Another Rule I had Wrong

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

Go down

Another Rule I had Wrong

Post  Nathan.A. on Sat Jul 29, 2017 8:26 pm

So I just realized that in the Plates of Tuktek it states that the bearers model gains the impact hits d3 rule. I was reading it wrongly as the bearer gains impact hits d3.

This means that the only way my Orc can use his strength to inflict the attacks is if he is NOT riding a mount, wow. So I played this wrong in both my game last night and today, god....

P.S. This on a boar, like I was using it, is complete garbage. S3 impact hits FTL!
avatar
Nathan.A.

Posts : 720
Join date : 2009-10-13

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Another Rule I had Wrong

Post  Carson on Sat Jul 29, 2017 8:36 pm

I have to check that out as everybody I have seen, including 9th age battle reports, uses it the way you have been.

_________________
What is best in life?
Crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of thier women.
avatar
Carson
Admin

Posts : 3558
Join date : 2008-04-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Another Rule I had Wrong

Post  Mhael on Mon Sep 18, 2017 1:51 pm

Interesting discussion on the Alberta page about when banner abilities apply. Close combat vs ranged. I think its something we should all look into even if not using one bc we will face guys that are. Specifically rending banner vs flaming banner...there may be ithers
avatar
Mhael

Posts : 1811
Join date : 2008-08-15

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Another Rule I had Wrong

Post  squalie on Mon Sep 18, 2017 2:09 pm

Mhael wrote:Interesting discussion on the Alberta page about when banner abilities apply. Close combat vs ranged. I think its something we should all look into even if not using one bc we will face guys that are. Specifically rending banner vs flaming banner...there may be ithers

What is it with you Saskatoon dudes never providing links? Sad.
avatar
squalie

Posts : 4396
Join date : 2008-06-05
Location : Moose Jaw

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Another Rule I had Wrong

Post  nathanr on Mon Sep 18, 2017 2:25 pm

Do you mean they are using the rending banner to give AP to their ranged attacks? It doesn't work that way. If a model has AP then their close combat attacks have AP. If their ranged weapon has AP then their ranged attacks get AP.

The flaming banner specifically states that it affects both close combat and ranged attacks.
avatar
nathanr

Posts : 5454
Join date : 2008-06-10
Age : 37
Location : Saskatoon

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Another Rule I had Wrong

Post  Mhael on Mon Sep 18, 2017 3:20 pm

Yep Nathan thats the gist of it. Mino is trying to explain that and found somewhere on the ninth age forum to support it but the guy using it claims a few interpretations of rules let him do it. It would be good to point to exact rule pages.

Don its in the comment section after Doug Lambs battle report on Alberta Ninth Age facebook page. No links...get a sausage.
avatar
Mhael

Posts : 1811
Join date : 2008-08-15

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Another Rule I had Wrong

Post  nathanr on Mon Sep 18, 2017 4:08 pm

The answer is in the wording for the armour piercing special rule. †It says: "Attacks made with this special rule and Close Combat Attacks made by parts of models with this special rule..." †The banner specifically gives armour piercing to the models in the unit, not their attacks.

Not surprised that Doug Lamb is a part of this discussion.

I'm not a part of that group. †Somebody add me!

Edit:

Here is a snippet from Doug Lamb's reasoning:

"Why do you say that? The rending banner just says models gain armor piercing (1). Armor piercing then says, "attacks made with this special rule and close combat attacks made by parts of models with this special rule...".
Then if you go to the section of attacks on p59 it splits attacks into only 2 categories - ranged and close combat (plus special attacks). Any attack that is not defined as close combat is automatically a ranged attack. Therefore... in the first sentence of armor piercing it must be referring to ranged attacks as it's not defined as close combat which is further stressed by it adding in close combat in the second part of the sentence.
In other words, it would be redundant to read as... "RANGED attacks... and close combat attacks..." No different to a guy getting armor piercing on his halberd in close combat then a guy getting it on his bow in shooting."

What a piece of bullshit. He used the same kind of reasoning to decide that he could reform after I charged him in the flank at the last onslaught.
avatar
nathanr

Posts : 5454
Join date : 2008-06-10
Age : 37
Location : Saskatoon

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Another Rule I had Wrong

Post  Carson on Mon Sep 18, 2017 8:28 pm

I love creative rules. No where does it say that I can't flip tables after loosing so it must mean that I should flip tables.

_________________
What is best in life?
Crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of thier women.
avatar
Carson
Admin

Posts : 3558
Join date : 2008-04-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Another Rule I had Wrong

Post  Nathan.A. on Mon Sep 18, 2017 10:01 pm

It is actually probably a good thing this got brought up, because as written is does say "attacks" not "close combat attacks". Furthermore nothing in the ranged weapons section suggests that a rule on a model would not effect their shooting weapon the same way we assume it might effect their close combat weapons.

Do we all know that it was not intended by the devs as the proper way for this item to function? Yes we do, but that doesn't stop this dude from being correct, technically...

UNLESS you interpret the section "Attacks made with this special rule and Close Combat Attacks made by parts of models with this special rule impose
a -X modifier on the enemyís Armour Saves taken against them (in addition to the normal modifier from the Strength of the attack). "
As meaning specifically "attacks made by WEAPONS with this special rule count as blah blah blah". This interpretation implies that the rule affects attacks with weapons that have the rule OR close combat attacks from MODELS that have the special rule. This is almost certainly what the devs MEANT to say when they published the current version of the BRB.

Was I able to build suspense there? Did you all think I had taken this RULEHAMMER nerds side? Cool Got-ya!
avatar
Nathan.A.

Posts : 720
Join date : 2009-10-13

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Another Rule I had Wrong

Post  PeterW on Mon Sep 18, 2017 11:30 pm

This guy seems like a real piece of work. The rule looks pretty cut and dry...

p.113 of the full rulebook and 100 of the slim.
Attack modifiers
Effects modifying attacks (such as Lethal
Strike, Armour Piercing, Hatred) only work
on the model part which has the special rule.
Such effects are applied only to the Close Com-
bat Attacks made by the model part (i.e. they
do not apply to Shooting and Special Attacks)
unless noted otherwise (such as Magical At-
tacks and Poisoned Attacks.)

The "attacks" that aren't close combat attacks are refering to shooting weapons that have the Armor Piercing rule.
avatar
PeterW

Posts : 143
Join date : 2017-07-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Another Rule I had Wrong

Post  nathanr on Mon Sep 18, 2017 11:56 pm

Or close combat weapons which have the rule. †Ie: a model with weapons master that was armed with a spear and a great weapon doesn't get AP with the great weapon just because his spear has it.

Also other Nathan, the weapons with AP do specify that the ATTACKS made with that weapon have AP, not the models themselves which is why the wording is the way it is.
avatar
nathanr

Posts : 5454
Join date : 2008-06-10
Age : 37
Location : Saskatoon

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Another Rule I had Wrong

Post  Nathan.A. on Tue Sep 19, 2017 10:13 am

nathanr wrote:Or close combat weapons which have the rule. †Ie: a model with weapons master that was armed with a spear and a great weapon doesn't get AP with the great weapon just because his spear has it.

Also other Nathan, the weapons with AP do specify that the ATTACKS made with that weapon have AP, not the models themselves which is why the wording is the way it is.

Exactly Smile
avatar
Nathan.A.

Posts : 720
Join date : 2009-10-13

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Another Rule I had Wrong

Post  GeoffKlassen on Tue Sep 19, 2017 9:29 pm

Ah this reminds me of the rules Lawyer Eric who we used to play with. The problem being he is correct if you give it to any unit all weapons get AP(1) so Mino is correct in his wording. If he is playing Empire it will only affect the bowmen not the hand-gunners so much. If a model already has AP(1) it does not get AP(2). But just remember the characters do not gain this ability but mounts will, just not any mount the characters are on.

Sorry guys :-(
avatar
GeoffKlassen

Posts : 251
Join date : 2008-10-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Another Rule I had Wrong

Post  Nathan.A. on Tue Sep 19, 2017 10:32 pm

GeoffKlassen wrote:Ah this reminds me of the rules Lawyer Eric who we used to play with. †The problem being he is correct if you give it to any unit all weapons get AP(1) so Mino is correct in his wording. †If he is playing Empire it will only affect the bowmen not the hand-gunners so much. †If a model already has AP(1) it does not get AP(2). †But just remember the characters do not gain this ability but mounts will, just not any mount the characters are on.

