PDA

View Full Version : Summonned Skeletons



eleveninches
31-01-2007, 09:02
I have been playing VC for a while now to good results.

However, whenever I summonned any skeletons, they ahve always been just standard skeletons. WOuld it be legal to summon skeletons with spears or light armour?

That would mean that you could start with 4+ units of just a few skeleton spearmenwith light armour, and then each summonned model would also have a spear and light armour.
Is this legal or not?

Festus
31-01-2007, 09:12
Hi

If you add summoned Skellies to an already existing unit, they come equipped as the unit. Yes, that means that you can start off with 10 Skellies in Light Armour with full command and blow them up to serious numbers.

Any newly raised unit comes just basically equipped.

But by and large I much prefer to raise Zombies: You will get more of these, ensuring a decent rank bonus easier, which is all that counts, as neither Skellies nor Zombies can fight in any way :)

Festus[dice0]

eleveninches
31-01-2007, 09:44
Well then in that case im just going to start my skeleons with spears and light armour and full comand in ten-stong units only, as now i will be able to use them for summonned skellies as well. I thought my vc army was doing well already, now it will totally rock!

Flame
31-01-2007, 11:19
You need to balance it though- if you face serious magical opposition then you'll struggle to raise sufficient numbers.

T10
31-01-2007, 11:25
I've found that starting with two units of 15 Skeletons tend to be sufficient.

-T10

eleveninches
31-01-2007, 11:51
It depends on how many necros you have and how many skellies you expect to raise per turn, as well as how big your battlefield is (i usually play on large ones), and how many turns you expect to have until your enemy units arrive on your skelly line. I usually send my vamp and a couple of black knight units and a black coach to attack the ememy early, take out enemy artillary and hold up a few other units whilst my skellies get summonned, then race may vampy back to the skelly line and wait for the enemies advance.

eleveninches
05-02-2007, 15:37
Are there any rules about where summonned skeletons can be placed in a unit (i.e. can they be summonned at the side, or do they have to be put in the back row)

Flame
05-02-2007, 15:50
The back rank- putting them along a side would mean that you have changed formation, which is only allowed in the movement phase.

DeathlessDraich
05-02-2007, 16:01
Hmm. I'm not sure about that.
If there is only 1 model in the original unit would its formation be 1 rank or 1 file?
1 file - all additional models line up behind.
1 rank - no additional ranks can be added without changing formation and additional models line up like archers in 1 rank.

I think a degree of flexibility is needed in cases where the number of original models is less than 5.

T10
05-02-2007, 16:44
I guess it would be unreasonable to extend the width of the unit if it already has established ranks. If the unit consists of only a single rank then I don't see much point in arguing if the player decides to increase the width of the unit.

At least it allows for a unit of 1 Zombie/Skeleton to be increased in size and form to a regular block of troops rather than one narrow file.

-T10

Atrahasis
05-02-2007, 16:54
I can't see anything in the rules for Invocation (or in the VC FAQ) that restricts where raised models are placed in the unit.

If you raise enough models to widen the formation and for it to still be a legal formation after the addition, then there is nothing to prevent it.

Festus
05-02-2007, 17:04
I can't see anything in the rules for Invocation (or in the VC FAQ) that restricts where raised models are placed in the unit.Maybe you are looking in the wrong place? ;)


If you raise enough models to widen the formation and for it to still be a legal formation after the addition, then there is nothing to prevent it...
...apart from the rules in the BRB, namely on p.12, which tell us that there are 4 manoeuvres which allow a unit to change its direction or formation.

Greetings
Festus

Atrahasis
05-02-2007, 17:14
Can you tell me where in the BRB it tells us it is OK to increase a unit's size mid-battle?

I didn't think so.

Any addition of models is a formation change, are you saying that Invocation cannot be used at all?

Festus
05-02-2007, 17:25
Hi

The BRB tells us to decrease a unit's size mid-battle - by suffering casualties. The reverse process should follow the reverse rules:

New models are added to the last rank unitl full, then to the next rank.

