PDA

View Full Version : Flying units and charges



IronBrother
03-07-2006, 18:23
I haven't seen this one on the forum, so I thought I'd bring it up (if it has please remove and my apologies). Recently I've been playing against a particular wood elf opponent that believes his warhawks have a 360 degree charge, but the BRB and the rulesboys (only rule that has been confirmed several times by rulesboys) state that flying units have 90 degree charge arc. Also, in our whole gaming club he was the only individual that thought this. What is the proper ruling? (By the way Gutter runners shot them down as Stand and Shoot - stupid hippies)

jahorin
03-07-2006, 18:43
flying unit are skirmisher and therefore they get 360 degree of LoS when they shoot or charge.

Festus
03-07-2006, 18:48
jahorin is correct.

Chaos and Evil
03-07-2006, 19:03
Your whole gaming group (Bar the Wood Elf player) was wrong.

Khorneflakes
04-07-2006, 00:46
can i ask a question here in a similar line
if a flying unit charges and their target gets away do the flyers still go 20" or 10", i heard it was 20" but i would like to be certain.

Darkvoid_bluff
04-07-2006, 02:58
20" as it is the normal move distance for a failed charge not half charge distance.
Flying units get the 360 charge arc but flying monsters don't

IronBrother
05-07-2006, 13:20
So I see that the general consensus on this is that they do have 360 degree charge arc. Let me throw this if in, if I may. About two years ago, I was in a fantasy tournament and my first game drew up against the dreaded Bretonnian Air force. I didn't think anything of his fliers movement (because I believe in the 90 degree facing), but he then declared a charge to the "rear" of his unit, I questioned this. And the tournament head not being a true fantasy player called the Rules Boys, they said that all fliers have a true facing and charge of 90 degrees. I called personally again about a month ago when this problem arose with the wood elf player, and it was confirmed that fliers have a 90 degree arc of sight. My opponent (good gamer) called the next day and got the same answer - to his dismay. In the course of the game I let him do his thing, I'm not that much of a jerk. Every thime I have called they have said that they only operate as skirmishers for the movement phase not the charge phase, don't have my BRB on me currently, otherwise I would quote. Does anyone have any firm proof, in text one way or another. Other than the sentence that says they operate as skirmishers for MOVEMENT.

ZomboCom
05-07-2006, 13:30
'Fliers' have a 90 degree line of sight (eagles, dragons etc)

'Units of fliers' have a 360 degree line of sight (terradons, warhawks, pegasus knights etc)

Whether you like it or not that is not just a consensus, that's the rule.

Imagine for a second that they did have a 90 degree line of sight. Where would you take it from? They are skirmishers, so can all easily and legally be facing in different directions. Which one would you use for the line of sight? It doesn't make any sence.


Does anyone have any firm proof, in text one way or another. Other than the sentence that says they operate as skirmishers for MOVEMENT.

That sentence is enough. Charging is part of movement, and part of the skirmisher movement rules is that they have a 360 degree line of sight for charging.

mageith
05-07-2006, 14:31
Imagine for a second that they did have a 90 degree line of sight. Where would you take it from? They are skirmishers, so can all easily and legally be facing in different directions. Which one would you use for the line of sight? It doesn't make any sence.

Don't have to imagine it. That's how it was done in 5th edition. (Or at least that's how we played it.) It made sense. Not many complained about it. 6th edition's way is easier.

Griefbringer
05-07-2006, 15:16
the rulesboys (only rule that has been confirmed several times by rulesboys) state that flying units have 90 degree charge arc

Never trust the Roolz Boyz (or hobby specialists, as they are supposedly known nowadays)!

blurred
05-07-2006, 17:25
'Units of fliers' have a 360 degree line of sight (terradons, warhawks, pegasus knights etc)


Until they are reduced to a single model and become blinkered. Gotta love GW. :rolleyes:

Festus
05-07-2006, 20:36
Hi

Until they are reduced to a single model and become blinkered. Gotta love GW. :rolleyes:
Not having the Annual at hand, I couldn't help but wonder:

Aren't they *real* skirmishers and as such will not lose their special rule: Skirmish ???

Greetings
Festus

ZomboCom
05-07-2006, 21:32
Until they are reduced to a single model and become blinkered. Gotta love GW. :rolleyes:

Not as far as I'm aware. I'm pretty sure they retain the 360 degree LOS even when there's just one of them. That's GW for ya.

Atrahasis
05-07-2006, 21:55
"Single flying models follow the rules for their type in the chart"

Chronicles 2004 page 114

Jonk
31-07-2006, 14:20
I'm not sure, but pegasus have 360 deggre line vision, but they can only charge 90, no?

Festus
31-07-2006, 14:23
Hi

edit: The following is of course only relevant for Pegasus units, not the Royal Monster type, of course. The latter is a Monster with 90 LoS.
I thought that this was clear. :(

No, you can charge what you can see, so if they have 360 LoS (which they have), they can indeed charge 360.

Festus

mageith
31-07-2006, 14:24
I'm not sure, but pegasus have 360 deggre line vision, but they can only charge 90, no?
No.

Pegasus skirmishers can charge 360.

Pegasus monsters are limited to 90.

A single Pegasus skirmisher is still a skirmisher IMO.

Mage Ith

Atrahasis
31-07-2006, 14:54
A single Pegasus skirmisher is still a skirmisher IMO.

A single flying model, according to the chart in the Chronicles, has LOS as a model of its type.

A lone pegasus knight, being on a 40mm base, has 90 degree LOS.

mageith
31-07-2006, 16:18
A single flying model, according to the chart in the Chronicles, has LOS as a model of its type.

A lone pegasus knight, being on a 40mm base, has 90 degree LOS.

So again, how did you determine the 'type' of a Pegasus skirmisher?

Seems to me the type would be 'skirmisher'. Don't have my rulebook here, so maybe I'm missing something?

I think you are assuming the calculated type or determined type overrides the actually named type. I'd assume the opposite.


OTOH: "Originally Posted by blurred
Until they are reduced to a single model and become blinkered. Gotta love GW. "

In 5th edition what a skirmishing UNIT could see was actually determined by what a model in the unit could see. In other words a skirmishing unit with all models facing straight ahead couldn't see behind them. So there had to be at least four models in a skirmishing unit, all exactly placed for the unit to have 360 line of slight. A real game slower.

In 6th, a skirmishing unit's rules was changed so that each individual skirmishing model had 360 degree line of sight so their actual direction made no difference.

So in one sense a single skirmishing model 'realistically' would NOT have 360 line of sight. However, unless Atrahasis comes up with a something the blows the skirmisher rule out of the water, I think the skirmisher designation for flyers takes precedence over their single model status even on a 40mm base.

Mage Ith

Atrahasis
31-07-2006, 17:33
"Type" in the chart refers to model size and base size. (First heading "Model Type", below which are base sizes).

The chart replaces everything previously said about the different unit types' LOS and movement.

Units of flyers, according to the chart, count as skirmishers, but single flying models have LOS and movement according to their type (ie their base size).

