|
Post by avatarofbugman on Aug 26, 2017 1:03:38 GMT
One could argue that it isn't clear, as many people have played it differently. š
|
|
|
Post by gregwarhamsters on Aug 26, 2017 5:22:38 GMT
We're not the only ones reading this so the fanatics were just another example of play out of sequence, both could be called overwatch in 40K. The range of the furthest charge merely point out that charges are more often then not conducted within the range of whichever weapon system and yes irrelevant. In my example above with the Dwarves* you'd have 10 crossbows fire at -1 and the pistol fire at -1. I on the other hand would have the crossbows fire at no modifier and the pistol at -1 I think I'm right, you think your right and I'm happy with that Cheers Greg *Dwarves get the "Dwarf crafted" rule on certain weapons and don't suffer the -1 to shoot chargers.
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on Aug 26, 2017 8:36:46 GMT
If anything, the example of the Fanatics works against your interpretation. When a conceiling unit is charged, the Fanatics are only be released as part of resolving the charge. The charge range has been rolled, and the chargers are actually being physically moved. They then stop 8" of the conceiling unit, and the Fanatics are released. If the charging unit is not panicked or wiped out, it completes its move.
The BRB could easily have foreseen the same or a similar procedure for S&S, but it clearly did not. It specifically tells you to make "a normal, although out of sequence, shooting attack." At this point, all the enemy units are completely static, nor do you know what their charge range will be. You even get to shoot at units that may never have come in firing range, after its charge is resolved.
You may well think you are right, but you still cannot point to an actual rule that allows you to ignore the "outside the firing unit's maximum range" specification, nor can you point to any actual rule that would allow you to exclude other mali (from what you write, I get the - perhaps mistaken - impression that you do not include any other negative modifiers, like for cover, e.g. because of an intervening enemy unit that has yet to be moved to make the charge possible). What I said, on the other hand, is supported in each and every case with a written rule.
On a side note: I am a firm believer that rules discussions do not belong at the table. They should be held before, or after a game, not during. The internet is certainly a appropriate place. However, if someone asks a question about the rules, I also assume he wants to know what the actual, official rules are.
In the past, the rules changed every four years or so, and I sometimes wondered, if any of us really played Warhammer, rather than a peculiar mixture of current rules (frequently not updated), undead rules and ghosts of editions past, rules that never existed, and house rules, that people often assumed (and still assume) to be official. That does not need to be a problem in a game. Indeed, half of the time, I simply forget to apply rules anyway (usually to my own detriment).
This is no longer the case. With the official end of WFB, the rules will not change anymore, creating at least the possibility to weed out in time various established errors. All the more reason to go full throttle in a rules thread like this, on a Forum named EEFL.
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on Aug 26, 2017 14:48:09 GMT
One could argue that it isn't clear, as many people have played it differently. š I have noticed that people often claim a rule is not clear, because it does not say what they want it to say ( e.g. Predatory Fighter, General & Highest Leadership). But that is, of course, something completely different.
|
|
|
Post by avatarofbugman on Aug 27, 2017 1:53:01 GMT
You are making as assumption there. Also, what issue with predatory fighter has happened?
|
|
|
Post by avatarofbugman on Aug 27, 2017 1:53:54 GMT
To be clear, I have played this as written since this edition started.