Sorry guys :-(

No.

The banner gives non-character models in the unit ap1. It does not give their weapons ap1. Therefore it only works in close combat, as any close combat attack made by a model part with armour piercing gains the benefit, as stated above.

If he is arguing the banner gives their weapons ap1 I don't know how he got there, it clearly denotes it gives it to models in the unit, no where does it say it gives it to their weapons.
avatar
Nathan.A.

Posts : 720
Join date : 2009-10-13

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Another Rule I had Wrong

Post  Mhael on Sun Oct 15, 2017 10:45 pm

Can anyone confirm the ability to dispel scroll bound spells or specifically to use rune of devouring against other bound spells. Geoff and I played a game in which neither used it. I cant find anywhere where i thought bound spells couldnt be scrolled.
avatar
Mhael

Posts : 1811
Join date : 2008-08-15

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Another Rule I had Wrong

Post  Carson on Mon Oct 16, 2017 12:20 pm

That's a new one on me, I thought they could be dispelled like anything else.

_________________
What is best in life?
Crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of thier women.
avatar
Carson
Admin

Posts : 3558
Join date : 2008-04-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Another Rule I had Wrong

Post  nathanr on Mon Oct 16, 2017 4:18 pm

I'm pretty sure you can scroll a bound spell.
avatar
nathanr

Posts : 5454
Join date : 2008-06-10
Age : 37
Location : Saskatoon

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Another Rule I had Wrong

Post  Nathan.A. on Wed Oct 18, 2017 12:04 pm

One weird discussion I saw on the t9a forums that I thought I would share centered around whether the ring of fire grants the attribute.

The rules person said it does, although there was a pretty air tight argument against it by a person showing that while the ring might trigger the attribute, there was no way the caster would know the attribute spell, if they weren't generating other spells from pyromancy.

Looking at the rules, attribute spells are defined as "Attribute Spells are Spells that are labelled by an ďAĒ. All Wizards that generate at least one Spell from a Path automatically know the Path Attribute."

And further:

"Path Attributes are special spells that cannot be cast independently. Instead, if the caster wishes the caster may cast the Attribute Spell automatically each time it successfully casts a non-Attribute Spell from the same Path. Attributes cannot be dispelled."

So the argument was: having a bound spell does not make you a wizard (which is true) which means you CAN'T know the A spell (b/c even if you do count as having generated a spell, you aren't a wizard). And also if you don't generate any spells from pyromancy, even if you are a wizard, you DON'T or MAY NOT know the A spell, as the ring of fire doesn't specifically state whether you count as having "generated" it or not.

I thought this was an interesting case of the RT allowing something that, within the RAW, should not be allowed. Pretty crazy stuff.
avatar
Nathan.A.

Posts : 720
Join date : 2009-10-13

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Another Rule I had Wrong

Post  squalie on Thu Oct 26, 2017 10:16 am

I've actually been giving this a lot of thought since mine and Nathan's debate. After that exchange and then talking to Matt Lau at Onslaught (pretty much best player in Alta at least), we always complain that we bring beer and pretzel lists to an event that draws blood (I did anyways). I noticed that their enjoyment of the game didn't seem to be any less than mine, and even more in some cases, and these guys brought very hard lists going for the win. I'd like to propose that we follow what Nathan. A. is going for here and abandon some of the casual rules playstyle we've had pretty much forever. I think it's important that we embrace playing a VERY tight game rules wise and then helping others play the same. I watched many players during the event with very loose movement, dice pooling, reforms (as opposed to combat pivots), maximizing units (like Nathan mentioned) and had a feeling that this may actually improve some gaming situations with clarity as it wouldn't leave a bad taste in your opponent - especially if he's a good friend. Heck, I know I've taken liberties during a game with rules and just shrugged as it was just a couple friends playing, but I have no clue if it was actually ok with my opponent - even if I witnessed him doing the same thing. We may actually be unaware of how casual we actually are during a game. A couple game situations playing against Dom had me wondering if we were playing it correctly, and then just carried on as what we were doing seemed logical - and we didn't want to waste time finding the rule. Very Happy I think we should waste that time.

