PDA

View Full Version : "Floating" wizards



Avian
18-07-2010, 15:12
1) So I have a unit of 30 goblins, including full command, two cheap Big Bosses and a Shaman.
The unit is ranked 5 wide, so one character must go into the second rank.
The Shaman does this.


Here's the interesting bit:

2) There is no longer a rule that puts the Shaman "semi-out of the game" if he's in the second rank, thus he can still fight (like a goblin), use magic items and cast spells.
However, he cannot be attacked back or singled out with shooting.
The shaman is modeled standing on a big mushroom, thus he can draw line of sight over the heads of the other goblins (convenient for magic missiles and other spells requiring line of sight).


3) Profit?

Ishivia
18-07-2010, 15:18
Well... Yes, I suppose that's one way of using the rules. Wether or not it'd be ''acceptable'' (sportsmanship-wise) could probably be debated, atleast in friendly games :p

tdc500
18-07-2010, 15:22
can't any model draw line of sight from the second rank a la archers?

(i think this is even covered with Bretonnian Prophetesses in lances)

Lyynark
18-07-2010, 15:36
Can't find it now but isn't there some mention in the BRB that "sticks and stones" and other whatnot doesn't count for LoS purposes?

I think it's silly to pull that kind of crap and if my opponent were to insist on doing it he would soon be facing my war machines and handgunners on portable hills.

tdc500
18-07-2010, 15:59
Can't find it now but isn't there some mention in the BRB that "sticks and stones" and other whatnot doesn't count for LoS purposes?

I think it's silly to pull that kind of crap and if my opponent were to insist on doing it he would soon be facing my war machines and handgunners on portable hills.

The bit about weapons and banners not being valid targets? That it has to be the torso/main body?

bluemage
18-07-2010, 16:27
This is why I would have preferred GW not adopt true line of sight. But as far as the rules are written I believe you can. You might lose some sportsmanship points in a tournament, so just beware of that.

jasperre64
18-07-2010, 16:45
yeah it is allowed, but frowned upon. Personally i wouldnt do it.

If on the other hand your entire army is really nicely based and modeled then i dont see the problem.

Leth Shyish'phak
18-07-2010, 16:51
I would be more concerned with regenerating Wight Kings doing this to protect a Vampire Lord. :cries:

giner
18-07-2010, 17:44
To be fair HE are sculpted to be able to do this (admittedly it is harder for them to get into the second rank) and I am sure some people have done things like this before TLOS came into play, it would be harsh to penalise them and not HE

Avian
18-07-2010, 17:50
To be fair HE are sculpted to be able to do this...
That is why the thought struck me. Presumably nobody bats an eyelid whether or not you have your HE Mage on one of those floaty bitz, so why should it matter if everyone else did it? Fair is fair, no?

Korraz
18-07-2010, 17:50
Since I can sniper the shaman with death spells and the like...
Still, it's not one of the nicest things you can do.

Avian
18-07-2010, 17:55
Since I can sniper the shaman with death spells and the like...
You can do that anyway. :p

static grass
18-07-2010, 18:11
You could magnetise the shaman so that he stands on a big mushroom in your turn and then you could swap his base so that he is just stood on the ground in your opponents turn.

Warlord Ghazak Gazhkull
18-07-2010, 18:17
Haha lovely, I will pull this of in the first tournament that I play in 8ed:p.

Cheers,
G

LaughinGremlin
18-07-2010, 18:27
You could magnetise the shaman so that he stands on a big mushroom in your turn and then you could swap his base so that he is just stood on the ground in your opponents turn.

If someone says that the above practice is "over the top," as I suspect most people would, then mounting your model on a permanent mushroom is also "over the top." The levitating HE and WE mages were sculpted by an artist long before the new rules were made.

Doing the magnetized step-ladder base trick is innapropriate because it is not an innate ability of the mage to jump really high and cast a spell. He definitely doesn't have a cantrip (which uses no power dice) or an item that allows him to do it, so it should not be done. It's like saying my dwarf lord can throw his hammer pretty far without paying for the rune of flight.

Logically it is also wrong to put your mage on a MINI WATCH TOWER without paying for it, and the reason that there is no MINI WATCH TOWER that allows the mage to see over the rank in front of him, is because it is broken. The designers clearly did not intend for this sort of rules lawyering.

I'm just attacking the argument -- not the people.:)
This post brings into light some good discussion, so I'm grateful for it.

Avian
18-07-2010, 18:34
It's like saying my dwarf lord can throw his hammer pretty far without paying for the rune of flight.
Not really. There is a points difference between a stunty with a flying hammer and one without one, but there is no points difference between this guy (http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat1300357&prodId=prod800848) and this guy (http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat1300357&prodId=prod800850).

If one army gets slightly improved LOS free of charge, why shouldn't everyone get slightly improved LOS free of charge?

Rolo Ramone
18-07-2010, 18:58
I was thinking the same think about skirmisher archers. Put the first rank on their bases, but to the left. Then the second rank in their bases, but to the right. And finally, the third rank over rocks or something...

Funny, isnīt?

(Awful LoS)

Signius
18-07-2010, 19:03
Honestly I think people are focusing too much on the TLoS abuse. Remember, only magic missiles (certainly not the most important type of spell in 8th) require any LoS at all. This is a viable strategy even without a tall wizard. It might be even better if you are facing sniper weapons. I'm not sure how I feel about it from a sportsmanship standpoint. I plan to have my casters inside a unit behind another unit anyway in 8th, this just allows you to do that with a single unit.

I definitely don't like TLoS abuse, and I was disappointed that WHFB adopted TLoS. I got into FB shortly after WH40k 5th and I was excited about going back to an abstracted system.

Volrath
18-07-2010, 19:04
AGAIN, the BRB states that ALL LoS is worked out from a position that is from a STANDARD models height. I believe the book even mentions models with ornate bases offer no advantage and should not be considered the real height of the model, but that a NORMAL sized similar model should be used to account of LoS.

Way to not read the rules AND try and break them.

Balerion
18-07-2010, 19:11
AGAIN, the BRB states that ALL LoS is worked out from a position that is from a STANDARD models height. I believe the book even mentions models with ornate bases offer no advantage and should not be considered the real height of the model, but that a NORMAL sized similar model should be used to account of LoS.

Way to not read the rules AND try and break them.
What constitutes a standard model when the game has been around for 20 years?

Korraz
18-07-2010, 19:14
Floaty Wizard: Standard High Elf Spearman.
Shroom Shaman: Standard Night Goblin Spearman.

There isn't that much difference in the height of new and old models.

Avian
18-07-2010, 19:17
AGAIN, the BRB states that ALL LoS is worked out from a position that is from a STANDARD models height. I believe the book even mentions models with ornate bases offer no advantage and should not be considered the real height of the model, but that a NORMAL sized similar model should be used to account of LoS.
The rulebook says no such thing. :p

(And if you feel the urge to reply "Yes, it does!", please attach a quote from the book.)

chamelion 6
18-07-2010, 19:20
Why blame a rules designer for a rule that people aren't really using anyway. This isn't pointing out ambiguities in a poor rule, they are blatant attempts o manipulate it.

I'd personally deal with it like this. If you play a wizard in such a way that you gain an advantage that the rules did not imply oir intend, then he's drawn enopughg attention to himself that he personally can be targeted by anything on the board.

Maybe even a house rule that the model's personal arrogance attracks projectiles... So cannons moarters and lobbers projectiles are magically drown to the top of his pointed little head. No bounce and no drift.

Have a feeling they guy'll crawll off his mushroom or rock in a hurry.

Model anyway you like but play with reason..........

Falkman
18-07-2010, 19:22
I was thinking the same think about skirmisher archers. Put the first rank on their bases, but to the left. Then the second rank in their bases, but to the right. And finally, the third rank over rocks or something...

Funny, isnīt?

(Awful LoS)
Since you get to fire in two ranks anyway, no more and no less (well except Volley fire), I don't see the point of this.

Volrath
18-07-2010, 19:25
I played a game the other day where this came up and we did find something in the rulebook to clarify. I'm at work currently, so apologies if I remember incorrectly..but "yes it does!" I find that page later =P

Gozew
18-07-2010, 19:26
Bit annoying that rules can remove modelling opportunities. They market as a complete hobby, but if you want to game whilst making nice conversions and scenery etc you're bound to run into opponents who will care....

chamelion 6
18-07-2010, 19:27
The rulebook says no such thing. :p

(And if you feel the urge to reply "Yes, it does!", please attach a quote from the book.)

"These rules are intended to insure that models don't get penalized for having impressive banners, swords, and so on."

In otherwords models don't get rewarded or penalized because of how they modeled. The rules don't want to discourge creative modeling.

Volrath
18-07-2010, 19:29
Thanks chamelion...there is more to that quote as well I believe, what page is that on?

chamelion 6
18-07-2010, 19:35
Page 10; last sentence of paragraph; 4 right column. Sorry, I was gonna give that info and got side tracked.

Nothing more that really would directly bear on the discussion. But I think the intent is clear. If people want to model their models to gain an unfair advantage in seeing their targets, then they have to be willing to agree to a disadvantage to.

There is another line, I believe, that talks about cover and saves that says clearly that models on senicked bases don't carry their riocks (or mushrooms) around with them...

It just take a bit of common sense.

Vsurma
18-07-2010, 19:43
Not really. There is a points difference between a stunty with a flying hammer and one without one, but there is no points difference between this guy (http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat1300357&prodId=prod800848) and this guy (http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat1300357&prodId=prod800850).

If one army gets slightly improved LOS free of charge, why shouldn't everyone get slightly improved LOS free of charge?

Is it free?

Sure goblins can put 2 cheap characters in the front rank to allow the situation, but elves cannot get even 1 at the cost of your 2.

chamelion 6
18-07-2010, 19:49
Bit annoying that rules can remove modelling opportunities. They market as a complete hobby, but if you want to game whilst making nice conversions and scenery etc you're bound to run into opponents who will care....

I don't think it needs to be that way, nor do we have to allow it to become that way. Those big rocks and things may be glued to the model's feet but not the character's. People that want to approach the game that way, claiming some literal translation of a rule to make something idiotic plausable are, as far as I'm concerned, cheating.

Unless they can make some logical connection to something outside their reading of a rule to make the idea plausible... Some refrence to an incident in a story or history... maybe I'll buy it. But just because "the rules let me" I don't buy it.

Allowing this kind of nonsense to go very far will either see huge abuses in modeling to gain some obscure advantage or a repression in nicely modeled armies. I don't want to see either.

Avian
18-07-2010, 19:53
"These rules are intended to insure that models don't get penalized for having impressive banners, swords, and so on."
My guy isn't getting penalized. ;)



There is another line, I believe, that talks about cover and saves that says clearly that models on senicked bases don't carry their riocks (or mushrooms) around with them...
Yes, from 40K.

chamelion 6
18-07-2010, 20:05
My guy isn't getting penalized. ;)



Yes, from 40K.

That's possible... I'm reading both books at the same time and trying to keep up with my school work.

But regardless of the book, the logic is inescapable, isn't it???? In the end it's just a sleazy an obivious way to try to get some advantage the model was never, in any way or form, intended to have...

I think for most people having stuff like that pulled on you just leaves a sour taste in the game.

Yeah... I like the idea that those models attract moarter shells and rocks like magnets. That's the danger of riding on magic moving terrain. :)

Gozew
18-07-2010, 20:07
Well, me and friends play it as a choice at start of battle

Will we TLOS a character with a display style base, or not, all or nothing agreed at the start.

I only play for fun with friends so it's never personally a problem for me.

chamelion 6
18-07-2010, 20:08
Well, me and friends play it as a choice at start of battle

Will we TLOS a character with a display style base, or not, all or nothing agreed at the start.

I only play for fun with friends so it's never personally a problem for me.

Ditto that. If it's mutually agreed all is good. No suprises.

In 40k I modeled my assault marines in stands that makes them appear to be flying. We agreed to play them as modeled so they can see and shoot over units but cannot be screened by them. Made the game smooth and easy for everyone. Had anyone objected I'd have played them as normal height.

Avian
18-07-2010, 20:17
But regardless of the book, the logic is inescapable, isn't it???? In the end it's just a sleazy an obivious way to try to get some advantage the model was never, in any way or form, intended to have...
I didn't intend to penalise my Daemon Prince by making him extra tall either, but there you go. I figure the sleaze balances out in the long run. :p

steppingonyou
18-07-2010, 20:24
ive seen a avatar of khaine modeled prone for this very TLoS argument

chamelion 6
18-07-2010, 20:25
I didn't intend to penalise my Daemon Prince by making him extra tall either, but there you go. I figure the sleaze balances out in the long run. :p

Wait a minute... There is a big difference in a Deamon Prince that is modeled by the company itself to be a given height in the game on it's base and mounting your Night Goblin Shaman on an 8 inch mushroom.

My problem is not that some models have an advantage, I expect a giant to be able to see over stuff that other can't. My problem is when you artificially model that advantage when it isn't supposed to be there.

Other wise I mayas well mount my whole HE army on flying bases so they can see over everything on the battle field. We all know walking on those rocks hurts their feet.

Opening those kinds of doors leads to things just getting absurd. (In a fantasy game that's already a short step)



ive seen a avatar of khaine modeled prone for this very TLoS argument

My view would be prone figures can't fight or wield weapons. So the model loses all but one attack at a negative to hit, the coward that he is....

Gozew
18-07-2010, 20:26
ive seen a avatar of khaine modeled prone for this very TLoS argument

Something like this is just for blatant exploitation, who ever thinks of a avatar sneaking around like a grot :D

Avian
18-07-2010, 20:28
Wait a minute... There is a big difference in a Deamon Prince that is modeled by the company itself to be a given height in the game on it's base ...
It's not modeled by the company, I converted one of my own since they took ages to get the plastic one out and I made it extra tall (it's on a flying base) because it didn't make a difference then.

I figure the game ows me one. ;)

chamelion 6
18-07-2010, 20:36
It's not modeled by the company, I converted one of my own since they took ages to get the plastic one out and I made it extra tall (it's on a flying base) because it didn't make a difference then.

I figure the game ows me one. ;)

Yeah... but I don't. You're playing me, not the game. I'm reasonable though... I have no problem with an oversized Deamon Prince, that's more logical than the moving terrain. Unless he's just massivly larger than the standard Deamon Prince, I woiuldn't have a problem. If he is much larger, like a giant sized character, then we gotta talk about some kind of balancing penalty. Course if he's Khornate and only has close combat stuff going on... Then his model size is less of an issue.

I'm only objecting to obivious manipulations of the rules. Like the cowardly Avatar belly crawling across the battle field... A display like that should demoralize the whole army............. Disgraceful.

Venerable_Bede
18-07-2010, 20:41
That is why the thought struck me. Presumably nobody bats an eyelid whether or not you have your HE Mage on one of those floaty bitz, so why should it matter if everyone else did it? Fair is fair, no?

But this only matters for Magic Missiles anyway, right? Isn't that the only spell type that requires LOS?

Avian
18-07-2010, 21:16
But this only matters for Magic Missiles anyway, right? Isn't that the only spell type that requires LOS?
Yes, unless the spell description states otherwise. And in any case, you can frequently see between two guys in front of you (see picture) if you don't absolutely need to see straight ahead.


In other news, I dug around in my collection and found a quite beefy Shaman (5th edition) mounted on a quite reasonable piece of slate [this was done some years ago, so legitimately not to gain an advantage] and a quite short Big Boss with his hood off (4th edition) which he can comfortably see over. :D

chamelion 6
18-07-2010, 21:29
Yes, unless the spell description states otherwise. And in any case, you can frequently see between two guys in front of you (see picture) if you don't absolutely need to see straight ahead.


In other news, I dug around in my collection and found a quite beefy Shaman (5th edition) mounted on a quite reasonable piece of slate [this was done some years ago, so legitimately not to gain an advantage] and a quite short Big Boss with his hood off (4th edition) which he can comfortably see over. :D

Ok... But I see an immediate animosity test every time the shaman fires a missle over the Boss's head. You know a shorter than average Ork Boss is going to have issues. I think for every missle fired it's a mod to the animosity roll... Eventually the little guy is just gonna ge fed up.

:D

Yanos
18-07-2010, 21:59
As much as it upsets me, I have to agree that there is nothing ruleswise to stop the 'portable stepladder' approach to character gaming.

This surely is the thin end of the wedge though.

I don't have a hill in my collection that my or my wife's infantry cannot see over (and these are the common one-level hills that GW was selling until a few years ago). Any cavalry, chariot or model on a flying base has an even greater ability to see over a landscape that previously blotted out passing giants.

And woods? How does LOS work with these now? Does it matter? :(

Avian
18-07-2010, 22:07
Ok... But I see an immediate animosity test every time the shaman fires a missle over the Boss's head. You know a shorter than average Ork Boss is going to have issues. I think for every missle fired it's a mod to the animosity roll... Eventually the little guy is just gonna ge fed up.

:D
Greenskins do not, as a rule, mess with people bigger than themselves. ;)



As much as it upsets me, I have to agree that there is nothing ruleswise to stop the 'portable stepladder' approach to character gaming.
And my Shaman was genuinely placed on a small rock that genuinely wasn't intended to do anything other than mark him out as a Lord-level character.



I don't have a hill in my collection that my or my wife's infantry cannot see over (and these are the common one-level hills that GW was selling until a few years ago).
From what I hear, the 'Citadel Gaming Hill' is being renamed the 'Citadel Slight Bump In The Ground'.



And woods? How does LOS work with these now?
They don't, probably.

static grass
18-07-2010, 22:12
Your shaman will be a target for Hochland long rifles though...

Cragum
18-07-2010, 22:20
dear lord has this game come down to the slightest rules being so easily stretched to basically say well cause i made it like this...

the whole tlos is just plain stupid to try and take to your own advantage. if your being a sensible and reasonable person instead of being a royal **** then you would basically class that shaman/wizard/mage as a standard height compared to the troops who stand by him.

hell the fact what makes me laugh is no one has even thought of something even better than true line of sight being over the model and instead hell why not put all your troops on stilts and have him shoot between the legs of them. but then next turn lets get em all to get down off the stilts so he is safe...

seriously if people want to get that anal about the fact you get a magic missile just cause your model was made higher than others then you need to get off your **** once and a while and realise your getting so into the rules that your starting to sniff the book...

Korraz
18-07-2010, 22:39
I still don't really see what the gain is. Imo it's obviously RAI that you can use any form of ranged attack from the second rank.

Avian
18-07-2010, 22:51
Your shaman will be a target for Hochland long rifles though...
And? He'll be the target of Hochland Long Rifles in the first rank as well, so that's no loss. :p

BattleofLund
18-07-2010, 23:05
However, [the Shaman] cannot be attacked back or singled out with shooting.

Eh sure, you have protected a squishy Shaman from close combat attacks...
at least until some mighty warrior (think Baldrick from Black Adder, that good!) steps up and de-heads the unit's Boss or one of the BigBosses.

As far as I can tell, you gain nothing in the way of shooting protection, right?


I still don't really see what the gain is. Imo it's obviously RAI that you can use any form of ranged attack from the second rank.

A flimsy, easily removable close combat cordon is what you gain. But otherwise, yes, that's what I'm thinking.


And? He'll be the target of Hochland Long Rifles in the first rank as well, so that's no loss. :p

The b*stards! (ie: snipers, ooh stomp 'em...)

In summary , I would no objections to this practice whatsoever. Mainly because I think you are following the rules.

Avian
18-07-2010, 23:12
Eh sure, you have protected a squishy Shaman from close combat attacks...
at least until some mighty warrior (think Baldrick from Black Adder, that good!) steps up and de-heads the unit's Boss or one of the BigBosses.
Characters aren't required to use the Make Way option(p 100), so he can stay where he is.


As far as I can tell, you gain nothing in the way of shooting protection, right?
No, if the unit consists of 5+ rank and file models of the same type as you, it can't get any better as far as I can tell. :p

enyoss
18-07-2010, 23:32
I wouldn't have a problem with the height gained from basing, but I'd be a bit dubious of you placing him in the second rank to gain advantage.

Although I haven't played a game with it yet, I'm starting to think the true line of sight rule might be a real pain. Years ago I went through a phase of putting my centrepiece models on rocks and what not (so my Eltharion model actually stands a good inch higher than he normally would), so I'm not looking forward to the calls of `cheat!' in 8th edition :(.

Jared Blyte
18-07-2010, 23:39
1) So I have a unit of 30 goblins, including full command, two cheap Big Bosses and a Shaman.
The unit is ranked 5 wide, so one character must go into the second rank.
The Shaman does this.


Here's the interesting bit:

2) There is no longer a rule that puts the Shaman "semi-out of the game" if he's in the second rank, thus he can still fight (like a goblin), use magic items and cast spells.
However, he cannot be attacked back or singled out with shooting.
The shaman is modeled standing on a big mushroom, thus he can draw line of sight over the heads of the other goblins (convenient for magic missiles and other spells requiring line of sight).


3) Profit?


So there are no rules against it AFAIK, but honestly, what are you trying to prove by doing it? Some things shouldn't be done, just because we can do them, surely?

Durloth
18-07-2010, 23:46
I hope you're just trolling, to show how silly you think TLoS is, Tarjei. Maybe a bit cranky because you're getting less sleep than usual these days? Because if you open that door, we are going to see a lot of silly armies in the coming years. I do for example have an old hydra model that was modelled to look like it was swimming, with only the (much smaller than current models') heads poking up from the water. I'm sure it could even hide behind a couple of executioners with raised swords.

"seriously if people want to get that anal about the fact you get a magic missile just cause your model was made higher than others then you need to get off your **** once and a while and realise your getting so into the rules that your starting to sniff the book..."

