vehemently argue that you could still attack with the unit attacking the stake protected enemy, because the models that are attacking are those in the front rank (which is something that the spear rules do not prevent you from doing when you move) and you are attacking through a base of stakes (which is something that the stake rules allow you to do).

So no, you can't interpret it as such, even if you try and rules lawyer the death out of it, because A) there are equally valid rules arguements to back up the opposing point of view so it would come down to a judge and B) any judge worth their salt would look at their intention rather than the letter of the law in this case (because the letter of the law is unclear), and then sqiftly slap you upside the head for being a git. :)

Elannion
15-04-2006, 01:08
Well i get what your saying however you treat the people who are attacking as if they are the second rank of spearmen, so whether they actually are the front rank could be irrelivant, because when they are attacking through them they attack the same manner as the second rank does and second rank don't attack on charge. If you get what i mean, because the front rank is attacking as the second rank would do, there is no front rank in the equation. :P i don't think that really made sense its hard to write. Bassically i think what i was trying to say is that, we arent talking about a unit armed with spears and so looking at the full idea of them rules, we are taling about a unit attacking like its is the second rank of spears, so we bypass the thing the front ranks because the front rank of the unit (the bit thats attacking) is using the rules for the 2nd rank of spearmen, they are not however fighting in ranks so the fact that they are the front rank technically doesn't factor in. They use the 2nd rank part of fighting in ranks rule, which technically means the 2nd ranks doesnt attack when moving, however can poke through when not, but they aren't technically fighting in ranks just using them rules to apply to those who are attacking which is the front rank.

Though i know you wouldn't get away with it cause its obvious what it means :P i just wanted to point out that it is another sloppy GW thing, also alot of rules lawyering can have an opposite interpretation its the fact that it can be interpretted in one way that makes it a problem.

Griefbringer
15-04-2006, 09:14
I checked the book, and I can admit that the wording is a bit poor - there are a couple of other problematic issues in the Bretonnian book, so I am not greatly surprised.

The problematic part here is the reference to spear, had they made a generic reference to "as a model in the second or subsequent rank of a unit armed with weapons with special ability Fight in Multiple Ranks" it would probably be harder to misinterpret (but also more difficult to read).

Elannion
15-04-2006, 17:49
It does leave it quite open in my mind, another silly mistake.

If they wanted to mention spears or fighing in ranks they should of put similar not the same, but i don't think they needed to even mention that cause it could of been explained less confusing without it.

Mad Makz
15-04-2006, 17:52
Though i know you wouldn't get away with it cause its obvious what it means :P i just wanted to point out that it is another sloppy GW thing, also alot of rules lawyering can have an opposite interpretation its the fact that it can be interpretted in one way that makes it a problem.

I actually disagree with this to some extent. While I appreciate perfectly clearly written rules that can only be interpreted one way, I do not agree that in this case being able to interpret it a slightly different way that is so obviously against the intention as being problematic.

I only really dislike GW rules where the rules are either A) so vaguely written that the intention is unclear (obviously not the case here) B) so badly written that the letter of the rule, the only 'proper' interpretation, is obviously against the intended meaning.

If you write rules that are to the leter absolutely perfect everytime, they tend to read a bit like a programming manual or worse,and can become very user unfriendly for the first time player. I'd rather have the slightly more iffy rules with clear intentions AND more players, than a perfect rule set whose complexity and pedantry discourages new players.

Elannion
15-04-2006, 17:58
I suppose so however, it could be interpritted the way i have written its only really common decency that stop people from using it like that. I mean it is half obvious what it means but it is left completly open at the same time. But i agree if someone tried it, most normal thinking people would shoot them in a min :P. However i feel thats the case with alot of rules lawyering i have encountered.

Avian
16-04-2006, 11:11
Well i get what your saying however you treat the people who are attacking as if they are the second rank of spearmen, so whether they actually are the front rank could be irrelivant, because when they are attacking through them they attack the same manner as the second rank does and second rank don't attack on charge.
Nonsense, that would only be correct if it said:
"models may attack through bases of stakes as if they had the 'Fight in two ranks' rule"

There is certainly nothing the quote that suggests that it's talking about two-rank spearmen and not three-rank spearmen, for example.
So there.

Tarax
16-04-2006, 11:31
Please stop with semantics, just look at the intention of the rule.

