WitchKing - Shadow of Terror

jscottbowman · **Posted:** Thu Jun 09, 2011 11:30 pm

"a formation that has the Witch King SOMEWHERE behind it"?
OK I think most people play this to mean in the units rear arc, but what of the formation that the Witch King is actually in, don't they get the bonus of this effect or not?

Scott

ForgottenLore · **Joined:** Sun Mar 27, 2011 10:47 pm **Posts:** 491

No one knows.

Everyone assumed it meant rear arc until the FAQ, which only says that it isn't the rear arc but use common sense.

As for his formation itself, the rules sound to me like they don't apply, but I could be persuaded otherwise. It is a pretty useful ability though.

Basically no one has any idea what to do with that rule.

jscottbowman · **Posted:** Fri Jun 10, 2011 1:21 am

Damn!
It would pretty useful if it affected the unit he was in aswell, and you'd think it would make sense - he must be able 'motivate' the troops he's directly commanding don't you think?

Btw, if its NOT the units rear arc but instead 'SOMEWHERE' behind them, then you could simply draw a line parrallel to and directly across the back of a unit, and if he's behind that line then they are affected. This would make its effect quite widespread, and probably for a horde of orcs, probably what was intended; push the whole horde (several units) ahead of him, forward...

It doubt it would be limited to being DIRECTLY behind a single given unit, that just seems too restrictive. Thats my take on it anyway, but there again I like to play Mordor...

Scott

ForgottenLore · **Joined:** Sun Mar 27, 2011 10:47 pm **Posts:** 491

I have seen people suggest it means 180 degrees behind the formation and others the narrow column defined by extending the line of the flanks back. The rule is also quiet on whether it is the Witch King's formation, company or model that has to be in whatever area is chosen and what to do in border cases.

Quite frankly, I would recommend continuing to use the rear arc, and to limit it to the Witch King Model himself needs to be in that area. It really is a fairly powerful ability and I think allowing it across the entire 180 degrees makes it too all encompassing. I would also allow it on his own formation because, c'mon, it's pretty stupid for it not to.

Trying to apply common sense is always a risky idea with game rules, but when the rule itself makes no sense, common or otherwise, we kinda have to rely common sense. So I say stick with rear arc and be damned what the FAQ says. Just be aware of it in case someone wants to argue the point someday.

Xelee · **Posted:** Fri Jun 10, 2011 4:33 am

Firstly, Scott I know that I say that the WOTR's rules are clear and we never have arguments where we play. However, in this case it is only because no one but me has used this model and I always lead from the front with him. This is the exception that proves the rule. The FAQ arguably made it more confusing.

FWIW, I think that given the Witch King's cost it should be 'behind in a somewhat mathmatical sense' (ie the direction of travel takes you away from him). "Somewhere behind" seems to me to be intentionally loose. This, coupled with the non-specific way the movement rules are couched, suggests to me that it is where the unit ends up that is key. I wouldn't be inclined to allow units to ever loop back (ie move up to 12" away then end the move only 10" away), though. Still, your versions are as true to the rules as mine.

I also don't really think it is intended to be for his formation. He cannot be behind a formation that he is in. He can be at the back of it, he can be at the rear, but he cannot be behind it.

Stormcrow · **Joined:** Fri Apr 01, 2011 8:02 am **Posts:** 218

Hi,
I asked the same question a while back and it does seem reasonable that the ability would include his formation. Also I had a conversation with a guy in our local GW about the use of the witch king on a fell beast and his shared the view that it would automaticaly pass its at the double rolls.

jscottbowman · **Posted:** Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:10 am

Stormcrow wrote:

Hi,
I asked the same question a while back and it does seem reasonable that the ability would include his formation. Also I had a conversation with a guy in our local GW about the use of the witch king on a fell beast and his shared the view that it would automaticaly pass its at the double rolls.

It makes 'sense', but that doesn't always mean that's what rule writer intended. Its a shame we cant get an official clarification on this one as The WK is a pretty major character...

Xelee · **Posted:** Fri Jun 10, 2011 11:46 am

It is a shame we can't get a better clarification, that's for sure.

Still, the Witch-King is 200 pts of R2 Hero. I thinlk he is crying out to get the 'No Man may kill me' (yes we do play it that female heroes negate this) fate from battlehosts.

gaarew · **Posted:** Fri Jun 10, 2011 1:34 pm

If it was taken literally, it would mean any model/formation that is in front or ahead or further forward than the Witch-king miniature.

Otherwise, Trolls get no benefit as they have no rear arc.

I'd draw a line across the rear of the model/unit in question and if the WK was behind that line, I'd count it as applying. Note that this means the WK's own formation would not get the bonus.

Beowulf03809 · **Posted:** Fri Jun 10, 2011 1:57 pm

gaarew wrote:

If it was taken literally, it would mean any model/formation that is in front or ahead or further forward than the Witch-king miniature.

Otherwise, Trolls get no benefit as they have no rear arc.

I'd draw a line across the rear of the model/unit in question and if the WK was behind that line, I'd count it as applying. Note that this means the WK's own formation would not get the bonus.

I agree with the "draw a line" option. Yes it does give a pretty big advantage to movement for forces he's "leading" (from behind :rofl:

) but come on...look at the absolute terror and power this figure represents in JRRT's world. His WotR profile does NOT instill that same respect and fear.

One thing I think his rule is a bit stupid on, if I remember correctly is that it says if he's behind an enemy he limits their ability to ATD. That doesn't make any sense. "The WK is behind us!!! Slow down everyone!" :roll:

I think it should read "if the WK is in FRONT of an enemy model then...". In this respect, same thing. Make a line across the front of the model's base. If the WK is in front of that line (the model is moving toward the WK) then they are impacted. After all, the whole concept should be that no one wants to get any closer to him than needed, and not too fast at that.

Yes, people will say that broad "common sense" interpretation of his rule makes him very powerful...but he's SUPPOSED to be. He's Sauron's #1. It doesn't get any more powerful than that. And considering the Nazgul spam we get with Khamul, Betrayer, etc. I'd rather see more WK use pushing hordes of models forward to battle out of fear of his well-themed wrath than the 120point cheeze sitting in a formation bouncing back 50% of hits or allowing dozens of rerolls.

smaul · **Posted:** Fri Jun 10, 2011 2:51 pm

I would think somewhere behind it just means "somewhere" which just means it has to be behind him (180 degree line for me). The whole point is that his army is moving forward out of fear of what he will do if they lag.

Just my thoughts on it. I play Mordor from time to time so I would just clarify with my opponent before hand.

that being said I don't think he is worth the points so I never take the WK anyway. I don't even own the model yet.

Xelee · **Posted:** Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:30 pm

Obviously, I agree with you guys - he is hardly going to be over-powered compared to much cheaper alternatives. However, I don't think we necessarily need the construct of a line at the start of movment. Units can 180 for free and/or turn pretty freely in this game. So if they end up alwasys moving away, I think that is enough to say he is behind.

Re: Monsters and rear-arcs, back before the FAQ I actually did see people argue that this meant that they could always benifit from the rule.

ForgottenLore · **Joined:** Sun Mar 27, 2011 10:47 pm **Posts:** 491

I think you people are radically underestimating the usefulness of this rule. However you define 'behind' it has to apply to both parts of the rule. With the 180 interpretation it makes it pretty easy for the fell beast version to prevent almost the entire enemy army from AtD-ling.

You also get the absurdity of the WK being 5' to a formation's right, but 2" back still triggering it. Despite what the FAQ says, I still maintain that 'rear arc' (or the equivalent for monsters) is the only definition of 'behind' provided by the rules or that makes any sense at all.

gaarew · **Posted:** Sat Jun 11, 2011 7:44 am

Xelee wrote:

Re: Monsters and rear-arcs, back before the FAQ I actually did see people argue that this meant that they could always benifit from the rule.

Before the FAQ, the only argument could be that they NEVER benefit, as the have no flanks/rear.

:-D

Xelee · **Posted:** Sat Jun 11, 2011 9:16 am

That's not how they saw it.

Forgottenlore, at the end of the day the ability makes automatic something that formations with Wraiths/Gothmog in them are probable to pass anyway. It is a nice idea, but not really that useful given what you actually see in a Mordor list and considering that you got what you pretty much already had in place of something else.

ForgottenLore · **Joined:** Sun Mar 27, 2011 10:47 pm **Posts:** 491

At the end of the day it makes automatic something that you are probably going to pass anyway, AND automatically fails what your opponent was probably counting on. I have seen the WK used far more to deny mobility to the enemy rather than enhancing his own. In a game where maneuver and speed are so important, cutting your enemy's movement in half is a big deal.

Xelee · **Posted:** Sat Jun 11, 2011 9:58 pm

To do that, he has to be behind (or the units moving away, in my version). That is generally a risky place to be for a 200pt R2 hero. Even in that risky position, he does not guarantee it. Gondor and Elves can both reliably muster courage 6 - so they are down to passing on average.

Now I'm not saying the ability is useless. I'd be trying to make good use of it if I had it. However, it isn't exactly a Wraith ability that people are running out to include in all their armies!

jscottbowman · **Posted:** Sun Jun 12, 2011 7:31 am

Beowulf03809 wrote:

One thing I think his rule is a bit stupid on, if I remember correctly is that it says if he's behind an enemy he limits their ability to ATD. That doesn't make any sense. "The WK is behind us!!! Slow down everyone!" :roll:

I think it should read "if the WK is in FRONT of an enemy model then...". In this respect, same thing. Make a line across the front of the model's base. If the WK is in front of that line (the model is moving toward the WK) then they are impacted. After all, the whole concept should be that no one wants to get any closer to him than needed, and not too fast at that.

I couldn't agree more with this. I always wondered why the Witch-King had to be behind enemy troops to make them go 'slower', you'd think they'd go faster when trying to 'get away' from him. Logic would suggest if he was in front them then they would be reluctant to ATD towards him, don't you think?

Xelee · **Posted:** Sun Jun 12, 2011 7:47 am

Yes that would be more logical.

Erurainon the Trombonist · **Posted:** Sun Jun 12, 2011 3:15 pm

jscottbowman wrote:

Beowulf03809 wrote:

One thing I think his rule is a bit stupid on, if I remember correctly is that it says if he's behind an enemy he limits their ability to ATD. That doesn't make any sense. "The WK is behind us!!! Slow down everyone!" :roll:

I think it should read "if the WK is in FRONT of an enemy model then...". In this respect, same thing. Make a line across the front of the model's base. If the WK is in front of that line (the model is moving toward the WK) then they are impacted. After all, the whole concept should be that no one wants to get any closer to him than needed, and not too fast at that.

I couldn't agree more with this. I always wondered why the Witch-King had to be behind enemy troops to make them go 'slower', you'd think they'd go faster when trying to 'get away' from him. Logic would suggest if he was in front them then they would be reluctant to ATD towards him, don't you think?

I agree also, but I think GW were going along the lines of as in the Pellenor Fields where his presence caused men to literally freeze and hide in sheer terror.

WitchKing - Shadow of Terror

Who is online