"But regardless of the book, the logic is inescapable, isn't it???? In the end it's just a sleazy an obivious way to try to get some advantage the model was never, in any way or form, intended to have..."

"Other wise I mayas well mount my whole HE army on flying bases so they can see over everything on the battle field. We all know walking on those rocks hurts their feet.
Opening those kinds of doors leads to things just getting absurd."

QFT

Jared Blyte
18-07-2010, 23:48
I hope you're just trolling, to show how silly you think TLoS is, Tarjei.

That was my suspicion.

Avian
18-07-2010, 23:56
Well, a bit, though placing wizards in the second rank is something I intend to do, given that most spells can now be cast from there and he can also use items. Especially with Ogres, where fighting ranks fill up quickly.


Though I am honestly curious as to whether or not they will do anything to prevent the "see between the heads of the guys in front" loophole. That one doesn't require any creative modeling at all.

Woden'sGrugni
19-07-2010, 00:09
correct me if im wrong but in the Bretonnian FAQ it says the damsel can cast spells out of the second rank..... is this something exclusive to them? if so making them stand tall by rocks or basing is absurd, but if it's not exclusive a corner spot with a tough unit seems interesting. on a side note doesn't it stand to reason that a sorcerer in a second rank will decimate more of his unit when it miscasts.

Cragum
19-07-2010, 00:14
correct me if im wrong but in the Bretonnian FAQ it says the damsel can cast spells out of the second rank..... is this something exclusive to them? if so making them stand tall by rocks or basing is absurd, but if it's not exclusive a corner spot with a tough unit seems interesting. on a side note doesn't it stand to reason that a sorcerer in a second rank will decimate more of his unit when it miscasts.

and that sir is a perfect point to why they have let us do it!
think it this way, you get a 2-4 on miscast table, there goes that unit...

5-6 if im correct is still pretty much a unit decimated...

sometimes im glad that ogres have their own miscast table...:D

Draconian77
19-07-2010, 00:16
This actually came up in our weekend games aswell. A floating DE Sorceress had to go to the second rank but of course she was still able to see everything. We decided to let it slide as it isn't that advantageous but it did reinforce our groups negative opinion about TLOS...

Avian
19-07-2010, 00:23
and that sir is a perfect point to why they have let us do it!
think it this way, you get a 2-4 on miscast table, there goes that unit..
Well, it's, you know, goblins. Who really cares? :D

Besides, if you are on the side in the second rank, you aren't touching any more models than if you were in the middle of the first rank.

Draconian77
19-07-2010, 00:31
Well, you might. If the ordnance template was placed on a unit about 6 deep and the Mage was in the first rank you might hit rank 1 through 5 (a bit of the template would be covering the table in front of the unit and thus be wasted). If the mage was in the second rank he could hit ranks 1 through 6. This is just the theory, I didn't measure anything out. Then again...Goblins.

Avian
19-07-2010, 00:34
Goblin miscasts don't use that template (at least not yet). :p

Cragum
19-07-2010, 00:39
Goblin miscasts don't use that template (at least not yet). :p

+HIGH FIVE+ for individual race doom!

i really cant wait to see a vampire count take problem into hand and get completely blown to high hell and along with all his graveguard buddys!

Draconian77
19-07-2010, 00:45
Well no, Goblins don't. ("Then again...Goblins.")

However, that DE Sorceress put her unit in grave peril!

Mind you, she couldn't have been any worse than the High Elf Mage who blew up 19 Archers over the course of the game. (Now nicknamed the "ticking-man.")

itcamefromthedeep
19-07-2010, 01:40
Here are the references:

"Accordingly, a wizard can only cast a magic missile at a target that lies within his forward arc and to which ha can trace line of sight (just as if the Wizard was firing a missile weapon)." pg31, top right.

"Therefore, models in the second rank can use the line of sight and forward arc of the model directly in front of them for the purposes of all shooting attacks (including stand and shoot reactions)." pg39, under "fire in two ranks"

Modeling the wizard higher up is unnecessary in the vast majority of cases.

---

I like modeling characters higher up than the rank-and-file. It makes them more obvious to my opponent, among other things. The slight advantage in line of sight has yet to come up in my games.

chamelion 6
19-07-2010, 01:59
Greenskins do not, as a rule, mess with people bigger than themselves. ;)

You're not suggesting he became warboss as an act of charity are you? What? So they need to take a knitting test. If they fail... anything but a 6 they sit down, take out their knitting and get in touch with their feelings.

Strange tribe you run there... but original!

:p

Lord Inquisitor
19-07-2010, 02:49
Agreed with itcamefromthedeep there, by both raw and rai models in the second rank can shoot, including magic missiles. Tlos trickery is not required.

On the subject of characters hiding in the second rank, this will probably be relatively rare for most armies ... You need two characters plus full command before you can start hiding characters. That said, some armies have cheap enough heroes or otherwise can manage it. Ogres, for example need only a full command - and even better, still get three attacks from the second rank. I think it'll be common for vulnerable ogres like butchers and bsbs to hide out in the second rank.

Thanatos_elNyx
19-07-2010, 09:24
But hey, at least my Cannons can take out two characters with one shot.

Avian
19-07-2010, 09:59
Not if he's standing behind the musician. :p

Gonzoyola
19-07-2010, 10:04
It certainly sounds like a lot of Look Out Sir rolls on S3 vs T3, too many variables, stone throwers will have a field day, especially my Screaming Skull catapults shooting twice each turn

Avian
19-07-2010, 10:15
How is that not the case if he's in the front rank?

And in any case, stone throwers are now only scary for characters on a direct hit.

Cragum
19-07-2010, 10:45
How is that not the case if he's in the front rank?

And in any case, stone throwers are now only scary for characters on a direct hit.

not the scraplaunchers case, a killing blow touch from that is bye bye wizard... i am actually looking forward to seeing many hero's and wizards being placed in second rank, my scrappys will have a field day piercing all of them together with their fellow soldier!

to me a true line of sight would be what the height of the originally sized wizard would be like man height.

Avian
19-07-2010, 10:52
not the scraplaunchers case, a killing blow touch from that is bye bye wizard...
There is a 1-in-6 chance of failing a Look Out, Sir and then a 1-in-6 chance of getting a Killing Blow. Incidentally that is the same chance the Scraplauncher has of killing itself. Have fun. :p

*SQUEE*
19-07-2010, 11:07
If you direct an attack at and kill the champion it will force the shaman back into the first rank. The solution of course is to have another hero in the second rank :p.

Gonzoyola
19-07-2010, 11:09
Stonethrowers are still scary for goblin characters, which I believe is what the original discussion was about.

If there is 4 orc characters, then yeah I could see that being a problem, but thats a LOT of points, and probably a more expensive unit, so look out sir or not, its picking off overpriced troops. Plus direct hits aren't hard to score.

The only viable RaF unit I see containing multiple characters to the point that they are in the second row is Skaven and Goblins

carok101
19-07-2010, 11:12
as far i'm aware, all characters must be placed within the front rank unless they cannot due to not enough space, its a rule in the book, so read the rules before trying to use them for wrong. so trying to play a rule and be unsportsman like is really un-called for.

Gonzoyola
19-07-2010, 11:16
He is using a scenario in which the front rank is full, and the model is forced into the second

Korraz
19-07-2010, 11:18
No. Command Models must always be in the front rank. If there is no space for a character, he goes to the second rank. So try reading the rules before you flame.

Avian
19-07-2010, 11:45
If you direct an attack at and kill the champion it will force the shaman back into the first rank.
There doesn't appear to be any such rule. The Make Way! rule, which is what you normally use to bring an unengaged character into a fighting position, is explicitly not compulsory.

"A character is under no obligation to muscle his way forward into the fight, so don't feel you have to put him in harm's way if you don't want to." (p 100)

Korraz
19-07-2010, 12:00
But characters always have to be placed in the front rank, if possible.

Avian
19-07-2010, 12:17
When they join units, yes, but if they get into another rank (for example if you refuse a challenge and they get moved back) they aren't forced to move back*.


* in the case of Make Way! a character that moves into a later rank to fight an enemy to the side or rear is moved back to the front rank at the start of his own Movement phase provided the unit is no longer in combat. That is probably a good general approach, but it only applies once the unit is no longer in combat and not right away

Greyfire
19-07-2010, 13:01
One quick question that I didn't see mentioned (but it's early so maybe I missed it). Why would the Slann need a special rule in the errata amendments (to bring the book up to date) in order to cast spells from the second rank? He's always been tall enough to see out of a unit. If what we're talking about is TLos then there's no need for a special rule and they could just say "remember he has TLos". If that's a special ability, as defined in the errata amendments, then wouldn't it reason that it was there because it's not something you can normally do?

Then again, I really think it's just part of GW not thinking through all the ramifications of TLos. :confused: Heck, my Kroxigor can't hide behind half of the hills we've made so far. Hmm, if the kroxies are on one side of a hill and a unit they can "see" is on the far side of the hill, I can charge up and down the hill, so I guess I get that bonus +1 CR for hills? :wtf: Stuff like that.

Jared Blyte
19-07-2010, 14:51
so where in all this is it worth losing horde rules for goblins for a weedy goblin shaman in a backrank?

It's not really the ramifications and effects of the ingame mechanics or how your unit operates i think, it's more about the whole idea behind it - This whole thread is like an extravagant point as to why true line of sight is potentially BS.

Its when you move on from the goblins and you start applying things to ogres and vamp counts with front ranks filled with necromancers, things start to make you raise an eyebrow.

Leth Shyish'phak
19-07-2010, 15:21
so where in all this is it worth losing horde rules for goblins for a weedy goblin shaman in a backrank?

Because goblin hordes are rubbish?

There really aren't many mainline units that are going to be scared of a goblin horde. And besides, this is only for one unit... You can have your hordes as well if you want.

LaughinGremlin
19-07-2010, 17:04
Right, if it's "no big deal" to take a portable rock which allows a shaman to cast missiles from the second rank, free of charge, then it's no big deal to pay a bit for this magic item which doesn't even exist. What do you think the cost of such a portable, magical rock would cost -- 35 points or so? If it's no big deal either way, then you won't complain about paying a fair amount for it.

Again, it's like me taking a rune of flight for free. No, wait, I'm wrong. The rune of flight actually exists. It's like me saying that all my crossbows in a third rank can fire because their standing on portable runic stones. I can do this, because as it was said on this forum, "GW owes me." It's no big deal that I'm taking these rocks that give my dwarfs an extra minor enhancement, which doesn't exist, for free...

Whenever someone has a sense of entitlement, and steals a car from a rich guy who probably won't miss it ("It's no big deal."), makes me pay higher insurance premiums. Someone must absorb that loss, and it sure as heck won't be the insurance company. Shoplifters affect the price tags of all other honest shoppers or the profit of the honest shopkeeper. Someone always pays for the people who say, "I'm entitled."

In this particular thread, the guy who pays will be the opponent across the table from Avian.

Again, I'm only attacking a pathetic argument -- not its messenger.

Avian
19-07-2010, 17:23
Right, if it's "no big deal" to take a portable rock which allows a shaman to cast missiles from the second rank, free of charge, then it's no big deal to pay a bit for this magic item which doesn't even exist. What do you think the cost of such a portable, magical rock would cost --
Judging by any other army who get these things: nothing.

In any case, after checking actual, bog standard models, you don't appear to need to elevate the Wizard at all as you can see quite well from normal head height even in the second rank.

So there. :p



Whenever someone has a sense of entitlement, and steals a car from a rich guy who probably won't miss it ("It's no big deal."), ....
You never loved that car, it is much happier with me. :D




so where in all this is it worth losing horde rules for goblins for a weedy goblin shaman in a backrank?
If I go for a Horde, I (potentially) get a few extra gobbos fighting and my opponent gets Steadfast. If I go deep it's the other way around and to be honest, that sounds much more tempting.

Depending on how the new O&G book turns out, I may or may not want to go with a Horde of Orcs, but I really don't see much gain in a Horde of Goblins unless they get a decent points reduction - letting me go both wide and deep at a reasonable cost.

LaughinGremlin
19-07-2010, 17:26
I'm no gamedesigner, but if I was one, by this point I'd kill myself just so I can roll around in my grave. Lol! I'm at a loss...

Lord Inquisitor
19-07-2010, 17:28
Right, if it's "no big deal" to take a portable rock which allows a shaman to cast missiles from the second rank, free of charge, then it's no big deal to pay a bit for this magic item which doesn't even exist. What do you think the cost of such a portable, magical rock would cost -- 35 points or so? If it's no big deal either way, then you won't complain about paying a fair amount for it.
I'm still not getting the issue. All models can fire missiles from the second rank and are disallowed from firing from the third (volley fire notwithstanding). Size of models or what rocks they stand on is irrelevant. A wizard can cast Magic missiles from the second rank even if he's a chaos sorcerer in a unit of trolls.

Storm in a teacup here. Los is actually drawn from the front rank, so can we leave the speculative modelling for advantage abuses for other threads?

As for goblins, noone cares about gobbos. But chAos sorcerers or ogre butchers hanging out in the second rank seems a lot more problematic.

LaughinGremlin
19-07-2010, 17:36
Do the second rank shooting rules actually apply to magic missiles in a different phase? If so, and that's what the designers intend, then everything you just said is very reasonably sound and we can all have drink
of pink lemonade.
Thank you for your input.

Jared Blyte
19-07-2010, 17:40
As for goblins, noone cares about gobbos. But chAos sorcerers or ogre butchers hanging out in the second rank seems a lot more problematic.

Exactly, i think this is what avian is pointing out after everything considered.

Edit: infact that would be a nice way of going about protecting chaos sorcerors from getting themselves killed in a challenge.

Avian
19-07-2010, 17:49
But chAos sorcerers or ogre butchers hanging out in the second rank seems a lot more problematic.
I'm not sure 'problematic' is the right word. Presumably, when they remove the rule that forbids a wizard in the second rank from casting spells, it's because they think wizards casting from the second rank is okay, no?

Jared Blyte
19-07-2010, 17:59
I'm not sure 'problematic' is the right word. Presumably, when they remove the rule that forbids a wizard in the second rank from casting spells, it's because they think wizards casting from the second rank is okay, no?

I dont see any problem with the Wizard casting from the second rank, the problem is that he is nigh-untouchable in return for this, so there is no drawback for the advantages that you gain, which seems a little unbalanced and not to mention the whole act of doing this IMHO is out of place with the spirit of the game.

TheDilz
19-07-2010, 17:59
You ignore all basing extras and count the model as normal. As in standard model height.

Nice try.

And by nice I mean lame.

Azhrar
19-07-2010, 18:11
What would be the point of the Slanns ability to be able to be in second rank of templeguard, if all characters are allowed to do so now ?

Walls
19-07-2010, 18:15
Wow, people just will do ANYTHING to win, won't they?

The book is SO COMPLETELY clear as to where you draw LOS from.

Walls
19-07-2010, 18:21
And adding to that, I do NOT think it is RAI that a caster can cast magic missiles from the second rank. This is obviously shown in the Brettonian FAQ mentioning that the casters in their army get the ability to shoot magic missiles from the second rank. An obvious benefit to lance... and if you're reading it right and not trying to cheat... something unique to them (and to Slaan as well I suppose).

AGAIN AS STATED IN THE RULEBOOK (which more people need to seriously read and follow and quit cheating) you draw LoS from the standard height of the model. You're LOS is not from the eyes while on top of a rock. It's from the eyes of the standard model height pre-special base. It's not a convoluted rule. It's clearly written.

Lord Inquisitor
19-07-2010, 18:40
Do the second rank shooting rules actually apply to magic missiles in a different phase? If so, and that's what the designers intend, then everything you just said is very reasonably sound and we can all have drink
of pink lemonade.
Thank you for your input.
I don't have my rulebook on me, but itcamefromthedeep got in first here (http://www.warseer.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4834992&postcount=66), and he's quoted the relevant rule.


I'm not sure 'problematic' is the right word. Presumably, when they remove the rule that forbids a wizard in the second rank from casting spells, it's because they think wizards casting from the second rank is okay, no?
Right, I just meant that in the sense that having a character - any character, but wizards tend to benefit most - sitting in the second rank where they can still attack but cannot be attacked in return, that seems wonky.

I'm not sure it's hugely problematic, but it feels like having cake and eating it. In previous editions wizards suffered greatly from being physically weak and having to sit at the front in combat was a big downside from the upside of being all but immune to ranged fire while sitting in a unit.


And adding to that, I do NOT think it is RAI that a caster can cast magic missiles from the second rank. This is obviously shown in the Brettonian FAQ mentioning that the casters in their army get the ability to shoot magic missiles from the second rank. An obvious benefit to lance... and if you're reading it right and not trying to cheat... something unique to them (and to Slaan as well I suppose).
Now, if you wouldn't mind toning down the "cheating" terminology, this is a matter of getting the rules right. It's not even the case that this is something that can only happen if you are deliberately trying to hide characters in back ranks. For example, I can take a unit of 6 ogres with full command and if ranked 2x3, if a character is added to the unit, he goes in the second rank. No choice in the matter. It then becomes important as to whether he can cast his magic missile.

Now, as far as the Brettonian FAQ is concerned:

Q. Can a Damsel in the second rank of a Lance formation cast magic
missiles through the model in front of her in the same way as, for
example, a bow-armed model could shoot? (p40)
A. Yes.

That doesn't seem to be in any way specific to the Lance, given that its referring to the normal shooting rules for any unit. It's asking if a model in the second rank can cast magic missiles through the model in front. It just happens that its going to come up a lot more often with the Lance formation than with a normal formation, since their wizards always go in the second rank, while for most other armies it's pretty rare unless you're deliberately trying to engineer this.

Personally, I'd take that the other way, confirmation that it's OK to fire magic missiles through a model in front. It's absolutely correct as per the rules of Warhammer. It's not even in any way odd - after all, any character in the second rank of a unit could use a missile weapon, so why couldn't they use a magic missile? This seems most reasonable. Far more unreasonable is the fact that they can sit there and there's no way of attacking them in combat. They can even get an attack, three if monstrous.


AGAIN AS STATED IN THE RULEBOOK (which more people need to seriously read and follow and quit cheating) you draw LoS from the standard height of the model. You're LOS is not from the eyes while on top of a rock. It's from the eyes of the standard model height pre-special base. It's not a convoluted rule. It's clearly written.
I don't have my rulebook on me. Could you quote the exact rule you're referring to?

Avian
19-07-2010, 19:22
I dont see any problem with the Wizard casting from the second rank, the problem is that he is nigh-untouchable in return for this, so there is no drawback for the advantages that you gain, which seems a little unbalanced and not to mention the whole act of doing this IMHO is out of place with the spirit of the game.
Well, you need to fill the front rank with something other than rank and file, which is a drawback - quite a large one for some armies.



What would be the point of the Slanns ability to be able to be in second rank of templeguard, if all characters are allowed to do so now ?
That ability stemmed from a time when not everybody could do this, much like how in 7th edition Dark Elves were the only ones who could cast with 6 dice but now everybody can do it.



AGAIN AS STATED IN THE RULEBOOK (which more people need to seriously read and follow and quit cheating) you draw LoS from the standard height of the model.
Maybe you should take your own advice, as the rulebook says no such thing. Please add quotes the next time you make such a claim.

H33D
19-07-2010, 19:40
Page 39 - Fire in two ranks

"...models in the second rank can use the line of sight and forward arc of the model directly in front of them for the purposes of all shooting attacks..."

Page 31 - Magic missiles

"...magic missiles do require the Wizard to be able to see his target. Accordingly, a Wizard can only cast a magic missile at a target that lies within his forward arc and to which he can trace line of sight (just as if the wizard was firing a missile weapon).

Therefore a wizard in the second rank may cast magic missiles at any target you can trace line of sight to from the model directly in front of the wizard.

Also page 97 is clear on the placement of characters in the second rank should the front rank be full of other non-rank-and-file models.

It might be a pain in the butt but it is a legitimate strategy as far as I am concerned. Just kill his champion or another character with your normal models and then when the wizard is placed in the front rank before your character fights just beat him down then.

All quotations are from the current 8th edition Warhammer rulebook.

chamelion 6
19-07-2010, 19:48
Just wanna add that characters joining a unit must go in the front rank displacing all rank and file and even the command group until there is no more room, only then can a character go into the second rank.

KillbotFactory
19-07-2010, 19:49
This whole topic stems from the rather open and abusive rule that once characters are placed in the second rank their is nothing requiring them to pop to the front rank once space becomes available.

With this exploit, I think goblin shamans are about the lowest thing possible to worry about. I would worry a lot more about things like Vampire Lords/Demon heralds/ Stubborn/Special Characters doing this trick than a goblin being able to stay alive until his unit gets annihilated.

Avian
19-07-2010, 19:58
Just wanna add that characters joining a unit must go in the front rank displacing all rank and file and even the command group ...
Command group models have priority over characters, not the other way around. Page 97

Cragspyder
19-07-2010, 20:00
So all this is to get a Goblin Shaman that can't be attacked in close combat or singled out by shooting?

This idea and this thread are a giant waste of time for very little gain.

It is also not at all in the spirit of the rules, though I don't recall anyone who has ever cared about that at the expense of gaining a very small advantage in a tabletop army game.

Basically:

1. Dispel the spells that this waste of time shaman has to offer.
2. Break or panic the unit of crappy Night Goblins.
3. Laugh when the Shaman miscasts and kills himself.
4. Laugh when the unit rolls 1 for Animosity and the Goblin Shaman does nothing.