A lone Pegasus Knight, being a single flying model, and being on a 40mm base, has 90 degree LOS and cannot march if within 8" of enemies.

mageith
31-07-2006, 18:34
"Type" in the chart refers to model size and base size. (First heading "Model Type", below which are base sizes).

I think this is YOUR deduction and not stated. But I'll look at the chart tonight for a fuller response. In other words you are deducing a definition that is not stated nor intended by GW.

In still other words, I don't think you can seriously show model size + base size = type (or Model Type), if that is what you are saying GW is saying.

Edit: I just remembered that the chart under discussion is on line. As has been previously pointed out, from the same chart: "Units of Flyers: Always count as skirmishers..."

Your contention? "Single flying models follow the rules for their type on the chart." And a skirmisher unit reduced to one model becomes a single flying model. I think everyone else realizes GW is refering to models that begin life as units of one and their awkward wording is trying to encompass Gyrocopters.

At best we have a contradiction. But I doubt you could get anyone to roll it off, do you?

Also, does a single (formerly skirmishing) pegasus gain Unit strength of 3, since that is also included in their 'type'? since they "follow the rules for their type in the chart." :)
Mage Ith

Atrahasis
31-07-2006, 18:39
One of the headings in the chart is "Model type" and the rules state "models follow the rules for their type in the chart"

What definition of "type" am I supposed to use, other than the one stated in the rules?

DeathlessDraich
02-08-2006, 09:30
Pg 103: "If a mount has 2 or more wounds then it is classed as a monster"

Therefore a character on a pegasus (royal pegasus) is a monster ridden unit.

Chronicles 4 pg 82: The table for Unit strength and Single model's movement - only a roughly man sized model 20/25mm base moves as a skirmisher. Everything else (Ogre size bases, Monsters, chariots, Cavalry) move as monsters - "90 degrees arc of sight ..."

This indicates that a single Pegasus/Warhawk/Changebringer or Disc whether ridden by a character or the last remaining model of a unit is treated as a Monster ridden model.

Further on on the same page

Chronicles 4 pg 82: The table for Unit strength and Single model's movement: Unit of Flyers: "Always count as skirmishers and always have a Unit Strength of 1 per model regardless of size, wounds etc. Single flying models follow the rules for their type in the chart"

i.e. as in the chart above

Therefore this confirms that a single pegasus is a ridden monster.

The word "always" has been misused once again by GW but thankfully there was further clarification.

Chronicles 4 pg 82: "The chart and notes below are the Warhammer's team last and final decision on the matter"

Overrides the previous rules.

Lastly - the US of a single pegasus is 3 according to the chart and rules! 2 pegasus have a US of 4 but when one is slain the US becomes 3! Strange but true. :evilgrin:

Gorbad Ironclaw
02-08-2006, 10:01
Flying units count as skirmishers, even if they are reduced to a single model. They are still a unit of flyers, and still follow all the rules for such. And that includes being skirmishers.

Atrahasis
02-08-2006, 10:15
Flying units count as skirmishers, even if they are reduced to a single model. They are still a unit of flyers, and still follow all the rules for such. And that includes being skirmishers.

Except that the rules state that a single model flyer moves as whatever its base size dictates. You can't pay heed to one rule and not another.

mageith
02-08-2006, 13:29
Overrides the previous rules.

Lastly - the US of a single pegasus is 3 according to the chart and rules! 2 pegasus have a US of 4 but when one is slain the US becomes 3! Strange but true. :evilgrin:
The fact that it is soooo strange, should tell you obviously that it's not true.

I could live with single skirmishers losing their 360 degree Line of Sight but them buffing up when they get alone is OTT.

But the Skirmisher desegination overrides any general rules, as far as I am concerned and that's pretty much my last and final response to this debate.

Mage Ith

Festus
02-08-2006, 14:33
Hi

For whatever it is worth, MageIth's assessment of the matter was/is my gut feeling as well, so I think that this holds true for Pegasus Knights: They will always be Skirmishers, as they are a flying unit.

I see the rules point, but I strongly believe that those selfsame rules were never meant to apply to Peg Knights ... and IIRC they even were released way before the new Bret book...

Greetings
Festus

DeathlessDraich
02-08-2006, 17:31
The fact that it is soooo strange, should tell you obviously that it's not true.

I could live with single skirmishers losing their 360 degree Line of Sight but them buffing up when they get alone is OTT.

But the Skirmisher desegination overrides any general rules, as far as I am concerned and that's pretty much my last and final response to this debate.

Mage Ith

You're right, it is OTT and obviously the Chronicles 2004 table was written by someone who failed to consider the skirmisher rules carefully - probably your good friend A Reynolds:D

However there is the statement
Chronicles 4 pg 82: "The chart and notes below are the Warhammer's team last and final decision on the matter"

which means, much as I don't want to, I will have to abide by these strange rules.

If you were adjudicating would you push forward your logical interpretation or abide by the rules amendment/clarification of Chronicles 2004?




Hi

For whatever it is worth, MageIth's assessment of the matter was/is my gut feeling as well, so I think that this holds true for Pegasus Knights: They will always be Skirmishers, as they are a flying unit.

I see the rules point, but I strongly believe that those selfsame rules were never meant to apply to Peg Knights ... and IIRC they even were released way before the new Bret book...

Greetings
Festus

You're probably right but I'll ask you the same question as I asked Mageith:

If you were adjudicating would you push forward your logical interpretation or abide by the rules amendment/clarification of Chronicles 2004?

Atrahasis
02-08-2006, 21:04
What I cannot understand is that people are perfectly happy to use the chart as a means to argue that the lone survivor of an infantry unit moves as a skirmisher (as it is a single man-sized model) or that the last ogre of a unit moves as a monster, but refuse to allow that a single model on a 40mm base that used to be a member of a unit of more than one flyer now has 90 degree los.

Also, in response to the "intent" issue: Does the fact that the rules refer to "Units of flyers not demonstrate intent that the rule apply only to units of more than one model?

mageith
03-08-2006, 02:30
If you were adjudicating would you push forward your logical interpretation or abide by the rules amendment/clarification of Chronicles 2004?

Yes.
First I doubt anyone who had any concern for their sportsmanship points would bring it up.

Second, if they did I'd point out the the term "single flying models" doubtlessly is a technical term referring to single (models fielded as units of 1) models that fly, such as eagles, and not a generic term for any old model leftover from a unit even its placement in the rules is awkward. Its pretty much this single highly interpretable phrase upon which the argument lies.

Third, I'd point out the sentence in the previous paragraph units of "flyers always count as skirmishers".

Fourth, I'd point out that his argument also makes single would models now have three wounds when they are alone. I'd point out how ludicrous it was.

Fifth, I'd say that the last and final rules have been out for over three years and it wasn't until two infamous and notorious rules lawyers (meant as a compliment, of course) pointed out the the possibilities of stretching and twisting the words to come to this illogical conclusion and did s/he want to be included in that number?

Sixth, I'd say that if a rule can easily be interpreted to make sense, why would you want to pick and choose your sentences and phrases to make it nonsensical? Doesn't WFB have enough of that now?

====
**Of course we need rules lawyers to point out such awkward writing as appears here.