I also read the 9th FAQ, which I didn't even know existed, and noticed some of our debates were actually in the FAQ (miscasting priority, etc) Who knew! Wink This was brought to my attention as I read that 121,000 people have downloaded the rule book but only 1200 had downloaded the FAQ, so there must be a ton of unaware players out there!

I think there's a difference in finding loopholes in rules just to get a win and utilizing the actual (obscure) rules to get an advantage to find that 17-3 to take home the trophy. I also don't think this would in any way lessen the enjoyment of the game as that part is mostly attitude anyways, and you either have a good attitude or you don't. Smile

I hope what I'm trying to say is coming out the right way. What do you think?



avatar
squalie

Posts : 4396
Join date : 2008-06-05
Location : Moose Jaw

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Another Rule I had Wrong

Post  Carson on Thu Oct 26, 2017 10:57 am

I completely agree with game play. I know my movements have been sloppy and there are time when I take liberties with it. Part of good game play is knowing the rules, which Iím pretty bad at. Iíve thought a few times of re reading rules and then get the ď Iíll wait tell 2.0Ē syndrome.

I donít agree on army builds though. I took a tough build to Edmonton, never felt outclassed by anyone. Your undying dynasties list is probably one of the toughest lists you can face with at army.....unless your thinking of 2 ushabti units..... which would not make you any friends.

The Alberta events puzzle me a bit as I wonder how they do the scoring. Iíve run a shit ton of tournaments and have never had the same people or person always winning. I donít care how good a player you are..... everyone has bad dice or a bad day. I really think they need to rethink how they score points in a tournament.

For years, Scott, was the best player around by far....even he didnít win every single event.

To properly score an event you need categories with a checklist for every part of the game. Painting, sports, especially. Having the winner as best general really takes away from the full encompassing aspect of the hobby.

As I mentioned before, which no one wants to talk about, one of the top three armies was unfinished. A bit of a slap in the face to those that really put extra effort into completing their army for the event. There were a lot of very nice armies in Edmonton that could easily have been in the top 3. They might not have been as flashy but when you picked up individual units or figs they were painted to a very high standard.

_________________
What is best in life?
Crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of thier women.
avatar
Carson
Admin

Posts : 3558
Join date : 2008-04-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Another Rule I had Wrong

Post  nathanr on Thu Oct 26, 2017 12:19 pm

I totally agree, my movement is definitely sloppy at the best of times and downright suspect at the worst. I might try to make some movement tools. Perhaps a wheeling tool and a unit spacing tool. Those would help clean my movement up but really I think I just need to be more mindful and even if it is a friendly game that doesn't matter I should respect my opponent by not cheating by way of sloppiness.

Carson I agree that the scoring for a tournament should be transparent and accessible to everyone. Even sportsmanship scores shouldn't be secret. If I get bad sportsmanship scores I want to know about it.
avatar
nathanr

Posts : 5454
Join date : 2008-06-10
Age : 37
Location : Saskatoon

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Another Rule I had Wrong

Post  squalie on Thu Oct 26, 2017 1:47 pm

I donít agree on army builds though. I took a tough build to Edmonton, never felt outclassed by anyone. Your undying dynasties list is probably one of the toughest lists you can face with at army.....unless your thinking of 2 ushabti units..... which would not make you any friends.

†Here's a good point. †I should bring a 2 Ushabti list, as I wouldn't care about Sports - just going for "best general". Smile †the only reason I haven't painted another unit is because I'd never do that in league play against friends.

As I mentioned before, which no one wants to talk about, one of the top three armies was unfinished. A bit of a slap in the face to those that really put extra effort into completing their army for the event. There were a lot of very nice armies in Edmonton that could easily have been in the top 3. They might not have been as flashy but when you picked up individual units or figs they were painted to a very high standard.

†Another thing I wanted to talk about, but wasn't sure how to say it;

†I won "best presentation", which is a very specific way of saying best painted. † I won against 30 guys, but half weren't even really completely painted, so shouldn't qualify. †The remaining, only 10 (?) made an honest effort to try for painted. †Heck, a display board wasn't even a requirement - †So, you could say top army is up against 5-6 other armies? Not sure how that reads, I'm just saying I'd like to see more painted armies at the event.† Hey, I'm keeping the trophy, but if we were at a GT in the States or something I'd be in big trouble.

