PDA

View Full Version : Rolling a 6 on monster reaction.



adbower
10-10-2006, 20:43
I had a game with a Lizardmen player using some Salamanders the other day. One pack decided to eat just about all the skinks, and a round of shooting cleared off the others next round.

I don't have my book with me, so I'm quoting from memory. On his monster reaction, he rolled a 6, which makes the beasts gain Frenzy (which they can never lose), Hatred for the enemy, and it additionally stipulates something like, "and they must always charge a visible enemy." (If someone can get an exact quote that would be nice).

He argued that that was because they had Frenzy, but myself and another on-looker thought that it was in addition to the Frenzy rule. So the next round they would have to declare a charge on a visible enemy, whether or not they were in range.

This was somewhat important because the Salamanders could shoot if they didn't charge.

Which interpretation is correct?
1. They only have the Frenzy rule, so only charge things within range.
2. They have Frenzy and must also declare a charge at visible targets.

Thanks!

TheWarSmith
10-10-2006, 22:30
Monster Reaction Table
D6 5-6
p. 61 "The monster fights on as normal, but is subject to Frenzy and Hatred of all enemies for the rest of the game(it can never lose frenzy, even if defeated in combat) and will always charge the CLOSEST visible enemy"

Frenzy
p. 52 "Measure to see if any enemy units are within charge reach of the frenzied unit. If so, the frenzied unit must declare a charge against that enemy. If there are several eligible units within the charge reach of the Frenzied unit, the controlling player may decide which unit to charge."

The difference is that the monster going nuts will ALWAYS declare a charge if there is a visible enemy, regardless of whether it would be an obvious failed charge or not. It also is different in that you do not get a choice of which unit the monster will charge. It is always the closest(measure if it's not obvious)

EDIT:: to the below, note that he obviously can't charge if he can't see any enemies, so you could screen him if it worked out that way.

Atrahasis
10-10-2006, 22:32
You are correct, the chart insists that the monster will always charge.

mageith
11-10-2006, 05:18
EDIT:: to the below, note that he obviously can't charge if he can't see any enemies, so you could screen him if it worked out that way.
It will be difficult to screen a Large Target Monster which many or most Raaargh! monsters will be.

I can't imagine that reasonability of charges will not once again be in the forthcoming FAQ.

TheWarSmith
11-10-2006, 05:37
Not all monstrous mounts are large though, so if it was something that got taken down behind your lines, you could screen it. For example, a royal pegusus or something.

Gorbad Ironclaw
11-10-2006, 09:03
I can't imagine that reasonability of charges will not once again be in the forthcoming FAQ.


Sadly I can. But lets hope they do put it in afterall

adbower
11-10-2006, 14:56
Thanks for the replies.

Unwise
12-10-2006, 06:15
To me the intent seems clearly that the monster has frenzy but rather than getting a choice over who is charges, he just goes for the closest one.

I do not think it was GWs intention to have you charging stuff 24" out of your charge reach. Which is basically just making you move at half speed and being unable to march towards the enemy.

Looks like some sloppy rules writing to me. Maybe they just worded it like that rather than saying that you must always move towards the closest enemy.

Ganymede
12-10-2006, 06:36
Monster Reaction Table
D6 5-6
p. 61 "The monster fights on as normal, but is subject to Frenzy and Hatred of all enemies for the rest of the game(it can never lose frenzy, even if defeated in combat) and will always charge the CLOSEST visible enemy"

Frenzy
p. 52 "Measure to see if any enemy units are within charge reach of the frenzied unit. If so, the frenzied unit must declare a charge against that enemy. If there are several eligible units within the charge reach of the Frenzied unit, the controlling player may decide which unit to charge."

The difference is that the monster going nuts will ALWAYS declare a charge if there is a visible enemy, regardless of whether it would be an obvious failed charge or not. It also is different in that you do not get a choice of which unit the monster will charge. It is always the closest(measure if it's not obvious)

EDIT:: to the below, note that he obviously can't charge if he can't see any enemies, so you could screen him if it worked out that way.

When I read the rules, it appears that the additional stipulation adds another limitation to its mobility.

Under normal frenzy, a frenzied unit can choose to charge any unit in range. It appears that the stipulation changes such so that the frenzied beastie has to charge the CLOSEST unit. Such seems obvious considering the fact that the word "closest" has been emphasised so powerfully.

TheWarSmith
12-10-2006, 16:33
Not only does he need to charge the closest, but he needs to charge even if he's NOT in range. Normal frenzy only grips the unit if they're within range. This means he'll almost always charge something, failed or not.

NakedFisherman
12-10-2006, 17:26
Not only does he need to charge the closest, but he needs to charge even if he's NOT in range. Normal frenzy only grips the unit if they're within range. This means he'll almost always charge something, failed or not.

He does have 'normal Frenzy'. He just needs to charge the closest enemy. Other Frenzied troops simply need to charge anything in range.

He most certainly does not charge units out of range, as Frenzied troops still must check for charge ranges.

