|
Post by reddust82 on Jun 11, 2019 17:20:16 GMT
Ok, sorry if this is a dumb question but I need to understand how the rules for impact attacks interact with models that have the Take Up rule like standard bearers. Because the way the rule is worded, let's say the standard bearer is out in front of the enemy unit when you try to impact attack charge through him with your carriage. You kill the standard bearer, but due to Take Up, a different model is removed and the standard bearer model remains... does that, essentially, put an end to the gun carriage’s charge since the model is still there?
|
|
|
Post by Armchair Warrior on Jun 11, 2019 23:58:17 GMT
Did you check the PP rules forum? Interesting question. I would *think* the answer is that you'd get to make a new impact attack on the standard bearer since it's actually now a new model.
|
|
|
Post by onijet01 on Jun 12, 2019 0:16:38 GMT
In that situation maybe. In ether of the following situations the gun carrage movement would end after the impact attack due to the standard Bearer still being in play.
Option 1 (succsessful charge) gun carrage ends in melee rng of its target and continues its activation as normal.
Option 2 (failed charge) gun carrage is unable to move after impact attack. As such its charge ends with its targer outside its melee rng. Its activation immediately ends from failed charge.
|
|
|
Post by michael on Jun 12, 2019 0:57:14 GMT
In the situation presented, the Gun Carriage cannot advance any further, and thus its movement ends, and you check all the relevant stuff that triggers at that point then.
|
|
|
Post by reddust82 on Jun 12, 2019 1:13:10 GMT
I have unfortunately concluded the same thing. Fortunately, I’ll be running a Butcher 3 list where I plan on putting silence of death on the carriage anyway because my main infantry target has Tough and the RFP of SoD will get around the Take Up rule. But at the same time, I wonder if this situation was an unintended side effect of the way the Take Up rule is worded as the description of what the rule is supposed to simulate is that the standard bearer does indeed die. But that’s not how it’s translated in game terms. It’s still so much better than the constant rules inconsistencies of GW games, though!!
Actually, since I’ve already got this thread, here’s another rules question related to one of my favorite khador models, Ruin, and a regular opponent - skorne immortals with supreme guardians. i ran across this because I was disappointed that it seemed Ruin can’t gather souls from immortals, even though they have souls, because they are explicitly not living models and Ruin’s rules specifically state a living mode. But when I shared this with my gaming group they said that the supreme guardian’s Rule is written the exact same way and yet people commonly use them to collect the souls of the immortals.
So I’m wondering, how does this work? I haven’t been able to find an infernal ruling on this, but my search skills might also be lacking. Any thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by michael on Jun 12, 2019 1:43:10 GMT
I have unfortunately concluded the same thing. Fortunately, I’ll be running a Butcher 3 list where I plan on putting silence of death on the carriage anyway because my main infantry target has Tough and the RFP of SoD will get around the Take Up rule. But at the same time, I wonder if this situation was an unintended side effect of the way the Take Up rule is worded as the description of what the rule is supposed to simulate is that the standard bearer does indeed die. But that’s not how it’s translated in game terms. It’s still so much better than the constant rules inconsistencies of GW games, though!! Actually, since I’ve already got this thread, here’s another rules question related to one of my favorite khador models, Ruin, and a regular opponent - skorne immortals with supreme guardians. i ran across this because I was disappointed that it seemed Ruin can’t gather souls from immortals, even though they have souls, because they are explicitly not living models and Ruin’s rules specifically state a living mode. But when I shared this with my gaming group they said that the supreme guardian’s Rule is written the exact same way and yet people commonly use them to collect the souls of the immortals. So I’m wondering, how does this work? I haven’t been able to find an infernal ruling on this, but my search skills might also be lacking. Any thoughts? The entire answer is right here: This model generates soul tokens as if it were a living model. The Supreme Guardian and Zaal2 literally would not work if that didn't allow the various "Soul Taker" rules to collect their souls.
|
|
|
Post by reddust82 on Jun 12, 2019 2:35:48 GMT
Then I hope they clarify the wording of the Soul Taker rule as it states “When a friendly living faction model is destroyed...” immortals are constructs and are explicitly pointed out as not being living models. According to this wording, the fact that they do have souls is irrelevant. They are not living models and therefore do not meet the basic requirement of Soul Taker. Now I get they made a mistake with wording and I’m not trying to neuter an entire play style of skorne, but I do hope PP addresses this at some point. I know, it’s kind of a principle thing for me: words have meanings.
|
|
|
Post by jonnyboy on Jun 12, 2019 3:19:33 GMT
Mmm it does state they generate souls as if they were a living model. This phrase does not exclusively mean the function of being a living model is to generate a soul (because constructs dont), but the model acts as a living model for all purposes of soul generation. Immortal 'A' dies, generates a soul as a living model, Ruin collects soul from said living model. The immortal acts as a construct in all other aspects.
|
|
|
Post by michael on Jun 12, 2019 3:58:46 GMT
Then I hope they clarify the wording of the Soul Taker rule as it states “When a friendly living faction model is destroyed...” immortals are constructs and are explicitly pointed out as not being living models. According to this wording, the fact that they do have souls is irrelevant. They are not living models and therefore do not meet the basic requirement of Soul Taker. Now I get they made a mistake with wording and I’m not trying to neuter an entire play style of skorne, but I do hope PP addresses this at some point. I know, it’s kind of a principle thing for me: words have meanings. The wording is already clear. The model with Soul Vessel is treated like a living model when it comes to souls. I dunno; it makes sense to me!
|
|
|
Post by reddust82 on Jun 12, 2019 9:07:43 GMT
Mmm it does state they generate souls as if they were a living model. This phrase does not exclusively mean the function of being a living model is to generate a soul (because constructs dont), but the model acts as a living model for all purposes of soul generation. Immortal 'A' dies, generates a soul as a living model, Ruin collects soul from said living model. The immortal acts as a construct in all other aspects. That would work for me if it didn’t also have a rule that specifically stated that it was not, in fact, a living model. Doing something “as if” it is a living model actually further reinforces that it is not actually that thing. The biggest reason I find this so jarring is that the Warmahordes rule set is, in general, so tightly written that this just really stands out to me. Anyway, I’m letting it go now :-)
|
|
|
Post by onijet01 on Jun 12, 2019 9:26:19 GMT
Soul vessels advantage.
Immortals and other construct units.
Are not living models for abilities that call out living models.
They ARE LIVING MODELS for EVERY SOUL COLLECTION ABILITY in the game. Friendly or Foe.
They are construct models for abilities that apply. EROSION for example will always roll an extra die to them.
If Ruin is closer to a Immortal than its unit Attachment or other Solos. Then Ruin would gain the Soul Vessels soul token off the model.
Remember in Warmachine/Hordes if a rule says something is treated as (blank) then any model can take advantage of it.
Soul Vessel, makes the unit count as living models for soul collection.
It is very clear has not changed rules sense mkii and can not be confused by game rules.
Personnally it sounds like your opponent intentionally cheated you so they could have game advantage.
Also playing CoC and scorn both so soul vessel is a bread and butter to me
|
|
|
Post by reddust82 on Jun 12, 2019 16:48:25 GMT
Remember in Warmachine/Hordes if a rule says something is treated as (blank) then any model can take advantage of it. Soul Vessel, makes the unit count as living models for soul collection. It is very clear has not changed rules sense mkii and can not be confused by game rules. Ok so I haven’t let it go, haha. The problem with your statement is that Soul Vessel does NOT say that the model is treated as (blank), in this case “living.” It simply states that the model generates a soul token. It does NOT say it becomes living. And look, I know the intention of the rule and when I play my skorne opponent then Ruin has just as much chance to collect souls as anything else, but it bothers me that the rule doesn’t actually say what is intended and what is currently being played. I just wish they’d errata it or make an infernal ruling or whatever, because despite what you say, it is not that clear. You know from CoC and skorne that some units would literally have no purpose if they couldn’t collect souls from their own non-living models even though the rule requires the models to be living. But you shouldn’t have to rely on a broader meta-game situation to understand how a single rule works. Like I said before, I think all in all, WMH is a very tightly written game and that makes the wording of this rule stand out in glaring contrast. And if someone does know where this has been officially addressed, I’ll take that and eat my humble pie gladly!
|
|
|
Post by jonnyboy on Jun 12, 2019 17:37:14 GMT
Interesting points. A big note is that the supreme guardian has direct spirits which is what prevents Ruin from taking the soul.
Lets look at the wording and break it into three parts because i agree WMH is very tightly written.
"This model generates soul tokens as if it were a living model."
1. The model generates a soul token, constructs do not generate soul tokens normally.
2. The model generates a soul token as if it were a living model. When the immortal dies he is considered a living model generating a soul token. That's about it, the original model type doesn't really matter here.
3. Soul Taker (Ruin/Burrito) require living models. Well luckily immortals are considered living models when they generate a soul token.
|
|
smoth
Junior Strategist
Posts: 156
|
Post by smoth on Jun 14, 2019 3:17:06 GMT
In the situation presented, the Gun Carriage cannot advance any further, and thus its movement ends, and you check all the relevant stuff that triggers at that point then. that is really lame! who can we email to get this looked into?
|
|
|
Post by michael on Jun 14, 2019 11:36:50 GMT
In the situation presented, the Gun Carriage cannot advance any further, and thus its movement ends, and you check all the relevant stuff that triggers at that point then. that is really lame! who can we email to get this looked into? Nobody. The GC is already about one million times improved over its 2011 incarnation. This is a corner case annoyance at best.
|
|