†And having said that, I was a little suspicious of the painting rankings. †Kieran has a VERY nice Dwarf army, but it's subtle, so you have to hold it to see and appreciate the clean detailed work. †guys from our group have some cool looking armies also. †My army sticks out like a bunch of Cabaret dancers, so it gets attention from 5 feet away. †Some armies at the event should have been included in the running and one of the top 3 (you figure it out) had no right being in top 3. †At all. †4+ other armies should have easily taken it's place. †I get that art is very subjective, but something seemed off about the judging.

†I agree that everything should be posted. †I actually tried very hard for best sportsmen. †like - really tried. †Didn't even get top 3, and maybe not even close to that ( Razz ) - and I thought I had 3 awesome, friendly games so that shows how many good guys were there having fun. †I even tried hard to win my games and keep my fingers crossed for top points, and I'm not even sure where I ended as results haven't been posted.
avatar
squalie

Posts : 4396
Join date : 2008-06-05
Location : Moose Jaw

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Another Rule I had Wrong

Post  Derek on Thu Oct 26, 2017 4:47 pm

This is a very good topic and not one that is much discussed, but I feel it is really important to the growth of the game.

In the past I have always attempted to be very transparent when I was involved with running the leagues and Tourneys. You want to promote the game, cause its fun, but without other players it becomes boring and way more expensive and sad etc...

That being said there is the game-play part of the game and crafting part of the game which some people excel at...this was always Carson's superpower and we all know that Scott has taken it to the next level so much so that he doesn't play anything anymore but he has become an incredible artist in the field of miniatures. I was blown away when Carson told me that there was a top 3 army that was unfinished. Crazy.
I have seen many an unfinished army at a tourney, it happens - there are various reasons, not he end of the world. But to win a tourney or even to be in the top 5 a player should display the best about the hobby and that includes Generalship, Painting & Sportsmanship.

OMG I think I'm rambling...lol

I was always a best general kinda guy....my painting blows and I realized I could not overcome the point differential required due to some of the amazing armies out there. But it is important to put the effort in and complete your army and have fun playing with it - destroy your foes. That is where a Best General Award comes into play - being able to beat all comers in a tourney is an awesome feeling. Also Sportsmanship is a tough one....we have all had those games when we know for certain that everyone had a blast and that you really got along with you opponent. But at tourneys when you beat someone sometimes they tank your score. You can be as helpful as you like, let them fudge their movements a bit, play sequences out of order and even help them with things they missed....but some people will still tank you. Here again transparency of scores and the scoring process is important.

Anyway i am rambling. I was disappointed when I heard about the scoring system and awards system with Onslaught. Things like that don't really promote the game positively. There will always be min/max armies and players that rub you the wrong way...its fun to beat those guys.
I'm a comp army & themed army kinda guy. I cheer hard when a roll goes my way and I will swear when I lose but i will have fun doing it and that is the whole point of the game.
I could talk about this stuff all day...later guys.
avatar
Derek

Posts : 290
Join date : 2010-03-02
Location : Saskatoon

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Another Rule I had Wrong

Post  Kuyp on Thu Oct 26, 2017 7:00 pm

I am all for competitive play, that said I don't believe in having to change our lists at the core to do so. That just starts to feel like the 40k syndrome doesn't it ?
avatar
Kuyp

Posts : 1217
Join date : 2008-11-30
Age : 27
Location : Saskatoon

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Another Rule I had Wrong

Post  Carson on Thu Oct 26, 2017 8:15 pm

What this all comes down to really, is transparency. The goal of Andre and myself is to have the scores posted as we go through the tournament as well as posted right after we reveal the winners. A moveable white board would work well for this I believe.

I looked at all the armies at Edmonton. The only one that I thought was unbeatable was the minotuar death star. It was oviously beaten, but it took a specific army to do so....avoidance and massed shooting.


_________________
What is best in life?
Crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of thier women.
avatar
Carson
Admin

Posts : 3558
Join date : 2008-04-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Another Rule I had Wrong

Post  Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum