Jump to content

Logicjoes homebrew version of 2nd printing Errata


Recommended Posts

Is this situation coming up frequently in your games?

 

No, it doesn't - but how exactly is that relevant?

If the situation could come up, no matter how infrequent, it should be covered by the rules. *Especially* if the "needs no LOS" part is explicitly mentioned in the Errata/clarification.

 

Also, we don't know yet what's in store for us in the faction books. For all we know, Defensive Shot and Scrye Shot / Blazer could become a whole lot more common.

 

So even if they don't have line of sight once they see a projectile fly they know where the shooter is and returns fire.

 

I can kinda see that with Sure Shot. I'm not convinced that this would be applicable with Scrye Shot, or with Indirect Volleys.

 

Take, for example, the Dwarf Warlord. His Scrye Shot actually represents the Hunting Falcon sitting on his oiutstreched arm - thus, it makes sense that he doesn't actally need LOS to "shoot" the falcon, the falcon homes in on it's target all by his own. With other Scrye Shot models, I'd attribute this to, e.g., magical arrows or something.

 

My point is - why should a model that usually cannot Scrye Shoot suddently gain the ability to shoot around corners for Defensive Shots?

 

As with Indirect Volleys - the point of the volley is that it's a whole lotta arrows covering quite an area. Sure backtracing those shots wouldn't be all that hard, but to shoot a *single* arrow in the same general direction, and actually having the chance of hittting? Hmmmm, I don't think it'd work that way...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 43
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

No, it doesn't - but  how exactly is that relevant?

If the situation could come up, no matter how infrequent, it should be covered by the rules.

Whooboy! I don't wanna see the rulebook that covers every possible situation that could ever possibly come up! It would be hundreds of thousands of pages.

Warlord is designed to be a fast playing skirmish game. It doesn't need to cover ever little possibility ever. When extremely rare situations come up, you and your opponent can just decide what sounds best to both of you, and make that ruling.

 

<not saying this is you in particular, this is a general statment>

For anyone whose enjoyment of the game is destroyed by arguing with your opponent over these rare situations, then I think maybe you're taking the game too seriously.

</not saying this is you in particular, this is a general statment>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I whole heartedly agree, Gus!! Last week I played a game with my Dwarves against an Elf army fielding a Treeman. Did I get my butt whooped? Oh yeah!! It wasn't even a contest. I had like 20 models and managed to kill 3 Elves (out of 12) and put 4 wounds on the Treeman. Woo hoo!! I'm the man. :lol:

 

Was I upset? Sure. A little. Did we have some rules issues crop up? Sure. A couple. Were we laughing and whooping it up the whole time? Damn straight. :lol::lol:

 

Wild Bill :blues:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whooboy!  I don't wanna see the rulebook that covers every possible situation that could ever possibly come up!  It would be hundreds of thousands of pages.

 

I did express myself poorly, my apologies.

Obviously, I'm not asking for a rulebook that includes a rule for anything that could ever happen, anywhere, anytime.

But, if a specific rule in the rulebooks brings up a specific situation, I would very much like that situation to be covered comprehensively and consistently.

 

It's not that hard. I own a number of rulesets that manage that.

 

So, could anybody please adress my questions?

Does the Defensive Shot Errata/clarification mean that I can use Defensive Shot on archers who were doing an indirect volley on me, even though I do not have LOS to those archers?

 

And does this ruling allow me to use Defensive Shot against a Scrye Shot?

 

And is the 180° front arc limitation for Defensive Shot still in place?

 

Oh, and as for arguing over rules - sure, one can make rules up on the fly all day long - the classic "role a die" method should be the ultimate tiebreaker in any but the most argumentative gaming group. Still, what's wrong with coming to this forum and asking for clarification?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I forgot to mention that in tha offical errata they stat that Defensive shot does not require LoS.

 

I'm sorry, but where exactly does it state that? I see that is says that a shot fromsomeone wiht Sure Shot allows a return strike, even if the Defensive Shot would not normally have LOS, but that is only for that specific situation. As Matt said, that's why the text was added to the Sure Shot ability descritpion rather than to the actual Defensive Shot description.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Still, what's wrong with coming to this forum and asking for clarification?

Nothing at all! ::D:

I do believe the whole point of this forum is for just that.

 

However, I think this thread should have stopped with Matt's post:

I said we'd take a look at it and we will. But not today due to other things that are needing to be done. ::):

 

Until he gets the chance to look into it and respond, we should put this issue on the back burner. My only 'complaint' is that you and LogicJoe can't seem to let it rest for awhile and give Matt a chance to return with more info. It is great that you guys are raising these issues, as I beleive everyone wants to know the answers. However, after Matt's statement above, there is no point in pushing the issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I forgot to mention that in tha offical errata they stat that Defensive shot does not require LoS.

 

I'm sorry, but where exactly does it state that? I see that is says that a shot fromsomeone wiht Sure Shot allows a return strike, even if the Defensive Shot would not normally have LOS, but that is only for that specific situation. As Matt said, that's why the text was added to the Sure Shot ability descritpion rather than to the actual Defensive Shot description.

In the errata page - http://warlordhq.reapergames.com/?nav=Help⊂=Errata

Choose 'Warlord First Printing Errata & Clarifications', and look under Ranged Combat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, I think this thread should have stopped with Matt's post:
I said we'd take a look at it and we will. But not today due to other things that are needing to be done. ::):

 

Huh? :blink:

 

You know what? I completely missed that post... :wacko: So yeah, let's wait for clarification by Matt.

 

By the way - what does usually take precedence? The .pdf Errata, or the Errata & Clarifications on the Warlords HQ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the way - what does usually take precedence? The .pdf Errata, or the Errata & Clarifications on the Warlords HQ?

Good question. My first thought was that anything in the Errata & Clarifications on the Warlords HQ is the most 'official'.

(Did you check it out recently? They split it up between 1st printing Errata and 2nd printing errata (coming soon), so hopefully that will shed more light on things. ^_^ )

After further thought, the pdf is newer, and should reflect the most current thoughts on the subject. I think anything in the .pdf that contradicts 1st print errata may have been unintentional.

Guess we'll wait and see what Matt comes back with. ^_^

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Being that I know Logicjoe and see him at least once a week...he is not doing this to piss in any one's weaties.This rule book is getting to be a bloody joke.

Folks in my area(including the kindly folks over at Nords) have jokingly named the core book "the $25 play test book".

I think they are right from the amount of "is it right this week?" comming out in such a short time.It is getting to be a damned joke and I that is why people like Logicjoe are making "home rules" to try and have a little stability in the game system rather than the flighty rain of rulings that has seemingly been flowing as of late.

 

Thumbs up Joe!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think they are right from the amount of "is it right this week?" comming out in such a short time.It is getting to be a damned joke and I that is why people like Logicjoe are making "home rules" to try and have a little stability in the game system rather than the flighty rain of rulings that has seemingly been flowing as of late.

 

Thumbs up Joe!!!

My response to this is only that the errata has been coming out slowly, over time, as requested by members of this message board who asked for rulings and clarifications.

 

It seems like a lot in one lump because the new printing and the errata pdfs have several month's worth of errata.

 

We have not errata-ed any situations that were already considered clear for every situation, or any rules that were not found to be functioning in ways other than as intended by the designers.

 

Logic Joe is more than welcome to have home rules, we have had home rules on this board since Warlord's inception - Moonscar Court, anyone?

 

Moving on, this thread is beginning to get off topic a bit, so lets please try and focus back on the home rules LJoe has suggested, and/or any questions arising from them.

 

also, the phrase "piss in one's Wheaties" is inappropriate for this board. We have a large clientele under 15 and would prefer not to get e-mails form angry parents about the content.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...