|
|
Post by grandmasterwang on Feb 21, 2022 6:49:40 GMT
Is there anyway to get them?
I recently played against a dwarf army with 3 oathstones. I had rear and flank charges on his dwarf units (with oathstones) and he treated them as if I'd charged the front as in I didn't get +1 or +2 for combat resolution bonus and he also took supporting attacks to both the flank and rear.
I haven't played with or against dwarfs for over 2 years and it was a friendly game at his place so I didn't question it at the time. It didn't sit right with me and at the back of my head I was thinking (this isn't how the rules work) but I hadn't played my dwarfs for many years so went with it.
Next day I remembered and took a quick look at my dwarf book (2000 point game played, didnt look at his army list or check army book as we were in a rush to roll some dice so don't know what runes or banner combos he had) oathstone rule and didn't see anything about supporting attacks.
I lost the game but the 2 combats where I had flank/rear charges and took supporting attacks and missed the combat bonus were crucial and I'm thinking had the rules been played correctly I probably would have won.
Did I get shafted or am I missing something?
|
|
|
|
Post by vulcan on Feb 21, 2022 7:29:00 GMT
I think it's in the FAQ. Hopefully someone will dig it up shortly.
Even in 6E, the Oathstone specifically prevented the +1/+2 bonus from flanking and rear attacks, though. That was pretty much the whole point of the Oathstone.
Standard tactic for dealing with Oathstones is, once they drop the Oathstone you ignore them. They can't move the rest of the game, so they become tactically irrelevant unless they can shoot. Go kill the other stuff instead. Only engage an oathstone unit if you're sure you can win the combat, under circumstances that benefit you the most... and since they can't move, this shouldn't be too hard to arrange.
If the unit MIGHT have an Oathstone, then only engage it if you are reasonably sure you'll break or severely damage the unit on the charge.
|
|
|
|
Post by grandmasterwang on Feb 21, 2022 7:55:44 GMT
I think it's in the FAQ. Hopefully someone will dig it up shortly. Even in 6E, the Oathstone specifically prevented the +1/+2 bonus from flanking and rear attacks, though. That was pretty much the whole point of the Oathstone. Standard tactic for dealing with Oathstones is, once they drop the Oathstone you ignore them. They can't move the rest of the game, so they become tactically irrelevant unless they can shoot. Go kill the other stuff instead. Only engage an oathstone unit if you're sure you can win the combat, under circumstances that benefit you the most... and since they can't move, this shouldn't be too hard to arrange. If the unit MIGHT have an Oathstone, then only engage it if you are reasonably sure you'll break or severely damage the unit on the charge. This seems incorrect for the 8th Edition dwarf book (rules attached below) although the faq may have changed this In 8th Edition there is no downside of placing the Oathstone it seems, the unit isn't locked in place for the rest of the game and can move as usual. My opponent confirmed this when queried that if he placed the oathstone (all 3 of his blocks had them) then they could still move afterwards. I remember when it used to be as you posted. Looking at 8th edition Oathstone rules they did remove the bit about the unit being locked in place once the stone is placed. If the unit was locked in place I could understand the 360 degree supporting attacks and no flank/rear bonus but the 8th book doesn't mention either. I remember when the rules were as you posted which is one of the reasons I didn't query at the time. |
|
|
|
Post by grandmasterwang on Feb 21, 2022 8:01:25 GMT
8th Edition Dwarf armybook Oathstone rules attached for reference. Quite different to prior editions. No mention of supporting attacks or combat resolution adjustments? Units were Ironbreakers, Longbeards and Warriors in case it matters. Maybe some rune or other combination? Looking at the disruption rules I cannot see something that would result in the way we played it?  |
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on Feb 21, 2022 9:05:18 GMT
grandmasterwang: You are correct, and, AFAIK, there are no runes or special rules either with such an effect. It suspect this is another ghost of editions past.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldmandan on Feb 21, 2022 18:21:42 GMT
Not sure about the oathstone unit getting supporting attacks in the way it seems in the situation. I'll ask my mate he's played Dwarfs for years. If anyone knows the pros and cons of using Oath stones it's him. As soon as we've spoken I'll let you know his view.