I was going to say snipe the unit champion so the Shaman to the front, then I read that nothing is forcing them to do that once they are already back there.... But again, makes effectively no difference. Not even worth the time to convert the model assuming you didn't have an appropriate model already.

Shame to see Avian is reduced to silly rules exploits instead of proper tactics. This explains why http://www.avianon.net hasn't been updated since November '09. Great site for 7th edition but looks like the author has his time filled with TLOS abuse.

Lord Inquisitor
19-07-2010, 20:03
Just wanna add that characters joining a unit must go in the front rank displacing all rank and file and even the command group until there is no more room, only then can a character go into the second rank.
I think the whole point is that actually the command group get priority. Indeed, you're not allowed to have the command group in the second rank. This is from memory so if the book says otherwise please correct me, but I believe that the command group bump characters.

This can be a pain, if I have an ogre unit ranked three wide with a full command, then any characters MUST go in the second rank, even if I'd rather my Tyrant was in front rather than, say, the bellower.


This whole topic stems from the rather open and abusive rule that once characters are placed in the second rank their is nothing requiring them to pop to the front rank once space becomes available.
Not really. I would assume that if a space becomes open then a character is bumped to the front (this may or may not be RAW, but I think this is the spirit of the rule that characters go to the front rank).

However, it's certainly true that wizards can camp out in the second rank as long as their front rank is full. This will be the normal state of affairs for my butchers, for example, given how easy it is to achieve in a normal unit (indeed, it is all but inescapable!)

Even if a FAQ states that a character placed in the rear rank gets bumped forward as soon as space is made, that isn't going to mean that this strategy will go away. My butchers will still be in the second rank!


With this exploit, I think goblin shamans are about the lowest thing possible to worry about. I would worry a lot more about things like Vampire Lords/Demon heralds/ Stubborn/Special Characters doing this trick than a goblin being able to stay alive until his unit gets annihilated.
It depends on the character. Combat characters (unless they're monstrous) go down to only 1 attack from the rear rank, so you're usually going to want them up front and fighting. Daemonic heralds, well, you'll need two heralds in a unit already before you can bump the third, unless daemonic mounts are being used (which present their own issues)*. Three heralds in one unit doesn't seem like a good use of points. Vampire Lords might do it, just to avoid dying and crumbling the army, but again, it's quite a waste of their combat potential.

No, I think this is going to really be a trick for wizards and other characters who are afraid of dying or have low attack numbers. BSBs might well do it as they're high profile targets and extremely important to kill, so it might be worth wasting their attacks in the 2nd rank just to keep them alive.

Once again, the only army that's really kings of this tactic are the Ogres, as they get 3 attacks from the rear and can sit in the second rank even in a normal unit with only a full command.


*Assuming you are ranking your units 5-wide like a reasonable person. If you don't care about rank bonuses or Steadfast, it can presumably be achieved ranking 3-wide or even less. But that sort of formation smacks of gaminess.

chamelion 6
19-07-2010, 20:06
Command group models have priority over characters, not the other way around. Page 97

See... That's what I get for doing a research paper and playing on the web while I'm reading the rules...

3 way fail........

I stand corrected. :)

rtunian
19-07-2010, 20:23
Shame to see Avian is reduced to silly rules exploits instead of proper tactics. This explains why http://www.avianon.net hasn't been updated since November '09. Great site for 7th edition but looks like the author has his time filled with TLOS abuse.

because it would totally be sensible for him to spend the time writing tacticae and articles about 8th edition when the 2 week old brb isn't even faq'd yet. you know, because faqs never change the way the game plays. right?

oh wait. that's not right at all.

Avian
19-07-2010, 20:28
So all this is to get a Goblin Shaman that can't be attacked in close combat or singled out by shooting?
Well, he can't be singled out by shooting to begin with and, as mentioned, Ogre Butchers are probably just as interesting to put in the second rank as Goblins, if not more.

KillbotFactory
19-07-2010, 20:38
Not really. I would assume that if a space becomes open then a character is bumped to the front (this may or may not be RAW, but I think this is the spirit of the rule that characters go to the front rank).

I agree that your interpretation is definitely in spirit of the rule but as Avian has pointed out and defended, the rules quite clearly say that characters are only forced to the front rank when they join a unit.

Playing it so that characters pop to the front, and this trick becomes laughable as the second you kill the champion in the front then the shaman immediately becomes exposed thus only really gaining 1 round of combat protection at best.

Ogres may be able to protect their butchers a bit more but that is really the only army that can get away with it and their wizards are already the tough to kill and nobody is really going to complain about Ogres getting a buff.


It depends on the character. Combat characters (unless they're monstrous) go down to only 1 attack from the rear rank, so you're usually going to want them up front and fighting. Daemonic heralds, well, you'll need two heralds in a unit already before you can bump the third, unless daemonic mounts are being used (which present their own issues)*. Three heralds in one unit doesn't seem like a good use of points. Vampire Lords might do it, just to avoid dying and crumbling the army, but again, it's quite a waste of their combat potential.

There are other ways to get characters in the back ranks besides loading the unit with characters. Deploying the unit 3 wide lets you easily get the character in the back rank then just start the game with a quick reform and presto your vampire lord can now never be touched all while casting his heart out and using things like the helm of commandment.


Well, he can't be singled out by shooting to begin with and, as mentioned, Ogre Butchers are probably just as interesting to put in the second rank as Goblins, if not more.

Neither ogres or goblins are cause for concern playing the rules as you have defended them so far. I am not sure if you don't realize how open to abuse the current rule is or you just assume it will get FAQ'd.

Avian
19-07-2010, 20:47
I agree that your interpretation is definitely in spirit of the rule but as Avian has pointed out and defended, the rules quite clearly say that characters are only forced to the front rank when they join a unit.
You are also forced to the front rank if you used the Make Way! rule to move out of it, but only after the unit is no longer in combat. I'd extend that to any other character not in the front rank when there is space free as well, though the rule doesn't really say anything about it.



Neither ogres or goblins are cause for concern playing the rules as you have defended them so far. I am not sure if you don't realize how open to abuse the current rule is or you just assume it will get FAQ'd.I'm hoping the rulebook FAQ will say something about characters moving within units, because there is next to nothing about that in the book and it's quite badly needed for a number of reasons. I don't expect the FAQ to say anything at all about casting spells from the second rank if the first rank is full because that seems quite deliberately allowed.



Shame to see Avian is reduced to silly rules exploits instead of proper tactics. This explains why http://www.avianon.net hasn't been updated since November '09. Great site for 7th edition but looks like the author has his time filled with TLOS abuse.
I have been busy reproducing. :p

Lord Inquisitor
19-07-2010, 21:03
I agree that your interpretation is definitely in spirit of the rule but as Avian has pointed out and defended, the rules quite clearly say that characters are only forced to the front rank when they join a unit.

Playing it so that characters pop to the front, and this trick becomes laughable as the second you kill the champion in the front then the shaman immediately becomes exposed thus only really gaining 1 round of combat protection at best.

As I said it's a matter of the spirit of the game, I wasn't arguing the exact letter of the rule. This edition has been written by a "fluffy" lead designer, rather than the last edition, which was written by a "tournament" lead designer. Neither is necessarily better but Alessio wrote tighter rules.

However - placing characters in the rear rank due to no space in the front rank - apparently entirely legal and within the spirit of the rules. Placing characters in a rear rank when there is space in the front rank seems dubious and the letter of the rule relies on an absence of rules govorning this situation. Not moving characters forward if a space is created due to casualties is a little dodgy. Reforming and then not placing the character in the front rank if there's space seems at best very much against the spirit of the rules.

Placing wizards in the rear rank is entirely viable and even if they can get bumped forward at least better than if they were in the front rank to begin with! I'm cautious about getting excited about having characters floating in the second rank if there are spaces in the first, if it is addressed in a FAQ it is likely to be ruled against and it is quite likely to upset opponents if used to gain a large advantage (such as hiding Teclis).

itcamefromthedeep
19-07-2010, 22:16
To throw a wrench into this, for those who are saying "All this for a Goblin Shaman?"

I have *seen* an unscrupulous player field Black Guard in a conga line, one model wide. This was to minimize attacks directed at them, relying on their stubborn rule to allow them to stay in combat. The unit was intended to be nothing but a tarpit.

It is conceivable that an unscrupulous player like this could buy a unit of, say, White Lions with a standard bearer in the front (no other command) and put Teclis in the second rank.

Such behavior would indeed earn a player a swift kick to the jibblies. Video of such an event would be appreciated, if possible.

Avian
19-07-2010, 22:30
It is conceivable that an unscrupulous player like this could buy a unit of, say, White Lions with a standard bearer in the front (no other command) and put Teclis in the second rank.
Seems like you'd have either a very small unit or a very impractical unit, if you ask me.

chamelion 6
19-07-2010, 23:10
To throw a wrench into this, for those who are saying "All this for a Goblin Shaman?"

I have *seen* an unscrupulous player field Black Guard in a conga line, one model wide. This was to minimize attacks directed at them, relying on their stubborn rule to allow them to stay in combat. The unit was intended to be nothing but a tarpit.

It is conceivable that an unscrupulous player like this could buy a unit of, say, White Lions with a standard bearer in the front (no other command) and put Teclis in the second rank.

Such behavior would indeed earn a player a swift kick to the jibblies. Video of such an event would be appreciated, if possible.

Yeah... it's not any one particular issue I don't like so much as it's the attitude that many gamers seem to take that it is their right and their obligation to exploit every loophole and every ambiguity in the game to the point where it just falls apart. And that starts with divorcing the game from what it is intended to represent.... Like playing a Napoleonic wargame and always having to face 6 corps worth of Old Guard and 20 batteries of Guard Artillery.

For me it all becomes a waste of time. Sometimes I have to plan well ahead to get game time so that time is as valuable as gold. Then I wind up playing a game with an opponent whose only real contribution is to demonstrate to me he knows every cheap dodge in the rulebook and the rules and broken. I may as well have stayed home and mowed the lawn. I guess I just don't understand that approach to playing a game.

Why? When it's really far easier and much more entertaining when you try to make the rules work...

Avian
19-07-2010, 23:25
Yeah... it's not any one particular issue I don't like so much as it's the attitude that many gamers seem to take that it is their right and their obligation to exploit every loophole and every ambiguity in the game to the point where it just falls apart.
One man's loophole is another man's deliberate alteration.

Korraz
19-07-2010, 23:27
Iiiiii'm still not seeing the problem.


<- Ogre Player that uses now a unit of 6 Bulls with full command and a butcher hiding in the second rank.

chamelion 6
19-07-2010, 23:39
One man's loophole is another man's deliberate alteration.

But the same people, generally, are the ones that complain, ad nausium, that the designers are ******, the game is stupid, and generally beat the whole thing to death.

Doesn't it seem kinda self defeating to constantly stear a course that is guarenteed to cause the system to fail? If an idea, like the conga line for example, is clearly outside the intent of the rules, why do it then complain when everybody else takes so many liberties with the rules they cease to be rules?