Which is:

Models in base contact ignore the stakes in order to hit their opponent, although the stakes aren't removed until the Bowmen move in any way.
Models can only attack models which are directly in front of them or in corner-to-corner contact, just like if the stakes weren't there.

If anyone has a different interpretation of the rule, apart from semantics, please feel free to comment.

Elannion
16-04-2006, 13:40
Sorry tarax i know what it means but i'm just saying its badly written, the whole point in this thread is to show how someone could take the simantics of it. Thats the whole point in looking at rules lawyering, its usually something very semantical and against the obvious meaning of it, but its there none the less and alot of the times it wouldn't be wrong to interpret it that way (Well it would be evil and annoying but not in the sense of it doesn't make sense).


There is certainly nothing the quote that suggests that it's talking about two-rank spearmen

Spearmen are two rank fighters, its only the exception, the extra little special rule thats added in that makes some fight in 3 ranks, but 3 ranks isn't what a spearman does, only the exception with the extra rules (And the extra rules don't apply to spearmen only that model). so saying spearmen can fight in 3 ranks it isn't the norm and it isn't the rules for spearmen, its the extra rules that a few models may get, if you get me.

If when they attack, the people who are attacking attack in the same way as the 2nd rank of spearmen, then that would mean technically every way they attack the same and when attacking after movement 2nd rank of spearmen can't attack (unless there is some extra special rule stating otherwise), so this would be attacking in the same manner as 2nd rank of spearmen.

Avian
16-04-2006, 14:03
Spearmen are two rank fighters, its only the exception, the extra little special rule thats added in that makes some fight in 3 ranks, but 3 ranks isn't what a spearman does, only the exception with the extra rules
Again this is wrong. Where some spearmen fight in three ranks the rule is not "fight as spearmen, but in one additional rank", it's the same rule as other spearmen have that is used.
No "extra little rule" here.

If you want to do rules lawyering, please read the actual rules.

Elannion
16-04-2006, 18:24
What i meant is that fight in three ranks is the exception not the rule. It would be stated speciffically/specially, as an exception to the rule "high elves on foot and armed with spears may fight in three ranks", its not a rule that their spears are enable them to fight in three ranks, its a rules that the high elves may fight in three ranks its a special rule to them. That rule doesn't change the fact the spears fight in two ranks, otherwise it would be in the evlen equipment not under the special rules for high elf spearmen and sea guard. So what i am saying is all spears fight in two ranks, unless they have extra special rules (which is the extra little rule). I dunno if that makes sense, but in the rule book its spears get to fight in 2 ranks, its not mostly 2 sometimes 3 ranks, its only if you have extra special rules that allow it, which isn't the norm. So a spearman would generally be assumed to fight in two ranks unless stated otherwise.

But just to make it clear i am not trying to rules lawyer myself and i would never rules lawyer, i am just trying to prove how that could be.

Avian
19-04-2006, 11:17
What i meant is that fight in three ranks is the exception not the rule.
And as pointed out that is a load of nonsense. :rolleyes:
High Elves have the "Fight in X number of ranks" just like any other spearmen unit.
It is more common to fight in 2 ranks than 3 ranks or 4 ranks, but that does not by any means make 2 ranks the standard and 3 / 4 ranks a special case.

Shield of Freedom
19-04-2006, 16:51
For the love of god people just stop.


The stakes where not meant to be exploited. Stop reading into the rules to find out how they work. It's simple why do you make it so hard?

Easy solution that works within the spirit of the initial purpose of the stakes: An enemy unit charges the bowmen with stakes up, they get no bonuses for charging (no auto strike first, no Strength bonuses from lances and mounted spears, no impact hits, etc.). Other than that nothing should change how the combat is fought. While fighting the combat pretend they(the stakes) are NOT there and fight accordingly as if models directly accross from eachother are base-to-base.

Elannion
19-04-2006, 17:01
High Elves have the "Fight in X number of ranks" just like any other spearmen unit.
It is more common to fight in 2 ranks than 3 ranks or 4 ranks, but that does not by any means make 2 ranks the standard and 3 / 4 ranks a special case.

I dont know many who fight in 4 ranks though i don't know every unit inside out, we aren't talking about a model with the fight in ranks rule though avian we are talking about a model armed with a spear and a spear fights in two ranks always, some can use it to fight in more than that, but that isn't the rule of the spear that is the rule of the model, spears as stated in the rulebook fight in two ranks and since we are looking at spear rules then that is where you look.

I do see what your saying though avian i just don't think its solid enough to say that a couple of units can fight in more than two ranks with spears, especially since its not the spear rule that allows it (As i said before if it were it would be under equipment elven spear) its the additional special rule that the model gets which is something different all together. I mean it casts a shadow over the argument i just don't think its solid enough, because you can then get pedantic about it.

if something said counts as flying, then you wouldn't refer to the flying cavalry rules just because some flyers have add on rules for flying cavalry, no more than just because some models have add on rules for spears, do you take it as a norm spear.

Shield of Freedom you are missing the point, i am not a rules lawyer atall, so no need to get angry, i am just exploring what could be done with the rules if someone was annoying enough, I know im being pedantic but this is a rules forum anyway :P so there is a fair bit about, also i did say that it shouldn't be read like this and that i am just showing the rules lawyering.

Mad Makz
19-04-2006, 22:21
Elannion, the difference is that a good exploration of the WORDING of the rules should rely only on that, the wording. You are interpreting the wording and making assumptions based on that to come to the conclusions you want, which does not make for a good exploration of the rules as the opponent could do exactly the same thing, which means you would be left with some method of adjudication (the most common of which is intention, which is pretty damn obvious.)

The point is, if you are going to continue to 'explore the rules' at least do it properly and apply the same level of doubt to your own arguement as you are to the opponents. If you do this you like, everyone else, will come to the conclusion "Oh, I suppose it is possible to argue that, but it's a poor arguement and if you were to do so in gameplay you would come off like a git who is neither very good at interpreting rules nor playing the game with any level of sportsmanship."

Personally, I don't think GW really need to cater to such people when writing the rules, do you?

To make my intentions clear, I KNOW you don't believe the rule works the way you are trying to interpret it, so don't think any of the above applies to you.

What I do think is that pointing out a slightly vague aspect of at a rule (which isn't really that vague, it just has what I view as an explanationary comment in it that via extrapolation connects it to other rules, IF that's how you choose to interpret.) just to try and prove that GW continues to write flawed rules (which by the way:

A) Already is already known by all and sundry,
and
B) there are plenty of examples of that are far easier to argue, and have a far more detrimental effect on gameplay if played to the letter of the rule rather than just to one 'potential' interpretation.)

is a pointless exercise. No one could possibly read the rule and accidentally interpret it the way you are trying to say it could be interpreted. And I would contend that no one who went through the rule with a fine tooth comb, found it slightly lacking in absolute clarity, would come even close to coming to the conclusion you are supporting if they gave it a balanced assesment (which you must do if the wording isn't stating something absolute.).

People rules lawyer not to gain an advantage, but to play by the LETTER of the rules (and if the letter isn't clear, they then follow the intention. It's only when the letter DOESN'T MATCH the intention that they cause problems).

'Cheaters' however rules lawyer to gain advantage of the rules when it suits them (often poorly and incorrectly) AND they often don't play to the letter of the rules as well, they are inconsistent in this regard. If you are pointing out that the rule as written in this case would make it a bit easier for someone to try and swindle someone of a game if the person they were playing was not that up to date on their rules, then yes, you'd be right. On the other hand as they would likely be a cheater to come to such an incoherrent interpretation of a slightly vague rule, the person they would be playing would have a lot more to worry about than if they could attack the bowmen on the round they charged!

Elannion
19-04-2006, 23:13
I do see what your saying, though most of the rules lawyering i have seen has been very agruable and very simple to see that it against the inteneded interpretation, whether or not thats because it is just the other type as you have said or whatever, i don't know. But certainly its just the fact that a rule is left open and someone sees that they can take advantage to it.

Also about avians idea, i did think of that and i knew someone would say it at somepoint but i didn't think that it was significant, if you really examine it up close.

Also :p (sorry i am being awkward i don't mean to annoy you), i came up with this interpretation, because i was reading about bowmen in a tactic thread and i wanted to recheck what they did and that is how i read it to start with when i checked it (ok i thought no im not gunna be a git and do that, but i thought thats how it could work)