Nowhere do the rules state to declare a charge at any visible enemy -- they say to follow the rules for Frenzy with the caveat that he must charge the closest enemy.

adbower
12-10-2006, 19:10
Nowhere do the rules state to declare a charge at any visible enemy -- they say to follow the rules for Frenzy with the caveat that he must charge the closest enemy.

Actually, the RAW say that "he must charge the closest enemy"... soooo.... he must charge the closest enemy....?

TheWarSmith
12-10-2006, 19:30
Well, read my quote of the rules.

p. 61 "The monster fights on as normal, but is subject to Frenzy and Hatred of all enemies for the rest of the game(it can never lose its Frenzy, even if defeated in combat) and will always charge the closest visible enemy"

I just realized this opens a new can of worms. Is that quote in relation to frenzy(in which case you'd be right fishman) or is it unrelated to frenzy, meaning that it always charges some kind of visible model. It does NOT say "closest visible enemy IN RANGE". It's an ambiguity that is all too common in GW rules.

Crazy Harborc
12-10-2006, 19:37
Do the normal rules for failed charges apply?? Isn't this all about a "speacial deal/result" caused by a required die (dice) roll on a chart?? IMHO,the frenzy caused by the chart is beyond the normal frenzy. I think the rules boys want that frenzied because of the chart, result to mean do a charge move whether in charge range or not. After all it says what it says.:)

TheWarSmith
12-10-2006, 20:18
It's really an interpretation at this point. I can see both sides. RAW would be a charge regardless, but if that phrase is meant to be within the realm of normal frenzy, then it's different.

Hopefully it will get FAQd. How does GW determine what they FAQ and don't anyway?

NakedFisherman
12-10-2006, 20:53
Actually, the RAW say that "he must charge the closest enemy"... soooo.... he must charge the closest enemy....?

No, they do not state that.

The rules state that the monster 'will always charge the closest visible enemy'.

They do not say to declare charges at the closest visible enemies.

Deriving a distinct ruling out of a modal verb such as 'will' is difficult, and unless GW says otherwise (which I highly doubt), I'd say the monster operates according to Frenzy as normal except that it charges the nearest enemy and not anything in range.

If they meant for monsters to just start declaring charges across the board, I'm sure it'd be written as such.

Ganymede
12-10-2006, 22:40
Well, read my quote of the rules.

p. 61 "The monster fights on as normal, but is subject to Frenzy and Hatred of all enemies for the rest of the game(it can never lose its Frenzy, even if defeated in combat) and will always charge the closest visible enemy"

I just realized this opens a new can of worms. Is that quote in relation to frenzy(in which case you'd be right fishman) or is it unrelated to frenzy, meaning that it always charges some kind of visible model. It does NOT say "closest visible enemy IN RANGE". It's an ambiguity that is all too common in GW rules.



You are interpreting "charge" to mean the same thing as "declare a charge". The rules do not tell us to always declare a charge on the closest visible enemy, they tell us to charge the closest visible enemy. There's a subtle difference.

When they tell us to always charge the closest enemy they are telling us to reconcile charges so that they are always directed towards the closest enemy.

Or in other words, a "charge" is an entire process we follow, and the rules are telling us to make sure that the end result of that process is a charge towards the closest model. The rules are not forcing us to constantly declare out-of-range charges, they are telling us that when a charge is declared, it has to be directed towards the nearest visible target.

Note that this is only according to RAW, so your gaming group may play it a different way based on some sort of house rule.

DeathlessDraich
13-10-2006, 08:01
The rules are not forcing us to constantly declare out-of-range charges, they are telling us that when a charge is declared, it has to be directed towards the nearest visible target.
.

The Monster is frenzied - no charge declarations are necessary.


I just realized this opens a new can of worms. Is that quote in relation to frenzy(in which case you'd be right fishman) or is it unrelated to frenzy, meaning that it always charges some kind of visible model. It does NOT say "closest visible enemy IN RANGE". It's an ambiguity that is all too common in GW rules.


It is in relation to frenzy, since the monster is frenzied.

The procedure must follow normal frenzied charges. If I remember this correctly:
1) Measure *possible* charges and charge *only* if they are within range. The only proviso is unlike frenzied charges, when there is more than 1 unit in range, the player does not choose but the Monster charges the closest unit.

The only word that creates confusion is *always*.

TheWarSmith
13-10-2006, 15:44
I'm inclined to agree on this. I can see it argued both ways, but for a "spirit of the game" argument, I'd say it'd be pretty stupid to just charge ANYTHING.

Festus
13-10-2006, 16:09
Hi

The Monster is frenzied - no charge declarations are necessary.
Negative: A frenzied unit still declares a charge after an enemy is found to be in range.
It is just that you have no choice on the matter, you must declare a charge with frenzied troops.

Festus

DeathlessDraich
13-10-2006, 18:25
True. A charge still has to be 'declared' and reacted to but after measurement.