Avian
19-07-2010, 23:46
*shrugs*

I don't mind if you see things differently than I do.

Jared Blyte
19-07-2010, 23:54
*shrugs*

I don't mind if you see things differently than I do.

/Thread? ;)

UberBeast
19-07-2010, 23:56
It's still a unit of goblins. It shouldn't be too hard to wipe out the unit.

Toddums
20-07-2010, 00:05
I call shenanigans on this!

chamelion 6
20-07-2010, 00:21
*shrugs*

I don't mind if you see things differently than I do.

Well yeah...

I'm not complaining. I'm really trying to understand. It seems a self defeating practice.

But that's why I tend to play folks I know most of the time and shy away from pick up and competative games.

Alltaken
20-07-2010, 00:27
What constitutes a standard model when the game has been around for 20 years?

High Elf spearmen my friend! Those have been around a LOOOONG time

Vandelan
20-07-2010, 06:43
I would say a standard model would be roughly the general height of the unit.

For instance a High Elf Mage should be roughly the same height as the spearmen they're hanging around. Or if they're hanging around anything like Swordmasters, for some reason, they would be considered to be the same height as them.

Avian
20-07-2010, 10:44
People, the rules say nothing about standard models in any way, shape or form. You use the actual models.

SeaSwift
20-07-2010, 10:58
People, the rules say nothing about standard models in any way, shape or form. You use the actual models.

In which case my Errata-senses are tingling...

Avian
20-07-2010, 11:38
You are expecting the errata to say that you should use a 'standard model' (whatever that is) for line of sight purposes?

itcamefromthedeep
20-07-2010, 12:35
Doesn't it seem kinda self defeating to constantly stear a course that is guarenteed to cause the system to fail? If an idea, like the conga line for example, is clearly outside the intent of the rules, why do it then complain when everybody else takes so many liberties with the rules they cease to be rules?Bending the rules into an unrecognizable shape can be interesting and fun. The rules are like the laws of physics in that you can stick with what you know, or you can explore and dig in order to find quirks. Sometimes the results are interesting, and sometimes they are useful.

The desire to "solve" the game is the desire to explore.

---

In this game, I've come to look for memorable games. Winning or losing isn't that important so long as something interesting or fun happens. I want conversation-fodder, and I want to enjoy myself getting to it. If someone pulls an odd stunt that remains completely within the rules, then I have something interesting to talk about with friends or other gamers later. I don't mind so much as long as it doesn't make the game lame.

Sandals
20-07-2010, 14:00
the important thing to come from this thread is that ogre champions now have a use again! :p

or TBH i may just continue leaving him out but join my butcher to my tyrant's unit...

chamelion 6
20-07-2010, 14:08
People, the rules say nothing about standard models in any way, shape or form. You use the actual models.

I don't really need the designers to be that specific. It's enough to understand where the rules are pointing and apply them to situations that come up in the game. Since the rules are intended to be neutral with regards to modeling, neither rewarding or discouraging it, the reasonable approach is to use a model that represents the average, or standard, for that particular race.


Bending the rules into an unrecognizable shape can be interesting and fun. The rules are like the laws of physics in that you can stick with what you know, or you can explore and dig in order to find quirks. Sometimes the results are interesting, and sometimes they are useful.

The desire to "solve" the game is the desire to explore.

---

In this game, I've come to look for memorable games. Winning or losing isn't that important so long as something interesting or fun happens. I want conversation-fodder, and I want to enjoy myself getting to it. If someone pulls an odd stunt that remains completely within the rules, then I have something interesting to talk about with friends or other gamers later. I don't mind so much as long as it doesn't make the game lame.

Yet you don't have to spend much time reading through these threads to see the usual result is a bunch of arguing, confusion, and a game that winds up broken and unplayable. That whole concept just lacks any appeal to me. Gaming time is just too hard to come by and that wasn't the reason I spent all that money on the rules and miniatures.

To each their own, we're just nowhere near on the same page. In almost every game I've played with someone that's approached the game that way it's felt like a complete waste of time. Kind of like playing chess and randomly swapping pieces every turn or two. Might produce somethng interesting now and then, but mostly it just makes a mess.

GodlessM
20-07-2010, 14:18
I don't really need the designers to be that specific. It's enough to understand where the rules are pointing and apply them to situations that come up in the game. Since the rules are intended to be neutral with regards to modeling, neither rewarding or discouraging it, the reasonable approach is to use a model that represents the average, or standard, for that particular race.


Good to see I'm not the only one on this site who doesn't use the fact that GW doesn't babysit players through the rules as an excuse to try and bend them for advantage.

Avian
20-07-2010, 14:23
Yet you don't have to spend much time reading through these threads to see the usual result is a bunch of arguing, confusion, and a game that winds up broken and unplayable. That whole concept just lacks any appeal to me. Gaming time is just too hard to come by and that wasn't the reason I spent all that money on the rules and miniatures.

To each their own, we're just nowhere near on the same page. In almost every game I've played with someone that's approached the game that way it's felt like a complete waste of time. Kind of like playing chess and randomly swapping pieces every turn or two. Might produce somethng interesting now and then, but mostly it just makes a mess.
I rather LIKE pushing at things to see if they fall over. Then if they break you can put them back together in a more interesting way.

Sandals
20-07-2010, 14:49
I do love it when Avian gets into an arguement, his responses are always worth reading ;)

chamelion 6
20-07-2010, 18:50
I do love it when Avian gets into an arguement, his responses are always worth reading ;)

Hmmmm... I was thinking this was a rather civil little discussion, not an argument.


I rather LIKE pushing at things to see if they fall over. Then if they break you can put them back together in a more interesting way.

Lemme guess... You were one of those kids I remember from kindergarten that, after I spent an hour constructing my block masterpiece, would shamble over and, with the swing of one untied tennis shoe, toss the whole thing down then stand there with an ear-to-ear grin and a look of complete accomplishment.
:eyebrows:

My point is, how hard is it to break a game like WFB? Or most any other wargame that tries to model a fictional or historical conflict? I mean to simulate those kinds of complex situations the rules have to be written loosely to allow for historical variations in the probabilities and possible outcomes. It's not like chess, where the rules are simple, tight, defined and control all movement and action. Balance is easy to achieve and strictly control. But how do you do that when the system you're modeling isn't so well defined or balanced? You really don't have to think all that hard really... Just show up at the next WFB game with your 40k Orks... I'd say the end result is the same and it took a lot less effort.;)

Seriously, it just seems like destruction and confusion for the sake of destruction and confusion...

:confused:

skelezom
20-07-2010, 19:11
Well, certain old night goblin models are bigger and taller than the new ones, so, fro example, Oddgit can see over your average new night goblin.

Avian
20-07-2010, 19:26
Lemme guess... You were one of those kids I remember from kindergarten that, after I spent an hour constructing my block masterpiece, would shamble over and, with the swing of one untied tennis shoe, toss the whole thing down then stand there with an ear-to-ear grin and a look of complete accomplishment.
:eyebrows:
Always liked building things with blocks. Love Lego.


My point is, how hard is it to break a game like WFB?
I don't think you get it - the joy is not in the breaking, the joy is figuring out how it all goes together and rebuilding it afterwards. But you can't fix something unless you break it first.

Remadia
20-07-2010, 20:45
What a great tactic thanks!

chamelion 6
20-07-2010, 21:54
Always liked building things with blocks. Love Lego.


I don't think you get it - the joy is not in the breaking, the joy is figuring out how it all goes together and rebuilding it afterwards. But you can't fix something unless you break it first.

I completely admit I don't get it. I'm honestly trying to, but so far, no I don't get it.

WFB isn't some intricately complex piece of engineering that needs to be pushed beyond its design specs to see where it's going to fail. Most of this stuff is sitting right there in the open. Tell me what you're about to do and with 99% accuracy I can tell you where and how the game will fail. For instance, build a model to abuse the LoS rules and you're gonna get what you got in this thread, a debate about the intent of the LoS rules that can only serve to derail the game in progress. Just like in the debate in this thread, nothing is being solved or refined. We simply divided into to camps and came to an uneasy place. If you suggested posting this thread I could have predicted this before the first word ever got typed. That's why I hated tourneys and most pick up games. That's what wrecked 7th edition for many of us. It wasn't just the endless arguing and debating....

It was that it was always the same endless argument and debate.

I don't see the claim that it helps illuminate or refine anything either. It almost killed 7th edition outright. So much so the designers abandoned that philosophy and completely did an about face.

Can you give me an example of this kind of extreme rule twisting and bending actually helped or added some refinement to the game?

LaughinGremlin
20-07-2010, 22:08
Here are the references:

"Accordingly, a wizard can only cast a magic missile at a target that lies within his forward arc and to which he can trace line of sight (just as if the Wizard was firing a missile weapon)." pg31, top right.

"Therefore, models in the second rank can use the line of sight and forward arc of the model directly in front of them for the purposes of all shooting attacks (including stand and shoot reactions)." pg39, under "fire in two ranks"

This is a classic example of taking things out of context. There are eight pages of separation between these two quotes. the second quote doesn't seem to be talking about magic missiles, but just regular, non-magic missile shooting.

The first quote's "as if" is a simple comparison which doesn't necessarily connect all magic missile rules to all mundane shooting rules. "As if" is trying to explain the wizard's sight arc, and nothing more.

itcamefromthedeep
20-07-2010, 22:26
I don't see the claim that it helps illuminate or refine anything either. It almost killed 7th edition outright. So much so the designers abandoned that philosophy and completely did an about face.Rules arguments have been around since I got into that game back in 5th edition. They have always made games lame. There's nothing new in 8e in that regard, except perhaps that issues have so far been addressed far more promptly. What's this 180 in design philosophy that you're talking about?

It's better to hash out these arguments on the internet than in person. It saves time if nothing else. Further, people are a lot less intractable in person. Consensus happens far more quickly and amicably.


Can you give me an example of this kind of extreme rule twisting and bending actually helped or added some refinement to the game?
I'll take a stab at it. Redirecting units by having them align to the defending block helped create the MSU Dark Elf army, creating a bucketload of good players and adding a tool to the toolbox of many existing veterans.

Frenzy-baiting is somewhat similar. I don't know that the designers intended for Frenzied units to go chasing after Great Eagles all game, but it happened and it made games more interesting and nuanced.

In 6th edition I've seen exceptionally strong generals field death-star units as part of a points denial strategy, such that you can't really win unless you kill the 1200 point super-unit. That creates a kind of puzzle that you often don't see in the game.

itcamefromthedeep
20-07-2010, 22:42
This is a classic example of taking things out of context. There are eight pages of separation between these two quotes. the second quote doesn't seem to be talking about magic missiles, but just regular, non-magic missile shooting.Unfortunately, quoting the entire rulebook, or even the entire paragraph gets unwieldy in a forum environment. I don't like to transcribe large bodies of text.