OT. In the past I have published a list of rules what WFB follows that aren't rules at all, but merely conventions, but are just so right that nobody really argues them. Two examples.
1) There's no rule that allows characters to be deployed with units, yet everyone does it and no one would dare to seriously argue this in a game.

2) Spell lores are chosen at the time of building and not at the time of deploying. Gav has said so and so have most of the other notorious rules lawyers. But again, nobody who had any ounce of sportsmanship would insist on this.

There are others and many have been subsequently fixed.

mageith
03-08-2006, 02:58
What I cannot understand is that people are perfectly happy to use the chart as a means to argue that the lone survivor of an infantry unit moves as a skirmisher (as it is a single man-sized model) or that the last ogre of a unit moves as a monster, but refuse to allow that a single model on a 40mm base that used to be a member of a unit of more than one flyer now has 90 degree los.

Here's the difference. The LOS of a model defaults at 90 degrees, no? Certain situations change this. One of the things that change this is when a model is man-sized and alone.

Another change is the is the specific Designation of Skirmisher. The rules in Chronicles did not replace the designation of Skirmisher did it? No. In fact it more explicitly explained it under "Move as skirmishers". Skirmisher is a special rule that follows the Move as Skirmishers rule. Even if the rules don't precisely say it, can it be any other way?

The designation of Skirmisher does not go away and it certainly wouldn't go away as a result of a general rule, even if your pegleg rule "Single flying models follow the rules for their type in the chart" was a general rule which I don't think it is. But even if it is, general rules do not replace Special Rules, do they?

OTOH the default 90 LOS for models (a general rule) does go away as a result of the status of the model being alone, on foot and man-sized. It clearly turns him into a skirmisher.

Your rules point is not completely without merit, however and, as I've repeatedly pointed out, a single ogre-sized flying model with 90 degree LOS does make some sense. And the placement of your pegleg rule "Single models follow the rules for their type in the chart." is awkward at best and possibly misleading if we take 'single ... model' to be a generic term and not a technical term for a Flyer or Flying Monster.




Also, in response to the "intent" issue: Does the fact that the rules refer to "Units of flyers not demonstrate intent that the rule apply only to units of more than one model?
Does not using the term single model indicate intent also even if the term 'flying' is stuck between them?

Does not the rule that Units of flyers always count as Skirmishers indicate a much clearer intent?

Doesn't the whole section about Move as a skirmisher and the early emphasis on 360 degree line of sight even convey the clearest intent?

And doesn't the designation of Skirmisher on the individual Pegasus model convey the highest intent?

I think a confusing sentence hidden away toward the end of an article that nobody notices for over three years bring that intent into question?

Mage Ith, who didn't make the intent argument because its almost always circular.

Atrahasis
03-08-2006, 12:00
Here's the difference. The LOS of a model defaults at 90 degrees, no? I can't see where that is stated in the table. Nothing in the rulebook applies any more, remember? The table replaces everything else on the subject.


One of the things that change this is when a model is man-sized and alone.Man-sized single models move as skirmishers, yes, but only because the table says so.


The designation of Skirmisher does not go away and it certainly wouldn't go away as a result of a general rule, even if your pegleg rule "Single flying models follow the rules for their type in the chart" was a general rule which I don't think it is.

The Pegasus Knights do not have the designation of skirmishers. They have the designation "Unit of Flyers" which "count as" skirmishers, and only when they are a Unit of Flyers; a single model cannot be a unit consisting of multiple models. The same section which tells us to treat a unit consisting of flyers (note the "s") as skirmishers also tells us to treat single flying models as monsters.


But even if it is, general rules do not replace Special Rules, do they?

The table replaces everything else on the matter.


OTOH the default 90 LOS for models (a general rule) does go away as a result of the status of the model being alone, on foot and man-sized. It clearly turns him into a skirmisher. This argument is based on a general rule which does not exist, so I cannot offer a counter-argument.


And the placement of your pegleg rule "Single models follow the rules for their type in the chart." is awkward at best and possibly misleading if we take 'single ... model' to be a generic term and not a technical term for a Flyer or Flying Monster.The only reason a lone man-sized model moves as a skirmisher is because we allow "Roughly man-sized. Square 20/25mm Base. On foot" to mean any man-sized model on foot, even those left over from a previously larger unit. You have not provided a satisfactory explanation for the double standard here.

Also, it appears here (with "possibly misleading") that you are arguing that my interpretation might be wrong and therefore is wrong.



Does not using the term single model indicate intent also even if the term 'flying' is stuck between them?A single model is any model on its own. Once a model is on its own, it is a single model. This is the only reason that the last remnant of an infantry unit can move as a skirmisher, so why is it different for a flyer?


Does not the rule that Units of flyers always count as Skirmishers indicate a much clearer intent? Note the "s". A single model is not "flyers".


Doesn't the whole section about Move as a skirmisher and the early emphasis on 360 degree line of sight even convey the clearest intent?Yes, for Units of Flyers.


And doesn't the designation of Skirmisher on the individual Pegasus model convey the highest intent?There is no designation of skirmisher on the individual Pegasus Knight.


I think a confusing sentence hidden away toward the end of an article that nobody notices for over three years bring that intent into question? The timescale taken to notice the correct way to play should not dictate the correct way to play. There are many groups that still play that the Enchanted Shield cannot be combined with other magical armour, because they have not noticed the allowance in the Shield's description.

Also, there is the case of Power Stones, which were almost universally incorrectly played for more than 6 years, until I spent a month or so arguing the fact that they do not have all properties of scrolls and had a Q&A added to the Direwolf FAQ. At the recent Doubles Tournament at HQ, several armies were penalised for combining Power Stones with other arcane items, something which most would not have dreamed of previously.

It hasn't taken three years to notice either, we have had this discussion several times in the past on this board.

Festus
03-08-2006, 12:06
Hi


OTOH the default 90 LOS for models (a general rule) does go away as a result of the status of the model being alone, on foot and man-sized. It clearly turns him into a skirmisher.
This argument is based on a general rule which does not exist, so I cannot offer a counter-argument.

The rule very much exists and it is a general rule. One of the very first in the book as well.
BRB, p.41, lower right corner (including diagramm).
see also: p.59, left column, 1st paragraph.

edit:
The Skirmisher's rules explicitly override this general rule, on p. 115, left column, 4th paragraph: A Skirmisher always has 360° LoS.

The Pegasus Knight still is a Skirmisher even if only on its own and thus has 360° LoS according to p.115. And I don't think that it is sensible to base any argument on the phrase *...replaces anything else...* because this will not hold any water if the Peg Knight changes US as well if on his own... :(

Festus

Atrahasis
03-08-2006, 12:42
Hi

The rule very much exists and it is a general rule. One of the very first in the book as well.
BRB, p.41, lower right corner (including diagramm).
see also: p.59, left column, 1st paragraph.Replaced by the table in the Chronicles.


The Pegasus Knight still is a Skirmisher even if only on its own

Please tell me where is says the Pegasus Knight is a skirmisher.


