The One Ring :: View topic - Why is this a rule? Do you agree?

LordoftheBrownRing wrote:

So, I was watching a DC Hobbit League battle report this morning(keep up the good work guys) and I noticed this as a perfect example of a rule I vastly dislike.....

In that captured frame, the Mirkwood Rangers looking on CANNOT shoot Gulavhar. While I believe this rule to be correct, I think its horse****.

Hello everyone! I just wanted to chime in and express some thoughts on this thread to clear up some confusion. The picture shown unfortunately does not accurately show the sight of Gulavhar from the Ranger's perspective. They are slightly lower to the ground and Gulavhar's head was not as visible as shown here. Only his arms wings and base were visible. The video may not have done a good job at accurately showing this. We will prevent that mistake in the future.

However, we should admit that we may have played incorrectly anyway since we did not realize that his arm is a valid target. Therefore, they could have shot at him. We will remember this in future videos. I really appreciate the viewership and the corrections on this matter. LOS rules can be a bit tricky at times.

Author:	LordoftheBrownRing [ Mon Feb 16, 2015 12:08 pm ]
Post subject:	Why is this a rule? Do you agree?
So, I was watching a DC Hobbit League battle report this morning(keep up the good work guys) and I noticed this as a perfect example of a rule I vastly dislike..... In that captured frame, the Mirkwood Rangers looking on CANNOT shoot Gulavhar. While I believe this rule to be correct, I think its horse***. Without going too much into the realm of RPG, I believe the ability to hit his arm, leg, part of his head, and ALL OF THOSE WINGS THAT ARE LARGER THAN MOST MODELS ON THE WHOLE FIELD* makes him a valid target. Do I believe they need an in the way? Yes. Should be still be shot though? YES. Regarding my comment about rpgs....in my mind, realistically his wings can be shot, which would even hinder his flight(how fun would that be sbger's?). At the very least though, he should keep his flight but at least be able to take wounds... I think this is an absolutely ridiculous rule, and Ive run into it before. I actually played a game with rangefinder where most of my Witch King on fell beast was obscured by models(person I got it from converted it to have its feet on the ground). I thought to position him there thinking he cant be targeted by ranged attacks or magic, because more than half of his height was obscured. Rangefinder disagreed, and I absolutely agreed with his opinion that it should be able to be targeted. In the end, we werent 100% sure, but we rolled and it came out in my favor. This ended in Floi's untimely demise the next round. So, do you agree or disagree with the fact Gulavhar cannot be shot? Also, what about my predicament?

Author:	SouthernDunedain [ Mon Feb 16, 2015 12:16 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Why is this a rule? Do you agree?
If any part of a model can be seen (excluding appendages, weapons, banners, wings, tails etc) then the model can be seen with the appropriate ITW. Without showing where the rangers are in the photo it is hard to tell but RAW I would say he could be shot as his arm is clearly visible from behind the tree. As for your example, there is nothing in the rules to suggest a model cannot be seen if 50% of him is obscured, you just get an ITW roll so I believe you played that wrong. But if in doubt, roll like you did and everyone is happy.

Author:	JamesR [ Mon Feb 16, 2015 12:23 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Why is this a rule? Do you agree?
SD according to what you just quoted the arm (being an appendage) would not be an eligible target. However I'd say from this exact viewpoint he can be shot, you can see nearly the entire base and good chunks of his body behind the trunk. Take the shot with an ITW The reason I make the base point is, you should never let a scenic base impact the game. Were there no rock for him to stand on Gully would be quite visible from this angle

Author:	SouthernDunedain [ Mon Feb 16, 2015 12:32 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Why is this a rule? Do you agree?
Arms count James, pg 8 of the rules.

Author:	JamesR [ Mon Feb 16, 2015 12:46 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Why is this a rule? Do you agree?
Then they definitely need to rewrite the rules lol as that's self-contradictory.

The One Ring http://wwww.one-ring.co.uk/

Why is this a rule? Do you agree? http://wwww.one-ring.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=49&t=30517	Page 1 of 1

Author:	Isilduhrr [ Mon Feb 16, 2015 1:57 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Why is this a rule? Do you agree?
LOTBR, in the case of your Witch King, if it's a converted model then you act as if the standard mini is there and take shots as if it was the standard mini. For example, I can't put all my bowmen on "scenic bases" that pit them 3" above the rest of my army, allowing them to shoot over their heads without fear. Nor can i "convert" amodel so that it has a wall on it's base, and treat that as an In The Way.

Author:	Dr Grant [ Mon Feb 16, 2015 5:56 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Why is this a rule? Do you agree?
It's hard to tell if he has LOS due to how you've taken the picture but it seems to me that he could certainly shoot at him with an ITW. As Southy says there's nothing in the rules to suggest you need to see 50% and arms definitely count (I can't actually see any mention of appendages either so the rules aren't contradictory). As for modelling a miniature to get a better LOS/more ITWs, the examples above are the same LordoftheBrownRing. There's nothing different about what you're doing with your Fell Beast to what Isildur's suggesting with the bowmen - they are both examples of modelling your miniatures to get an in-game advantage and, IMO, are to be avoided. As for whether a Fell Beast could be shot behind a wall of cave trolls - assuming that they're all on ground level so are obscuring some of the FB (but obviously not all) then yes, of course it can be shot at. A cave troll is smaller than a Fell Beast, I don't see how you could argue otherwise?

Author:	Dr Grant [ Mon Feb 16, 2015 7:19 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Why is this a rule? Do you agree?
You have largely misinterpreted what I wrote. As for the Fell Beast example, you made no reference to it being converted for fluff/theme, you simply said it was converted to be on the ground in the middle of a paragraph in which you say you were trying to obscure it from view. Given the information available and the context in which you wrote it's hardly unreasonable to assume it had been converted to make it smaller on the battlefield. If it's been converted for a conversion then that's a wonderful idea and it would be great to see some pictures, unfortunately, given the context of your post it was easy to assume otherwise. I never said nor implied that your model was not legitimate, nor that power-gaming models should some how not be allowed. Please refrain from making things up. I also never accused you or your friend of power-gaming, I suggested that deliberately modelling a Fell Beast to be on the ground so it gets more ITW rolls is the same as modelling bowmen to give them better LOS. As for your Rangers, I did read your post, I read all of them in fact, but saying that they are at 5 O'clock does not help us determine whether or not they could see in that image. As for the Fell Beast now being smaller than a Cave Troll, it still won't matter unless the Cave Troll is incredibly wide. SBG uses true LOS and the bowmen will almost certainly be able to see part of the Fell Beast behind the cave troll. Finally, and most importantly, if other users take the time to respond to a post, you can safely assume that they have read all the posts in the thread, please don't make snide posts implying that they can't have read them simply because they disagree with you. You thought I was accusing you and your friend of power-gaming, I was not. I was however offering an opinion on the topic with which you asked for opinions. A less confrontational attitude in the future would be beneficial. This should end here, lets get back on topic.

Author:	Frêrin [ Mon Feb 16, 2015 9:30 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Why is this a rule? Do you agree?
With the fellbeasts it's a special thing. First if you use real line of sight with the model you play it is a huge different, if you use the old ringwraith or the new one (exspecially if you play the new one with his head down). You will nearly ever be able to obscure some part (head or leg) of it even with normal orcs. With the old model it is impossible with an orc. But in my opinion no one should be penalized using the old model (besides the advantage of the old one having a better sight is minor). Second thing is that flying models ARE considered landing at the end of there move (can't move into some sorts of difficult terrain). All in all I think it is fair and logical to consider the fellbeast on the ground even if it is the old model.

Author:	Sithious [ Tue Feb 17, 2015 4:43 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Why is this a rule? Do you agree?
I think the rule was written because of how impossible it would be to hide wings that stick up, or banners peeking up from behind ten lines of troops. Just like any rule in the book, there are times where it seems to be exploited and other times where the rule will outright screw up a plan (like when a little part of a models head is visible when you thought nobody would have a shot on him). I don't think wings should be targets. In the case of Fell Beasts, Balrogs, Gulahvar, I think the arrow would pass through the skin membrane and do nothing more than make it turn it's attention to the archer who thinks he is funny. With Eagles it could be argued that it would harm them, but then again, they are so large that a tiny arrow would do little to harm it when only hitting fluffy feathers, there are no organs located there. If a house rule was made that dropped move rates and such it would bog down this quick skirmish game with another thing to track. I think the rule is fine as it is, and occasionally you have those strange things come up. In this instance, with the player clearly trying to keep his monster out of harms way, it would be a bad day if he was suddenly open to fire from those he is hiding from. At the same time if the rangers were hiding the other player wanted to attack them and said because his wings are above the tree line he can see everything around... well it would be a silly slug fest. IMO.

Author:	dchobbitleague [ Tue Feb 17, 2015 2:24 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Why is this a rule? Do you agree?
LordoftheBrownRing wrote: So, I was watching a DC Hobbit League battle report this morning(keep up the good work guys) and I noticed this as a perfect example of a rule I vastly dislike..... In that captured frame, the Mirkwood Rangers looking on CANNOT shoot Gulavhar. While I believe this rule to be correct, I think its horse****. Hello everyone! I just wanted to chime in and express some thoughts on this thread to clear up some confusion. The picture shown unfortunately does not accurately show the sight of Gulavhar from the Ranger's perspective. They are slightly lower to the ground and Gulavhar's head was not as visible as shown here. Only his arms wings and base were visible. The video may not have done a good job at accurately showing this. We will prevent that mistake in the future. However, we should admit that we may have played incorrectly anyway since we did not realize that his arm is a valid target. Therefore, they could have shot at him. We will remember this in future videos. I really appreciate the viewership and the corrections on this matter. LOS rules can be a bit tricky at times.

Author:	LordoftheBrownRing [ Wed Feb 18, 2015 6:03 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Why is this a rule? Do you agree?
dchobbitleague wrote: LordoftheBrownRing wrote: So, I was watching a DC Hobbit League battle report this morning(keep up the good work guys) and I noticed this as a perfect example of a rule I vastly dislike..... In that captured frame, the Mirkwood Rangers looking on CANNOT shoot Gulavhar. While I believe this rule to be correct, I think its horse****. Hello everyone! I just wanted to chime in and express some thoughts on this thread to clear up some confusion. The picture shown unfortunately does not accurately show the sight of Gulavhar from the Ranger's perspective. They are slightly lower to the ground and Gulavhar's head was not as visible as shown here. Only his arms wings and base were visible. The video may not have done a good job at accurately showing this. We will prevent that mistake in the future. However, we should admit that we may have played incorrectly anyway since we did not realize that his arm is a valid target. Therefore, they could have shot at him. We will remember this in future videos. I really appreciate the viewership and the corrections on this matter. LOS rules can be a bit tricky at times. Well I never meant to say you played it incorrectly or show it poorly. In fact I like the Los with the Rangers you guys showed at a different point in the video. I was more thinking and trying to say you guys played it correctly and that Games Workshops view is a bit skewed.

Author:	Draugluin [ Wed Feb 18, 2015 6:25 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Why is this a rule? Do you agree?
Getting shot in the wing for Gulhavar would be painful, but I really doubt it would lead to a fatal injury, whereas getting shot in an arm can definitely cause you to bleed out. If you are talking about an eagle, I would consider the wing to be the same as an arm. Bird wings have a lot of tissue and bones and stuff, whereas bat-like wings don't.

Author:	Badner [ Thu Feb 19, 2015 1:53 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Why is this a rule? Do you agree?
You should have a look at the Freebooters Fate rules. There it is possible to slow down an enemy by shooting at his leg or reducing his attacks by shooting at his arm. This rule would make the hobbit even more interesting. I have a question which might fit this thread (if it doesn't, tell me and I will make a new thread for it): Gollum on the big stone does count as one miniature so I can shoot at him even when I can only see the stone; is this right? Does this mean that there are"Gollums" which are bigger then"others"? Thank you for your help.

Page 1 of 1	All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/

Author:	LordoftheBrownRing [ Thu Feb 19, 2015 4:53 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Why is this a rule? Do you agree?
That sounds really cool. When I get on a laptop I'll have to check it out. Thanks for the idea! As for your question I don't think so, but I also don't know. I'm sure someone will be able to answer it for you but I'd suggest a new post as well because maybe nobody will respond to this one.