| Skitterleap Vs Skirmishers; Query - skitterleap Vs skirmishers | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: 16th November 2005 - 04:50 AM (904 Views) | |
| Deathmaster Mik | 5th December 2005 - 03:21 PM Post #16 |
|
Claw of the Shadow
![]()
|
I see what you mean, shlominus. The problem isn't actually about reaching a certain zone. The real issue is timing. If the rear and back 'zone' exist in this specific case, is all about timing. I'll look into it and edit this post later. |
![]() Death lurks in my cloak.................. Death dances in my footsteps;................. I am become Death. ................. Amen | |
![]() |
|
| Mutator | 6th December 2005 - 02:05 AM Post #17 |
![]()
Retired fat dude
![]()
|
It is only a question of timing in so far as the skitterleaping assassin cannot be in both locations at the same time. Quite simply, a skirmishing unit will always form up to a charger unless they are already in formed up against another enemy in base contact. Given the skirmisher cant be in base contact with the same model in both locations, he can only be in base contact in one location: the enemy model (skitterleaper) cannot be in both locations at the same time. Pick one location. Form up to that location. Until a third party joins the combat then the skirmishers have no option but to form up with the one model they are in combat with. This determines their front. It is not perfect, but it is how the rules for skirmishers work. Feel free to change that to reflect your and your opponent's preferences. I would
|
| Mostly harmless | |
![]() |
|
| Deathmaster Mik | 6th December 2005 - 07:17 AM Post #18 |
|
Claw of the Shadow
![]()
|
Totally agree with Mutator here. All I had to check was if the Skitterleap spell mentioned anything about "instananious" transport. It doesn't, therefore the skirmishers are out of combat for 'a' time. The rules about skirmishers are very clear on this: "Skirmishers will remain in this formation as long as the combat continues, and adopt the loose formation as soon as combat ends." Combat ends, because the character isn't transported instantly (else it should have been mentioned). The skirmishers adopt their loose formation right away per the rules. The character reapears and the skirmishers line up again. That's all there is to it. |
![]() Death lurks in my cloak.................. Death dances in my footsteps;................. I am become Death. ................. Amen | |
![]() |
|
| shlominus | 6th December 2005 - 07:55 AM Post #19 |
|
Stormvermin
|
funnily enough,
is exactly the phrase i use to argue they DON`T reform. when the assassin changes position, the combat does not end, it continues with a character in a different position. in my view, combat does not end when you transfer a character from one point of the melee to another. imagine another situation. a unit is fighting skirmishers, with only 1 model in contact (it charged them in the flank in an earlier turn, but the unit that was in the front is now destroyed). in their movement phase, a character in that unit switches place with the single touching member, so he ist the one model able to fight. following your explanation, this would end the combat (because for a short time the units are not in contact), meaning the skirmishers would have to reform. i seriously doubt anyone would do that. |
![]() |
|
| Deathmaster Mik | 6th December 2005 - 09:23 AM Post #20 |
|
Claw of the Shadow
![]()
|
The flaw in your argument is that you are asuming the skitterleap is something that happens instantly. In my post, you can see you have no ground to asume it is. Therefor, you have no ground to conclude combat doesn't end. You are comparing game-play to rules? Do you also expect the room to really smell of brimstone after you've succesfully cast skitterleap? Ofcourse not. So why compare my hand moving models in a very odd situation to the effect of a magic spell...? Rules-wise, the units you desribe stay in combat. It's that simple..no matter how wierd a situation you envission. I think you're trying to hard to make it the way you think it should be. Warhammer is full of simplificaions to make game-play easier. You except those without even thinking about them. Why is that so hard in this case? |
![]() Death lurks in my cloak.................. Death dances in my footsteps;................. I am become Death. ................. Amen | |
![]() |
|
| Mutator | 6th December 2005 - 09:41 AM Post #21 |
![]()
Retired fat dude
![]()
|
The skitterleaped assassin counts as charging the unit. Skirmishers must form up to the charging model(s) (BRB p 116). Thus it doesnt matter if you regard it as a continuation of the same combat or not: the skirmishers are compelled to form up to the skitterleaped assassin's new position. |
| Mostly harmless | |
![]() |
|
| Skaskrit Venomclaw | 6th December 2005 - 11:19 AM Post #22 |
|
Ex-Councilrat
![]()
|
Let me put this another way: A unit engaged to the front has to take a panic test when charged in the flank or rear. So, Shlominus, you would argue that if an assassin had unit strength five, and skitterleapt from the front to the rear of an enemy unit, the enemy would have to take a panic test because they're charged in the rear whilst engaged to the front? Even though the one charging the rear is the same one that's fighting on the front? This is exactly what you're arguing with your skitterleap line of reasoning, and makes no sense whatsoever. The assassin can't be at the front and rear simultaneously, and therefore the skirmishers get to reform. But I would indeed make a houserule saying that due to surprise the skirmishers would suffer a rear charge penalty for this turn only because of the sudden magical assault to the rear. |
|
