Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
jomnis

SA Blink clarifications

Recommended Posts

A couple quick questions concerning the SA Blink.

 

#1 Can a model use the SA Blink and a Move action to get into B2B with a model or can you still only come B2B with a Charge action per normal rules?

 

#2 If you cast the Spell Wings on a model that has the SA Blink does the flying movement also follow the rules for SA Blink?

 

Thanks for your time and info!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Related to #1, think of it more like the idea of teleporting into B2B. In fact, it goes a step further. The one big negative about SA blink is that models with that SA have to use it with every move, so indeed they cannot get the 2 inch bonus of a charge or run action.

 

Related to #2, I think you need to give me an example of what you are trying to learn. a model that is flying avoids terrain modifiers and can move past enemy models the same as blink. So, not sure what you are looking for. as far as that charge bonus related to flying goes, I guess I would not argue with either direction. Since flying movement gets its own stat line and SAs, and since it was cast magically on the model, it could be argued that the model could fly rather than blink to the new location. But, at the same time one might argue that it still blinks either way. So, that would be a dice off for me and live with the result.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

#1 So if I understand this you could actually base a model with a charge action, and then base a 2nd with a move action in the same turn?

 

#2 was mostly concerning the bonus move on a charge or run.

 

This is all tied to the darkreach of course and tricks with the shadow blade. A 3rd question would be if you cast wings on a target who is in B2B with the enemy and chooses to immediately fly, is that considered leaving B2B? I assume it does?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw this during RCon and wondered about it. A SA Blink model "charged" an SA Fearsome model and failed its DIS check.

 

Where does the Blinking model end up? The argument was made that the Blinking model doesn't move though the intervening terrain so it should simply blink into B2B......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would rule it this way...

 

A model can be summoned or teleported into btb with fearsome without that model having to make a check roll. But, both of those situations are related to a 3rd party (the caster or summoner) creating the situation and there is no movement involved.

 

A model with blink, while it does blink with every move, it is still moving itself, and therefore does have to pass a fearsome check (since the intentions of fearsome is that the big ugly thing is so obnoxious that you might be too intimidated to make that move). The end result would still be the same as the book. Failed rolls means the blinking model may blink up to half the distance to the fearsome model and uses up that action. It may not make 100% sense that someone would blink halfway if they cant go all the way, but then again, I would argue that a non-blinking model can see how fearsome and intimidating a big ugly is from 50 yards away and doesnt need to be 5 feet away to discern that. Yet, we still allow them to make that movement too. Maybe we should have had the rules state that failed rolls have to move away from the model X inches instead. But, that is not how it ended up..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

A model can be summoned or teleported into btb with fearsome without that model having to make a check roll. But, both of those situations are related to a 3rd party (the caster or summoner) creating the situation and there is no movement involved.

 

 

That doesn't make any sense. A discipline check doesn't relate to movement it relates to getting panicked or terror stricken. The model may not be using its Move action, but it is still moving into b2b contact. Granted those situations may not have been covered in the game design, but they should be looked at for errata. In both situations the model should be forced to use one of its action to move away if it fails the check.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no errata... just saying :ph34r:

 

Which is a bad thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Erratta is for errors. This is not a Hoyle error but a question about rule interactions.

 

I guess you are saying its not a traditional error as in spelling and punctuation. I was thinking more along the lines of errata as it used by Games Workshop, Privateer Press, Paizo and every other game company... a place to make a correction for a game immediately vs having players play something that is broken, cheesy or otherwise in need of change until your next rulebook comes out in 3-5 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not broken. Promise. Gus made us a promise of no more Rage Cronicles which is a good thing. Trust me when I say that there is not much in Warlord that is dead broken. As games go it has its good and bad. It has problems but whar game doesn't. Since Warlord 2nd ed I've worked on more rulesets and as rules go Warlord is actually not bad. I say that with little reservation. Every game will have a rock paper scissors feel, but that is the unfortunate effect of point based system.

 

Now you can houserule the rules how you want them to make the game playable to you or you can take a hint from Privateer Press read page 5 and let that begin to work on you. Page 5 completely changed my gaming attitude and made me realize that everything I thought was wrong headed. Just because someone figures out how to massage rules in their favor doesn't mean the game is broken. It just means you're angry you didn't see it first. When you learn to conceptualize the game better the cheesy broken arguments go away. Play to have fun but if you're not having fun play something else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You made me smile with "It just means you're angry you didn't see it first. " You really know nothing about me. I have for five years argued against everything that has been broken that is broken IMO. Regardless of the designer, the team, the game edition, faction... IMO nothing broken is good for the game. I was dead against the Scrye/blazer/marksmen/volley/10" pie plate of doom tactic, and it greatly benefited me because only elves and mercs could use it and I play both.

 

Not really sure what the page 5 reference is, but I know PP has 5 pages of errata for a game that's only about 6 months old.

 

Gus, Jason, Vince, Adam and the rest of the design team know me and they know I'll never cease voicing my opinion. Adam actually taught me to play. I bring balance to the Warlord Universe. I am to Warlord what Galactus is to Marvel comics, not a villain... a needed evil. :devil:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You made me smile with "It just means you're angry you didn't see it first. " You really know nothing about me. I have for five years argued against everything that has been broken that is broken IMO. Regardless of the designer, the team, the game edition, faction... IMO nothing broken is good for the game. I was dead against the Scrye/blazer/marksmen/volley/10" pie plate of doom tactic, and it greatly benefited me because only elves and mercs could use it and I play both.

 

Not really sure what the page 5 reference is, but I know PP has 5 pages of errata for a game that's only about 6 months old.

 

Gus, Jason, Vince, Adam and the rest of the design team know me and they know I'll never cease voicing my opinion. Adam actually taught me to play. I bring balance to the Warlord Universe. I am to Warlord what Galactus is to Marvel comics, not a villain... a needed evil. :devil:

 

Your right I don't know you. All I know is of someone who is currently coming here and whining about what is broken. Claims of broken is normally brandished about by those who are too lazy to get better. Now sometimes there are things that are just broken but usually the brokenness is easily replicated. Now there are things that are stronger than others, but they are defeatable by putting thought into it. Strength doesn't equal broken. Here is a great reading reference to get you started in the world of why I suck and how to get better.

 

Next Page 5 is found on, strangely enough, page 5 of the War Machine/Hordes main rule books. Go to your FLGS I'm sure they won't mind you reading that one page. Be prepared the first time you read it you'll probably be angry. However, Ruminate on it awhile and in time, probably 3 am on some random Tuesday, you'll get what they are actually saying.

 

Needed evil? No. Go ahead voice your opinion but to quote a friend of mine, "Freedom of speech doesn't guarantee freedom from criticism." Are there things in Warlord that have shown to be problematic? Yup. Are they insurmountable with the current rule set? Nope.

Share this post


Link to post
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.   Paste as plain text instead

  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.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...