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on Aug 27, 2017 8:05:27 GMT
I was referring to Predatory Fighter & Supporting Attacks. What I wrote is hardly an assumption. In both cases referred to, the rules are written clearly and they are playable, but were/are still disputed. Indeed, I think it is hard to find a rule more ironclad than Supporting Attacks - which still didn't stop some people clutching at the smallest of straws to argue otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by gregwarhamsters on Aug 27, 2017 8:57:27 GMT
To be clear, I have played this as written since this edition started. The clincher for me is the line that says the shooting (and Iām paraphrasing here) is resolved assuming itās within the units shortest ranged weapon. In my example I used the Dwarves as I commonly use a character or unit champion with a pistol to take advantage of this rule. I understand what FvonSigmaringen is saying but I disagree. I didnāt like his reference to the fact I hadnāt mentioned cover, multiple shots or whatever in my example. I was trying to keep it simple. To be fair Dwarves may not have been the best example as they generally donāt suffer the stand and shoot penalty other armies do. I think as long as you play it consistently that way there shouldnāt be a problem. During the time 8th was the current rule set I attended a few tournaments (mainly using my Dwarves and Brets) and not once did I ever see or hear a dispute over the way the stand and shoot rule was interpreted, nor have I ever seen the need of it to be clarified in any tournament pack. To answer the original question A unit can stand and shoot if it is charged and the attacking units is not within its normal move distance. You get a -1 modifier. Can you use multi shot? Do you still get the -1 modifier against skirmishers? They need to huddle up before they charge you, right? Yes, M score of the charger dictates whether you can fire or not. The exception is the Quick to fire rule where you can fire at any range. Yes you can multi shoot but you also can elect to fire just a single shot (as an example some skinks are charged, BS3 Long range (-1) Stand and shoot (-1) multiple shot (-1) would make a 7 to hit (6ās followed by a 4+) now no self-respecting Lizardman general for forgo the poison shots so theyād most likely NOT multi shot in this scenario. Now the skirmishers charging is an interesting one, I canāt say Iāve got unit of skirmishers in any of my armies that charge my enemy, rather outflank them and continue to shoot into them so Iād be more than glad of any ruling here but my gut reaction is that they form up before the charge, it even indicates this by the use of italics in the text. So maybe they donāt get the benefit of being a skirmisher. Both skirmishers charging and stand and shoot happen before the dice are rolled to determine charge distance Iām not sure what would happen first. Declare charge, declare reaction. Although it does say immediately so Iād suggest I declare a charge and rank my unit up. You then get to stand and shoot at me. The answer to this may have been lost in all the posts above. If itās already been answered then can someone please highlight it for me. As for FvonSigmaringen misunderstanding my reference to the fanatics I assume that the Queens English isnāt his first language and I was merely point out another example of things happening out of sequence to the normal turn, in the same way I mentioned Overwatch in 40K and as I remember it also was an option in Space hulk, at least the original box set as I recall the counters you placed by your models. Cheers Greg
|
|
|
Post by avatarofbugman on Aug 27, 2017 13:22:14 GMT
I was referring to Predatory Fighter & Supporting Attacks. What I wrote is hardly an assumption. In both cases referred to, the rules are written clearly and they are playable, but were/are still disputed. Indeed, I think it is hard to find a rule more ironclad than Supporting Attacks - which still didn't stop some people clutching at the smallest of straws to argue otherwise. You are assuming that the reason they played it wrong was because they didn't like the rule as written. That is what I am referring too. As to the predatory fighter rule, I know the debate, and that one is stickier as several people emailed the rules email for GW, and were told that predatory fighter does apply to SA. I have a screenshot saved for that one somewhere. People were not clutching. They asked and were given an answer.
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on Aug 27, 2017 13:31:58 GMT
The clincher for me is the line that says the shooting (and Iām paraphrasing here) is resolved assuming itās within the units shortest ranged weapon. In my example I used the Dwarves as I commonly use a character or unit champion with a pistol to take advantage of this rule. I understand what FvonSigmaringen is saying but I disagree. I didnāt like his reference to the fact I hadnāt mentioned cover, multiple shots or whatever in my example. I was trying to keep it simple. So, the clincher for you is (and Iām paraphrasing here) to ignore the part that says ā against an enemy unit that starts its charge outside the firing unit's maximum range.ā You may well disagree, but simply ignoring part of a rule without argument why that should be permitted is hardly convincing. During the time 8th was the current rule set I attended a few tournaments (mainly using my Dwarves and Brets) and not once did I ever see or hear a dispute over the way the stand and shoot rule was interpreted, nor have I ever seen the need of it to be clarified in any tournament pack. That is a non sequitur, and the last argument of the desperate: - It cannot be proven or disproven
- The tournament pack always always assumes adherence to the BRB rules. A quick look at tournament rules available online shows that only major rules discussions are being addressed (if at all). Unless their rules are comped - which makes them irrelevant for rules discussions.
- The quality of referees is highly erratic (even referee decisions in GW tournaments have been plainly wrong)
- Any decision is at best ad hoc and not official. Which is fine, because their task is not to make fundamental decisions on the rules, but, self-evidently and very sensibly, to expedite the game. As I myself have said, rules discussions have no place at a gaming table.
- In any case, a referee would only be involved, if the players themselves cannot agree. If the two players have the same mistaken interpretation of the rules (because they have always played it like that), it will never come up.
Now the skirmishers charging is an interesting one, I canāt say Iāve got unit of skirmishers in any of my armies that charge my enemy, rather outflank them and continue to shoot into them so Iād be more than glad of any ruling here but my gut reaction is that they form up before the charge, it even indicates this by the use of italics in the text. So maybe they donāt get the benefit of being a skirmisher. Both skirmishers charging and stand and shoot happen before the dice are rolled to determine charge distance Iām not sure what would happen first. Declare charge, declare reaction. Although it does say immediately so Iād suggest I declare a charge and rank my unit up. You then get to stand and shoot at me. The answer to this may have been lost in all the posts above. If itās already been answered then can someone please highlight it for me. Third post in this thread: BRB p. 17: "If a Stand and Shoot charge reaction is declared, the unit makes a normal, although out of sequence, shooting attack against the charging unit." It is a normal shooting attack, so normal rules apply - unless specified otherwise, of course, which is not the case for Multiple Shots. Weapons with the Quick to Fire rule do not get a malus for moving and shooting, but they do get the malus for S&S. However, they "can always be used to Stand and Shoot against a charging enemy, even if that enemy would normally be too close for such a charge reaction to be declared" (BRB p. 73). BRB p. 77: "all shots aimed at a unit of Skirmishers suffer an additional -1 To Hit penalty." The formation of the Skirmishers does not matter. They also get it in buildings: Official Update Version 1.9, p. 8: Q: What will the To Hit modifier be for shooting at a unit in a building with the Skirmishers special rule? (p40) A: It will be -3 in total. -2 for being in hard cover and -1 for having the Skirmishers special rule. As for FvonSigmaringen misunderstanding my reference to the fanatics I assume that the Queens English isnāt his first language and I was merely point out another example of things happening out of sequence to the normal turn, in the same way I mentioned Overwatch in 40K and as I remember it also was an option in Space hulk, at least the original box set as I recall the counters you placed by your models. Yes, sure, it must be the Queen's English (as opposed to the Queens English). No one here disputed that S&S is happening out of sequence ā so, what is the use of bringing up the example of Fanatics? What is the use of 40K Overwatch? What was the use of all the other things irrelevant to the issue at hand? To drown the lack of relevant arguments in a sea of irrelevance?
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on Aug 27, 2017 14:04:12 GMT
You are assuming that the reason they played it wrong was because they didn't like the rule as written. That is what I am referring too. As to the predatory fighter rule, I know the debate, and that one is stickier as several people emailed the rules email for GW, and were told that predatory fighter does apply to SA. I have a screenshot saved for that one somewhere. People were not clutching. They asked and were given an answer. Regarding the question of Predatory Fighter and Supporting Attacks, there is simply no wriggle room. Anyone with an open mind would come to that conclusion. The only reason not to accept the rule is precisely because one does not like it. Since you know the debate, you should know that too. I know the e-mail, and the e-mail of a GW employee (not even of the official FAQ-desk) has just as much significance in a rules debate as the verbal opinion of any random redshirt in any random Warhammer shop: none whatsoever. Somebody who worked at GW even claimed that for phone/e-mails questions the orders were to give the answer that makes the caller/e-mailer happy. Whether that is true or not, I do not know. However, the official FAQ-desk only sent an automated response saying thanks and that the question will be considered the next time there is a set of FAQs prepared, and the only documents that can have any weight in a rules debate are the BRB, the AB and the Official Updates.
|
|
|
Post by gregwarhamsters on Aug 27, 2017 14:11:32 GMT
Oh my God!