Festus

edit: TBH, I have never seen anyone (including myself) doing it differently...

Atrahasis
05-02-2007, 18:49
The reverse process should follow the reverse rules:Nice assumption. Care to offer a quotation to support it?

Festus
05-02-2007, 20:07
Hi

If I am not mistaken (using German stuff), the TK book says the following on p.35:


Rank and file models are added to the front rank until the front rank reaches at least four models. Then additional models may be added to either the front rank or they can be added to create rear ranks. If the unit already has more than one rank, new models can only be added to rear ranks.

Don't you think that this sets a rather strong precedence for my way of seeing things? :)

Festus

ZomboCom
05-02-2007, 21:50
That's from the TK book, not the Vc book.

Anyone who says I have to raise my sylvanian crossbowmen no larger than 4 wide will be completely ignored, since there is nothing at all in the VC book or BRB to suggest that is the case.

Festus
06-02-2007, 07:27
Hi

Did you actually read it? :wtf:

Yes, it is from the TK book, as I clearly wrote. And nowhere does it say that you have to set up new units no wider than 4. :rolleyes:

You may set them up 20 wide if you like to... :eyebrows:

Festus

DeathlessDraich
06-02-2007, 10:28
That's from the TK book, not the Vc book.

Anyone who says I have to raise my sylvanian crossbowmen no larger than 4 wide will be completely ignored, since there is nothing at all in the VC book or BRB to suggest that is the case.

"...are added to the front rank until the front rank reaches at least four models"

4 or wider, not the other way round. Good thing the 'at least' was added too considering changes in 7th ed.

I don't think VC players would add models in any other way. Increasing frontage for units in combat would probably be frowned upon by opponents, although seemingly legal.

VC already have 2 additional advantages (over TK) when it comes to restoring wounds/models:
1) Newly summoned models may fight in the next round of combat while TK cannot.
2) They can summon 2D6 or 3D6 instead of the better of two D6 rolls for TK.

jullevi
06-02-2007, 10:52
The TK book quote above applies to VC as well, as long as you are raising models into existing unit (see Gav's Lapping round article in WD283). If you raise a new unit, you may deploy them in any formation you wish (such as the Konga line).

Atrahasis
06-02-2007, 17:41
The TK book quote above applies to VC as well, as long as you are raising models into existing unit (see Gav's Lapping round article in WD283).So you're suggesting we use a rule from a different army, supported by an article on a rule from a previous edition that no longer applies?

loveless
06-02-2007, 17:58
So you're suggesting we use a rule from a different army, supported by an article on a rule from a previous edition that no longer applies?

hmm...this reminds me of that whole "Salamanders auto-hit and make reference to Empire Volley Guns, so Empire Volley Guns must auto-hit" argument...

Atrahasis
06-02-2007, 18:09
hmm...this reminds me of that whole "Salamanders auto-hit and make reference to Empire Volley Guns, so Empire Volley Guns must auto-hit" argument...

Which everyone (including me, if you read the thread) agreed was ridiculous.

loveless
06-02-2007, 18:55
Which everyone (including me, if you read the thread) agreed was ridiculous.

oh, i know, i'm just saying that this is starting to look like another can of worms

Krankenstein
06-02-2007, 19:08
I don't think VC players would add models in any other way. Increasing frontage for units in combat would probably be frowned upon by opponents, although seemingly legal.


This is the part of this discussion I donít get. Skeletons and Zombies donít kill that well on their own, they kill by combat resolution and outnumbering. So does it really matter that much how they form up? Why not just say ďthe player decide where he put down his models if he gets the spell offĒ and if you donít like it, make it your business to block the spell using scrolls and dispel dice instead of refined rules argument.

Lord Inquisitor
06-02-2007, 19:25
I seem to recall that there was a FAQ (I may simply be thinking of the lapping round article cited above) but I am very much of the impression that you can only add models to the rear ranks of the unit if it already has more than one rank. If the unit doesn't have any rear ranks you can either add to the sides or the rear, but once you add any models to a second rank the frontage is set and you have to continue adding.

DeathlessDraich
06-02-2007, 19:33
This is the part of this discussion I donít get. Skeletons and Zombies donít kill that well on their own, they kill by combat resolution and outnumbering. So does it really matter that much how they form up? Why not just say ďthe player decide where he put down his models if he gets the spell offĒ and if you donít like it, make it your business to block the spell using scrolls and dispel dice instead of refined rules argument.

Of course. The VC rules do not restrict how the summoned models are to be arranged in the unit.

As you pointed out, any VC player would prefer the extra ranks to the extra attacks so I doubt that this would create a problem with VC opponents in actual play.

Atrahasis
06-02-2007, 19:37
Wider frontage isn't always about extra attacks; often it is about charge deflection or catching fleeing units.

Krankenstein
06-02-2007, 21:52
Wider frontage isn't always about extra attacks; often it is about charge deflection or catching fleeing units.

And if those charge deflections and crossfire tricks might become 13Ĺ % more efficient by a clever use of formation? Dispel the summoning. Or kill the necromancer. I just canít see how this is any different from all the other challenges in Warhammer that we are supposed to overcome in order to win.

Gn0b
06-02-2007, 22:14
I say add the new units anywhere on the old formation, as long as you do not move the models that were already in the unit. so a 5x4 unit with 6 unis summoned would become either a 6x4 unit with two left on the back incomplete rank, or a 5x5 with one left over on the incomplete rank.

Makarion
06-02-2007, 22:31
How dastardly would it be to add a rank *in front* of the old front rank? I can see all kinds of mayhem ensuing :).

PS. I think we can safely assume that the above scenario would not be allowed. It certainly goes against the spirit of the rules.

It's just a pity that GW doesn't care about clear and conclusive rules. I guess that a capable rules team cuts too deep into the profits.

eldrak
06-02-2007, 22:50
They did clear it up in the TK book and they said the rules should apply to all summoning. But they didn't do that in any official place...

Atrahasis
07-02-2007, 01:20
It certainly goes against the spirit of the rules.Ha-bloody-ha.

Please tell us, oh great one, how you distil this otherworldly knowledge.

Yellow Commissar
07-02-2007, 03:13
Ha-bloody-ha.

Please tell us, oh great one, how you distil this otherworldly knowledge.

He reads the entire fing rule book, including page 3 and references to apply the appendix. Within this context, it is clear to the rest of us.

Krankenstein
07-02-2007, 07:12
It’s not clear to me. I don't see how it’s a game balance problem and I don’t se how it’s an aesthetic problem*

* Other than placing figures in front of the first rank. It could get fiddly.

eleveninches
07-02-2007, 11:40
I always summon the skellies to the rear of the units, but i wanted to know if it would be possible to summon enough skellies to make the unit wider, as it would be useful against wide enemy units

Atrahasis
07-02-2007, 12:01
He reads the entire fing rule book, including page 3 and references to apply the appendix. Within this context, it is clear to the rest of us.

Please tell me where the rulebook talks about increasing the size of units, and so indicates what the intent of Invocation is.

Don't waste too much time on it though, because it isn't there.

I'm not going to bite the TMIR nonsense this time, I've explained to you enough times already when it applies and when it doesn't.

T10
07-02-2007, 13:56
Well, since this is where the rules tell us to do something weird but not *how*, I figure extrapolating is in order.

By default the unit's width is tied up with the number of models in the first rank. If you only have one rank, well, that's how wide your unit is. You add the raised models to the rear ranks. This solution is hands-down the one solution that fits the rules the best and creates the strangest result.

Now, if your unit started out at five wide and is reduced to four or fewer models you may argue that it should retain its original nominal width since you have not performed maneuvers to alter it. That should allow you to reclaim the original width and then proceed to fill out the rear ranks. The problem, of course, is that there is no such thing as "nominal unit width", so this relies on cooperation with your opponent.