Please, if you think I've left something relevant out of the discussion, give us the necessary context. God knows I've been proven wrong before. The magic missile rules are on page 31, as are the general restrictions for casting spells.

The phrase "just as if firing a missile weapon" with regard to line of sight implies to me that wizards would use the rules for missile weapons when determining line of sight. I don't see any caveats in there in the LOS issue.

Reading through the "CHECK THAT THE SHOOTER CAN SEE THE TARGET" section (caps theirs), it says that the front rank is assumed to "crouch" or "stoop" so that the second rank can fire. Thematically, it's not unreasonable for these troops to do the same for a wizard.


"As if" is trying to explain the wizard's sight arc, and nothing more.I see no evidence of such a caveat. If you've spoken with the designers about the intent there, then by all means say so. Otherwise, I'd ask that you justify your thoughts here.

Avian
20-07-2010, 22:47
I completely admit I don't get it. I'm honestly trying to, but so far, no I don't get it.
*push* *push*


Tell me what you're about to do and with 99% accuracy I can tell you where and how the game will fail.
I'm going to fire a stone thrower at something.


Can you give me an example of this kind of extreme rule twisting and bending actually helped or added some refinement to the game?
In 6th edition throwing axes said that they couldn't be used in close combat, or if used they counted as hand weapons. Some Beastmen players took that to mean that they could be used together with the model's basic hand weapon to give +1 A for having two hand weapons. Nonsense of course (if anyone tried it, you'd point them at the part where it said they couldn't be used), but when 7th edition came along, the designers removed that line entirely. Clearer rules because people kept bending the rules.

chamelion 6
20-07-2010, 22:52
Rules arguments have been around since I got into that game back in 5th edition. They have always made games lame. There's nothing new in 8e in that regard, except perhaps that issues have so far been addressed far more promptly. What's this 180 in design philosophy that you're talking about?
To pull back from a more competative philosophy to a more open ended less structured philosophy. One that puts more emphasis on the gamer to provide balance and direction in the game. In my personal experience there was less abuse for the sake of it in 5th edition than the later edition. 8th seems to harken back to that ideal.



It's better to hash out these arguments on the internet than in person. It saves time if nothing else. Further, people are a lot less intractable in person. Consensus happens far more quickly and amicably.
I agree... But it always seems there's sombody that likes to spring his interpretation of some obscure rule just for the shock value.




I'll take a stab at it. Redirecting units by having them align to the defending block helped create the MSU Dark Elf army, creating a bucketload of good players and adding a tool to the toolbox of many existing veterans.

Frenzy-baiting is somewhat similar. I don't know that the designers intended for Frenzied units to go chasing after Great Eagles all game, but it happened and it made games more interesting and nuanced.

In 6th edition I've seen exceptionally strong generals field death-star units as part of a points denial strategy, such that you can't really win unless you kill the 1200 point super-unit. That creates a kind of puzzle that you often don't see in the game.

MSU armies range from the extremely unrealistic to very characterful. It depends on the attitude of the person playing it so I don't see the fact that it's an MSU as an extreme twisting of the rules, it's more about how it's played.

The Death Star strategy to deprive victory points is a good example of a bad idea leading to an unrealistic strategy that does more harm than good. Soldiers in the field don't huddle together just to deprive the enemy of victory points. The goal of the army is artificial and it leaves the game feeling tainted and artificial.... To me anyway.

Frenzy baiting though is a different matter. It has historical and fictional support. It's a common sense approach to dealing with a unit that is too impetous for its own good. The idea of some smaller lighter and more manueverable character leading the big bad blood crazed bad guy on a wild goose chase is a well established ploy outside WFB.

To me, in the examples where the game benefited the idea used was viable outside the game also... It wasn't just a blatant twisting of the rules.

chamelion 6
20-07-2010, 23:02
*push* *push*
Not really into the disco thing, but thanks anyway......



I'm going to fire a stone thrower at something. Somewhere a rock will land signified by a template....



In 6th edition throwing axes said that they couldn't be used in close combat, or if used they counted as hand weapons. Some Beastmen players took that to mean that they could be used together with the model's basic hand weapon to give +1 A for having two hand weapons. Nonsense of course (if anyone tried it, you'd point them at the part where it said they couldn't be used), but when 7th edition came along, the designers removed that line entirely. Clearer rules because people kept bending the rules.

But in the example you gave the rules worked, as you pointed out people were trying to get an advantage they weren't entitled to, either through misunderstanding or through trying to deliberately twist the rules.

7th then simply made the practice legal. I don't really see any benifit to the game on the whole. Nothing that a deliberate twisting of the rules acomplished. If the rules were really poorly written the confusion would have arisen without deliberate manipulation.

On the other hand, players simply interested in gaming would have sorted it out on their own and moved on without all the drama...

Avian
20-07-2010, 23:08
Somewhere a rock will land signified by a template....
You said you'd tell me where the rules fail.

chamelion 6
20-07-2010, 23:20
You said you'd tell me where the rules fail. No... I said I'd be able to tell you what would happen if you purposely tried to manipulate the rules. 99% of the time the game is goiung to fall apart over some pointless debate over some obscure point in the rules that 3 of the 4 people understand isn't intended but 1 person insists is viable based on some lawyerly take on the wording.

Shooting a rock lobber is an accepted part of the game. Just doing that isn't likely to incite any particular debate or riot...

On the other hand since WFB has orks... and it doesn't specifically say they don't have rokit launchers, killa cans, and Def Dreads, so.........................................

itcamefromthedeep
20-07-2010, 23:24
Chamelion 6, I get the feeling that when you asked:

"Can you give me an example of this kind of extreme rule twisting and bending actually helped or added some refinement to the game?"

What you did was ask:

"Can you give me an example of a not-fluffy rule interpretation that was fluffy?"

...which obviously can't happen. Whether it was intentional or not, you should be open to the possibility that bending the rules can make for a more interesting tactical challenge. Since some people care more about an interesting tactical challenge than they do about the historical or fantasy "feel" of the game, bending the rules has led to more enjoyment for some people.

Call it "thinking outside the box", if you like.

---

Some people play to get the feel of a fantasy battle. Some people play to win at a strategy game. Some people play to throw dice and yell at their toy soldiers (me). None of these reasons are "wrong" or "superior" or the "proper" way to play, regardless of what the designers intended their game to be.

It's not your place or mine or Jervis Johnson's to tell a pair of players who just had fun playing Warhammer that they're having fun in the *wrong way*.

---

Well-written and balanced rules benefit us all. In a well-written game, players don't need to argue anything. In a well-balanced game, Beer-and-Pretzels gamers can make army lists that win without compromising look or flavor or theme.

Favoring casual gamers is no excuse to write shoddy rules.

eyescrossed
20-07-2010, 23:25
Has someone said "Ohwow, it's 5th edition 40k all over again"?

No?

Okay.

Ohwow, it's 5th edition 40k all over again.


Not very sporting when you model something on a vertically higher base for an advantage.

Avian
20-07-2010, 23:33
Shooting a rock lobber is an accepted part of the game. Just doing that isn't likely to incite any particular debate or riot...
I'm going to fire my stone thrower at a Dragon that is standing beside and slightly beyond a building, in plain sight with nothing between me and it.

The stone thrower rules require me to place the template with the center over the Dragon and the whole of it visible if I want to fire directly. If I place it horizontally above the Dragon, I can actually see very little of the template, partly because the Dragon itself obscures a lot of it(!), and partly because parts of it would be hidden behind the building.

So I hold the template vertically.

This isn't against the rules and makes more sense to me than having to fire indirectly at a target in full view because some of the shrapnel is going to land where I can't see it.

chamelion 6
20-07-2010, 23:59
[...]
It's not your place or mine or Jervis Johnson's to tell a pair of players who just had fun playing Warhammer that they're having fun in the *wrong way*.

---

Well-written and balanced rules benefit us all. In a well-written game, players don't need to argue anything. In a well-balanced game, Beer-and-Pretzels gamers can make army lists that win without compromising look or flavor or theme.

Favoring casual gamers is no excuse to write shoddy rules.

This discussion is a little out of context with most of my other posts. I agree with you completel and have said many of the exact same things. I'm not challenging the idea here because it's wrong... I'm challenging it to understand it. To get what the appeal of it is.

The only point we disagree on is that I don't think the rules are shoddy. I just don't think they were written with the same goals in mind that you're demanding. What you see as faults I see as strengths. Shoddy, like how to approach the game, is a matter of opinion.



I'm going to fire my stone thrower at a Dragon that is standing beside and slightly beyond a building, in plain sight with nothing between me and it.

The stone thrower rules require me to place the template with the center over the Dragon and the whole of it visible if I want to fire directly. If I place it horizontally above the Dragon, I can actually see very little of the template, partly because the Dragon itself obscures a lot of it(!), and partly because parts of it would be hidden behind the building.

So I hold the template vertically.

This isn't against the rules and makes more sense to me than having to fire indirectly at a target in full view because some of the shrapnel is going to land where I can't see it.

But now we're on the same page exactly. If we were playing and you presented that argument I'd seriously consider it. Would I agree? Depends on the situation and how the models interact. Its not a matter of just bending the rules, it's also a matter of applying them intellegently and with in the the situation they are designed to portray. I think the rules have to be flexible to work properly but that flexibility has to be guided by some practical sense.

That's different than mounting you goblin wizard on a 12 inch mushroom so he can see over buildings. Even if I buy the 12 inch mushroom... it's a fantasy world, I'm not buying that it moves around with him. For that it would be an advantage, like a weapon or magic item, and you'd have to pay for it somehow. In other words, yes I'd let you use something like that if it was a strange part of your fluff, but not as a freebie just cause you modeled him that way.

Dungeon_Lawyer
21-07-2010, 00:04
dear lord has this game come down to the slightest rules being so easily stretched to basically say well cause i made it like this...

the whole tlos is just plain stupid to try and take to your own advantage. if your being a sensible and reasonable person instead of being a royal **** then you would basically class that shaman/wizard/mage as a standard height compared to the troops who stand by him.

hell the fact what makes me laugh is no one has even thought of something even better than true line of sight being over the model and instead hell why not put all your troops on stilts and have him shoot between the legs of them. but then next turn lets get em all to get down off the stilts so he is safe...

seriously if people want to get that anal about the fact you get a magic missile just cause your model was made higher than others then you need to get off your **** once and a while and realise your getting so into the rules that your starting to sniff the book...

Yup its patently abusive and will be FAQ soon---Its unsporty unless discussed before the game and the opponent has no problem with it--but why would anyone agree to such a thing? Quit the cheese and play the F'n game right, instead of trying to find corny loopholes to gain unfair advantages that were never intended. Quite frankly Avian Im disappointed in you.:cries:

What happens when your oppnent argues that exchanging the shamen's mushroom base for a normal base counts as movment? So the unit he is in wont be able to move its full movment distance taht turn cause you need to subtract the movment of that unit by the difference in inches between the two different bases? Or what happens when that unit fails an animosity roll and cant move--I would argue that the shamen could not move off of the mushroom that turn...It just opens so many can of worms to abuse the rules, just dont do it.

itcamefromthedeep
21-07-2010, 01:21
This discussion is a little out of context with most of my other posts. I agree with you completel and have said many of the exact same things. I'm not challenging the idea here because it's wrong... I'm challenging it to understand it. To get what the appeal of it is.
Well, I'm sure you can understand how winning is fun. Understanding that winning is fun, some people put winning above suspension of disbelief. Sometimes a game piece is just a game piece, not a Goblin.

Warhammer, like other strategy games, can be seen as a very complicated optimization problem. Anyone who likes to solve math problems can derive enjoyment from attempting to "solve" Warhammer, in its most abstract form. Finding unintended consequences helps you "solve" the game, because it may lead to a unit that is more powerful than it was intended to be.

When you find an unintended consequence, you've thought of something that the designer did not. If you can think of something that they didn't, then on some level you've outsmarted them. Outsmarting people is fun (like it's fun when you outsmart an opponent in a game of Warhammer).

I thought that motivations like these were pretty plain. So, when I heard that you "didn't understand", I took that to mean you did understand, but disagreed with their intent. Phrases like "I just don't understand" sometimes have rhetorical rather than literal meaning. If it looked like I was trying to impune your character, then I apologize.


The only point we disagree on is that I don't think the rules are shoddy. I just don't think they were written with the same goals in mind that you're demanding. What you see as faults I see as strengths. Shoddy, like how to approach the game, is a matter of opinion.
If you count FAQ and errata entries needed per page of rules mechanics, then Warhammer Fantasy Battles is a poorly-written set of rules by the standards of the board game industry. Not by a small margin, either. Many European board games ("eurogames") that I've played require *no errata at all*.

Mistakes and ambiguity by the designers lead to arguments. Arguments, even easily resolved ones, detract from the fun of the game. I'll say that having more fun is an objectively good thing for a game. So, the fewer FAQ and errata entries are required, the better.

chamelion 6
21-07-2010, 02:26
Well, I'm sure you can understand how winning is fun. Understanding that winning is fun, some people put winning above suspension of disbelief. Sometimes a game piece is just a game piece, not a Goblin.

True to a point. But here's my take. Warames come in different flavors and varieties. Some are supposed to be competative. Some are supposed to be more of a rollplay where you immerse yourself into a character. Others are a simulation of certain historical periods. While WFB is dealing with a fictional history it still falls into the latter category.

The because the basis of the game isn't competition, it is simulation, the emphasis is on the interaction of the various elements and the outcome of those interactions. Balance is a secondary consideration. That is a trait of all true simulations. A game about Napoleon's campaigns is going to have virtually no inherent balance. Such a game is ripe for abuse unless the players stay mindful that the point of the rules is the history they portray.

That truth holds to WFB also.



Warhammer, like other strategy games, can be seen as a very complicated optimization problem. Anyone who likes to solve math problems can derive enjoyment from attempting to "solve" Warhammer, in its most abstract form. Finding unintended consequences helps you "solve" the game, because it may lead to a unit that is more powerful than it was intended to be.

That may be, but when you divorce it from it's premise you have removed the main reason for it's being. WFB is unique in that so many players try to turn it into a chess like game. It isn't and it never was that kind of game. Doesn't mean there is anything wrong with doing that but you are using the wrong tool for the job. That yields less than perfect results. You don't really see players doing things like that with Fire & Fury or Empire!




When you find an unintended consequence, you've thought of something that the designer did not. If you can think of something that they didn't, then on some level you've outsmarted them. Outsmarting people is fun (like it's fun when you outsmart an opponent in a game of Warhammer).
The problem is you've not really outsmarted anyone. The game is designed to be played with a certain frame of mind and context at work. My example of using your 40k orks is applicable. You could do that, the game wil falter and you could say "see! They diden't think of that!" And I would just give you a face palm for not getting it. It is very easy to find situations in a simulation type of game that the designers didn't specifically cover. The rules are purposely open and often vague to allow them to cover broad and unpredictable situations. But the designer assumes that the players are playing mindful of the context of the game.



I thought that motivations like these were pretty plain. So, when I heard that you "didn't understand", I took that to mean you did understand, but disagreed with their intent. Phrases like "I just don't understand" sometimes have rhetorical rather than literal meaning. If it looked like I was trying to impune your character, then I apologize.
No apologies. We're good. I understand the whole winning thing and the competative thing. But WFB is one of the worst tools for that kind of thing. What I guess I really don't get is the insistance on using it that way even when it's obivious it doesn't really work.



If you count FAQ and errata entries needed per page of rules mechanics, then Warhammer Fantasy Battles is a poorly-written set of rules by the standards of the board game industry. Not by a small margin, either. Many European board games ("eurogames") that I've played require *no errata at all*.
There are two issue at play here. The first is that the game continously reinvents itself. Not because it's broken, but to keep it active and vital. So it doesn't become stale. That constant flux necessitates periodic updates to maintain the intended atmosphere. Also, GW has made efforts to make the game more accessable to competative gamers and that means constantly adjusting things to maintain some order of balance.
And of course there is just the general errata to cover mistakes.



Mistakes and ambiguity by the designers lead to arguments. Arguments, even easily resolved ones, detract from the fun of the game. I'll say that having more fun is an objectively good thing for a game. So, the fewer FAQ and errata entries are required, the better.


The problem with that logic is that historical wargames have no pretense to balance, have much more complex mechanics and often no or really vague army lists. And in spite of all that they rarely break down into the kinds of arguments I see around WFB. In historic wargames most of the arguments break down over individual troop ratings, no unbalanced games, lists, or people exploiting loopholes trying to win.

The rules aren't better written, the players are just not trying to so hard to break them. Given the broad appeal of WFB I think GW has done an amazing job of producing rules. And the fact they're done it with a bunch of people constantly trying to break them makes it that much more impressive.

itcamefromthedeep
21-07-2010, 03:10
Warhammer ain't no Waterloo, my friend. I have yet to see a player try to recreate, say, the battle of Black Fire Pass or War of the Beard engagements. If someone wants to make the game competitive, then they can. If they want to make it an historical simulation (news to me, but okay), then they can go for it. There's no reason to pigeonhole the game into a "proper" way of playing with an "intended" mindset.

Players are free to enjoy Warhammer in any way they like, intentions be damned.

Now I feel more comfortable recommending that you kindly lay off of the competitive crowd. Their way of playing is just as correct as yours. Their fun is just as honest.

This game don't fit into your little *box*, man! Free yo miiiind!:D

---

No matter what style of gaming you like, the game is better served by clear, concise rules that match the intent of play. Anything less is a shortcoming of the author.

---

Amendments with a change of edition are kosher. With a change of core mechanics and language, inconsistencies are bound to happen. That's not the FAQ and errata I'm talking about.

*SQUEE*
21-07-2010, 04:55
So I was reading my Skaven book and Assassins in paticulair and I thought of this topic. It occurs to me that if I have a unit six wide pushing a bell and have an assassin reveal himself in the unit I can force my screaming bell into the back rank as there is no room for the assassin (the rules for assassins state that if no room you can move a character).


I then began thinking about the bells impact hits. The say the happen at the very begining of the combat phase and the assassin revealing himself happens at the start of close combat. Does this mean that I can cause impact hits with a bell then knock the bell to the back ranks when the assassin appears?

Please say it aint so.

SatireSphere
21-07-2010, 05:16
Why not do this with EVERY character, to prevent them from being singled out and attacked?

edit: oh, only one attack. Still, I'll be putting my BSBs and warrior priests in the second rank from now on.

Lord Inquisitor
21-07-2010, 05:33
Well, fortunately most of the time you want your powerful character in the front rank whacking bozos rather than sulking in the second rank getting only 1 attack. It's only worthwhile for characters that are especially vulnerable to combat, have weak attacks or are particularly high profile targets.

On the subject of modelling for advantage it IS like 5th ed 40k again. Including the rather amusing discussion about how small GW hills are despite the fact that the previous edition used models eye view for everything but intervening units and area terrain. This isn't a new problem.

Ultimately, once you start down the road of imaginary models, it tends to lead to arguments. Better to just use the models even if one treeman model is bigger than another. There are occasionally cases where it becomes a necessity to fudge things (I saw cool spider riders last GT i went to that were modeled climbing down arched columns and one had to be easily 12" high) but such things can easily be addressed before the game where on such models Los is to be traced from.

Modelling for advantage is typically either so negligible in actual benefit as to be safely ignored or if actually taken to extremes outright blatantly cheating. I would not anticipate any errata or FAQ that changes the wording to "standard size" or even addresses this at all. Most of the time size variation isn't abusive as if you can see me to shoot then I can see you to charge.

blindman
21-07-2010, 08:52
Extreme understanding of TLOS will cause armies like an army designed on 40k, a Swamp IG, where all de models where glued to the base without legs so all had half height from the original models.

That's awful and I hope doesn't happen here.

Korraz
21-07-2010, 09:00
I only hear about those Swamp-Ig, reassembling crons, brood-pool tyras and so on, but I've never seen them.

chamelion 6
21-07-2010, 09:11
Warhammer ain't no Waterloo, my friend. I have yet to see a player try to recreate, say, the battle of Black Fire Pass or War of the Beard engagements. If someone wants to make the game competitive, then they can. If they want to make it an historical simulation (news to me, but okay), then they can go for it. There's no reason to pigeonhole the game into a "proper" way of playing with an "intended" mindset.

Players are free to enjoy Warhammer in any way they like, intentions be damned.

Now I feel more comfortable recommending that you kindly lay off of the competitive crowd. Their way of playing is just as correct as yours. Their fun is just as honest.

This game don't fit into your little *box*, man! Free yo miiiind!:D

---

No matter what style of gaming you like, the game is better served by clear, concise rules that match the intent of play. Anything less is a shortcoming of the author.

---

Amendments with a change of edition are kosher. With a change of core mechanics and language, inconsistencies are bound to happen. That's not the FAQ and errata I'm talking about.

Again... my challenge in this thread wasn't to critisize it was to try to understand. I believe if you bought the book you should play it the way you want. Period. I did the compoetative / pick up gaming thing for over a year. It wasn't for me for the reasons I mentioned.:)

As for Waterloo... no it's isn't that deep but WFB has more in common with historical simulations like Fire & Fury, Napoleon's Battles and a host of historical board games than it does games designed with balance and competition in mind. I think it's unfair to to judge it by standards that don't really apply. I think you'll generally find thatamongst gamers that play the rules from that point of view rate them very high. The complaints and faults you mention are generally common to competative and pick up gamers. Just pointing out there is a reason for that.;) We historical gamers are used to openended rules and a lack of inherent balance. It's the nature of the beast. We don't see that as a fault, we see it as a strength.

I think as a group we're just as misunderstood by the competativie gamers. Probably more so....