All times are UTC


It is currently Fri Nov 01, 2024 7:26 am



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 29 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: [WotR] - Attack of the Flying Monster ! omg !
PostPosted: Sat May 15, 2010 4:40 pm 
Wayfarer
Wayfarer
Offline

Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2009 2:04 am
Posts: 8
In the "Charge phase" section, there is an outbox on page 43 about flying monsters.

Quote:
Flying monsters can ignore other formations and terrain when they charge, just as they can when they move, providing that they don't end on top of another formation or terrain feature.


I'm not sure on this one. Does it mean it can ignore other formation for the movement part of the charge or for the declaration part of the charge or both or whatnot ?

Example : Can a Nazgul on Fellbeast who's completly behind a friendly orc formation declare a charge at an enemy formation located in front of the orcs ?
Top
  Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 15, 2010 6:58 pm 
Craftsman
Craftsman
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 2:44 pm
Posts: 484
Location: London
For the movement, ie. you don't have to run around a formation's corner to charge, you can just jump straight ahead. Visibility rules are still the same, fliers don't get to see over other models.

_________________
Coordinator of the Great British Hobbit League
Top
  Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 15, 2010 7:15 pm 
Loremaster
Loremaster
Offline

Joined: Thu May 06, 2004 6:37 pm
Posts: 1006
Location: Medway, Kent UK
Images: 1
But how can you run around a corner to charge if you can't see the target in the first place? And surely if Mumaks can see over units flyers can?
Top
  Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 15, 2010 7:40 pm 
Craftsman
Craftsman
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 2:44 pm
Posts: 484
Location: London
I was referring to the situation when you see your opponent, but have to get around a corner still. A different example maybe: there's a formation on the left, another on the right, small gap between, not enough for a base to fit through: normal monster can't charge if it can't get through, a flier can. The visibility rules aren't altered, the rulebook doesn't say that they are.

_________________
Coordinator of the Great British Hobbit League
Top
  Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 15, 2010 8:32 pm 
Loremaster
Loremaster
Offline

Joined: Thu May 06, 2004 6:37 pm
Posts: 1006
Location: Medway, Kent UK
Images: 1
I've tried to find the rules concerning visability and charging, where are they, also do the rules really say that mimuks can see over troops but flyers flying above them can't?
Top
  Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 15, 2010 11:36 pm 
Craftsman
Craftsman
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 2:44 pm
Posts: 484
Location: London
No Dave, they don't say that Flyers do not see over other models. But the rules also don't say that they do, while Mumak's rules clearly say that they count as being so big that they see and can be seen over other formations.

As for rules on charging + visibility: p42, number 3, "a spearhead may only attempt to charge a visible enemy within its arc of sight". The Can I See rule is in shooting section on page 37 - it refers to making a line between bases/trays, not the actual height like in LotR... unfortunately :(

Oh and there's a note on p 37 about standing on a hill and how that allows you to see over others, so normally you can't.

_________________
Coordinator of the Great British Hobbit League
Top
  Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun May 16, 2010 6:35 am 
Wayfarer
Wayfarer
Offline

Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2009 2:04 am
Posts: 8
Sooooo...the reason it only refers to Flying Monsters' movement and not to their LOS is that generic LOS is defined in the Shooting section ? Whats the point of that little outbox on Flying Monster then, if it only refer to movement and the rule for their movement is explained elsewhere anyway ?

God I hate that rulebook. Great game, great concept but what a weird rulebook...


The fact is, it doesn't say it affects neither LOS or movement. It just say "charge". Does "charge" only refers to the movement of the formation, or the whole process of picking a target, rolling for maximum charge distance and moving into contact...

Thanks for your input
8)
Top
  Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun May 16, 2010 8:03 am 
Loremaster
Loremaster
Offline

Joined: Thu May 06, 2004 6:37 pm
Posts: 1006
Location: Medway, Kent UK
Images: 1
Well, as the rule for flyers charging is unclear and debatable then I'd say that the Flying box-out rule does allow flyers to 'ignore other formations' and charge due to the rule of logic and common sense.
Top
  Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun May 16, 2010 9:18 am 
Craftsman
Craftsman
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 2:44 pm
Posts: 484
Location: London
But then if you ignore the line of sight only for charging, then that means flyers still cannot be seen over other formations in the move and shoot phase. Now this looks pretty unfair because they can stand behind all the time, without being shot, while at any moment could just jump out and charge - while clearly Trolls, Giants, Ents, should also be able to ignore the line of sight because they see over other formations (I mean a situation when you could reach but can't see base to base).

If you now follow the 'logic and common sense' (with which I would agree normally, but usually not on the account of GW), then you must allow a Giant (my one is actually taller than the Fell Beast) to see from over another formation, while himself being invisible to his opponents (because the rules tell you that if there's no line, you can't see, therefore archers won't see him). As you know, logic and common sense often don't apply to GW games...

Now if you completely go for common sense, then you will ignore completely the rules for line of sight and look from the models' eye point. But that's LotR and not WotR anymore...

