Topic: Enter the era of the Pigeon Council

[Mortim]

The idea is to stay at 24" all the time and weaken stuff from that range. The knight unit is for 1+ save and to scare weak stuff from entering their charge range. If it all goes bad, all your pigeoneers + GM+ bsb leave the knight unit before combat and join another unit.

Our knights arent realy meant for fighting, leave the fighting for demis!

[Waywatcher]

I wouldn't say buff spells work better on knights. Giving 10 knights +1 S and T isn't as good as giving it to 50 halberdiers.

But yes the thing Is that our support is good but expensive, our characters are expensive and super easy to kill on foot, and our infantry is over priced whether you get those buffs from having alive characters or not.

The only thing you can hope to do is to play an army that somehow sucks worse than yours does if you want to run infantry. Its a sad miserable lifestyle.

50 halberdiers with command is 330pts; 10 knights with command is 250; not a fair comparison. 14 knights with full command is within 10 points of your halberdier block.

Flesh to stone, earth blood, and harmonic convergence immediately come to mind as being superior on knights. Earth blood mainly if the wizard is in the second rank.

[psychichobo]

Pigeon Council...

http://youtu.be/P3ALwKeSEYs

[Chemnitz]

Imagine you have 4 pigeon-engineers in a group of 45-50 halbs.  After your opponent's first turn, you move 2 out & you fire all 4 at their horde (1.33 should hit -- though .33 should hit your halbs since they roll 1's and 2 of the 4 are still in the horde).  On your opponents turn, you probably double flee.   Next turn... you move the other two into position... fire 2 (.66 should hit).  On your opponents turn, you double flee again or perform redirect shenanigans.  [At the same time you have a 5th engineer on a helblaster, firing away.]  On your next turn the first two engineers move back into position and fire (.66 should hit).  In a perfect world, you should get almost 3 template hits on those pesky elves and delay their arrival.  (If said elves have frenzy, the engineers are great frenzy bait too.) 

So, let's say in an amazingly ideal world you get 21 elves under a template 3 times.  Wounding elves on 3+ that's about 42 wounds. 
I don't think any of us actually thinks that's going to happen, but you see the potential.
 
However, many things can mess up this plan including: flyers, lots of missile attacks to pick off engineers, fast cav, good use of magic, etc.

So what's my point... Well, I think the engineers need another purpose beyond just the pigeons.  Double flee / redirect gives them a second purpose.  We should assume that they'll all die by round 6, but if we can use them to distract, annoy, redirect, and slow down the enemy, they may be just what we need.

[Rein]

The funny thing would be that you can use them in a stand and shoot

[Fidelis von Sigmaringen]

Not really. Empire AB p. 31 says: "A Master Engineer with Pigeon Bombs can use them instead of firing a weapon in the Shooting phase." It does not say "instead of firing a weapon". S&S is not in the Shooting phase. 

[Rein]

Oh sorry Fidelis, I was reading the FAQ not the book.

Q: Is the pigeon bomb classified as a Missile Weapon as opposed to a special attack that occurs during the Shooting phase (like the Tomb Banshee’s Ghostly Howl)? (p31)
A: Yes.

[Fidelis von Sigmaringen]

So?

[Rein]

missile weapon, so you can stand&shoot.

[Fidelis von Sigmaringen]

No-one (certainly not I) denied that it is a missile weapon. It is still a missile weapon you can use "instead of firing a weapon in the Shooting phase." S&S does not take place in the Shooting phase. The fact that you need "a missile weapon of some kind" to S&S does not mean that every missile weapon can always S&S. It is a necessary, but not sufficient condition.

[zifnab0]

p. 17:

"If a Stand and Shoot charge reaction is declared, the unit makes a normal, although out of sequence, shooting attack against the charging unit..."

p. 38:

"During the Shooting phase, a model armed with a missile weapon can use it to make a single shooting attack..."

Some might also point out that the Pigeon Bombs special rule says "A Master Engineer with Pigeon Bombs can use them instead of firing a weapon in the Shooting phase."  A Master Engineer cannot be armed with Pigeon Bombs and another missile weapon.  Since the Master Engineer is not normally entitled to make a shooting attack (he's not armed with a missile weapon), some might argue he cannot use the Pigeon Bombs.

[Fidelis von Sigmaringen]

The first quote just confirms that a S&S is not made during the Shooting phase. I fail to see the relevance of the second quote here - no-one has denied that either.

[zifnab0]

The first quote just confirms that a S&S is not made during the Shooting phase. I fail to see the relevance of the second quote here - no-one has denied that either.

The second quote describes what is meant by a "shooting attack."

I'm not sure why you don't see the relevance.  A stand & shoot reaction is a shooting attack.  A shooting attack is an attack made with a missile weapon.  A stand and shoot reaction is therefore made with a missile weapon.