Now, you could also try to add files to a multi-rank unit as suggested earlier, e.g. changing that 5x4 unit to a 6x5. You shouldn't, though. This works great as long as you can add complete files, but what if you add a single skeleton to that 5x4 unit? Increasing the width of the unit requires you to then rearrange the existing models in it, something that is not even hinted as an option. If you can't do it with one model, you can't do it with ten...

In short: There is no real rules conflict. If you think it produces a wierd result, either suck it up or seek cooperation from your opponent to resolve it.

-T10

EvC
07-02-2007, 14:12
Ha-bloody-ha.

Please tell us, oh great one, how you distil this otherworldly knowledge.

I don't know why you're so hostile to the guy, given he concluded in his post, "It's just a pity that GW doesn't care about clear and conclusive rules. I guess that a capable rules team cuts too deep into the profits.", which is what you have stated yourself countless times! We're all on the same side, surely? :)

Atrahasis
07-02-2007, 14:41
If you can't do it with one model, you can't do it with ten...I can't add 10 models with 1 model. Does that mean I can't do it with 10?

Atrahasis
07-02-2007, 14:43
I don't know why you're so hostile to the guy, given he concluded in his post, "It's just a pity that GW doesn't care about clear and conclusive rules. I guess that a capable rules team cuts too deep into the profits.", which is what you have stated yourself countless times! We're all on the same side, surely? :)

Agreeing on one point does not mean we agree on all.

I was hostile because he presented his desired rule as fact under the auspices of the "Spirit of the Game".

Nothing supports the view he presented and in order to lend it credibility he invoked a fluid concept. That's what got my goat.

loveless
07-02-2007, 17:16
Ha-bloody-ha.

Please tell us, oh great one, how you distil this otherworldly knowledge.

Wow, rude much?

T10
07-02-2007, 17:49
I can't add 10 models with 1 model. Does that mean I can't do it with 10?

Oh no! I think I cut my self on your razor-sharp logic!

No, don't worry A. If you manage to raise 10 skeletons you are required to add them to the unit provided you have the models available.

Seriously, though: With a 5x5 formation you could add a 6th file of 4, 5 or 6 models and still have a legal formation. Thus adding a file seems legal.

However, adding a file with just 1, 2 or 3 models creates an illegal formation: you have two or more incomplete ranks. *

Thus adding a file does not always produce a valid result and is simply a baseless assumption.

-T10

Yellow Commissar
07-02-2007, 17:55
Agreeing on one point does not mean we agree on all.

I was hostile because he presented his desired rule as fact under the auspices of the "Spirit of the Game".

Nothing supports the view he presented and in order to lend it credibility he invoked a fluid concept. That's what got my goat.

Dude, you are just plain wrong. You were wrong with your hostile response. You are wrong with your flippant justification of your hostility. You are wrong in claiming Makarion presented his desired rule as fact. He presented an assumption based on a thorough reading of the rules, and, IMO, an understanding of how they are suggested to be read. You are wrong in your approach to the rules. You are wrong in the way you use the acronym RAW, and most importantly, you are wrong about TMIR. :)

Atrahasis
07-02-2007, 18:07
Thus adding a file does not always produce a valid result and is simply a baseless assumption.Assuming that because adding 1 model might make the formation illegal that adding 10 must also be illegal is a baseless assumption.

The rules tell us when we can add models, and what formations are legal. Restricting a player beyond that because of your own view of what is "right" isn't even within the realms of YC's precious page 3.

Atrahasis
07-02-2007, 18:16
Dude, you are just plain wrong.I'm rarely plain wrong. I'm usually far more interstingly wrong than that.


You were wrong with your hostile response. You are wrong with your flippant justification of your hostility.Your opinion, you're entitled to it.