|
|
simon
Full Member
Posts: 150
|
Post by simon on Feb 21, 2022 19:47:01 GMT
Sounds like you got hoodwinked there pal.. Hope you get your revenge!
|
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on Feb 22, 2022 10:35:21 GMT
It is indeed the ghost of an edition past, more specifically the 7th edition Dwarfs AB updated to 8th BRB. The update contained the following amendment (Dwarfs Official Update Version 1.6, p.1):
Page 28 – The Dwarf Throng, Oath Stones, 1).
Change “They do not lose their rank bonuses if charged in flank or rear,” to “They cannot be disrupted,”. Add “Also, the models in the unit may make supporting attacks in any direction, and if they have shields, they get their Parry save against attacks coming from any side.”
However, since the publication of the 8th edition Dwarfs AB, this amendment is null and void. And, just like for (almost) all other editions published after October 2013, there has been no Update Version for the last Dwarfs AB.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldmandan on Feb 22, 2022 10:48:07 GMT
So I've checked in with my mate and read my books. Basicaly your friend used a previous version of the oath stone rules. Next time just clarify what rules your friend is using for the oath stone before playing.
|
|
|
|
Post by grandmasterwang on Feb 22, 2022 11:09:19 GMT
So I've checked in with my mate and read my books. Basicaly your friend used a previous version of the oath stone rules. Next time just clarify what rules your friend is using for the oath stone before playing. He was using the 8th edition dwarf armybook which is why he could move the unit after using the Oathstones. When I asked whether the unit would be locked in place he said that was the previous edition so was definitely using the 'current' Dwarf book. So it seems he was using the best of both Dwarf armybooks with no drawbacks haha. I should also have gotten the +2 and +1 combat resolution for being in the flank and the rear too right? No Disruption just means he still gets his rank bonus per the rules? I didn't see anything there about losing the rear/flank resolution bonus. I was using Tomb Kings, so between losing the bonus +3 combat resolution and the extra damage he was doing due to improper supporting attacks it made a huge difference over multiple combat rounds with crumble. Had we played RAW the Tomb Kings would have had way more guys and won the combats. Thanks for the responses guys, confirms that I was right in my thoughts about the supporting attacks. Good Eefl rulesmiths. |
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on Feb 22, 2022 12:26:57 GMT
Yes, you should have gotten the CR boni for flank & rear attack. No disruption means indeed just that: he cannot be disrupted and will always get the rank bonus, but that is it.
As I keep saying, most problems are easily resolved by adhering to the simple principle: "Unless specifically stated otherwise, normal rules apply." The Oath Stone rules specifically state the following exceptions to the normal rules:
- cannot choose flee as charge reaction
- cannot be disrupted
- can use Parry save in flank/rear
- character must accept challenge
Other than these four, normal rules apply.
On a side note: it was actually the 6th edition AB updated to 8th edition BRB. It had slipped my mind there that, for some reason, Dwarfs got two ABs in 6th edition, but none in 7th.
|
|
|
|
Post by lordofskullpass on Feb 22, 2022 12:33:15 GMT
On a side note: it was actually the 6th edition AB updated to 8th edition BRB. It had slipped my mind there that, for some reason, Dwarfs got two ABs in 6th edition, but none in 7th. Correct, the later 6th Edition book was one of the last released so was probably designed with 7th Edition in mind, explaining why GW kept it throughout that edition - wasn't much point in writing another one so soon afterwards (though they don't seem to consider that now in AoS when it comes to their favourite factions  ) |
|
|
|
Post by oldmandan on Feb 22, 2022 21:26:05 GMT
No problem mate, yeah that was definitely the best of both editions. You should still have got some combat results. And the Ironbreakers should not have got supporting attacks to flank and rear. They're hard enough as it is, I saw a unit back in 6th completely surrounded and the Ironbreakers still won the combat.
|
|
)