The Master Engineer has a missile weapon and therefore can make a stand & shoot attack.

[Fidelis von Sigmaringen]

Duh. During the Shooting phase, a model armed with a missile weapon can use it to make a single shooting attack.

With S&S you are allowed to make a normal shooting attack out of the Shooting phase. And as I already pointed out before, pigeon bombs are not used "instead of firing a weapon", but, as the Empire AB specifies, you "can use them instead of firing a weapon in the Shooting phase."

[Darknight]

How are we parsing that?

"can use them (in the shooting phase) instead of firing a weapon."

or

"can use them instead of firing a weapon (in the shooting phase)."

That is; the question is - does the "in the shooting phase" mean one has to use the pigeon bombs in the shooting phase, or that one has to not use a missile weapon in the shooting phase to use the pigeon bombs?

[commandant]

.

[zifnab0]

Duh. During the Shooting phase, a model armed with a missile weapon can use it to make a single shooting attack.

With S&S you are allowed to make a normal shooting attack out of the Shooting phase. And as I already pointed out before, pigeon bombs are not used "instead of firing a weapon", but, as the Empire AB specifies, you "can use them instead of firing a weapon in the Shooting phase."

Are Pigeon Bombs a missile weapon?

What weapon is the Master Engineer choosing not to fire when he uses a Pigeon Bomb?

[emcdunna]

Yes actually if you go with rules as written then the master engineer has to have another missile weapon and choose not to fire it in order to "use" the pigeon.

I don't get this I mean the faq clearly states you can stand and shoot with it. Haha

[commandant]

.

[Rein]

The FAQ overwrites everything.

It tells us that it is a Missile Weapon, not a special attack that occurs during the Shooting phase.

It is neither a Missile Weapon that occurs during the Shooting phase. (otherwise the FAQ would say so).

FAQ > AB  --> So unless you want to say that you can not use missile weapons in a stand&shoot reaction than the argument is done.

I thought this was obvious, like zifnab0 said:

p. 17:

"If a Stand and Shoot charge reaction is declared, the unit makes a normal, although out of sequence, shooting attack against the charging unit..."

p. 38:

"During the Shooting phase, a model armed with a missile weapon can use it to make a single shooting attack..."

[Fidelis von Sigmaringen]

On a general note: an FAQ does no such thing as overwriting everything. That is something you made up again. An FAQ does not change the AB in the slightest - it just interprets it (or tries to). So, the premise FAQ > AB is simply and patently wrong. For a change, you would need an Erratum or an Amendment. Erratum/Amendment > AB.

But that is even irrelevant here, because, in this particular case, the FAQ just confirms that pigeon bombs are a missile weapon, not a special attack. That is all.

I really suggest you start reading previous posts: 

No-one (certainly not I) denied that it is a missile weapon. It is still a missile weapon you can use "instead of firing a weapon in the Shooting phase." S&S does not take place in the Shooting phase. The fact that you need "a missile weapon of some kind" to S&S does not mean that every missile weapon can always S&S. It is a necessary, but not sufficient condition.

[zifnab0]

What other rules are required to stand and shoot?

How do these rules prevent Pigeon Bombs from being used as a S&S reaction?

[Dosiere]

I believe the point here is that a Pigeon Bomb explicitly states you can use it in the shooting phase, and that means the shooting phase only.

It might be a missile attack, but it's not a normal one and has its own rules to follow. 

Could be wrong here, as these kinds of RAW arguments usually require you to piece together several different sections of the rules and figure out what applies and what doesn't.

[Chemnitz]

I've never used pigeons to stand and shoot, but the more I think about it I'm inclined to say you can.

I read some old debates on this issue, and it's funny.  Most of the debates end with this conclusion: "No, you can't stand and shoot because it's not a missile weapon.  Let's wait for the FAQ to clarify."

Then, the FAQ clarified: it's a missile weapon, not a special attack in the shooting phase.

Yay!  We got the answer!  Debate is finally over.

Not so fast... 

[Fidelis von Sigmaringen]

Not so fast, exactly. Neither here nor in any other thread, I have ever argued that a pigeon bomb cannot S&S, because it would not be a missile weapon. To repeat: it is not a missile weapon you can use "instead of firing a weapon," but one you can use "instead of firing a weapon in the Shooting phase." S&S does not take place in the Shooting phase.

The FAQ does not change anything in this respect.

On a side note: even without that clear specification, whether or not a pigeon bomb could S&S would depend on how you define "a normal shooting attack". But that is irrelevant here, anyway.

Could be wrong here, as these kinds of RAW arguments usually require you to piece together several different sections of the rules and figure out what applies and what doesn't.

You mean, as opposed to making up stuff yourself as you go along? Fine with me, as long as you realise, you are using house rules.