You are wrong in claiming Makarion presented his desired rule as fact.He used the word certain. Your folly makes a lot more sense now that you have shown that the word "certain" doesn't indicate a fact where you come from.


He presented an assumption based on a thorough reading of the rules,He presented an assumption as a certainty. I think that's pretty much what I said.


You are wrong in your approach to the rules.

A lot of people disagree with you. Please don't present your opinion as fact.


You are wrong in the way you use the acronym RAW

Rules as Written? I'm wrong because I read what is actually there rather than what I'd like to be?


and most importantly, you are wrong about TMIR.We've been over this enough times already, and every time we come to a point where you cannot justify your position you refuse to carry on the discussion. If you want to play gamesthat's your prerogative. Just don't expect me to waste my time. TMIR applies only where the rules aren't clear. It is not a license to force your view of how the game should work on other people.

Yellow Commissar
07-02-2007, 18:58
We've been over this enough times already, and every time we come to a point where you cannot justify your position you refuse to carry on the discussion.


Is that how you misremember it? ;)

Krankenstein
07-02-2007, 19:01
Seriously, though: With a 5x5 formation you could add a 6th file of 4, 5 or 6 models and still have a legal formation. Thus adding a file seems legal.

However, adding a file with just 1, 2 or 3 models creates an illegal formation: you have two or more incomplete ranks. *


Seems right to me.

GranFarfar
07-02-2007, 19:01
This is similar to something that has come up with the latest two army books, Orcs and Empire.
As far as I know, nowhere within the Orc book is it stated that you are limited to 1 of each special character, while this is clearly stated in the new empire book. I guess most people would agree that this limit is probably meant to apply to the Orcs as well.
Uhm, in short. I vote for that the guide lines in the TK book should also apply to the VC book.

Atrahasis
07-02-2007, 19:08
As far as I know, nowhere within the Orc book is it stated that you are limited to 1 of each special character, while this is clearly stated in the new empire book.It isn't stated in any books as far as I know (expcet, as you say, Empire).

However, you can only take one of each magic item, so that limits most special characters, as you must take them with the equipment they are listed with.

I believe Teclis and Tyrion just have equipment though, and not strictly magic items, so you could take more than one of them if you really wanted to try your luck.

Atrahasis, who discussed this at length when the UKGT started allowing SCs.

Doc Havoc
07-02-2007, 22:31
It isn't stated in any books as far as I know (expcet, as you say, Empire).

However, you can only take one of each magic item, so that limits most special characters, as you must take them with the equipment they are listed with.

I believe Teclis and Tyrion just have equipment though, and not strictly magic items, so you could take more than one of them if you really wanted to try your luck.

Atrahasis, who discussed this at length when the UKGT started allowing SCs.

We like ourself, don't we? No wonder GW fired...er I mean hired you to moderate a message board... (sorry my typing sucks!) How did that work out anyways. I seem to recall you exhibiting this same behavior of decreeing that your version of RAW was the only way things were to be. Then you started bashing the company that owned the sight you moderated. I don't recall seeing you around much after that.

But yet you repeatedly try and flaunt the fact that you play in GT's or help come up with FAQ's for events. I have done the same thing for almost 10 years and I learn something new every day.

Why don't you spend more time trying to figure out how to get along with poeple while playing inside of the rules and less time telling everyone how your opinions the only one that counts?

And to top it off you start referrig to yourself in the 3rd person... just becuase you made up your mind about how you want people to play the game don't bag on people for trying to play by "THE MOST IMPORTANT RULE!" and having fun.

And here is a list of smileys so you know I'm not just being hostile. ;) :angel: :) :D

Back off... it's a game. Not a court trial.

Atrahasis
07-02-2007, 23:06
I'm not sure any of that is on-topic.

I make no secret of my ignominious departure from the GW moderation team (albeit less than a fortnight before the closure of the forums), and would also point out that the two things I did "bash" the company for have both been changed.