And I don't think that it is sensible to base any argument on the phrase *...replaces anything else...* because this will not hold any water if the Peg Knight changes US as well if on his own... :(

Pegasus Knights have the Flying Cavalry rule. According to that rule, they follow the rules for "Units of Flyers" with several exceptions. The Flying Cavalry rule is NOT replaced by the table in Chronicles, only that part which rests on "Units of Flyers".

Festus
03-08-2006, 14:18
Hi

The Flying Cavalry rule is NOT replaced by the table in Chronicles, only that part which rests on "Units of Flyers".
Why is the one replaced and not the other?

wonders
Festus

mageith
03-08-2006, 14:33
I can't see where that is stated in the table. Nothing in the rulebook applies any more, remember? The table replaces everything else on the subject.

That's not quite how the table reads.

"... last and final decision on such matters. They officially replace everything else that has been said on it..."

".. has been said.." In the historical context of the time, GW had released a series of rulings in their attempt to determine how unit strength and being a single model interact.

The article alludes to these rulings in their opening sentence: "The warhammer rulebook and a series of articles in the White Dwarf have tried to clarify different unit strengths and many subtle ways in which different models relate to the Movement rules whey thare are moving on their own."

During this clarification period we had the definition of "Monstrous Characters" which no longer exists (replaced by this article) and the ruling that characters alone and on foot have 360 Line of Sight (which allowed big characters to see 360 degrees. (now also replaced by this table).

This table replaces the rulings and articles on the subject, not the rulebook unless there was a ruling on the rulebook, this becomes the new ruling.

But everything on monsters, skirmishers, models, movement, flying, chariots, ridden monsters and characters was not replaced with a 1/3rd page set of rules.

Specifically the ruling on the default line of sight was NOT replaced and were most of the rules of skirmishers and fast cavalry. "Where models are ranked into unit, they follow the normal rules for unit movement given the Warhammer rulebook, except for skirmishers and fast cavalry which follow the rules detailed in their sections."

BTW, I notice you haven't said anything about Deathless' assertion that the Pegasus knight on his own turns into US 3 model?



The Pegasus Knights do not have the designation of skirmishers. They have the designation "Unit of Flyers" which "count as" skirmishers,

You are correct. The end result is the same is it not? Units of flyers have always been skirmishers, even before the table existed. Nothing changed here. You are saying it has, are you not.



and only when they are a Unit of Flyers; a single model cannot be a unit consisting of multiple models. The same section which tells us to treat a unit consisting of flyers (note the "s") as skirmishers also tells us to treat single flying models as monsters.

Again the term "Units of flyers is a technical term. Its definition is given (and not replaced) on page 106. Otherwise we wouldn't know the difference between a "Unit of Flyers" and a "Flying Unit" (and many folks are still confused by it).

IMO that's why you are asserting that the single survivor of Units of Flyers becomes an ogre-sized model.




Also, it appears here (with "possibly misleading") that you are arguing that my interpretation might be wrong and therefore is wrong.

:) No I'm arguing you have been mislead. The placement of the "single flying models" under "Units of Flyers" can lead folks to think that that sentence contradicts the "always" sentence right above it. Again, "Units of Flyers" is a designation of a speical unit type. GW is simply trying to clarify that monsters are never "Units of Flyers" though they might be a Flying Unit. These terms have confused players from the beginning of 6th edition.



A single model is any model on its own. Once a model is on its own, it is a single model. This is the only reason that the last remnant of an infantry unit can move as a skirmisher, so why is it different for a flyer?

It's not. It's different for a member of a "Unit of Flyers". They always move as skirmishers.



The timescale taken to notice the correct way to play should not dictate the correct way to play. There are many groups that still play that the Enchanted Shield cannot be combined with other magical armour, because they have not noticed the allowance in the Shield's description.

:) The difference between a small group missing a rule and the entire online community but you and deathless missing a rule is not comparable.



Also, there is the case of Power Stones, which were almost universally incorrectly played for more than 6 years, until I spent a month or so arguing the fact that they do not have all properties of scrolls and had a Q&A added to the Direwolf FAQ. At the recent Doubles Tournament at HQ, several armies were penalised for combining Power Stones with other arcane items, something which most would not have dreamed of previously.

If 7th edition is any guide, they were correctly played and you and apparently Direwolf (I must have missed this discussion) attempted to change something that was obvious to the rest of the wargaming community.

Atrahasis
03-08-2006, 15:21
Why is the one replaced and not the other?Because the table doesn't deal with flying cavalry. Flying cavalry is a special rule for Peg Knights (and also some other units) which has "Unit of Flyers" as one of its effects.

Atrahasis
03-08-2006, 15:46
That's not quite how the table reads.

"... last and final decision on such matters. They officially replace everything else that has been said on it..."

".. has been said.." In the historical context of the time, GW had released a series of rulings in their attempt to determine how unit strength and being a single model interact.

The article alludes to these rulings in their opening sentence: "The warhammer rulebook and a series of articles in the White Dwarf have tried to clarify different unit strengths and many subtle ways in which different models relate to the Movement rules whey thare are moving on their own."

During this clarification period we had the definition of "Monstrous Characters" which no longer exists (replaced by this article) and the ruling that characters alone and on foot have 360 Line of Sight (which allowed big characters to see 360 degrees. (now also replaced by this table).

This table replaces the rulings and articles on the subject, not the rulebook unless there was a ruling on the rulebook, this becomes the new ruling.

The article refers to the rulebook as a previous source of clarification, and then goes on to say that all that has been previously on this subject said is replaced by this table. How does that not mean that the previous material on single model's movement and los in the rulebook is replaced?



But everything on monsters, skirmishers, models, movement, flying, chariots, ridden monsters and characters was not replaced with a 1/3rd page set of rules. I didn't suggest that they are. I have consistently stated that everything on the subject (ie single models los and movement, Unit strength) is replaced, not everything whatsoever in the rulebook.


Specifically the ruling on the default line of sight was NOT replaced Yes it was. Everything that has previously been said on single model LOS and movement was replaced. The rulebook is stated in the table as a previous source, and so is replaced.


BTW, I notice you haven't said anything about Deathless' assertion that the Pegasus knight on his own turns into US 3 model?I have, though not directly. Pegasus Knights own special rules make them US2.



You are correct. The end result is the same is it not? Units of flyers have always been skirmishers, even before the table existed. Nothing changed here. You are saying it has, are you not.Single model flyers have LOS and movement of their type in the table. Yes, Units of flyers move as skirmishers. However, a single model flyer does not.


The placement of the "single flying models" under "Units of Flyers" can lead folks to think that that sentence contradicts the "always" sentence right above it. Again, "Units of Flyers" is a designation of a speical unit type. GW is simply trying to clarify that monsters are never "Units of Flyers" though they might be a Flying Unit. These terms have confused players from the beginning of 6th edition. What evidence do you have that the sentence regarding single flying models does not contradict the paragraph above? Saying it does not make it so.


It's not. It's different for a member of a "Unit of Flyers". They always move as skirmishers.Except if you're a single flying model you're a single flying model.


:) The difference between a small group missing a rule and the entire online community but you and deathless missing a rule is not comparable.It was merely an example of how rules can be misinterpreted by more than one person for extended periods.



If 7th edition is any guide, they were correctly played and you and apparently Direwolf (I must have missed this discussion) attempted to change something that was obvious to the rest of the wargaming community.

7th cannot be any guide to 6th. Divining whether a change is in fact a change or merely clarification of intent is impossible. You took part in the discussion both here and the direwolf list.

You say obvious, I say misread. Go and read the rules for powerstones without any preconceptions as to how they work and see what you come up with.

Kadrium
03-08-2006, 16:12
If a unit of skinks is reduced to a single model, does that model still count as a skirmisher?

If thats the case, I don't see why the peg knights would be any different. They are a unit when they are brought into play. Units of flyers are always skirmishers. If land bound skirmishers are still skirmishers when reduced to 1, so are flyers, I would think.

Atrahasis
03-08-2006, 16:27
If a unit of skinks is reduced to a single model, does that model still count as a skirmisher?

If thats the case, I don't see why the peg knights would be any different.

A man-sized model on foot moves as a skirmisher regardless of where he came from, this doesn't tell us ANYTHING about pegasus knights.

Festus
03-08-2006, 16:30
Hi

Atrahasis. You are wrong. Very.


Your argument basically is flawed, because you base it on the assumption that a last Peg Knight is a single Flying model.

It isn't. It is a Unit of Flyers reduced to one model. And thus it is still a Skirmisher.

Let me ask you a connected question: What about Swarms that skirmish: You can buy just one Stand of most Swarms. Do they lose their Skirmish ability, because the table says that Swarms move as Monsters?
(And I can easily counter your objection that it is not a unit of Flyers with the mention of Bat Swarms: Unit of Flyers, Swarm, Skirmisher and still just one Base, i.e. one model. edit: They should also change US according to your reading if it is just a swarm of one base :rolleyes:)

Festus

Festus
03-08-2006, 16:34
Hi

A man-sized model on foot moves as a skirmisher regardless of where he came from, this doesn't tell us ANYTHING about pegasus knights.
Surely you mean: A *Single* man-sized model on foot... as all other move as units - apart from man-sized models which have the special rule *Skirmisher*.

Do you see where I come from? And where I aim at???

Festus

Atrahasis
03-08-2006, 16:38
Your argument basically is flawed, because you base it on the assumption that a last Peg Knight is a single Flying model.Count the models. There is one. It flys. It is therefore a single flying model.


It isn't. It is a Unit of Flyers reduced to one model. And thus it is still a Skirmisher.No. A unit of flyers counts as skirmishers for movement and LOS but the individual models themselves are not skirmishers.


Let me ask you a connected question: What about Swarms that skirmish: You can buy just one Stand of most Swarms. Do they lose their Skirmish ability, because the table says that Swarms move as Monsters?No. They are skirmishers. They don't gain "skirmish" by virtue of another rule that grants them skirmish-like abilities, they are skirmishers.

(And I can easily counter your objection that it is not a unit of Flyers with the mention of Bat Swarms: Unit of Flyers, Swarm, Skirmisher and still just one Base, i.e. one model. edit: They should also change US according to your reading if it is just a swarm of one base :rolleyes:)That's not a counter, its an example of an unusual swarm. Bat Swarms do not have the "skirmish" rule. They have their own rule (flying unit) which grants the bat swarms the use of the rules for units of flyers on page 106 of the rulebook (replaced in part by the table in the Chronicles). An unusual case does not disprove my argument, it merely shows that there exists an unusual case.

Atrahasis
03-08-2006, 16:40
Hi

Surely you mean: A *Single* man-sized model on foot... as all other move as units - apart from man-sized models which have the special rule *Skirmisher*.

Do you see where I come from? And where I aim at???


Yes, I omited the word "single". The fact remains that it proves nothing that a skink skirmishes when in a skirmishing unit or when alone.

Festus
03-08-2006, 16:55
Hi

Units of Flyers automatically get the special rule *Skirmish*. This rule is no different from the special rule *Skirmish* which is the rule *Skirmish*. They are designated as *Unit of Flyers* in the relevant Armybook entry, and as such will always have the rule, regardless of the number of models in the unit. (BRB. 106, last but one paragraph)

A similar if not equal mechanism are Undead: They gain the rule *Immune to Psy* by virtue of the rule *Undead*. Although Undead encompasses several other rules applying to this type of unit, *ItP* is one of them.
it is the same with *Unit of Flyers*: Models which have this rule simply gain the rule *Skirmish* along with several other rules ( - not the least of which is *Fly* :D ).

Do Pegasus knights cease to be able to fly if there is just one left of them? By your logic the single PegKnight shouldn't be allowed to fly anymore, as there is no longer a *unit of Flyers*... and *Fly* is one particular rule of the subset of rules of *Unit of FLyers*...

edit: ... which would make it simply a cavalry model on a monster base then... :eyebrows:

Festus

Kotobuki
04-08-2006, 01:12
No. A unit of flyers counts as skirmishers for movement and LOS but the individual models themselves are not skirmishers.You are quite wrong sir. As has been noted, P.106 of the rule book states:

UNITS OF FLYERS
Most flyers are monsters, but some units of troops can fly too. Such units are clearly identified in their army lists. They follow all the normal rules for flyers given above, apart from the exceptions noted below.

SKIRMISH
Flying units always operate as skimishers (see p.115).

CHARACTERS
Characters can never...Note, they operate as skirmishers, not 'count as' not 'move as' not 'use xxxx rule for skirmishers'. But, lets go to p.115 and see what it says.
In a battle only specified troops are allowed to skirmish, as indicated in thier Army book.They then go on to list all the rules that apply to Skirmishing troops.

How does this all work? Well, we look at the Unit of Pegasus Knights. It has the special rule "Flying Cavalry" which states that they follow the rules for 'Units of Flyers' on p.106 with some exceptions. We then go to p.106 of the rule book which says that all "Units of Flyers" operate as skirmishers. Thus 'indicating' that the unit becomes skirmishers.

If the unit is made up of skirmishers, then each individual model is indded a skirmisher. Which affords them 360deg LoS, always march, no move penalties etc. The only way any of the benefits or drawbacks of Skirmishing can be negated is if the unit has a special rule that negates any of it. Such is the case of 'flying cavalry' which makes them move slow through cover. They're still skirmishers though, from start to end, no matter how many guys are in the unit.

DeathlessDraich
04-08-2006, 12:47
Kotobuki, you're right if only the rulebook is considered.

It is the table in Chronicles2004 which is being debated here. It is poorly written as usual and furthermore has a clause:

Important clause:

Chronicles 4 pg 82: "The chart and notes below are the Warhammer's team last and final decision on the matter"

The 3 areas of contention are:

1)Chronicles 4 pg 82: Unit of Flyers: "Always count as skirmishers and ... regardless of size, wounds etc. "


Always means errm Always:) Therefore a Unit of flyers will always be a skirmisher even if it is reduced to 1 model.
This is Festus's and Mageith's point of view and they have added further embellishments to reinforce it

2) Chronicles 4 pg 82:Unit of Flyers: "and always have a Unit Strength of 1 "

This refers to Unit of flyers and Not Flying Cavalry.
Flying Cavalry (including Pegasus Knights and Changebringers) follow the same rule as the rulebook for Unit of flyers with the "exception: flying cavalry have a US of 2".
Is therefore Flying Cavalry to be an exception when considering this all important table?


3) The last line on the same paragraph
Chronicles 4 pg 82:"Single flying models follow the rules for their type in the chart"


And this last statement is the point of contention.

1) Is it referring to All flying units as Atrahasis believes i.e. a literal interpretation?

If this is the case then "always" in the previous statement has been ignored. Why should it?

OR
2) Is it referring to Characters on flyers as Festus and Mageith believes?

In this case "always" has been prima facieaccepted but the "Single flying model" has been qualified to

"Single Flying Models with a character"

or another version which will be strongly opposed by Tzeentch Daemonic legion players:

"A unit that starts as a single flying model etc"
This will restrict a Chariot of Tzeentch LOS - not the way it is played.


Both interpretations qualifies the rules as written in Chronicles2004.

mageith
04-08-2006, 13:22
2) Is it referring to Characters on flyers as Festus and Mageith believes?

Mage Ith believes its single flying models that begin the game as units of one. These are often characters but not always. Great Eagles would be an example. "There are two types of flyers: flying monsters and flying units." (106) This difference is signficant because flying monsters are NOT referred to the in the Chronicles chart EXCEPT in this sentence. I believe GW dropped or omitted a heading in the Chronicles chart. Its the only paragraph in the chart without a heading or title and so it looks like it falls under the previous heading: "Units of Flyers". But it can't because it then directly contradicts a number of rules found throughout the book (see an earlier post) including, most importantly, the sentence right above it.



In this case "always" has been prima facieaccepted but the "Single flying model" has been qualified to

"Single Flying Models with a character"

More precisely "Flying monsters" or just "Flyers" (106)

Kotobuki
04-08-2006, 13:35
Kotobuki, you're right if only the rulebook is considered.

It is the table in Chronicles2004 which is being debated here. It is poorly written as usual and furthermore has a clause:

Important clause:

Chronicles 4 pg 82: "The chart and notes below are the Warhammer's team last and final decision on the matter"

The 3 areas of contention are:

1)Chronicles 4 pg 82: Unit of Flyers: "Always count as skirmishers and ... regardless of size, wounds etc. "


Always means errm Always:) Therefore a Unit of flyers will always be a skirmisher even if it is reduced to 1 model.
This is Festus's and Mageith's point of view and they have added further embellishments to reinforce it

2) Chronicles 4 pg 82:Unit of Flyers: "and always have a Unit Strength of 1 "

This refers to Unit of flyers and Not Flying Cavalry.
Flying Cavalry (including Pegasus Knights and Changebringers) follow the same rule as the rulebook for Unit of flyers with the "exception: flying cavalry have a US of 2".
Is therefore Flying Cavalry to be an exception when considering this all important table?


3) The last line on the same paragraph
Chronicles 4 pg 82:"Single flying models follow the rules for their type in the chart"


And this last statement is the point of contention.

1) Is it referring to All flying units as Atrahasis believes i.e. a literal interpretation?

If this is the case then "always" in the previous statement has been ignored. Why should it?

OR
2) Is it referring to Characters on flyers as Festus and Mageith believes?

In this case "always" has been prima facieaccepted but the "Single flying model" has been qualified to

"Single Flying Models with a character"

or another version which will be strongly opposed by Tzeentch Daemonic legion players:

"A unit that starts as a single flying model etc"
This will restrict a Chariot of Tzeentch LOS - not the way it is played.


Both interpretations qualifies the rules as written in Chronicles2004."A single flying model" is just that. A single model with the 'fly' special rule. A Royal Pegasus is a 'single flying model'.

A Pegasus Knight (even if you could only start the game with one of them, or if you have a unit reduced to one model) is a 'Unit of Flyers' with one model. It's still a unit, no matter how many or how few there are.

mageith
04-08-2006, 14:16
In this case "always" has been prima facieaccepted but the "Single flying model" has been qualified to

"Single Flying Models with a character"

or another version which will be strongly opposed by Tzeentch Daemonic legion players:

"A unit that starts as a single flying model etc"
This will restrict a Chariot of Tzeentch LOS - not the way it is played.


Both interpretations qualifies the rules as written in Chronicles2004.
Please explain further. Are you saying the Flying Chariot falls through these rules or that players play them with 360 degree line of sight?

Mage Ith

DeathlessDraich
04-08-2006, 14:30
The Flying Chariot is a problem for both interpretations:

SOC pg31"The Chariot follows the rules for flyers on pg106 ..."

Following yours: It has a 360 degrees line of sight (skirmisher). When a character joins it, its status changes - its LOS is 90 degrees. US remains at 3



Following Atrahasis: It does not have 360 LOS ever - "single model etc"

I've faced the Flying Chariot twice in tournaments, with a character and like my opponent assumed (wrongly maybe) it had 360 LOS

Another anomaly whichever way you look at it.

Another problem:

If a character on a Great Eagle is killed would the Eagle revert to a skirmisher? The same problem won't exist for Pegasus because of the difference between a Royal Pegasus and Pegasus

Festus
04-08-2006, 16:26
Guys, once again:

If the Pegasus Knight ceases to be a flying unit (or to be precise: flying cavalry, which is a flying unit with US2), it ceases to fly.

The rule *Fly* is a subset rule of *Flying unit*.

Flying cavalry = US2 + (flying unit = fly, skirmish, US1).

If the Peg Knight is no longer a flying unit, but a single model, it can no longer fyl.

This is hardly true, or is it? :rolleyes:

As a side note, this would make a Skink Priest with the cloak of Feathers and a TK Liche with the flying cloak Monsters as well, as they are single flying models and should behave like monsters, as the chart tells us (... and remember: It replaces all else said on the matter... LOL)

BTW, DD: Single Flying models are models, which fly and are bought as single models: Flying Monsters (like Eagles), or mounted characters on flying beasties.

Greetings
Festus

Festus
04-08-2006, 16:28
Hi

The Flying Chariot is a problem for both interpretations:

SOC pg31"The Chariot follows the rules for flyers on pg106 ..."

Following yours: It has a 360 degrees line of sight (skirmisher). When a character joins it, its status changes - its LOS is 90 degrees. US remains at 3

Nonsense: It follows the rules for Flyers, not the rules for flying units. It is therefore not a skirmisher, but simply a flying model. It can fly. Hence the designation...

mageith
04-08-2006, 16:35
The Flying Chariot is a problem for both interpretations:

SOC pg31"The Chariot follows the rules for flyers on pg106 ..."

Following yours: It has a 360 degrees line of sight (skirmisher). When a character joins it, its status changes - its LOS is 90 degrees. US remains at 3

I don't know why I'd think it was a skirmisher with 360 LOS? I don't have the rules in from of me but unless the designation on the unit descriptions is Unit of Flyers or Skirmisher, I would say it has line of sight of a chariot and probably the US of a chariot (not sure here, haven't thought about it).