Mr irrelevant - THE FANATICS AND 40k WAS AN EXAMPLE OF SOMETHING ELSE THAT WAS OUT OF SEQUENCE OF NORMAL GAME PLAY, NOTHING MORE THAN THAT, IT WASN'T A STATEMENT ON STANDING AND SHOOTIING JUST A OUT OF SEQUENCE EVENT...
Thank you for posting the update on the skirmishers, logically and I hope all can see my train of thought they rank up after the delaration so before the shots but if they still count as skirmishers (they don't disrupt so I guess it's fair)
I don't get your reference to Quick fire though, I'm just reiterating the fact they can fire at any target that charges them (assuming normal arcs etc) again mate you seem to be reading too much into it.
I did post a few example of a unit of cavalry charging a unit of dwarven crossbow, I did ask you to rewite it as you said it was flawed. If I've got it completely wrong then take the time and write it out so I can understand the differences rather than just throw pages references out. I'm not ignoring the outside maximum range part - but are you ignoring the shortest ranged weapon?
We're both aware that it's theoretically possible to fail the charge further away than the shortest ranged weapon but does that stop you from firing? No, the rules allow all participants to shoot (some at long range and some at short) but youāre right ā the tournaments including those run by GW sometimes make rulings that arenāt quiet as youād want them to be, you even get times when you roll a D6 to see what happens but I maintain that after attending tournaments over the 5 years 8th edition was current for Iāve not come across your interpretation of this rule. Do me a favour, rewrite my examples and you may make a convert of me.
Greg
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on Aug 27, 2017 14:55:11 GMT
Very well, in future, I will try to take into account that your posts are not always relevant to the issue being discussed. Perhaps it would be best to clearly mark those to avoid confusion.
The update on the Skirmishers was just for completeness. With or without that update, Skirmishers would not lose the benefit, because it is part of the Skirmishers special rule, and they do not lose that special rule, when changing formation.
My remark on Quick to Fire was referring to an error the previous poster had made, assuming that QTF did not give you the S&S malus.
For the issue under discussion, your three examples make no difference, because in all three examples the charge starts inside the maximum range of the firing unit (not surprisingly, as the maximum range is 30"). Self-evidently, if the charge starts inside 15", the Crossbowmen do not suffer the malus for long range. However, if the charge starts somewhere between 30"and 15", they will suffer the malus for long range.
If the unit was equipped with e.g. shortbows (maximum range 18"), and a character with e.g. a throwing axe (maximum range 6"), shooting against an enemy charging outside 18" would ipso facto be resolved at 6", and the shortbows would not suffer the malus for long range. If the charge starts within 18", it depends on on whether the actual position of the charging unit is further away than half the weapon's maximum range (i.e. 9").
|
|
|
Post by gregwarhamsters on Aug 27, 2017 15:07:13 GMT
For the issue under discussion, your three examples make no difference, because in all three examples the charge starts inside the maximum range of the firing unit (not surprisingly, as the maximum range is 30").Ā So the examples are correct?Ā I've posted a poll with what I believe are the two versions under debate, I'm interested in what version people play. Right or wrong (depending on your point of view) the rules are just a guide so it's how you play as a group.Ā One could argue that it isn't clear, as many people have played it differently. š So it would seem
|
|
|
Post by avatarofbugman on Aug 27, 2017 15:15:43 GMT
Fvonsigmaringen,
At this point I feel that you ignore several bits of the BRB as well. The first being that on p.3 it discusses the "Spirit of the Game" where it specifically discusses adding your own ideas. The second is where, for rolling dice, it says to you can roll all the attacks that have the same stat lime together (p.51), and there is where the ambiguity for PF comes from.
Also, ignoring part of someone's argument and attacking other parts, as you have done to Greg several times, isn't helpful. You make excellent points, and I enjoy what you point out, but your stance is weakened when you do this.
In the end, this is a game, and GW itself early in the rules gives allowance for interpretation of their rules.
|
|