I never "bag on" people for trying to play by TMIR. I play by it myself. However people terminating rules discussion prematurely by saying "TMIR! TMIR!" when the rules themselves hold the answer will garner a rebuttal.

I think you have the wrong impression of me to be quite honest.

Makarion
08-02-2007, 04:07
I find it rather amusing you all seem to assume I spoke out for adding models to the rear of the unit instead of also allowing files; I didn't. I just noted that we have to assume it's not allowed to add to the *front* of the unit. Which, by the way, I think is against the rules since it involves effectively moving the unit forward by one base size, and I'm pretty certain that the invocation cannot move a unit.

Yellow Commissar
08-02-2007, 04:54
I find it rather amusing you all seem to assume I spoke out for adding models to the rear of the unit instead of also allowing files; I didn't. I just noted that we have to assume it's not allowed to add to the *front* of the unit. Which, by the way, I think is against the rules since it involves effectively moving the unit forward by one base size, and I'm pretty certain that the invocation cannot move a unit.

I did not assume that.

Yellow Commissar
08-02-2007, 05:17
I never "bag on" people for trying to play by TMIR. I play by it myself. However people terminating rules discussion prematurely by saying "TMIR! TMIR!" when the rules themselves hold the answer will garner a rebuttal.

That's really the heart of the disagreement, now, isn't it. Some of us believe that the rules should be interpreted using a spirit of cooperation, or (loosely), while you believe that an acronym (RAW) is a mandate to interpret the rules strictly.

You admit that you play one way, yet you argue the opposite endlessly. The rules aren't written in a way that warrants a strict approach to interpreting them. An attitude of generosity and cooperation is necessary to implement the rules. I'm pretty sure you understand this, yet you repudiate any discussion of it. It's a very Bushian approach to negotiations, which we all know are an integral part of Warhammer.

I don't believe it is possible to discuss The Most Important Rule prematurely. A "spirit of cooperation", and "generosity" can significantly alter one's perception of how the game should be played. In the end, that is what the rest of us are interested in; how the game should be played, not how a strict interpretation of the rules can lead to loopholes.

Have fun with your "strict" rules lawyering approach. Perhaps it works for you at your Grand Tournaments, since you actually have a judge to decide. Personally, I'd be ashamed to have a judge called to my table were I to enter such an event.

Regardless of your opinion, the Spirit of the Game is alive and well and is worthy of our discussion. :)

eleveninches
08-02-2007, 11:03
Im pretty sure that you cant summon to the FRONT of the unit, as the command has to be at the front of the unit, and that would block them

T10
08-02-2007, 11:21
I find it rather amusing you all seem to assume I spoke out for adding models to the rear of the unit instead of also allowing files; I didn't. I just noted that we have to assume it's not allowed to add to the *front* of the unit. Which, by the way, I think is against the rules since it involves effectively moving the unit forward by one base size, and I'm pretty certain that the invocation cannot move a unit.

A swift count:

Assuming the skeleton unit isarrayed in the nice 4x2 formation represented by the grey squares and you raise a single new skeleton to add to the unit.

Which of the positions (red, green or yellow) are legal positions? Why?

-T10

Kjell
08-02-2007, 11:28
The yellow one for sure, and maybe the red one too. You end up with a single incomplete back rank in either case.

Krankenstein
08-02-2007, 14:41
T10: I vote yellow and red. Both give legal formations.


That's really the heart of the disagreement, now, isn't it. Some of us believe that the rules should be interpreted using a spirit of cooperation, or (loosely), while you believe that an acronym (RAW) is a mandate to interpret the rules strictly.


If two people disagree, it's actually more sportsmanlike to read through the rules for an answer, than for one or both to declare that their opinion is within the spirit of the game, and anyone who disagree are a cheater.

How anyone can claim that adding skeletons in files, or not adding skeletons in files, is against the spirit of the rules is beyond me. Either you can or you canít, there is nothing gamebreaking about it at all.

Atrahasis
08-02-2007, 14:45
Krankenstein hits the proverbial metal fixative on the noggin.

"I don't like it so it is against the spirit of the game" is the one sentiment that will get me angry. We all play by the same rules. If we agree not to then fine, but without mutual agreement the rules are law.

Negativemoney
08-02-2007, 15:31
If you are going to be playing for the spirit of the game and going for a rule that would best fit this situation I would go with the TK rules for raising new troops to an exsisting unit. Since this rule has been written and established it is safe to assume that when or if GW decides to FAQ summoning in general they will use this rule as their model. To play it any diffrently will lead to issues down the road when the FAQ is out and you are used to playing it a diffrent way.

IMHO the most logical way to summon units is the way described in the TK. Where untill you have started to add models to the second rank you can expand the frontage as far as you like. Once models are added to the second rank you can no longer add models to any rank other than the last rank. You also add models much in the same way as you remove them. so once the 2nd rank is full you move onto the 3rd rank and so on.

eleveninches
08-02-2007, 15:53
Yellow and red do both give legal formations, but i would only accept the yellow one. If the player wants to summon a new row, then he should only be allowed to do so if he can fill that entire row.
For example, on your pic, to summon one in the red position, he must also have summonned another behind it at the same time, and any left over from the summoning can be put only on the rear of the unit

Atrahasis
08-02-2007, 16:15
If the player wants to summon a new row, then he should only be allowed to do so if he can fill that entire row.Why? Because you don't like it or because the rules say he can't?

http://img473.imageshack.us/img473/2761/skellieslx1.png

When we add 2 models, all of the coloured positions are legal arrangements.

Yellow Commissar
08-02-2007, 16:40
T10: I vote yellow and red. Both give legal formations.



If two people disagree, it's actually more sportsmanlike to read through the rules for an answer, than for one or both to declare that their opinion is within the spirit of the game, and anyone who disagree are a cheater.

How anyone can claim that adding skeletons in files, or not adding skeletons in files, is against the spirit of the rules is beyond me. Either you can or you canít, there is nothing gamebreaking about it at all.

I believe you misunderstand me. I am not claiming that adding skeletons to files is against the Spirit of the Game. What I am saying is that the Spirit of the Game should be in the forefront of our minds when implementing the rules (whatever they are).

I don't play undead, and have none of thier AB's, so I can't say what the rules are. I am simply saying that it is best to approach the rules from a Spirit of Cooperation and an attitude of Generosity. I am saying that all the "RAW" hype is not a directive to only interpret the rules from a "strict" perspective.

We all know, quite well, how poorly written the ruleset is. Just because holes exist in the game, does not mean they should be exploited at others expense.

Don't believe Atrahasis contention that I run around screaming "TMIR!, TMIR!, I don't like it, you are a cheater!" I don't question my friends integrity, and I don't argue rules at the game table; I agree. I don't care so much if my friends interpretation is how things are played at some Grand Tournament. I don't really care if thier opinion matches mine. My opinion is just that; an opinion. I am not a rules expert. I do read the rules, and try to adhere to them, but you have to admit, the rules are often vague, at best.

As far as raising Skeletons and Zombies goes, the AB rules may allow them to be raised to the front. My point is that the The Most Important Rule on page 3 of the BRB is more important than the rules in the AB. That may not necessarily mean that adding Skeletons to the front is cheating, it really depends on both players opinions of the maneuvre. Forcing that kind of crud on an opponent and crying "RAW, RAW, RAW!" is not within The Spirit of the Game, though.

Atrahasis
08-02-2007, 16:49
Forcing that kind of crud on an opponent and crying "RAW, RAW, RAW!" is not within The Spirit of the Game, though.Expecting someone not to do something within the rules because you don't like it isn't within the bounds of sportsmanship.

Yellow Commissar
08-02-2007, 17:00
Expecting someone not to do something within the rules because you don't like it isn't within the bounds of sportsmanship.


Why do you think I keep talking about it? I don't burden myself with expectations of others.

Some younger players may not be aware of GW's suggested way to approach the game. If we pretend that these suggestion never apply, what kind of play are we encouraging?

I am going to say this one more time. I don't question my friends integrity at the table. I do discuss fairness, generosity, and the Spirit of the Game when I am not playing. Paint me as a monster if you will, but, again, you are wrong. :)

Doc Havoc
08-02-2007, 17:07
I can't see anything in the rules for Invocation (or in the VC FAQ) that restricts where raised models are placed in the unit.

If you raise enough models to widen the formation and for it to still be a legal formation after the addition, then there is nothing to prevent it.


Can you tell me where in the BRB it tells us it is OK to increase a unit's size mid-battle?

I didn't think so.

Any addition of models is a formation change, are you saying that Invocation cannot be used at all?


Nice assumption. Care to offer a quotation to support it?


So you're suggesting we use a rule from a different army, supported by an article on a rule from a previous edition that no longer applies?


Ha-bloody-ha.

Please tell us, oh great one, how you distil this otherworldly knowledge.


Please tell me where the rulebook talks about increasing the size of units, and so indicates what the intent of Invocation is.

Don't waste too much time on it though, because it isn't there.

I'm not going to bite the TMIR nonsense this time, I've explained to you enough times already when it applies and when it doesn't.


Agreeing on one point does not mean we agree on all.

I was hostile because he presented his desired rule as fact under the auspices of the "Spirit of the Game".

Nothing supports the view he presented and in order to lend it credibility he invoked a fluid concept. That's what got my goat.


Assuming that because adding 1 model might make the formation illegal that adding 10 must also be illegal is a baseless assumption.

The rules tell us when we can add models, and what formations are legal. Restricting a player beyond that because of your own view of what is "right" isn't even within the realms of YC's precious page 3.


It isn't stated in any books as far as I know (expcet, as you say, Empire).

However, you can only take one of each magic item, so that limits most special characters, as you must take them with the equipment they are listed with.

I believe Teclis and Tyrion just have equipment though, and not strictly magic items, so you could take more than one of them if you really wanted to try your luck.

Atrahasis, who discussed this at length when the UKGT started allowing SCs.


Krankenstein hits the proverbial metal fixative on the noggin.

"I don't like it so it is against the spirit of the game" is the one sentiment that will get me angry. We all play by the same rules. If we agree not to then fine, but without mutual agreement the rules are law.


Why? Because you don't like it or because the rules say he can't?

http://img473.imageshack.us/img473/2761/skellieslx1.png

When we add 2 models, all of the coloured positions are legal arrangements.

Time and time again you refer to what is not written in any book to support your argument. But then others offer their interpretation based on the few applicable rules that do actually exist and you claim that they do not count becuase the ruels don't explicitly address them. Such as TMIR or where models are placed when summoned.

Pick a side, quit dancing about using one argument to support yourself, and then claiming it is invalid when someone else uses the same argument.

The place where we disagree is that you seem to put the "law" of the rules before mutual agreement. If a rule is clearly written and follows the intent of the players playing then who cares what GW says?

If something is obviously abusive or a rules loophole two players should be able to decide how they choose to play or not play that scenario. Also people should be able to voice this opinion without recieveing hthe hostility you exude when someone even mentions TMIR.

In this instance you seem to actually be suggesting that regardless of what two people might agree on for a solution... "the rules don't say this so neither one of you can do it."

But yet you are basing your whole argument on what the rules don't say.

Pick a side... up the doseage... enhance your calm.

Captain Brown
08-02-2007, 17:21
Gentlemen,

I think this has gone far enough. When discussing rules and tactics remember that other members are entitled to their opinions. I see mocking posts and generally poor logic from both sides (as well as some reasoned arguments, but these get lost in the carrying on of an old argument between folks), I also see personal attacks directed at posters, which is not allowed under the WarSeer Rules and Guidelines.

Consider this thread closed.

Captain Brown
WarSeer Inquisition