All flyers have 90 degree Line of Sight unless they have the Unit of Flyers designation or receive it from some other rule.



Following Atrahasis: It does not have 360 LOS ever - "single model etc"

I've faced the Flying Chariot twice in tournaments, with a character and like my opponent assumed (wrongly maybe) it had 360 LOS

I agree he assumed wrongly. I still don't see how anyone could have assumed a chariot, flying or other wise is a skirmisher.



Another problem:

If a character on a Great Eagle is killed would the Eagle revert to a skirmisher? The same problem won't exist for Pegasus because of the difference between a Royal Pegasus and Pegasus

I see the a problem now. The Great Eagle is NEVER a skirmisher.

No the pegasus problem is different. I agree its confusing. A Pegasus is specifically a skirmisher as benefit from its Flying Cavalry rule. A Royal Pegasus is a monster, even if ridden.

DeathlessDraich
04-08-2006, 20:37
You're right.
The flying chariot is a flyer and not designated as unit of flyers. The same with Great Eagles.

Atrahasis
05-08-2006, 10:30
The rule *Fly* is a subset rule of *Flying unit*.No. A Great Eagle is a flying unit. It is not a unit of flyers.



As a side note, this would make a Skink Priest with the cloak of Feathers and a TK Liche with the flying cloak Monsters as well, as they are single flying models and should behave like monsters, as the chart tells us (... and remember: It replaces all else said on the matter... LOL)No. Single flying models behave as their type defined in the chart. Unless liche priests and skink priests now come on 40mm bases and no-one has told me, they operate as skirmishers.


BTW, DD: Single Flying models are models, which fly and are bought as single models: Flying Monsters (like Eagles), or mounted characters on flying beasties.There is no reason to believe from the chart in the Chronicles that a model must be bought as single model in order to behave as one. If this were the case, the last remaining model from a unit of infantry would still be bound to wheel/turn etc, as would the last remaining model from a unit of ogres/minotaurs.

Festus
05-08-2006, 14:40
Hi

No. A Great Eagle is a flying unit. It is not a unit of flyers.
You don't want to understand, do you?

Flying Units and Flying Cavalry *do not* generally have the special rule *Fly*. It is neither in their Bestiary entry nor in the armylists.
They do however have the rule *Unit of Flyers* or *Flying Cavalry*. Those two rules are in effect a collection of other rules.

If your Pegasus Knight ceases to be a Unit of *Flying Cavalry* (and thus able to skirmish), he is as well unable to fly, because the rule *Flying Cavalry* does not apply to him any longer. So the rule *Fly*, which is a part of the rule *Flying Cavalry* in this case, ceases to apply as well.

Either he can still fly and is still a skirmisher, or he is earthbound and has 90° LoS. There is no other possibility, as the options are:

1st: He is still *Flying Cavalry* (ie. Fly, US2, Skirmisher)
2nd: He is not *Flying Cavalry* anymore (ie. no Fly, US3(? or 2 maybe?), no Skirmisher)

You cannot simply let one part of a single special rule not apply while keeping the other, or can you?

I know what I think is right. Do you?

Festus

Atrahasis
05-08-2006, 15:28
Flying Units and Flying Cavalry *do not* generally have the special rule *Fly*. It is neither in their Bestiary entry nor in the armylists.
They do however have the rule *Flying Unit* or *Flying Cavalry*. Those two rules are in effect a collection of other rules.Flying Unit is NOT the same as Unit of Flyers. I understand what you are saying, however you are using the wrong terminology to say it. Anything that flies is a Flying Unit. Not everything that flies is a Unit of Flyers.


You cannot simply let one part of a single special rule not apply while keeping the other, or can you?Every rule has an exception. Warhammer is full of rules which contradict other rules. A single flying model moves as a model of its type. This is an exception to "Units of Flyers always operate as skirmishers". Just as single man-sized models on foot moving as skirmishers is an exception to the normal movement rules for rank and file movement.

Festus
05-08-2006, 16:22
Hi

Flying Unit is NOT the same as Unit of Flyers. I understand what you are saying, however you are using the wrong terminology to say it. Anything that flies is a Flying Unit. Not everything that flies is a Unit of Flyers.
I know that and edited my post accordingly.Thank you very much. In German, it is not that hard...

My point is, that Unit of Flyers do not posess the rule *Fly*, whereas Flying models do posess said rule.

Unit of Flyers (and Flying Cavalry by the same token) can only fly because of the rule *Unit of Flyers*, which allows them to fly AND skirmish according to the BRB. Without the rule *Unit of Flyers*, those units may not fly at all...

Festus

Atrahasis
05-08-2006, 16:59
Regardless, the table gives an exception : single flying models move as models of their type.

This is true of any single model, and not just flyers. The last salamander of a hunting pack moves as a monster.

Festus
05-08-2006, 19:38
Hi

We should leave it here:

We've exchanged arguments, we read each other's point of view, and it seems that none of us will move an inch from his relative position.

We seem to have different interpretations of the same set of rule?

So be it. It is not as if it is an important thing, as the 7th will roll around in a few months' time.

Have a good day... :)

Greetings
FEstus

Atrahasis
06-08-2006, 11:49
I'm happy to leave it here.

In summary: Single models move as models of their type in the chart, flyers or not. Nothing in any rule tells us otherwise.

IronBrother
08-08-2006, 13:36
The black shirt at my local store was at GD Chicago a little while ago and this question came up as a rules question. It took a couple of referees? to resolve and what they concluded was this:
anything that is considered cavalry has a a 90 degree facing (logic was that something mounted can never have a 360) and that anything that flies on its own (fell bats, carrion, harpies, etc) have a 360.
IMO I think all fliers should have a 90 not just flying cavalry.
And just to inquire, who really plays with the tzeentch daemon chariot with a 360 (what an ass).

Festus
08-08-2006, 13:39
Hi

Flying Cavalry clearly has 360° LoS, whishful thinking is not going to change that.

The point of the debate is was if a single flying cavalry model still benefits from it. I (et al.) say yes, Atrahasis (et al.) says no.

Festus

mageith
08-08-2006, 13:46
The black shirt at my local store was at GD Chicago a little while ago and this question came up as a rules question. It took a couple of referees? to resolve and what they concluded was this:
anything that is considered cavalry has a a 90 degree facing (logic was that something mounted can never have a 360) and that anything that flies on its own (fell bats, carrion, harpies, etc) have a 360.

This is so scary to me. With two referees and a bunch of players, no one can find the rules at the bottom of page 106 and if they did, couldn't understand them.

A lot of of it is GW's fault though. As players need to understand the difference between "Unit of Flyers" and "Flying unit". Sounds the same to the untrained ear. I hope GW did a better job in 7th and hopefully is using terms that are easier to differentiate.

Kotobuki
08-08-2006, 16:05
Fortunately, when 7th edition comes out, whether it resolves this specifically or not, it will immediately supercede the Q&A which 'answers' this query. Which would then make it very obvious that a Unit of Flyers always has 360deg LoS.

DeathlessDraich
08-08-2006, 16:31
No. A Great Eagle is a flying unit. It is not a unit of flyers.



Flying Unit is NOT the same as Unit of Flyers. I understand what you are saying, however you are using the wrong terminology to say it. Anything that flies is a Flying Unit. Not everything that flies is a Unit of Flyers.




Hi

I know that and edited my post accordingly.Thank you very much. In German, it is not that hard...

My point is, that Unit of Flyers do not posess the rule *Fly*, whereas Flying models do posess said rule.

Festus




A lot of of it is GW's fault though. As players need to understand the difference between "Unit of Flyers" and "Flying unit". Sounds the same to the untrained ear. I hope GW did a better job in 7th and hopefully is using terms that are easier to differentiate.


:D And I thought this debate was over.

Pg 106 " There are 2 types of flyers, Flying Monsters and Flying units"
After which the rules describe the rules for all flyers and then using the term
"Unit of Flyers" explain the exceptions for Flying units or Unit of flyers.

I think that was you meant anyway Mageith, Atrahasis and Festus but somehow chose the phrase Flying unit when you meant Flying Monsters.

Flying unit is the same as Unit of flyers and the 2 terms are interchanged often in the rules. In addition the term Fly, Flying Cavalry and Flying Chariot are also loosely used.

5 terms in all:

1) Fly 2) Unit of flyers = Flying unit by defn on pg 106 3) Flying Monsters 4) Flying Cavalry 5) Flying Chariot

Not clearly defined in the following cases:

a) HElves pg 12 and 31 Great Eagles: - The designated word is Fly

Which one? Flying Monster or Flying Unit? It's not explicit enough.

b) WE Warhawks pg 18: "Flying Cavalry : follow the rules for Flyers with the following exceptions , Us 2 +1 AS etc"

Flyers?? Which? Again vague but see Pegasus Knights below

c) Chariot of Tzeentch: "follows the rules for Flyers on pg etc ....."

Again which one?


but the rules for flyers are explicit and lucid in the following cases:

DElves pg 8: "Flying unit: Harpies are a unit of flyers"
HordesoC pg 8: "Flying unit: Furies are a unit of flyers"
The same with Fell Bats, Bat Swarms

Bret pg 55: Pegasus Kn. "Flying Cavalry - ... follow the rules for Unit of Flyers"
SOC Changebringers - "Flying Cavalry - ... follow the rules for Unit of Flyers"


However, the rules for the 3 vague cases, Eagles, FChariot and WarhawkRiders can be deduced by comparison:

All Flying Monsters or mounted Monsters have been designated as "Fly"
e.g. Manticore, Daemon Prince, Dragons.

a) Therefore Great Eagles are Flying Monsters since they have the same designation and a unit size of 1.

b)WHR are Flying Cavalry, a term clearly defined twice in SOC and Bretts rulebooks.

b) The Flying Chariot is not as clearcut but has a Unit Size of 1 like Great Eagles so I suppose ...

I think cross referencing between army books is the only solution although in other cases it leads to contradictions.
GW should have used only 2 terms throughout - Flying Monster and Unit of Flyers.

Hope this ends the debate:)

Atrahasis
08-08-2006, 18:02
Fortunately, when 7th edition comes out, whether it resolves this specifically or not, it will immediately supercede the Q&A which 'answers' this query. Which would then make it very obvious that a Unit of Flyers always has 360deg LoS.

You fail to acknowledge the possibility that GW will foul up the wording in the new book too.

mageith
09-08-2006, 01:48
DeathlessDraich-You pretty much missed my point completely. I certainly wasn't trying to open any debate again.


GW should have used only 2 terms throughout - Flying Monster and Unit of Flyers.

While this would be an improvement it still is confusing.

Using the the term "unit" is the confusing part. As we all know, a single model is a unit. Therefore the term 'flying unit' may or may not refer to troops of flyers. It all depends on context and that's a bad thing to depend on when reading or writing rules. It also depends on how folks who don't memorize rules verbatim translate them in their heads.

Mostly I think you and I agree on this.

The term GW apparently wanted to use to differentiate a flying monster (unit) from a group of flyers was "Units of Flyers" but in addition to being grammatically grating they weren't consistent. I think we agree on the (in)consistency part.

GW often makes an stab at definitions and then promptly forgets them. For example the proper name PER GW for a unit of cavalry is "squadron" (49). I've never heard this term used except on this page. The proper name for a unit of ranked troops is REGIMENT. This is used a bit more but still not a lot. Pertty much GW used the term "unit" to mean everything and anything.

It seems to me 'squadron' might have been a good name for what you want to call "Unit of Flyers", but alas it was already allocated to cavalry.

At any rate, we just have to live with GW's free and loose use of terms the best we can. Maybe they do better in 7th. We'll soon know.

Mage Ith

DeathlessDraich
09-08-2006, 14:12
Agreed on all pts Mageith.


DeathlessDraich-You pretty much missed my point completely. I certainly wasn't trying to open any debate again.

Mage Ith

I know you weren't
My attempt at humourous irony was misconstrued.:)

BTW - hope you'll vote in my Poll under General Discussion

IronBrother
09-08-2006, 16:33
unfortunatley 7th edition has the exact same page and wording as sixth edition. the afore mentioned table is in there too. As far as the referees and gamers, the referees said it was an abuse of the rules to allow changebringers, pegasus knights and other mounted fliers to have a 360 degree; and any other comments would hit sportsmanship from their end.

mageith
10-08-2006, 02:25
unfortunatley 7th edition has the exact same page and wording as sixth edition. the afore mentioned table is in there too. As far as the referees and gamers, the referees said it was an abuse of the rules to allow changebringers, pegasus knights and other mounted fliers to have a 360 degree; and any other comments would hit sportsmanship from their end.
Are you saying that that referees are saying a Squadron of Pegasus knights and other full Units of Flyers don't have 360? How then did they determine the LOS of those Units of Flyers? It sounds like they were following 5th edition rules where the facing of each model mattered.

Gorbad Ironclaw
10-08-2006, 05:47
unfortunatley 7th edition has the exact same page and wording as sixth edition. the afore mentioned table is in there too. As far as the referees and gamers, the referees said it was an abuse of the rules to allow changebringers, pegasus knights and other mounted fliers to have a 360 degree; and any other comments would hit sportsmanship from their end.



Then the referees should go back, and actually learn the rules of this game...

A unit of fliers count as skirmish, end of story. It doesn't matter what it's actually made up of(or how many there are). But it really should be quite clear in 7th that flying cavalry is still skirmishers. Of course, it should also be relatively clear currently, but apparently not...

DarkTerror
10-08-2006, 06:37
unfortunatley 7th edition has the exact same page and wording as sixth edition. the afore mentioned table is in there too. As far as the referees and gamers, the referees said it was an abuse of the rules to allow changebringers, pegasus knights and other mounted fliers to have a 360 degree; and any other comments would hit sportsmanship from their end.

I don't mean to beat this to death (well, maybe I do), but clearly whoever you were talking to was wrong. The rule boyz are typically wrong (I can remember calling them so much in 5th edition only to have them give us answers which were completely bogus). I'm sorry, but the faster you accept it the better off you are.