About the grey box: it says "Flying monsters can ignore other formations and terrain just as they can when they move" - this to me implies solely ignoring other formations for purposes of movement as described in the movement section of the rules. The line of sight is still from base to base. The rule for charging states "visible enemy", the LoS is described before as being base to base.

And btw, there's nothing wrong with LOS being in Shooting section, there's no need for it in movement (unlike LotR), so it appears the first time it's needed.

_________________
Coordinator of the Great British Hobbit League
Top
  Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun May 16, 2010 9:37 am 
Elven Warrior
Elven Warrior
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2007 8:14 pm
Posts: 544
Reading your intriguing discussion, I remembered something. If I recall correctly then somewhere either on the GW website or a White Dwarf Magazin I read that "a mounted Nazgyl on fell beast is very devastating cause they can charge and ignore other formations".

I´ll take a look where I exactly read it but I do remember doing so....

Note; I´m not a WotR player, so there is no point is starting to discuss it with me.

_________________
I am the Mouth of Sauron, here him speak'
Top
  Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun May 16, 2010 10:19 am 
Loremaster
Loremaster
Offline

Joined: Thu May 06, 2004 6:37 pm
Posts: 1006
Location: Medway, Kent UK
Images: 1
LOS is not unfair to giants or whatever, flying models are flying, they could certainly be seen over other troops but could be flying to high to be charged or shot at so it doesn't matter, seems logical to me. So where the rules are undicisive, then surely common sense should dictate what to do?

O'h yes, Swoop Attack, doesn't mention disregarding LOS, but they do.
Top
  Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun May 16, 2010 10:58 am 
Wayfarer
Wayfarer
Offline

Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2009 2:04 am
Posts: 8
Yay! More input !
My only point is : if you go for "you still need LOS as per shooting rule" then there is no point to that little grey box. Cause with your theory page 34 already took care of the moving rule (just as page 37 took care of the LOS rule). Then the box is just there to mess with your mind cause it doesn't change anything :wink:

If the point is to act as a little remember, then why not word it as such ?

Please note that I'm okay with that too.
Top
  Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun May 16, 2010 2:45 pm 
Craftsman
Craftsman
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 2:44 pm
Posts: 484
Location: London
Cool, let's make the Dragon more broken than it already is... I'm happy with that - I use a Dragon in my army...

The Grey box sorts out the following situation:

......ENEMY....
.....................
]]]]]]]....[[[[[[[
]]]]]]]....[[[[[[[
]]]]]]]....[[[[[[[
......OOOOO..
.....OOOOOOO
......OOOOO...

[[[]]]] = formations
OOO = flying monster

Normal monster can't charge even though it can see. Flyer can charge by jumping over.
Only the Mumak's rules specifically say that he can see and be seen over other formations and counts as an elevated position. There is not a single specific mention in any other profile or rule that you are ever allowed to see over other formations, unless you are on an elevated position, they would have written it clearly if that was the case.

Hithero wrote:
LOS is not unfair to giants or whatever, flying models are flying, they could certainly be seen over other troops but could be flying to high to be charged or shot at so it doesn't matter, seems logical to me

What about this situation:

A..[]..M............................................................E

Flyer (M) is behind a formation [], can't be shot at by a formation 5" away (A), because their LoS is blocked by your own Broodlings []. At the same time, nothing is blocking the LoS of a formation 24" away in the other direction (E)... they can shoot, because suddenly it's not too high or far for them -> still think this game is logical? :)

There should be a lot more rules about height of models in this game, maybe in the future they'll fix it somehow.

Hithero wrote:
O'h yes, Swoop Attack, doesn't mention disregarding LOS, but they do.

That's a completely different special rule...

_________________
Coordinator of the Great British Hobbit League
Top
  Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun May 16, 2010 3:05 pm 
Loremaster
Loremaster
Offline

Joined: Thu May 06, 2004 6:37 pm
Posts: 1006
Location: Medway, Kent UK
Images: 1
The swoop attack example shows that no LOS is mentioned for it and neither does flyers charging, if a swoop can effectively charge anybody and so then can a charging flyer. Its all down to interpretating the rules in the out box, but mine (and all others who have replied) suggest than common sense should allow them too as a tie break.

Regardless of anything else, do you really think that flyers can't fly over and attack something, really? Is that really the intention of the rule?
Top
  Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun May 16, 2010 3:47 pm 
Craftsman
Craftsman
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 2:44 pm
Posts: 484
Location: London
No I don't think that way and I don't like the way WotR rules go about LoS and how a 10 foot troll can't see over a bunch of 1" spiders, but we either follow the rules as they are or use common sense, which I agree should be the way, but you know from experience that often common sense just does not apply to wargaming. And after one person starts applying common sense, others will do that too and knowing that everybody is different and some people will want to take an advantage of it, that approach will only bring more chaos to an already chaotic rules set :/

I never said you can't fly over something to attack something else, I'm just arguing that you have to see that something in the first place and the LoS rules tell you to check from base to base, and nowhere does it say otherwise, this is not SBG, and this is not real life.

_________________
Coordinator of the Great British Hobbit League
Top
  Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon May 17, 2010 6:42 am 
Loremaster
Loremaster
Offline

Joined: Thu May 06, 2004 6:37 pm
Posts: 1006
Location: Medway, Kent UK
Images: 1
But I'm only using the common sense approach because the rule is not clear-cut and is in dispute, but you won't budge from your definition of the rule even though you think it wrong - and thats puzzling.
Top
  Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon May 17, 2010 6:54 pm 
Loremaster
Loremaster
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2006 12:53 pm
Posts: 1827
Location: CO, USA
The Swoop Attack is a special situation. It's not charging anything. It's just moving in a specific direction and attacking any enemy that it passes over. Trying to include Swoop in this discussion just leads to additional confusion and I think it should be left out.

Unlike SBG, I don't believe WotR specifically discussing being able to see your destination before starting your Move, so there isn't a LoS requirement in Move (if I'm wrong, please correct me with a page reference!). Additionally, I agree that the Mumuk is the only model that I've seen specifically states a LoS override because of it's special status as an elevated position itself.

That being said, taking into consideration the freedom of movement and charge that a Flying Monster has otherwise it would seem silly to limit a Winged Nazgul's ability to charge based on a bunch of Orc standing in front of it "blocking" it's LoS.

I believe game balance can be maintained either way though as long as you keep things reciprocal. In other words, if you allow a Flying Monster to see over the top of all other models and obstacles (just as it can move and charge over them) to determine a charge, then you need to allow it to be targeted for shooting and spells without regard to "short" models that may be blocking it. Likewise, if you say that ground-pounders cannot see or target a Flying Monster that is behind other models then that same Flying Monster should not be allowed to charge past those same blocking models. I'm pretty sure if you played games each way you would find that they balance themselves out well. The only time you will have some serious imbalance is if someone wants to be able to hide their Flying Monster from enemy fire but still be able to charge without worrying about LoS blockers.

For what it's worth (not much :-D ) we play where Flying Monsters are indeed "above the action" and LoS is not blocked either way by most things on the ground (we use some common sense regarding lots of trees and such). The only exception being something that "moves and charges as a Flying Monster" is still a ground model and has all the LoS restrictions each direction as such, but can otherwise act like a Flying Monster (if Glorfindel can see some Orcs he can charge them even if his base otherwise wouldn't fit around other models).

_________________
Wait ye the finish! The fight is not yours.
Beowulf

http://TacticsInMiniature.com
Top
  Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue May 18, 2010 10:06 am 
Loremaster
Loremaster
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2010 8:41 pm
Posts: 1279
It's quite clear that the rule states you need line of sight to charge. Unfortunately, unless you are on high ground, you can't see over friendly models.

However, the question I put forward is: why not fly OVER the enemy in the movement phase and then charge them from behind with your 360 degree LoS?

Either play the rules as they are or go with the house rule that Beowulf03809 has suggested: fliers see over everything except fliers and Mumakil (and other elevated positions), but can aslo been seen over them. Essentially, give fliers the same elevated position rules as the Mumak.
Top
  Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue May 18, 2010 2:35 pm 
Wayfarer
Wayfarer
Offline

Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2009 2:04 am
Posts: 8
No, the rule is not quite clear at all because of that grey outbox. Because it doesn't say that it ignores blocking formation for the purpose of movement only. It says charge. Where does it say that "charge = movement" and not "charge = charging sequence".

That was my original question (whats the point of the outbox if you just follow normal rules...?)

P.S. It's not that I WANT it to be that way. But please don't tell me it's "quite clear" cause it's not. Thx
Top
  Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue May 18, 2010 4:34 pm 
Loremaster
Loremaster
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2010 8:41 pm
Posts: 1279
Yaum, before telling me that what i said was wrong, please re-read what I said. I said that the line of sight rules were quite clear. There is no debate about the line of sight rules and that was what I was saying, so that rule IS quite clear, so I shall tell you as such.

I can see what your question is: can you charge OVER another formation? Yes, but only if you could see over it in the first place as you need to be able to see your opponent to declare a charge against them. This covers situations where you are on an elevated position, thusly able to see or, as mentioned earlier, when there is a gap between formations allowing you to see the formation you'd like to charge, but your base is too wide or the final version which is essentially if there's a friendly formation and you can see past them, but moving directly towards the enemy formation you're charging would take you through the friendly formation.

Essentially, the box-out does not exempt models from needing the necessary charge criteria (Line of Sight) other than what it has stated. So, if you can't see, you can't declare a charge (which isn't charging itself), but if you CAN see, you may move "through" (actually over) friendly/enemy formations and terrain (terrain can replace any time a formation was mentioned in my above exampels).

The rules that are clear are the line of sight rules and the criteria necessary for charging. If you meet those, then the box out is easily understood and not so ambiguous, so hopefully that helps answer your question and, even better, in a manner that you find agreeable (since that's the ruling and it;s better that you like it than have to put up with it, lol).
Top
  Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 29 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 84 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to: