Two rule disputes from tonight's battle.

[Azazel]

Hi people.

 

Im here yet again with a couple things my group need a ruling on.

 

LOS issue - ascii etc.

W = size 1 wall

X = Enemy in btb with size 1 wall.

K = Keradaan

.....................

..............X.......

..............WWW

.....................

.....................

.K...................

.....................

 

The ½" LOS-corridor is clear between Keradaan and the enemy model. It doesnt cross any terrain/the wall etc.

 

Q: Does Keradaan have LOS and permission to fire normally at the enemy model, or is the enemy model impossible to target, due to being in B2B with a samesize wall? Does the enemy recieve the -2 cover bonus?

(I was argueing, that since Keradaan is not firing _across_ the wall, nor is standing directly opposite etc, it was legal to take the shot.)

 

 

The Defensive strikes vs. Magic issue:

 

A)If a wizard standing in btb with an enemy model casts an attack spell on said enemy, will the enemy get defensive strikes?

B) If a wizard standing in btb with an enemy model casts an attack spell on an enemy not in btb, will the enemy model basing the wizard get to make defensive strikes on its friends behalf?

(I felt like 90% certain that I read somewhere on these boards that attack magic cast in btb provoked def. strikes, but when the issue arised I couldn't locate it.)

 

 

Thanks alot for all the help we've recieved on these boards. It has certainly made it easier for our selftaught newbie crew to get underways with Warlord.

 

- Azazel

[psyberwolfe1]

LOS issue - ascii etc.

W = size 1 wall

X = Enemy in btb with size 1 wall.

K = Keradaan

.....................

..............X.......

..............WWW

.....................

.....................

.K...................

.....................

 

The ½" LOS-corridor is clear between Keradaan and the enemy model. It doesnt cross any terrain/the wall etc.

 

Q: Does Keradaan have LOS and permission to fire normally at the enemy model, or is the enemy model impossible to target, due to being in B2B with a samesize wall? Does the enemy recieve the -2 cover bonus?

(I was argueing, that since Keradaan is not firing _across_ the wall, nor is standing directly opposite etc, it was legal to take the shot.)

 

Yes he may shoot at them. First he has indirect shot. Second LOS is absolute it would only block if the 1/2" corridor didn't exist, but it is unclear where the the 1/2" line is. That is to say is it center to center or any 1/2" corridor that doesn't cross terrain? Just because they are in b2b with the wall it doesn't automagically give them cover/block shots. However in you're case you totally can shoot at him. To be safe I would say LOS goes center to center, but even if that generated no terrain crossing then you're good. To summarize: Yes you could take the shot no they don't get cover. In the case of size 1 vs size 1 in b2b with wall it either blocks or does nothing.

 

The Defensive strikes vs. Magic issue:

 

A)If a wizard standing in btb with an enemy model casts an attack spell on said enemy, will the enemy get defensive strikes?

B) If a wizard standing in btb with an enemy model casts an attack spell on an enemy not in btb, will the enemy model basing the wizard get to make defensive strikes on its friends behalf?

(I felt like 90% certain that I read somewhere on these boards that attack magic cast in btb provoked def. strikes, but when the issue arised I couldn't locate it.)

 

 

It's because the answer you want isn't in the book. In fact Savage North Book (sorry my friend is borrowing the first book) p21 Casting Spells While in B2B "This does not provoke Defensive Strikes from the enemy model(s)." The wizard will take a -2 penalty to the casting check though. So the answer to A and B is no.

 

Hope this helps.

[Shakandara]

Here's your answers, straight from the books (all empahsis is mine, for clarity):

 

LOS (p.21 of the Corebook, p. 11 of SN), the second paragraph:

"Before you can determine LOS between two models, you need to first determine three things:

1. The size of the attacking model.

2. The size of the defending model.

3. The size of any intervening models or terrain."

 

So, for a model or terrain to block LOS or provide cover, it must be intervening. The 4th paragraph goes on to describe the conditions for the LOS corridor:

 

"To determine if there is LOS, simply draw an imaginary line, 1/2" wide, from the attacking model to the defending model. This is called the LOS corridor. The entire 1/2" width of the LOS corridor must be touching the bases of the attacking and defending models."

 

Yes, this means from any part of the attacker's base to any part of the defender's, not just middle to middle. As long as you have the LOS corridor, you can target the model without Indirect Shot.

 

Ranged Attack and Cover (p.33 of the Core, p. 20 of SN), second and third paragraphs:

 

"If there is LOS, but the defending model is partially behind a model or terrain piece the same size or larger than it is, or completely behind a model or terrain piece that is one size smaller than it is, then the defending model enjoys the benefit of cover, and the attacking model suffers a -2 cover penalty to its attacks.

 

A cover penalty only applies when the direction of the ranged attack crosses the terrain piece providing cover, and the target model is using the terrain piece appropriately as cover."

 

Even though Keridan has LOS, his ranged attack still comes at the target from a direction that crosses the wall (if none of the wall at all was between the two bases, then the attack would not be crossing the piece of terrain). The defender is within 2" of the wall, and therefore would get cover. Read up on those pages for more about the "appropriate use of cover". It's pretty well defined there.

 

Finally, the stuff about defensive strikes against enemy casters was from back in the oringal version of the Warlord rules. It does not exist in WL2, as noted by the previous post.

 

~v

Edited March 22, 2011 by Shakandara

[psyberwolfe1]

Ok so the half inch corridor counts for what? This is one area where I'm unsure about what you're saying. From how I'm understanding you if any possible line exists that can cross the wall then they get cover? It seems slightly strange because it doesn't say that where I looked. Also the two inch thing seems t!o indicate that if a model is two inches from any terrain then they get cover always which makes no sense.

[Shakandara]

LOS and Cover, although related, are two individual parts of the game. Resolve each as its own step, and you should never be confused about a) whether or not you can target something, and b) if they have Cover. If you view them as a single step, you'll make it much harder on yourself.

 

The 1/2" LOS corridor counts for whether or not you can even target an enemy model (without Indirect Shot), and that is the only thing it does. You can promptly ignore it now and move to determining cover. Should there be anything at all between your model and your target - yes, that would mean any possible line (there are really only 2 that matter; your left-most base to the target's right-most base, and the reverse) - there exists the possibility for Cover. Assuming the object is a) tall enough, b) the target is short enough, and c) the target is close enough to the object itself, it then gets Cover.

 

The bolded text above also highlights the point that you can't just be within 2" of an object to get cover, it must be intervening and you must also make appropriate use of it.

 

~v

 

 

[Azazel]

Thanks alot for clarifying! I think we have a tendency for mixing up LOS and cover when discussing these issues. Its a good point you make about keeping it seperate.

 

Im still not fully getting it though....

 

Rulebook states that in order to recieve cover bonus, the shots fired need to cross the terrain piece, but on the other hand also states that if the target model is within 2" of the size 1 wall it recieves the cover bonus.

 

To clarify my question:

If we can agree that arrows are fired in a straight line through the LOS-corridor, it seems to me that you can get cases such as these where the LOS corridor easily fits on both bases, and drawing a straight line you wont cross the wall, but the 2" wall rule still provides cover. In this case, allthough poorly depicted by ascii, it would require Keradaan to shoot a curveball to actually have the arrow come into contact with the wall.

 

 

I hope that makes some kinda sense... :P

 

- Azazel

[CrispyMerc]

I have one more question. Can a familiar move and focus at the same time(for casting spells or is it just the wizard)?

[psyberwolfe1]

Shak where does it say that? That's where I'm confused because I can't seem to find the any line reference.

 

@Crispy the familiar isn't casting the spell the wizard is so the familiar focusing does nothing for the spell. However the familiar could move then run and then the spell caster could cast through the familiar. Imagine the familiar as a possible spot where the wizard is casting from with obvious limitations.

[Stubbdog]

I have my familiars do move runs all the time while my caster sits back, focuses and casts thru it. That is a fun thing to do for sure.

 

As for the LOS stuff, Vince has it all correct. I dont have my book with me to be able to list pages or specific text to help at this time.

 

But, hopefully to clear up your confusion psyber, in your last question about curve balls, well, i can only say that is when you take it one step at a time, like a nested if then loop. IF the terrain comes into play (any shot line would cross it), THEN determine if the model is within 2 inches of it. IF the terrain does not come into play then it doesnt matter if the model is within 2 inches of it.

 

I will take a few pictures tonight and post them to help clarify. So, I guess look for this later.

[psyberwolfe1]

I understand what y'all are describing but the books don't say that. The rub is shot direction and partially behind aren't well defined. That is the problem. Also The LOS rule and illustration muck this up. No where in the rules I have here with me does it describe all possible LOS corridors. Frankly this rule needs a FAQ because it is poorly written. As designers you may think it has been said, but it hasn't. It isn't clear unlike most of this Rulebook. I know this problem exists because during the beta I sent Gus alost a page and a half of feedback on this alone. I'm just pointing out that your intent is not clear. I can see how you may think the intent is clear but the rules just don't say it.

[Stubbdog]

Out of the entire book, LOS is most definietly one of the most difficult things to write on paper, have it be short and simple, have it work for every single possible situation, and also make 100% sense to everyone.

 

Again, I will post up some pictures later tonight and try to better explain things.

[psyberwolfe1]

Out of the entire book, LOS is most definietly one of the most difficult things to write on paper, have it be short and simple, have it work for every single possible situation, and also make 100% sense to everyone.

 

Again, I will post up some pictures later tonight and try to better explain things.

I'll respectfully disagree with the assertion that LOS is difficult to write about given you conditions. I say thos because I'm a contract writer and I have made rock solid contracts that are tiny. This just isn't well written. Not an insult just an observation. This is fixable and needs to be included in the ReaperGames FAQ. I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is if you want and it will say exactly what you want the rule to say.

[Shakandara]

If we can agree that arrows are fired in a straight line through the LOS-corridor

This is your problem right here. When you move on to the Cover step, you have to forget about the LOS 1/2" corridor. It is no longer relevant. The 1/2" corridor is only relevant to determine whether or not you can target the model at all. Once you've established that, forget LOS. If there is anything between the two models at all (which is what the word intervening means), then there is Cover. Although the rules don't exactly define that you are counting the full path of your base to the opponent's base, that is assumed in the verbage.

 

~v

[Shakandara]

The rub is shot direction and partially behind aren't well defined.

I'll agree that thse two things aren't defined in the book, but do they really need to be? The direction of the shot is from the attacking model to the defending model - is that really something that needs be defined further than it is?

 

When you follow what the books says (which is that LOS and Cover are not the same), and you get over the 1/2" LOS corridor, then "partially behind" is easy to understand in the context of intervening Cover as well. There can only be 3 conditions for a model when it comes to a piece of Cover:

1. Completely behind.

2. Partially behind.

3. Completely unblocked.

 

I think it helps if you consider each piece of Cover as something that creates a line that bisects the playing field (this works better with regard to walls, but the concept is little different for other shapes). If both attacker and defender are on the same side of the bisect, then there is no Cover (condition 3 above), regardless of whether the defender is within 2" or not. If they are on opposite sides of the bisect, then there might be Cover (and condition 1 or 2 applies).

 

~v

[psyberwolfe1]

If we can agree that arrows are fired in a straight line through the LOS-corridor

This is your problem right here. When you move on to the Cover step, you have to forget about the LOS 1/2" corridor. It is no longer relevant. The 1/2" corridor is only relevant to determine whether or not you can target the model at all. Once you've established that, forget LOS. If there is anything between the two models at all (which is what the word intervening means), then there is Cover. Although the rules don't exactly define that you are counting the full path of your base to the opponent's base, that is assumed in the verbage.

 

~v

Arrrgh! The verbiage can't assume anything because the illustration in the LOS section makes one think differently. Also if the rulebook said what you just said it would be absolutely clear. The word intervening is not at all there. The bisecting line makes some sense but there are ways that it it doesn't. The problem as I've said is as written the rules aren't clear. A simple little FAQ will clear this up.