"I have a post-Armageddon vision. We and all other large animals are gone. Rodents emerge as the ultimate post-human scavengers. They gnaw their way through New York, London and Tokyo... within 5 million years, a whole range of new species replace the ones we know. Herds of giant grazing rats are stalked by sabre-toothed predatory rats. Given enough time, will a species of intelligent, cultivated rats emerge?" Richard Dawkins, The Ancestor's Tale | |
![]() |
|
| shlominus | 6th December 2005 - 12:15 PM Post #23 |
|
Stormvermin
|
i never said i want the rule to work a certain way. actually i said the opposite. therefore it is impossible to "try too hard to see it my way" cause there is no "my way". i am simply arguing that you can see things differrently. and none of the arguments brought forward have convinced me 100%. if you look at the "skitter vs. wlc" thread you will see that i am quite easely convinced, with the right arguments. there i believe that the "wlc is destroyed" explanation is right, even if i am not completely sure about it. here the arguments have been: "itīs clear, itīs all in the rules. the model is moved, they are not touching all the time", which is not very convincing. i understand how the rules work in this case, if you take them literally. i just belive that maybe an exception would be better, as this is a very special case. saskrit, your example is completely beside the point and has a major flaw. the situation is not possible, as the assassin canīt cause a panic test. if my line of reasoning was right AND there is a model able to cause panic skitterleaping, you would be right and it would cause a test. and why not? btw, adding a houserule is probably the worst way to solve this.
no, i am comparing gameplay to gameplay. you are making gameplay into a rule (moving a model ends the combat). movement from one part of a melee to another part of the same melee causes the 2 units to become seperated. itīs the same problem both times. you just chose to decide that one time there is a rule thatīs needs to be followed and the other time that rule isnīt important. itīs not the hand vs. a magical effect, itīs units not touching anymore both times. the reason is not important for the rule. skirmishing units usually only ever stop touching opponents when the combat is really over. but this is a special case, which needs special consideration. even the "normal" skitterleap has had numerous faqīs about it, i am pretty sure the "eshin" skitterleap will get the same. until then itīs all just speculation. instead of the assassin disappearing and reappearing imagine him simply jumping over the unit (an easy feat for an assassin). would the unit be confused? would they reform? what part of the unit would he be fighting? how long would it take? do i need to move the model? again common sense would tell us that he would be fighting the models to the rear, but the "rules" say different, cause for a second the models were not touching. hand-to-hand combat in warhammer is only a lose representation of whatīs really happening, but you seen to find it impossible to imagine that the combat is not over when the assassin suddenly disappears, then as suddenly reappears a few feet away and continues to hack away at the unit. continues even though maybe there hasnīt even been a round of combat yet. a shocking thought! you hang on the word "instantaneous", what tells you that the spell isnīt? the fact that itīs not written in the rules? maybe the didnīt think about this issue, probably the only one where this little word would count? what if they intended the spell to be instantaneous? even if it was not instantaneous, why is it so hard to believe that it simply happens too fast for the unit to reform? what if chronicles 4 tells us "skitterleaping into ranked up skirnmishers doesnīt cause them to reform, cause they are too confused" ? will the universe collapse? not mine. we can only hope that this issue is important enough to make it into an faq. |
![]() |
|
| Deathmaster Mik | 6th December 2005 - 01:37 PM Post #24 |
|
Claw of the Shadow
![]()
|
Ex-act-ly If frenzied troops would recieve +1 movement when charging, GW would have said so. It could make sense -being so bloodlusted and all-, but since GW didn't say so, the movement stays the same. That's how rules work. You don't tinker with them.. you apply them just the way they are. They don't have to make perfect sense all the time..in fact,..the can't..since it's a simplification of reality more oft then not, for easy and fast game-play. Idle speculation. I'd say that in this case, the rules suffice. It's not 'moving from one part of a melee to another part of the same melee' in the skitterleap variant. It's: 1 Disapearing in a cloud of smelly smoke from combat with a unit. For an unknown amount of time, mind you. 2 Skirmish unit adopts loose formation 3 Reappearing with a loud BAMF in base contact with a unit. Hey.. the same unit! 4 Skirmishing unit lines up. Oh.. and about you saying: You are twisting reality here. I am saying: REmoving all enemy models (in this case 'one') from base to base contact (whatever the reason, be it death, psychology, shooting or magic) with a unit ends the units combat. It isn't that hard to believe. Still, it's speculation right now, so why would I believe it? Along the same reasoning, you could say that frenzied troops have +1 movement while charging. It's not that hard to believe..and not in the rules either. I think brightly coloured troops should be +1 to hit for shooting purposes too. It makes sense, since they are easier to spot! Why not add that as well..? IF that ever happens, THEN I'll play it that way. I doubt it will ever happen though. The rules are very clear on this actually. You just can't stop speculating. ![]() It's not an issue. |
![]() Death lurks in my cloak.................. Death dances in my footsteps;................. I am become Death. ................. Amen | |
![]() |
|
| shlominus | 6th December 2005 - 03:37 PM Post #25 |
|
Stormvermin
|
i wonīt even go into your arguments, i will just point out the fact that earlier in this thread ...
very clear indeed. :rolleyes: [size0]You've forgotten your own responce to that already? I recall I agreed with you about your responce. I'm not too big to agree with someone else when I was wrong. Why not respond with facts and rules to my latest post..instead of reposting stuff that you proved had nothing to do with the problem at hand..? You aren't looking for an answer. You're looking for a "you're right, shlominus". Tough luck. :ph43r: |
![]() |
|
| Mutator | 6th December 2005 - 11:13 PM Post #26 |
![]()
Retired fat dude
![]()
|
To your credit, you are merely querying a rule which you think doesnt fully resolve the situation satisfactorily. That is to the benefit of us all. However, the rules as they stand is what we have to work with, and as it currently stands, the assassin skitterleaping into the unit is counted as a fresh charge into that unit, with that skirmishing unit's response as dictated by the form-up rules for skirmishers in the BRB. There is no grey area involved: the assassin is charging an otherwise unoccupied unit, and said unit follows the appropriate rules. The fact that the assassin started out in combat with that same unit is neither here nor there, because he cant be in both places at the same time: either he is charging the new location, or he is in the old location - neither of those conditions coexist. So if he is charging the unit, the unit must count as unengaged, because nothing else is in base contact. I'd like any apparent confusion in the above statement, if any, to be explained, because I'm afraid I cant see any. Personally I think the situation is so clear that no FAQ is required... |
| Mostly harmless | |
![]() |
|
| shlominus | 7th December 2005 - 02:08 PM Post #27 |
|
Stormvermin
|
i understand the rules as they are written and your arguments are 100% correct. but there have been exceptions all the time in the warhammer rules, when something new (new races, special rules, unusual situations) came up that hasnīt been thought of before. this may be one such situation. thatīs all iīm trying to say. i still believe that reforming the skirmishers doesnīt represent what would really happen and i feel that making an exception to a rule is better than playing strictly according to the rules, if that exception reflects reality (even a fantasy one) better. @mik: all i wanted to express with my post was that things are not as clear as they seem. during the discussion you claimed that two contradictory opinions were both "clear". i thought that was obvious. my bad. |
![]() |
|
| shlominus | 7th December 2005 - 02:29 PM Post #28 |
|
Stormvermin
|
semi-official answer form gw-germany (**** gw-uk and -us): the skirmishers are reformed. i think they didnīt really understand the question (for example, they claimed that skirmishers never have a flank/rear, which is obviously not the case), but there it is. they also claimed it would only be a waste of energy dice, which is also debatable, considering the examples mutator gave in the beginning of this thread. ah well, rule trolls donīt have to be tactical geniuses, right? i blame it all on gw-germany! :lol: |
![]() |
|
| Blood Vixen | 7th December 2005 - 03:14 PM Post #29 |
![]()
All hail the Age of Skaven
|
the way i see it if the assasin leaves the combat then they get to reform if he doesnt leave the combat they dont. but it doesnt count as charging either because hed have to leave the combat to charge so if you want to keep it simple if you want the charge they reform if you dont want the charge they dontall depends if you count it as leaving combat or not its the same deal with ethlarions jump ability he can go anywhere in the combat rear or flanks but he never effectively leaves the combat |
| Shhhh I'm not here | |
![]() |
|
| scrivener | 7th December 2005 - 03:28 PM Post #30 |
![]()
*toot*
![]()
|
The problem with attempting to reflect reality is that none of us has ever seen the Skitterleap spell in action in reality, so our visualizations of it will differ. Unless someone with a stopwatch is there to time how quick the assassin may reappear at the back or flank, issues of realism is up for grabs. There was also a reply somewhere i read earlier regarding attempting realism: do brightly painted units give a +1 to hit when shot at, since they're easier to spot?
|
| |
![]() |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Skaven Discussion · Next Topic » |












