PDA

View Full Version : 7th ed faq up



Hashut's Li'l Helper
19-12-2006, 16:52
http://us.games-workshop.com/errata/errata.htm

Griefbringer
19-12-2006, 17:10
Hopefully this will also find its way to the UK website (I am still wondering why they really need to maintain separate sites for UK and US).

Notice that there is also O&G errata/FAQ.

bdickj
19-12-2006, 17:10
Can someone CP it? I can't access the GW website at work! lol.

Gorbad Ironclaw
19-12-2006, 18:12
It's an 9 page pdf file, so not likely.

samw
19-12-2006, 18:20
"Azhag is not a shaman, but a wizard."

Oh the rules lawyering that will explode over this statement. :p

Parka boy
19-12-2006, 18:38
fanatics still get killed by hills then lol, but savage orc boar boyz just got a lot harder :7)

gjnoronh
19-12-2006, 18:46
Some interesting clarifications

Charging against opponents obviously out of reach has been strongly discouraged as unsportsmanlike (but is not necessarily illegal.)

The page 7 what's a monster section has been clarified Daemon
princes are NOT monsters.

Frenzied models with steeds get bonus attacks for their steeds (e.g.
savage orc boar boyz. . .)

HoC frenzied models do not get the bonus attacks for their steeds,
but everyone else does (army book specific rule in HoC overrides the
BRB)

Enemy in the way has significant clarifications.

Tactical wheeling against skirmishers is specifically permitted.

Gary

Hashut's Li'l Helper
19-12-2006, 20:06
actually declaring charges at enemies known to be out of reach is "CHEATING"

Parka boy
19-12-2006, 20:29
Yeah I thought that line was a bit much

Tutore
19-12-2006, 20:51
Thanks, I don't check the us website very often.

pcgamer72
19-12-2006, 21:22
My gaming group has been playing that with the frenzied mounts rule since 7th edition came out, but we were including Chaos Knights in the bunch.

Chosen Khorne Knights really... really hurt. Lol.

Arnizipal
19-12-2006, 23:10
Porko's Pigstikka is now confirmed to be useless :(

steeler556
19-12-2006, 23:23
[QUOTE=Parka boy;1158495]fanatics still get killed by hills then

fanatics dont get killed my hills now...

Arnizipal
19-12-2006, 23:45
They die when they come into contact with ANY TYPE of terrain.
That's including hills (as they are terrain).

Parka boy
20-12-2006, 00:12
Very sad and crappy but true and really no way around it. A terrain feature of any kind means anything but the board.

feeder
20-12-2006, 00:43
And I think that steeler556's hills are part of his board now.

It would have been nice of them to clarify the 'squigs gone wild' issue.

I like the frenzy errata. Savage Orc Boar boyz? Yes, please.

steeler556
20-12-2006, 00:51
They die when they come into contact with ANY TYPE of terrain.
That's including hills (as they are terrain).

read page 16 of the rule book. 'Open Terrain' is clear ground that doesnt impede movement and normally includes hills.

Using the definition you are focused on, then fanatics would die immediately upon exiting a unit as they have hit 'open terrain' which likely is not what is intended. Is is more likely that fanatics are intended to die when they hit terrain that is listed under 'difficult, very difficult and impassable terrain in the rulebook.

steeler556
20-12-2006, 00:54
Very sad and crappy but true and really no way around it. A terrain feature of any kind means anything but the board.

as my response above indicates, that fanatics die as soon as they hit open ground as it as defined as *open terrain* which seems silly. According to the definition on page 16 open terrain (which includes open ground) also includes hills.

Parka boy
20-12-2006, 01:48
Open terrain is never mentioned in the fanatic rules it clearly states any terrain features, hills are clearly terrain features.

Shimmergloom
20-12-2006, 01:55
yeah it doesn't say open terrain kills them, it says terrain features.

Either way they still need to clear up if hills killed them, cause it's pretty ridiculous that they do according to the way it's worded.

Fanatic dying when he goes into the woods makes sense. Fanatics dying cause they move up the slope of a low hill does not.

Crymson
20-12-2006, 02:26
Still no Wood Elf FAQ though, I see.

athamas
20-12-2006, 02:30
an interesting thing is you can gain the armour bonus of an enchanted shield and hand weapon...


so, now any character with heavy armour can get a 2+ save in combat for 10pts....

intellectawe
20-12-2006, 02:43
nice to see GW actually putting out a FAQ that helps with teh flow of the game rather than RAW clunky rules.

The whole sections about awkward charges, aligning charged units with charging units, sliding units, etc.... have now brought alot more CLOSURE to many of the gray areas players face. rather than "does a dog count as a quadraped under the new rules?" kind of questions.

Gav, and to the rest of you GW guys who read these boards. I applaud you. Wonderful job with the faqs.

Now lets get to releasing some other faqs sometime this decade please...

(Still waiting for Ogre and Dwarf faq/erratas please)

I mean Gav, you say under the Dark Elf update for the Cauldron that the Anvil of Doom WILL get an update as with regards to shooting just like the Cauldron did. Well, when will us dwarf owners get our update?

Griefbringer
20-12-2006, 09:52
Still no Wood Elf FAQ though, I see.

No Bretonnian FAQ either, and that book has been out for almost three years already - though some of the problematic issues were fixed by the 7th edition rulebook.

EvC
20-12-2006, 12:05
Very well done to GW for getting this out, I'm glad they've laid to rest some of the more obnoxious queries. It seems odd that they've limited Khornate Frenzy to just the riders though, they seem to be backtracking on what they intended with that rule, and I'm not sure the rules really justify the clarification they've made. But I'm definitely happy to live with it! But then it's also silly that Savage Orc characters are allowed in chariots too... never mind.

steeler556
20-12-2006, 13:37
Open terrain is never mentioned in the fanatic rules it clearly states any terrain features, hills are clearly terrain features.

ok, lets try this again. The rulebook (page 16) says that open 'ground' is classified as open *terrain* the O&G Book says that fanatics die when they hit *terrain*; therefore using 'RAW' fanatics die as soon as their exit the unit carrying them because they have indeed hit open *terrain*

Now (presumably) GW did not intend for that this. However if you read the definition of 'open terrain' in the rulebook (page 16) it includes both open ground and hills.

Since open ground and hills are in the same definition, why would hills kill fanatics. If hills do kill fanatics then so should open *terrain* because the rulebook defines these two as being the same...?

Snotteef
20-12-2006, 13:43
On the quetion about beastman Raiders rule, they state it is unchanged because Ambush got such a big boost this edition. WTF?!? Ambush got nerfed this edition, since you can no longer march when you come onto the board. What are they talking about? Does anyone know what they could possibly mean by Ambush having increased power?

alextroy
20-12-2006, 13:46
Crossfire. It is rather powerful to be able to string a line of skirmishers across your opponent's rear if you can force him to flee.

Snotteef
20-12-2006, 14:05
I suppose I see your point there! Still, I think that is poor reasoning for not fixing Raiders. Either make it so that they always rank up 5 wide or ditch the rule about minimum rank size completely. The ONLY reason the 4 wide rule was inserted was to ensure that Raiders can always rank up with their bonus intact. Since they now cannot, the rule is completely superfluous. I hope they rewrite it one way or the other when they get around to the new BoC book.

Sherlocko
20-12-2006, 14:20
Crossfire my ass. First of, you can only ambush in your second turn, a unit of flyer would be in nice position by then. Second, when you ambush you almost don´t fit on the table because of the new way ambush work, so you can only spread out for the crossfire in turn 3-4, and by then you could already have flyers there.....bah, crossfire don´t affect herds that much.

Doc Havoc
20-12-2006, 16:09
A couple of weeks ago in a tournament I lost Fanatics to a shallow stream that didn't impede movement or have any affect on models, whatsoever. (Except fanatics)


"Oh, your fanatic moved into this patch of grassland... he dies."

"This brown piece of felt is a sandy beach... your fanatic dies"

"This blue piece of felt is a large puddle, he dies..."

I smell a house rule coming...

eldrak
20-12-2006, 16:12
Still waiting for Ogre and Dwarf faq/erratas please

What's wrong with the current Dwarf FAQ?

intellectawe
20-12-2006, 16:25
What's wrong with the current Dwarf FAQ?

The fact that there isn't one.

Sherlocko
20-12-2006, 16:31
http://uk.games-workshop.com/news/errata/3/

According to the site, it has been there since first of september this year.

EDIT: But perhaps it is just on the european site....

Parka boy
20-12-2006, 17:11
ok, lets try this again. The rulebook (page 16) says that open 'ground' is classified as open *terrain* the O&G Book says that fanatics die when they hit *terrain*; therefore using 'RAW' fanatics die as soon as their exit the unit carrying them because they have indeed hit open *terrain*

Now (presumably) GW did not intend for that this. However if you read the definition of 'open terrain' in the rulebook (page 16) it includes both open ground and hills.

Since open ground and hills are in the same definition, why would hills kill fanatics. If hills do kill fanatics then so should open *terrain* because the rulebook defines these two as being the same...?

Where does the fanatic rules mention open terrain? I cant see it any where are you making it up? I'd love to agree (I play O&G myself with a number of fanatics) and say that GW didn't mean hills when it wrote ALL TERRAIN FEATURES, but I cant as the rules seem clear, as is the definition of a terrain feature, and I can't see anything that would argue any differently.

Yeah it super sucks that they didn't bother with a Bret fax but did you really expect one.

intellectawe
20-12-2006, 18:04
http://uk.games-workshop.com/news/errata/3/

According to the site, it has been there since first of september this year.

EDIT: But perhaps it is just on the european site....

Holy ****. You are right, the US site has no such FAQ yet the brits had one all long!!!!

samw
20-12-2006, 18:24
an interesting thing is you can gain the armour bonus of an enchanted shield and hand weapon...


so, now any character with heavy armour can get a 2+ save in combat for 10pts....


Woah, didn't notice that one! Seems we know now why it went up in price!

EvC
20-12-2006, 18:45
Hehe, a couple of weeks ago I was advising someone in another thread not to take a 30 point Vampire Magic Armour that gives a 1+ save when his Blood Dragon could achieve a 1+ save using just the enchanted shield with his hand weapon and Plate Armour!

Grunge
20-12-2006, 19:57
Fanatics do die if they hit hills. Hills are not open terrain. If they are you dont get the fancy advantages on shooting. Yes its silly but its how its written, sorry.

There's no Bretonnian FAQ still :(

steeler556
20-12-2006, 20:07
[QUOTE=Parka boy;1160946]Where does the fanatic rules mention open terrain? I cant see it any where are you making it up? I'd love to agree (I play O&G myself with a number of fanatics) and say that GW didn't mean hills when it wrote ALL TERRAIN FEATURES, but I cant as the rules seem clear, as is the definition of a terrain feature, and I can't see anything that would argue any differently.

Ugh...pause for a moment and actually *read* what I am writing.
1)The O&G book says fanatics die when they hit T_E_R_R_A_I_N.
2)The Rulebook says that 'open Ground' is considered to be Open T_E_R_R_A_I_N.
3)The Rulebook definition for Open Terrain also includes HILLS.
4) Given statement '1' above, fanatics would immediately die upon exiting their parent unit as they hit Open Ground which as outlined in statement '2' is defined by the rulebook as Open TERRAIN.
5) Presumably this is not what is intented by the rules.
6) Since the rulebook defintion for Open Ground, for which fanatics should not die when they hit, also includes Hills, fanatics therefore should not die when they travel over a hill as open ground & hills are defined the same way by the main rulebook.
7) GW *really* need to get their act together and proof read material before they release it.
8) any questions?

EvC
20-12-2006, 20:18
The main contention there seems to be with the use of the term, "terrain features". Thus, post exactly what the book quotes for the win.

Your list is very logical and makes complete sense, assuming the rules are quoted correctly.

GranFarfar
20-12-2006, 21:27
Does anyone else find the question and the answear regarding character in chariots and armour save confusing?(p. 4, bottom left)
Not sure about the wording in the rule book, since I do not have it handy.
And I am not sure if that answear is really an answear to THAT question.

Shimmergloom
20-12-2006, 22:46
Does anyone else find the question and the answear regarding character in chariots and armour save confusing?(p. 4, bottom left)
Not sure about the wording in the rule book, since I do not have it handy.
And I am not sure if that answear is really an answear to THAT question.

Yeah it seems to have come out of left field. By my understanding, they are saying that characters in chariots may not recieve +2 to their armor save or use the chariots armor save in close combat.

Which really changes things alot.

steeler556
20-12-2006, 23:29
The main contention there seems to be with the use of the term, "terrain features". Thus, post exactly what the book quotes for the win. Your list is very logical and makes complete sense, assuming the rules are quoted correctly.

pg 25 of the O&G Army Book "A fanatic is immediately removed as a casulty when: it somes into contact with a terrain feature of any kind."

The main rulebook does not define 'terrain feature' what it does is as follows "terrain is divided into four types to stimulte this: open, difficult, very difficult and impassable terrain."

The definition of 'open terrain' is as follows: "Open terrain is cealr ground that doesn't impede movement at all. The battlefield is basically all open terrain unless otherwise agreed. This will normally include hills"

So, to my point, either fanatics die immediately upon release from their parent unit because they have hit the terrain feature called 'open ground' OR because the Main Rule Book includes hills in the same definition as open ground for 'open terrain' fanatics do not die from hitting/going over a hill.

Which makes more sense?

steeler556
20-12-2006, 23:31
What does "terrain" mean?

According to the Marrian Webster online dictionary the word 'terrain' has two definitions:


1 a (1) : a geographic area (2) : a piece of land : GROUND

b : the physical features of a tract of land

EvC
21-12-2006, 00:09
Very good: I don't see how anyone could disagree with your statements.

Cherrystone
21-12-2006, 00:35
No matter what the book says around here fanatics do not die on open terrain and that includes hills, its just stupid if they did!

Chicago Slim
21-12-2006, 01:51
First of, you can only ambush in your second turn, a unit of flyer would be in nice position by then. Second, when you ambush you almost donīt fit on the table because of the new way ambush work, so you can only spread out for the crossfire in turn 3, and by then you could already have flyers there.....bah, crossfire donīt affect herds that much.

Sorry, um, which flyers are Beasts of Chaos putting there? Some deamons, I suppose, at about 2.5x the cost per model, who will be soaking up enemy fire while they get into position...

Look, part of the point with both Ambushers and Khorne frenzy is that the basic rulebook defers to the army books, so when there's a discrepancy, the army book has priority. Now, they could have issued a specific errata to CHANGE the rule from the Beast of Chaos book, but they chose not to-- just like Empire detachments (for another couple of weeks) can take away rank bonuses only if they're at least four-wide (I'm guessing that'll change...)

I think that one thing GW has done is to specifically and carefully NOT use this FAQ to update any existing army books. Perhaps the intention is that people should be able to play together, even if one of them isn't up to date on the errata site...

Notably, the requirement that skirmishers rank up to max numbers on both sides means that Beast Herd ONLY go 4-wide if their opponent is quite narrow (as the FAQ says, "...against small units") Even a 5-wide 20mm unit will require the Beast Herd to go 5-wide (as will a 3-wide Bret lance).

Yellow Commissar
21-12-2006, 02:07
I'm delighted to see the new additions to the GW site. I've already got a O&G errata out. This is good. This is very good.

I just wish they had made one thing more clear; what exactly is the closest visible model in a skirmishing unit? Is it measured from the model to the closest part of the unit? Or is it measured as the unit charges; measuring the charge distance?

@steeler556
I've been following your argument with the quoted rules in the BRB.

I agree with you that both hills and open ground are open terrain.

That does not mean, however, that hills and open ground are identical.

A hill is a terrain feature, while open ground is not, and that, really, is the question for the fanatic. If it hits a terrain feature it is removed, not open terrain, or even just terrain, but a "terrain feature".

Open ground is "terrain", but it is not a "terrain feature"; it is "open terrain".

steeler556
21-12-2006, 03:03
Open ground is "terrain", but it is not a "terrain feature"; it is "open terrain".


The rulebook does not define what a terrain 'feature' is. It only describes the different catagories of 'terrain.'

Given the description for 'open terrain' I would say a feature is something that would impede movement (meaning a model/unit could not use its full movement while traversing it).

The lack of a definition for what a 'feature' is, is a grey area in the rules that GW failed to sufficiently explain in the 7th Ed release. I am basing my approach on 'reasonable' logic. The fact that this is also supported by the fact that this is how it was done in 6th Edition may give some credence to my approach.

intellectawe
21-12-2006, 03:38
Anyone that destroys Fanatics when released is straight up being an internet warrior/retard.

What it comes down to is the word "feature". A hill is a feature, while the table top is not. Even though both are classified as the same type of terrain, Fanatics specifically mentions features. So Fanatics would be destroyed hitting a hill, since this is a "feture of the landscape" while the table top, even though being terrain, is not a "feature" but is instead the landscape itself.

I can see the argument between whether a hill destroys Fanatics or not. I personally would allow them to be destroyed when touching a Hill, but this is something I would agree with with my opponent.

And I can tell you, that during a tournament, telling your opponent his Fanatics die when hitting a Hill will most likely earn you crap sportsmanship points, even though in the end, you may be right.

During friendly games, I couldn't care less if my opponent let his Fanatics all up on hills. I may support that Hills destroy Fanatics, but my reasoning really has no bearing when RAW is concerned.

superczhunk
21-12-2006, 04:16
Depending on how steep the hill is, it would impede the fanatic's movement since it has the possibility of hitting the hill with his ball-and-chain...which would be a bad thing. :mad: I think the reasoning was that hills can be low or steep depending on how it's modeled, so they included all terrain features which would be everything but the flat ground of the board itself.

intellectawe
21-12-2006, 04:42
Depending on how steep the hill is, it would impede the fanatic's movement since it has the possibility of hitting the hill with his ball-and-chain...which would be a bad thing. :mad: I think the reasoning was that hills can be low or steep depending on how it's modeled, so they included all terrain features which would be everything but the flat ground of the board itself.

Thats exactly how I would play it.

DaBrode
21-12-2006, 05:48
I'm new here and I'm not by any means trying to say I know what's going on here but what happens if...

1. Night Goblin unit moves onto or is deployed onto a hill terrain piece (Maybe they are archers).

2. Enemy moves within 8"

Now what?

Do my fanatics die the second they leave the unit?

If the enemy is not on the terrain piece and the fanatic toss places the model off the terrain piece as well does it mean my NG's chucked him far enough out so that he never touched the hill?

If the enemy unit is on the same hill at that point is it impossible to cause him harm with my fanatics?

I suppose these questions could be posed against non-hill terrain types too but other types of terrain aren't as dreamy for archers as hills can be and therefore NG Archers on hills with fanatics becomes an odd scene.

Chicago Slim
21-12-2006, 06:46
First of all, page 2 of the rulebook gives as close to a definition of what is meant by "terrain feature" as you're likely to get: they're the things that you put down on the table, before you start deploying your armies. The verbage on page 2 describes these as "terrain pieces", but I think that this can be functionally considered identical to "terrain features." My own reading would be: if you put it on the table, it's a feature. Ergo, hills are features. And, in case any cheesemongers want to point out that their hills are built-in to the table, you still had to put them there, at least once.

As for DaBrode's question, you *could* read the text on fanatic destruction, "comes into contact with a terrain feature" as meaning "enters a terrain feature from outside it"-- but this could cause more problems than it solves. Also, I'm not convinced that it's the most reasonable interpretation of the text.

Better to simply not put your fanatic-bearing units into terrain (including hills). Or, for that matter, too near terrain: the fanatics don't "bounce" out of the unit, they move in a straight line, so if they encounter terrain along the way, they die immediately. Happily, we no longer have to send them towards the nearest unit when they pop out...

EvC
21-12-2006, 11:43
Okay, if a Fanatic dies when it hits a hill, would it also die if it hit the terrain feature known as a road? NB there are no cars on the road.

Grunge
21-12-2006, 14:08
I vote for "Lets wait for a faq". Untill that comes, I think its rather uncool not to let fanatics go up hills, as they are "open terrain". But, as rules are written, its a "Terrain Feature" aswell.

intellectawe
21-12-2006, 14:41
I vote for "Lets wait for a faq". Untill that comes, I think its rather uncool not to let fanatics go up hills, as they are "open terrain". But, as rules are written, its a "Terrain Feature" aswell.

But you assume 'open terrain' has something to do with Fanatics, which is just wishful thinking.

A hill is a terrain feature which counts as open terrain as far as the rules are concerned for movement, etc.... It is still a "feature of the terrain".

Fanatics die when they hit a hill, road, shallow pond, grass fields, whatever isn't the table itself. If you put down a patch of grass on the table, guess what, Fanatics will die on that. Its best to keep your Fanatics away from terrain, and with the new terrain rules, that should be easy as the center of the board is ALWAYS terrain free.

Inkosi
21-12-2006, 14:57
My gaming group has been playing that with the frenzied mounts rule since 7th edition came out, but we were including Chaos Knights in the bunch.

Chosen Khorne Knights really... really hurt. Lol.

I have always played my chosen khorne knights without the mounts having the extra attacks.

And they hurt even without it so i am perfectly fine with it. Arguing that the mount gets an extra attack is plain "smelly" to me.

Glad they clarified that Daemon princes are not Monsters. Doesnt make sense to me but i am not complaining.

Might promote my lord to Daemonhood now thanks to the clarification :D

Parka boy
21-12-2006, 20:15
But you assume 'open terrain' has something to do with Fanatics, which is just wishful thinking.

A hill is a terrain feature which counts as open terrain as far as the rules are concerned for movement, etc.... It is still a "feature of the terrain".

Fanatics die when they hit a hill, road, shallow pond, grass fields, whatever isn't the table itself. If you put down a patch of grass on the table, guess what, Fanatics will die on that. Its best to keep your Fanatics away from terrain, and with the new terrain rules, that should be easy as the center of the board is ALWAYS terrain free.

It couldn't be clearer

mageith
21-12-2006, 20:20
Originally Posted by intellectawe
...the center of the board is ALWAYS terrain free.

[QUOTE=Parka boy;1163920]It couldn't be clearer

:) The rule or the center of the board?

intellectawe
21-12-2006, 20:21
It couldn't be clearer

Thanks.

I just wished GW said that Fanatics die when hitting non-open terrain. Wouldn't that have made much more sense form the get go?

I agree that Fanatics hitting a patch of grass or a hill and dying sounds retarded, but oh well, thats life until GW puts out another O&C errata... Maybe around 2011 if we are lucky.

I can say that games I play, if my opponent brings this issue up BEFORE the game, I would gladly let him set loose fanatics on roads, hills and grass patches, but if my opponent doesn't bring this up before hand, guess what, in turn 3 when they come out and run all over any terrain feature, they are dead.


[quote]Originally Posted by intellectawe
...the center of the board is ALWAYS terrain free.



:) The rule or the center of the board?

hahahah!!!

I think what he meant was, since in the new edition every game that isn't a scenario NEVER has terrain down the middle of the table. Orc players can count on that. So I don't see any issue with orc players sending night goblin units down the middle to release fanatics in safety...

Isn't that what they are supposed to do anyway, run down the middle and just kill everything they touch? Anyone trying to flank with Night Goblins, probably should have their heads examined...

mageith
21-12-2006, 20:29
I think what he meant was, since in the new edition every game that isn't a scenario NEVER has terrain down the middle of the table. Orc players can count on that.

Can they? I put out a post on "Terrain tactics" based on the rules on page 2/3 in two forums and the main tactic espoused by about 75% of posters were to ignore the terrain placement rules altogether and use their own. Maybe that's changed now?

I think he meant the rule was clear, but maybe he too was making a funny?

GranFarfar
21-12-2006, 22:00
And they hurt even without it so i am perfectly fine with it. Arguing that the mount gets an extra attack is plain "smelly" to me.


Not 100% with what you mean with smelly, but it sure was easy too draw the conclusion that the chaos steeds also recive frenzy with the new rules. Untill now that is.

eldrak
22-12-2006, 01:17
terrain features: such as hills, woods or buildings.

They are anything you place on the board. Perhaps except special features from p.100. :rolleyes:

intellectawe
22-12-2006, 19:39
Can they? I put out a post on "Terrain tactics" based on the rules on page 2/3 in two forums and the main tactic espoused by about 75% of posters were to ignore the terrain placement rules altogether and use their own. Maybe that's changed now?

I think he meant the rule was clear, but maybe he too was making a funny?

This is the internet. People will say anything they want.

Just a coincidence, yesterday I fought my friends Sea Port with my Chaos Dwarves. He got to the store first, and had already set up terrain. When I got there, I saw this lake snaking down the middle of the table.

1) I knew this was to his advantage, because like most of those terrain placement bashers you speak of, people want terrain to work for them all the time.

2) This was against the rules flat out.

I simply started taking all the terrain off the table and placing it on a table next to us. He said "Awww, I set that up for our battle". And I said "Well, that isn't how terrain is set up" I showed him the page on terrain placement and said "this is how you place terrain".

Let me make this clear, people who don't like the terrain can change the rules as long as their opponent agrees, but bluntly, I don't play that *****. If my opponent want to invent his own terrain placement rules, then I tell them my Lord cannot die and his Lord starts the game dead. They usually go "WTF is your problem?" and I tell them "If you are going to invent rules, so will I". And yes, I have done this many times over the years.

Orc players can always build an army with the knowledge that the middle is always clear of terrain, except.....

1) In tournaments where everything is prearranged

2) Fighting Wood Elves and that free piece of Woods they can stick right in the middle of the table.

So against honest players who want to enjoy the game, Orc players don't have to worry much about terrain with Fanatics. But against people who want to bend the rules to win, you mine as well just throw the Fanatic at the person's eye ball and hope he has to leave the store for a hospital or something.

greenskin
22-12-2006, 20:30
Heh, I love the word eyeball.

mageith
23-12-2006, 00:07
2) Fighting Wood Elves and that free piece of Woods they can stick right in the middle of the table.

"...anywhere on his half of the table..."

You are by far the strongest proponent of following the BRB terrain setup.

mageith
23-12-2006, 00:11
They are anything you place on the board. Perhaps except special features from p.100. :rolleyes:
Why do you think that special features are not terrain features? In the first sentence on page 100 it identifes them as "...a class of terrain..." Special Features are impassable and block line of sight and will kill anyone fleeing through them.

intellectawe
23-12-2006, 01:40
"...anywhere on his half of the table..."

You are by far the strongest proponent of following the BRB terrain setup.

I didn't know that. My Wood Elf opponent has been cheating me. I need ot "politely" read his book next time I see him.

And I can't believe people actually liked the terrain placement rules of 6th edition. They were horrible. Just a mish mash of crap thrown all around the middle of the board. It never made sense.

Now, armies that shoot and/or fight hand to hand can count on a clear path down the middle, making battle planning much easier in this edition.

And if people around my way didn't follow the terrain rules, they would just set ***** up however they could to make sure the game would be one sided. But then, wouldn't I get the same opportunity as my opponent? Since both players have a "right" to set up terrain, you mine as well just follow the book rules and BAM, no arguments.

Heck, if I could, I would just set up nothing for my dwarf army. I would play on a blank table if I wanted to be cheesy and unfair to my opponent.

Yellow Commissar
23-12-2006, 03:25
Heck, if I could, I would just set up nothing for my dwarf army. I would play on a blank table if I wanted to be cheesy and unfair to my opponent.

Dude! I've been challenging people to a battlefield fight for 4 years, and I've yet to get a single taker. I'd love to just fight a battle on an open battlefield. It's not like it is far fetched that two armies would meet on open ground. Why not?!?

logres
23-12-2006, 18:05
I've a question about "tactical wheeling"
it is mentioned that it can be used against skirmishers and other units so can it be used against war machines in the similar way as with the skirmishers?

Sherlocko
23-12-2006, 18:07
Would guess not because it is specified how charging a war machine works.

logres
23-12-2006, 18:15
well it is but doesn't say you cannot wheel right?

Sherlocko
23-12-2006, 18:23
No, but what difference does it make? The crew stand up in line according to where you start your movement. You can wheel all you like, you end up in the same place anyway.

mageith
23-12-2006, 20:48
I've a question about "tactical wheeling"
it is mentioned that it can be used against skirmishers and other units so can it be used against war machines in the similar way as with the skirmishers?
I think the argument is that during the hold reaction, the crew forms up in advance. It's a change from the last edition.