Warhammer-Empire.com
The Empire at War ... The Gamers Guild => WHFB The Electors' Forum => Topic started by: Mortim on September 27, 2014, 03:38:11 PM
-
Hi, I ll be testing something different for the next tourney: a Pigeon Council (3+ pigeoneers)
I have totaly given up playing Empire fantasy style (too unfair asf rules mainly), so I ll play Empire 40 k style from nowon. This means: Light council devastator squad + Pigeoneer devastator squad supported by Heavens Basilisk Comets and maybe even mortars/hellstroms.
For the Pigeon council, I think i ll go 8-9 vanilla knights + naked Grandmaster for ITP to the unit and a ld9 general+ 3-4 mounted pigeoneers and stay 24" away and blast away. The Light council can use the normal archer unit.
Cheers,
Mortim!
-
While not my style, this sounds super interesting. Do you have the army list?
I'd love to see it play out.
What sound do pigeons make? Caw? Coo? Hoot?
This is what it sounds like, when Pigeons Die.
-
Sounds fun. Hero points will get tight quick with a light council and pigeoneer council.
My experience with WHFB currently has lead me to abandon empire infantry in favor of knights. WS4 and a 1+ armor save is the only thing I have found to 'counter' ASF.
ASF is definitely OP right now. Maybe 9th will tone it down. At the least the rerolls to hit should disappear.
-
I would rather call it "the Imperial dovecote".
-
I am working on a list atm. I need to get ready with the list to 4th oktober!
Its a swedish comp tourney 10-15 with all the Swedish ETC masters (they won this years ETC) so I need to bring something unconventional and still effective vs all thos fast armies.
Here in Sweden the top armies are 1) DE, 2) DAemons, 3) HE/WE. Rest is all midpack
-
I can't wait to see this! Maybe you could put the engineers on horses and have mobile stone-throwers.
-
Yeah they all need horses to got with my 1+ save Aircraft Carrier unit!
Envision a Strike Froce of Pigeons bombing all those heretics!!!!
Its a new era of Pigeon Drones! In fact I am disgusted by asf that I ll fight them Drone style... Send In the Pigeons!!!
-
Quick draft: (its swedish comp so you ll see L3 wizs and odd knight numbers)
Lords and Heroes: 501+ 613 = 1114pts
1 Grand Master, Gw, dragonhelm 171pts
1 L3 Heavens Lord, 165pts
1 L3 Light Lord, 165pts
1 Bsb, Bd wh, fp, skaven helm, GW 128pts
1 L2 Heavens Wiz, 100pts
1 L2 Light Wiz, 100pts
3 Pigeoneers, warhorse 285pts
Core: 628pts
9 Knights, msc: 208pts
9 Knights IC, msc 235pts
2x10 Archers, 140pts
5 crossbowmen detachment 45pts
Special and Rare: 750pts
1 Great Cannon 120pts
2 Mortars 200pts
1 Hurricanum 130pts
5 Demigryphs, msc 300pts
Total 2492 pts.
Tbh even with 1100 pts in charcaters the army has the main components of the netlist. I could try to treem down stuff (the heavens concept).. Lets see what our community can work together for this Pigeon Project!
Cheers,
Mortim
-
If it was me I would lose the grand master and lose the knights. you want to be fighting at long range, you want to basically be a gunline. id suggest basically all infantry core, maybe demigryphs but use pigeoneers (no one knows what they do so itd totally work) and the wizards to simply blast the shit out of people. also remember cannons and helblasters will be necessary.
what i am saying is ditch the expensive heavy close combat units and just shoot away and tarpit with halberdiers or spearmen.
-
Hmm. I dont believe in infantry at all anymore sadly. The thing is nobody is scared of infantry, on the contrary they júst dive into them to get safe from shooting/magic! And If its a 300 pt infantry tarpit that lasts a while, even better fro them! they are safe in combat while they tear me apart!
But Knights/demis are good att keeping alot of stuff at bay, say at around 17-18" away because they have a decent charge range. empire infantry doesnt keep anything at bay and are too slow to react any quickly.
-
Hmm. I dont believe in infantry at all anymore sadly. The thing is nobody is scared of infantry, on the contrary they júst dive into them to get safe from shooting/magic! And If its a 300 pt infantry tarpit that lasts a while, even better fro them! they are safe in combat while they tear me apart!
But Knights/demis are good att keeping alot of stuff at bay, say at around 17-18" away because they have a decent charge range. empire infantry doesnt keep anything at bay and are too slow to react any quickly.
I agree with this 100%.
-
i still think armies that dont have enough wounds worth of models on the board can lose from specific tactics. searing doom, save or die spells.... you are donezo.
im never gonna give up on infantry because thats why i play the game, to have boots on the ground.
-
If only infantri had movement 6" I would still use them, but in a 6 turn game where double flee/redirect owns any infanteri unit... They are only a "bunker" nothing more sadly...
-
if you have enough magic and artillery then you dont need to go to them, you can let them come to you. and if you deploy intelligently then you can be successful without M7.
-
Yes so very true Emcdunna!
Anyway, I d love if we could try different builds with lots of pigeoneers. Could you do a quick army 2500pts with Infantry please?
Cheers,
Mortim
-
If i were to do it i would just adapt my list to use pigeoneers. id essentially remove my investment in reiksguard and add in 3 pigeon guys.
to be clear i have:
50 swordsmen
50 halberdiers
10 archers
10 handguns
helblaster
cannon
3 demis
a lvl 4 wizard
an arch lector general
a bsb
then i would use knights, reiksguard and inner circle, but i would suggest you instead go with a balanced list of infantry, BS shooters, the artillery, 3 pigeon guys (who are only here because they are technically better than mortars, if mortars didnt suck then wed use them), and just try to magic and shoot the snot out of everything that comes at you. i think it can work. i think you need to focus on doing damage with spells and only use the infantry for tarpitting while you shoot other units.
dont attack, just hang back and delay/stall with demis and cav and archer detachments while you shoot and cast comet of casandora or dwellers or fireballs at your enemy and maybe you can essentially play as if you were a dwarf army but with magic.
-
Pigeon bombers and magic? Doesn't sound like fantasy battle to me, sounds more like fantasy boring.
I always wanted this game to be :
- Ranged is support, can't win games with ranged fighting.
- Infantry forms the core of the game, everyone has big infantry blocks.
- Cavalry works as support aswell, cant just run forward with knights and win.
- Magic is for BUFFING, not initiative tests to destroy entire units.
-
I agree Jompex, its just I stopped believing... Some races are just so much better than Empire... So I ll give them hell with pigeons, magic and knights to keep them away!
I ll litteraly shit all over those pointy ears!
-
i think we run to our knights when our infantry doesnt work but our knights arent great either. a lancing charge from knights against elves sees them attacking first and wrecking us.
-
yes everythings sux compared to asf elves, but knights at least scare them abit. Our infantry blocks is like a big supermarket filled with candy (characters on foot with crappy saves and attacks) waiting to get vandalised by asf kids on steroids.
-
Our entire army is like how you described it, Mortim...
People are like "demigryphs should cost 60 points", but why they can't accomplish anything. S5 is sad, elf infantry has better S...
Same thing with greatswords, give them ASF and I6, voila, completely broken unit...
Whenever I talk about how chaos is wayyyyy more powerful than empire and elves are above even that, everyone just answers with "Well chaos & elf models cost far more points per model! This makes it balanced!" So, if you think like this, that also means that if the points are equal, the units are balanced. Lets do a little comparison, compare Chaos warriors and halberdiers, both worth say 250 points.
So were gonna equip the warriors with the following :
Chaos warrior - 19 points
mark of nurgle
Halberds
And compare to our 6 point halberdiers.
250 points gets the empire roughly 42 halberdiers.
250 points gets the woc roughly 13 warriors.
So lets compare them in combat :
Consider the warriors are 6x2 with one extra guy in the back, therefore getting 18 attacks.
They strike at I5, meaning they go first. WS5 versus WS3, the warriors hit on 3+ so roughly 10 or so hits.
With halberds they wound our paper thin "elite" soldiers on 2+ causing 9 wounds and 9 casualties.
Lets assume we also deploy in 6x7, meaning we get 2 ranks of attacks, adding up to a whopping 10 attacks.
WS3 vs WS5 + mark of nurgle (-1 to hit) means our trained soldiers hit on 5+ causing a massive 3 hits. With our amazing S4 we wound on 4+, which means 1,5 wounds, so lets assume that scores a wound. The warriors still get a 5+ armour save, so a 32% chance not to suffer ANY damage. This means empire loses by 9 to start off with, still have 3 ranks, so empire only loses by 6, if warriors fail their 5+ save we lose by 5.
So uumm what? 42 (!) halberdiers averagely lose against 13 (!) mark of nurgle, halberd warriors of chaos. No wonder nobody brings empire infantry... Not sure if any of the math is accurate, but I think its pretty close.
About the pigeons. So you have a 5+ chance to cause a small template S4, AP. Not very convincing.
The more math I do about empire, the more sure I become I chose the absolute worst and hardest army ever. Elves and any kind of demons offer free wins, whenever I play against my local WoC player he just charges everything towards me and I lose, doesn't matter whether my knights charge or not, trolls and daemon princes won't care, I'm lucky if I manage to hit the lords or even hurt the 4+ regen trolls.
I'm utterly lost, I really need help with how to play this army.
Edit: hastily posted, added more.
-
luminark + hurricanum + hatred + prayers + buff spells on a halberd horde of 50 will weather the attacks of any high elf elite units then utterly destroy them. you have to invest a TON in it, but if you do, boom. you got yourself a dead elf unit.
the same asf elf unit will wreck your cav unit with their white lion S6 attacks that negate that armor you love so much and your depleted knight unit strikes back with 3 or 4 attacks that you miss with and youre dead.
10 knights vs 50 halberds... i think you know which one i vouch for.
-
forget hatred, dead priest before he gets to do anything.
Have you btw taken the charge of a unit of 14 Wild riders lately?
- about 30-40 kills on the charge...
-
well you can have a war altar for bubble hatred and warrior priests often dont die first turn if you put them in the corner of a unit and the unit charging you isnt a horde (which most of these elf units are not)
and holy shit wild riders do 30 kills? holy balls. well then that means you just need 60 halberdiers with 2 units of 30 swordsmen detachments. if they dont deal with your flanking detachments then they are butt f'd anyway
-
well you can have a war altar for bubble hatred and warrior priests often dont die first turn if you put them in the corner of a unit and the unit charging you isnt a horde (which most of these elf units are not)
and holy shit wild riders do 30 kills? holy balls. well then that means you just need 60 halberdiers with 2 units of 30 swordsmen detachments. if they dont deal with your flanking detachments then they are butt f'd anyway
Expect our elite troops break and flee against anything...
-
I agree Jompex, its just I stopped believing
Man, Journey is going to be so pissed.
-
WOW. hahahhahaha
hey i just had an unrelated idea. whatif your minis could make sound effects (clanging of swords, chanting, gutteral screams or warcries) hahahaha oh jeez i want that.
-
WOW. hahahhahaha
hey i just had an unrelated idea. whatif your minis could make sound effects (clanging of swords, chanting, gutteral screams or warcries) hahahaha oh jeez i want that.
..... you're telling me you don't provide your own sound fx for your battles ?? :-D
-
hey! although yeah wouldnt it be great if when you rolled for handgunner shots youd here a crackle of shots or a boom from a great cannon or twangs from arrow shots or whatever weird noises spells make.. but i think thinks like the hurricanum would make more of a constant buzzing noise.
-
How are you going to keep the engineers save? from lets say magic missiles ? Or if you put them in a unit, then you have to spend points on bunkers which cost you combat effectiveness, how to deal with this?
-
How are you going to keep the engineers save? from lets say magic missiles ? Or if you put them in a unit, then you have to spend points on bunkers which cost you combat effectiveness, how to deal with this?
They run with the knights pretty sure. The knights can still fight.
-
It is feasible, if you know what you are up against. The cheapest way would be to hide them and/or keep them within 3" of a War Machine. There is also the option of LA, enchanted shield, and barded warhorse (for a 2+ AS), the rather expensive AoMI, although those magical items may have better uses. As Jomppexx says, you can put all of them into a unit of knights, which, however, is likely to draw a lot of fire.
Of course, if you do not know what you are up against, your pigeon may quickly turn out to be a lame duck.
-
You cant shoot from combat and almost any unit will do against plain knights + engineer (especially if you put 3 of them in there!). So you are not creating any solutions but only shifting the problem (from concentrating on one unit to another)
I also think it might be best to park them next to a WM (canon) and shoot with the canon first turn if you have no other targets and otherwise shoot the pidgeons! nobody will expect this :)
-
I think the plan is that the Engineers leave the knights before CC. But, of course, "no plan of operations extends with any certainty beyond the first contact with the main hostile force," and it is probably better not to put all your pigeon eggs into one basket.
-
Our entire army is like how you described it, Mortim...
People are like "demigryphs should cost 60 points", but why they can't accomplish anything. S5 is sad, elf infantry has better S...
Same thing with greatswords, give them ASF and I6, voila, completely broken unit...
Whenever I talk about how chaos is wayyyyy more powerful than empire and elves are above even that, everyone just answers with "Well chaos & elf models cost far more points per model! This makes it balanced!" So, if you think like this, that also means that if the points are equal, the units are balanced. Lets do a little comparison, compare Chaos warriors and halberdiers, both worth say 250 points.
So were gonna equip the warriors with the following :
Chaos warrior - 19 points
mark of nurgle
Halberds
And compare to our 6 point halberdiers.
250 points gets the empire roughly 42 halberdiers.
250 points gets the woc roughly 13 warriors.
So lets compare them in combat :
Consider the warriors are 6x2 with one extra guy in the back, therefore getting 18 attacks.
They strike at I5, meaning they go first. WS5 versus WS3, the warriors hit on 3+ so roughly 10 or so hits.
With halberds they wound our paper thin "elite" soldiers on 2+ causing 9 wounds and 9 casualties.
Lets assume we also deploy in 6x7, meaning we get 2 ranks of attacks, adding up to a whopping 10 attacks.
WS3 vs WS5 + mark of nurgle (-1 to hit) means our trained soldiers hit on 5+ causing a massive 3 hits. With our amazing S4 we wound on 4+, which means 1,5 wounds, so lets assume that scores a wound. The warriors still get a 5+ armour save, so a 32% chance not to suffer ANY damage. This means empire loses by 9 to start off with, still have 3 ranks, so empire only loses by 6, if warriors fail their 5+ save we lose by 5.
So uumm what? 42 (!) halberdiers averagely lose against 13 (!) mark of nurgle, halberd warriors of chaos. No wonder nobody brings empire infantry... Not sure if any of the math is accurate, but I think its pretty close.
About the pigeons. So you have a 5+ chance to cause a small template S4, AP. Not very convincing.
The more math I do about empire, the more sure I become I chose the absolute worst and hardest army ever. Elves and any kind of demons offer free wins, whenever I play against my local WoC player he just charges everything towards me and I lose, doesn't matter whether my knights charge or not, trolls and daemon princes won't care, I'm lucky if I manage to hit the lords or even hurt the 4+ regen trolls.
I'm utterly lost, I really need help with how to play this army.
Edit: hastily posted, added more.
I stopped reading when you said halberds would be 6x7. Who the hell deploys 42 halberds that way? If your not going horde with them you bring spearmen. Let's try your example with horde halberds with hurricanum support cuz let's face it you don't field halberds without hurricanum. And don't give me crap about adding stuff in - warhamer isn't about throwing one unit against another unit without support. If the warriors had a typical support unit fielded with warriors I would say fine. Anyways here is more realistic math hammer :
18 warrior attacks hit on 3 - 12 hits wound on 2s - 10 wounds
25 halberds swing back hit on 4s - 12.5 hits wound on 4s - 6.25 wounds. Warriors make 2 saves so 4 wounds taken Halberds have 3 ranks so lose but steadfast.
Warriors have 9 guys left, halberds have 32 left.
Round 2.
16 attacks from warriors do 8.89 wounds round it to 9
Halberds 20 attacks do 3.33 wounds. Warriors save 1 so 2 more wounds. Your a smart general so you reform the halberds out of horde going 8 wide now.
7 warriors left vs 23 halberds
14 attacks from warriors do 7.78 wounds round it to 8
16 attacks back does 4 wounds 1 saved so 3 wounds on warriors.
4 warriors left vs 15 halberds
9 attacks from warriors does 5 wounds
10 halberd attacks do 2.5 wounds round to 3 warriors save 1 net 2 wounds on warriors. Halberds still steadfast.
2 warriors left vs 10 halberds.
5 attacks from warriors does 2.78 wounds round to 3
7 attacks back does 1.75 wounds - warriors save .58 so 1 wound net.
1 warrior left vs 7 halberds.
3 attacks does 1.67 wounds round to 2
5 attacks back does 1.25 wounds warriors save .42 so round to 1 wound
Halberds win with 5 dudes remaining.
-
Expect now the point sides arent even, add in 130 points worth of warriors and see what happens now...
-
I agree Jompex, its just I stopped believing
Man, Journey is going to be so pissed.
ROFLCOPTER
-
Expect now the point sides arent even, add in 130 points worth of warriors and see what happens now...
I think the point of the exercise was to show how underwhelmed empire soldiers are. They need a free Hurricanum to make a difference! (+1 to hit or a discount on pts to compare to warriors).
p.s. He did not want to calculate a vacuum example but then he did!
-
Doesn't matter because no one even takes warriors anyway.
Our infantry is a tragedy. We have a few things going for us though: no one fears them, and no one knows what they actually can do well.
Our leadership is great. Cold blooded break tests? Yes.
We have tons of access to spells that can buff our infantry to heroic status when combined together.
Also, try taking 60+ state troops. You think someone's gonna try nuking you? No. They don't care. They're worried about our knights and cannons. No one shoots at our infantry even with war machines.
But no matter what our infantry is not cost effective even with the detachment rules. Its a major bummer.
-
Our infantry is a tragedy. We have a few things going for us though: no one fears them, and no one knows what they actually can do well.
Our leadership is great. Cold blooded break tests? Yes.
We have tons of access to spells that can buff our infantry to heroic status when combined together.
Our infantry is a tragedy. Cold blooded break tests won't happen; foot captains are too easy to murder (Unless you spend more points on one than a knight captain costs...) It's like WPs in infantry--too easy to murder; and once dead the remaining unit is effectively neutered.
Any spell that is good at buffing our infantry is good at buffing our knights, even better usually.
-
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.
-
Or try and find a way to make the armybook work, instead of only complaining about our infantry but then also saying that our infantry is great when you buff them ?
-
The Empire is not a tier one army, but it does not suck, either. It lacks internal and external balance, but that is nothing new, nor Empire-specific.
-
I am just saying I love our army but it's not balanced and that makes me sad. What we excel at is great but it's not enough.
So I say release the pigeons!
-
Our infantry is a tragedy. We have a few things going for us though: no one fears them, and no one knows what they actually can do well.
Our leadership is great. Cold blooded break tests? Yes.
We have tons of access to spells that can buff our infantry to heroic status when combined together.
Our infantry is a tragedy. Cold blooded break tests won't happen; foot captains are too easy to murder (Unless you spend more points on one than a knight captain costs...) It's like WPs in infantry--too easy to murder; and once dead the remaining unit is effectively neutered.
Any spell that is good at buffing our infantry is good at buffing our knights, even better usually.
I agree completely on the character part.
I've started considering just running my characters (bsb, priests, general) naked with no extra armour.
If someone wants to kill them, they WILL kill them no matter what items you give to them. I guess the options of armour make them resistant to like skaven slaves or enemy halberdiers, but still... :icon_confused:
-
the number of units that actually have s3 attacks anymore is so low that armor and ward saves are kind of too expensive. the fact that a daemon prince or blender lord pays the same number of points for a 4++ ward that our characters do is a sign that we should just give up on giving them things
maybe we need to have the ability to get look out sir rolls for close combat? special rule for empire to make our characters suck less?
-
the number of units that actually have s3 attacks anymore is so low that armor and ward saves are kind of too expensive. the fact that a daemon prince or blender lord pays the same number of points for a 4++ ward that our characters do is a sign that we should just give up on giving them things
maybe we need to have the ability to get look out sir rolls for close combat? special rule for empire to make our characters suck less?
Why be so negative ? Also you cant change the rules of the game, so no need in trying to invent all sorts of new rules.
A vamp lord (blender lord) or daemon prince cost twice as much as a empire character, so the 4++ ward is cheaper for us than it is for them. We effectively buy 3 wounds for 45 pts resulting in 6 wounds at 200-250 pts instead of 500. (do the math: we pay 40 pts per wound and they pay 80-85 pts per wound)
The problem with gear is that rules like ASF make magic weapons far better while still being the same price... (now that's weird!)
Also KF is nothing to sniff at for about 400 pts. It is however harder to get him into combat because of the M7.
So you have some drawbacks playing empire (especially against elves), but you can play very competitively if you want.
-
ASF is very strong when combined with other magic weapons, mainly ones that boost fighting ability, like ogre blade.
Empire is at a dilemma as we would need to buy ASF from weapons, but also need combat boost.
-
You guys mostly brought how I feel.
Some things are still very good: Captasus, GM runefang, 8 lores of magic, Both Popemobiles, Demis, Stank, All knights (especially reiksguard), Cannons and yes Pigeons!!
The idea with pigeons is that its a devastating attack that cant be dispelled and most importantly is MOVE and fire. The bonuspart is that this artillery piece can be on a horse and relocate 16" and also join any unit except archers (being mounted so not with skirmishers). And we all know how we wish our artillery had wings or a horse to escape!!
The other thing is that our knights arent all that hitty anyway and that we often end up facing tougher knights like Elven Cav units with hitty heroes... Those combat are doomed: They charge first with better movement, they strike first and their "rerolls" doesnt go away like our priests do!! So we end up backing away and trading space for time while the Elves keep pushing/dismantling our army.
So I thought how can my knight unit be usefull at keeping stuff at bay and still dealing damage? 3 pigeons in a knight unit "strike first" from a better "charge range" which is the full 24" (combined with 7" for a 31") and after a couple of Pigeon volleys might even bring down that elven knight unit to manageable size, even for Empire knights!
Ofc u could have them on foot, but I dont believe in any infantry at all, and certainly not Heores/Lords on foot as they just get killed and have 0 means of escape with 8" move at best. Heroes should be mounted imo, they can escape better and yes be better redirecters!! Pigeoneers on horse at 97pts are expensive but they also cost just as much as 5 pistoliers that usualy end up being sacrificied as redirecters!
On the other hand, I am considering 6 pigeoneers on foot + 1 bsb as hero choices. Hide them in units at start, then move them on their own if needed (target saturation is working to some extent even with t3 models, it all depends on the enemies shooting/zapping ability). But I am wary of fielding 500 pts of foot pigeoneers that wont have any chance to escape vs a couple of Flying DE pegmasters etc...
6 pigeoneers should bring 12 hits in 6 turns, but more realisticaly 6-8 hits (some get killed during those 6 turns, some wont have good targets).
The question is 6-8 good hits enough to make a big impact on most Elven armies? (each template hits 21 small base models or units 5 or 10 cav each). I believe the answer is yes, or actually one of the best options to reliably deal damage (more reliable than magic in many ways) vs elves.
I would like you guys to try your next battles, as a community/research effort with 3-4 pigeoneers vs Elves and gather some much needed information!
Cheers,
Mortim
-
How about putting 1 or 2 in a unit of 6 Reiksguard, might even push him to the second row with command figures!
Now you can shoot at the enemy, while not really scared of being charged by the enemy.
-
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!
-
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.
-
Pigeon Council...
http://youtu.be/P3ALwKeSEYs (http://youtu.be/P3ALwKeSEYs)
-
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.
-
The funny thing would be that you can use them in a stand and shoot :)
-
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.
-
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.
-
So?
-
missile weapon, so you can stand&shoot.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 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.
-
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."
-
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?
-
.
-
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?
-
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
-
.
-
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..."
-
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.
-
What other rules are required to stand and shoot?
How do these rules prevent Pigeon Bombs from being used as a S&S reaction?
-
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.
-
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...
-
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.
-
huh? I wasn't trying to imply anything, only saying that I haven't combed over all the relevant rules in different sections of the BRB and our army book to back up my interpretation, which is:
At first glance, it would appear it used to be some kind of special attack that happened in the shooting phase. Then the FAQ made it clear it was in fact a missile weapon, but didn't actually change the wording of the rule, so you can still only use it in the shooting phase.
-
You can also only use shooting weapons in the shooting phase.
page 38 of the BRB:
During the Shooting phase, a model armed with a missile weapon can use it to make a single shooting attack..."
So sorry no Stand&Shoot for any weapons! (According to your interpretation)
which is clearly wrong.
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.
Fidelis I am sorry to tell you that GW does not work properly with the words: FAQ/Erratum/Amendment (which is so clear I ommit the proof here).
They should use Amendments where they use FAQ instead. But because this is the way GW works, this is the way we have to deal with it. If it would be bare questions answered then there is no hope of getting any information because we would have to ask everything (every little difference to circumstances).
I have more:
page 17 of the BRB:
STAND AND SHOOT
If a Stand and Shoot charge reaction is declared, the unit makes a normal, although out of sequence, shooting attack against the charging unit.
Do you know what out of sequence means ?
page 12 of the BRB:
THE TURN SEQUENCE
1. MOVEMENT PHASE
2. MAGIC PHASE
3. SHOOTING PHASE
4. CLOSE COMBAT PHASE
Out of sequence means you do something not in this sequence. So the specific phase is irrelevant! The rule out of sequence implies this!
-
It's pretty clear that a pigeoneer can stand and shoot.
Super strict RAW runs into all kinds of problems:
BSB, although ineligible to be general, may not have the highest leadership.
An army that totals 1996 points may not have 2 steam tanks (500 points spent in rare is 25.04% of 1996).
A unit of knights charging into an existing combat do not get their lance S+2 bonus, as the first round of combat has passed.
Etc.
-
What other rules are required to stand and shoot?
How do these rules prevent Pigeon Bombs from being used as a S&S reaction?
The AB > BRB. The AB limitation of "can use them instead of firing a weapon in the Shooting phase". Of course the limitation to one of the following: Blunderbuss, HLR, Pigeons, R Handgun, or R Pistol means he has no other weapon to fire in the Shooting phase.... :icon_neutral:
It's pretty clear that a pigeoneer can stand and shoot.
That we're talking about it means it's not "pretty clear".
-
What other rules are required to stand and shoot?
How do these rules prevent Pigeon Bombs from being used as a S&S reaction?
The AB > BRB. The AB limitation of "can use them instead of firing a weapon in the Shooting phase". Of course the limitation to one of the following: Blunderbuss, HLR, Pigeons, R Handgun, or R Pistol means he has no other weapon to fire in the Shooting phase.... :icon_neutral:
RAW, Pigeon Bombs cannot be used, even in the shooting phase. Do you have a missile weapon? No? Then you can't use pigeon bombs "instead" of firing the weapon.
The FAQ amends this to say that the Pigeon Bombs are a missile weapon. There are two ways to deal with this.
1) The entire prohibition "can use them instead of firing a weapon in the Shooting phase" is removed; or
2) The specific prohibition "instead of firing a weapon" is removed.
I see no reason to favor (2) over (1). The FAQ clearly and unambiguously says that the Pigeon Bombs are a missile weapon. You are allowed to use a missile weapon to make a Stand and Shoot reaction. Ergo, you can use Pigeon Bombs to make a Stand and Shoot reaction.
-
You can also only use shooting weapons in the shooting phase.
page 38 of the BRB:
During the Shooting phase, a model armed with a missile weapon can use it to make a single shooting attack..."
So sorry no Stand&Shoot for any weapons! (According to your interpretation)
which is clearly wrong.
Unwarranted extrapolation of the rules. Perhaps you could show me where the description of another missile weapon (that can S&S) specifies that it is used "in the Shooting phase"?
Fidelis I am sorry to tell you that GW does not work properly with the words: FAQ/Erratum/Amendment (which is so clear I ommit the proof here).
They should use Amendments where they use FAQ instead. But because this is the way GW works, this is the way we have to deal with it. If it would be bare questions answered then there is no hope of getting any information because we would have to ask everything (every little difference to circumstances).
You really should try once to actually read things - it would make these discussion much shorter.
Empire AB Official Update Version 1.2, p.1:
"This update is split into three sections: Errata, Amendments and ‘Frequently Asked Questions’. The Errata corrects any mistakes in the book, while the Amendments bring the book up to date with the latest version of the rules. The Frequently Asked Questions (or ‘FAQ’) section answers commonly asked questions about the rules. These questions have been gathered from many sources."
And as GW itself previously specified on its website:
"FAQs, or Frequently Asked Questions are grey areas, points of confusion or places where rules can and have been interpreted in conflicting ways. For each FAQ we provide the answer as determined by the Games Development team; while these are not hard and fast rules text in the same way as Errata, they should be considered the 'official' interpretation."
That said: this particular FAQ just clarifies that a pigeon bomb is a missile weapon.
I don't get this I mean the faq clearly states you can stand and shoot with it. Haha
I am not sure, whether emcdunna is serious or not, but if he is, it is a good example of the wishful thinking that is used when reading the rules.
I have more:
page 17 of the BRB:
STAND AND SHOOT
If a Stand and Shoot charge reaction is declared, the unit makes a normal, although out of sequence, shooting attack against the charging unit.
Do you know what out of sequence means ?
page 12 of the BRB:
THE TURN SEQUENCE
1. MOVEMENT PHASE
2. MAGIC PHASE
3. SHOOTING PHASE
4. CLOSE COMBAT PHASE
Out of sequence means you do something not in this sequence. So the specific phase is irrelevant! The rule out of sequence implies this!
Strangely enough, this again confirms that S&S is executed outside of the Shooting phase. While the pigeon bomb rules specify that it is used "instead of firing a weapon in the Shooting phase."
Super strict RAW runs into all kinds of problems:
BSB, although ineligible to be general, may not have the highest leadership.
An army that totals 1996 points may not have 2 steam tanks (500 points spent in rare is 25.04% of 1996).
A unit of knights charging into an existing combat do not get their lance S+2 bonus, as the first round of combat has passed.
Etc.
There is in fact no problem in the BSB not having/sharing the higehst Leadership.
As to the other two examples: that is just your interpretation, because you do not read the rules in full and in context, as already shown in the respective threads.
-
RAW, Pigeon Bombs cannot be used, even in the shooting phase. Do you have a missile weapon? No? Then you can't use pigeon bombs "instead" of firing the weapon.
One of your red herrings - irrelevant to this discussion.
The FAQ amends this to say that the Pigeon Bombs are a missile weapon. There are two ways to deal with this.
1) The entire prohibition "can use them instead of firing a weapon in the Shooting phase" is removed; or
2) The specific prohibition "instead of firing a weapon" is removed.
I see no reason to favor (2) over (1). The FAQ clearly and unambiguously says that the Pigeon Bombs are a missile weapon. You are allowed to use a missile weapon to make a Stand and Shoot reaction. Ergo, you can use Pigeon Bombs to make a Stand and Shoot reaction.
There is no need nor indeed authorisation to remove any prohibition. The FAQ does not say or even imply that. You just make that up, because otherwise you have no foot to stand on.
-
That we're talking about it means it's not "pretty clear".
We talk about rules all the time. In my parlance, "pretty clear" is less than crystal clear but better than ambiguous.
There is in fact no problem in the BSB not having/sharing the higehst Leadership.
As to the other two examples: that is just your interpretation, because you do not read the rules in full and in context, as already shown in the respective threads.
In both my examples there is nothing disproving my interpretation, and I read the rules literally. (And provided them word for word.) Adding more meaning or words beyond their literal context is RAI. You're arguing RAW-lite, or RAW when it suits your interpretation. If you take RAW all the time, my examples are true. If you start adding "context" without any words or rules to back it up, you're really just arguing for RAI with a different name.
-
RAW, Pigeon Bombs cannot be used, even in the shooting phase. Do you have a missile weapon? No? Then you can't use pigeon bombs "instead" of firing the weapon.
True, but there are other rules for the ME that may affect it. Shoot or re-roll a WM dice.
I'd err on the cautious side and assume the limitation "only in the shooting" phase would prevent me from shooting "not in the shooting phase" just to be safe. I don't think I'd care one way or the other as your opponent. Of course, I'd probably not charge the ME and aim for the WM if I had my druthers.....
-
There is in fact no problem in the BSB not having/sharing the higehst Leadership.
As to the other two examples: that is just your interpretation, because you do not read the rules in full and in context, as already shown in the respective threads.
In both my examples there is nothing disproving my interpretation, and I read the rules literally. (And provided them word for word.) Adding more meaning or words beyond their literal context is RAI. You're arguing RAW-lite, or RAW when it suits your interpretation. If you take RAW all the time, my examples are true. If you start adding "context" without any words or rules to back it up, you're really just arguing for RAI with a different name.
Anyone that has read those threads knows differently. The main difference between you and me is this:
I am all for RAW, and people too easily refer to RAI, because the rules do not say what they want them to say. In principle, RAW=RAI. But as I also have stated many times before, there is one intent of a rule we can be sure of: a rule must be applicable. If an interpretation renders a rule unplayable, then that interpretation is wrong.
(http://m.quickmeme.com/img/8f/8fc1ca3c719455b43670ca7dd37387a25605baf19b094da17b305685cd0f02ca.jpg)
Except of course, now you do not follow RAW - although they are in fact applicable.
-
I notice that my point was ignored; I am not certain that the language used actually means the pigeon bomb must be used in the shooting phase, rather that if it is used it is used in place of a missile weapon (which would be used in the shooting phase).
That is; one says "I am standing and shooting with this pigeon bomb - I may use it as missile weapon provided I do not use another missile weapon in the shooting phase. I am not using another missile weapon in the shooting phase - I am, instead, using a pigeon bomb in the stand and shoot phase of the charging phase."
-
I must admit, I thought you were being ironic, because that obviously does not work. You can shoot in the Shooting phase of your own turn. A S&S reaction is done in the Movement phase of your opponent's turn. The Shooting phase that follows is your opponent's Shooting phase. As none of your weapons can shoot in your opponent's Shooting phase, a pigeon bomb cannot be used instead either.
-
RAW, Pigeon Bombs cannot be used, even in the shooting phase. Do you have a missile weapon? No? Then you can't use pigeon bombs "instead" of firing the weapon.
One of your red herrings - irrelevant to this discussion.
I asked these before, but you continue to ignore inconvenient questions.
Are Pigeon Bombs a missile weapon?
What weapon is the Master Engineer choosing not to fire when he uses a Pigeon Bomb?
-
I ignored it, because, it is one of your red herrings - as the pigeon bomb could not S&S either way, it is completely irrelevant to this discussion.
-
There is in fact no problem in the BSB not having/sharing the higehst Leadership.
As to the other two examples: that is just your interpretation, because you do not read the rules in full and in context, as already shown in the respective threads.
In both my examples there is nothing disproving my interpretation, and I read the rules literally. (And provided them word for word.) Adding more meaning or words beyond their literal context is RAI. You're arguing RAW-lite, or RAW when it suits your interpretation. If you take RAW all the time, my examples are true. If you start adding "context" without any words or rules to back it up, you're really just arguing for RAI with a different name.
Anyone that has read those threads knows differently. The main difference between you and me is this:
I am all for RAW, and people too easily refer to RAI, because the rules do not say what they want them to say. In principle, RAW=RAI. But as I also have stated many times before, there is one intent of a rule we can be sure of: a rule must be applicable. If an interpretation renders a rule unplayable, then that interpretation is wrong.
(http://m.quickmeme.com/img/8f/8fc1ca3c719455b43670ca7dd37387a25605baf19b094da17b305685cd0f02ca.jpg)
Except of course, now you do not follow RAW - although they are in fact applicable.
I posted that because we were at an impasse, I read the rules literally and applied them as written. It doesn't matter if that renders a rule unplayable; that's RAW. You have the opinion that if a RAW rule is unplayable or improbable it must be taken to a RAI interpretation. That's fine; just be honest about it. Strict RAW definitely isn't fun. It also runs into all sorts of problems and improbabilities, some of which I have pointed out.
-
I think Waywatcher pretty much has it right.
And I think there is a serious problem with the hard-application we have here - using pigeons "instead of a missile weapon in the shooting phase" could imply one must have a missile weapon to use instead. Which means, if an Engineer doesn't have a handgun etc. he can't use pigeons.
The legalistic discussion here would be useful if this were a computer program and we were trying to find out why one cannot use the pigeonbomb.dll file on standandshoot.exe - but it's not. Yes, RAI is difficult to interpret - but I think a reasonable case can be made that a missile weapon is intended to be used as such.
The RAW argument is, in essence, intellectual masturbation.
-
I think Waywatcher pretty much has it right.
And I think there is a serious problem with the hard-application we have here - using pigeons "instead of a missile weapon in the shooting phase" could imply one must have a missile weapon to use instead. Which means, if an Engineer doesn't have a handgun etc. he can't use pigeons.
The legalistic discussion here would be useful if this were a computer program and we were trying to find out why one cannot use the pigeonbomb.dll file on standandshoot.exe - but it's not. Yes, RAI is difficult to interpret - but I think a reasonable case can be made that a missile weapon is intended to be used as such.
The RAW argument is, in essence, intellectual masturbation.
After rereading the rules of the pidgeon bomb I have to conclude the same.
The Engineer can not ever use pidgeon bombs! (like zifnab0 already pointed out)
-
@ Waywatcher:
Again: anyone having read those threads knows differently. There was no impasse: I demonstrated that your interpretation meant the rule was inapplicable, while there was an equally valid RAW that was applicable - just not yours. Sometimes, rules can be read RAW in different ways which may be equally valid RAW, and where it is impossible to decide. Likewise, you may have different RAW reading, which all may be possible, but where only one is probable. And in these cases, any interpretation RAW that renders a rule unplayable is obviously wrong.
@ Darknight: it seems rather you agree with me. Waywatcher is the one who argues extreme RAW - unless it suits him not to. To repeat:
I am all for RAW, and people too easily refer to RAI, because the rules do not say what they want them to say. In principle, RAW=RAI. But as I also have stated many times before, there is one intent of a rule we can be sure of: a rule must be applicable. If an interpretation renders a rule unplayable, then that interpretation is wrong.
However, the red herring of zifnab0 has no bearing on the issue of S&S.
[Edit] To expand a bit on RAW versus RAI: in general, this is a false dichotomy. We do not know what the intent was of a rule, except in as far it was written. Some people are apparently omniscient orare telepathic - for mere mortals like me, we can only work with what is written.
However, we can all agree (except Waywatcher, that is) that the writer had one clear intent: the rule should be applicable. Unless there is a serious problem with the application, there is no need to refer to RAI. More often that not, RAI are invoked not because the rule is unclear or unplayable, but because the rule does not say what we want it to say. I can see no reason to accept an interpretation that does not adhere to the full written rule, or even runs counter to the wording of a rule, if the rule can be applied without problems.
As I stated many times before, in a friendly game, you can play what you like, but then it will be a house rule.
-
So... I went a bit cross-eyed reading this. :icon_eek:
Just to be clear, I can NOT S&S with an Engineer Pigeon Bomber, right?
-
So... I went a bit cross-eyed reading this. :icon_eek:
Just to be clear, I can NOT S&S with an Engineer Pigeon Bomber, right?
LOL! :-P
That is the crux of the discussion. The FAQ has labelled it a missile weapon. Missile weapons can be used to S&S. IMO.
-
The crux of the discussion seems to be:
a: Some people think that the fact the the FAQ labeled the pigeon bombs as a missile weapon over rules the limitations placed on it in the Army book.
b: Some don't.
c: Some people think that the engineer needs to have some other missile weapon to use pigeon bombs [therefore increasing his cost by ten points] which does have some merit.
-
So... I went a bit cross-eyed reading this. :icon_eek:
Just to be clear, I can NOT S&S with an Engineer Pigeon Bomber, right?
LOL! :-P
That is the crux of the discussion. The FAQ has labelled it a missile weapon. Missile weapons can be used to S&S. IMO.
This is also how I read it. The FAQ clearly changed the rules and made it a Missile weapon which follows all the rules for missile weapons.
If you believe Fidelis and this is not so then the rules tell us that you can very strange stuff.
When a Master Engineer declares he will be using Pigeon Bombs, nominate any enemy model within 24"
So:
you can shoot into combat
you can shoot at any angle (not in your front arc)
you can shoot at non visible targets
-
The crux of the discussion seems to be:
a: Some people think that the fact the the FAQ labeled the pigeon bombs as a missile weapon over rules the limitations placed on it in the Army book.
b: Some don't.
c: Some people think that the engineer needs to have some other missile weapon to use pigeon bombs [therefore increasing his cost by ten points] which does have some merit.
That is a fair summary.
However, as I pointed out earlier:
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".
There is does not seen to be a clear definition of what constitutes a "normal shooting attack". BRB p. 99 comes perhaps closest: "'Normal' shooting attacks — by which we mean to say shooting attacks that use the firer's Ballistic Skill"
and
"The only exceptions to this are shooting attacks that do not use the normal shooting rules, specifically, shooting attacks that use some form of template (such as cannons, stone throwers, breath weapons and so on)."
-
The crux of the discussion seems to be:
a: Some people think that the fact the the FAQ labeled the pigeon bombs as a missile weapon over rules the limitations placed on it in the Army book.
b: Some don't.
c: Some people think that the engineer needs to have some other missile weapon to use pigeon bombs [therefore increasing his cost by ten points] which does have some merit.
C is completely unplayable. "The engineer may be armed with one of the following:"
Pigeon bombs are in the list with every other missile weapon, meaning it's only ever possible to have one missile weapon. Reading it in strict RAW, pigeon bombs, if taken, may never be used. Period.
-
Unless you believe that not firing a weapon because you do not have one is the same as not firing a weapon which you do have.
-
Either:
a. Pigeon bombs are a missile weapon.
b. Pigeon bombs are not a missile weapon.
If we accept a, then it follows: You can stand and shoot with a missile weapon. Therefore you can stand and shoot with pigeon bombs.
If we accept b, then it follows: You can only stand and shoot with a missile weapon. Therefore you cannot stand and shoot with Pigeon Bombs.
The problem with b. is that if you accept this interpretation, then a Master Engineer can never use Pigeon Bombs, even in the shooting phase, because an Engineer cannot choose to use them "instead of" another missile weapon (which he lacks).
Option b creates an absurd result that nullifies the rule. The rules writers would not write rules that have no effect on the game. We must conclude that b is wrong.
This leaves us with a as the correct answer.
-
Incorrect. The fact that something is a missile weapon does not mean it necessarly can stand and shoot.
-
Incorrect. The fact that something is a missile weapon does not mean it necessarly can stand and shoot.
well it does
edit: unless specifically stated that it can not. (see warmachines)
-
Incorrect. The fact that something is a missile weapon does not mean it necessarly can stand and shoot.
well it does
edit: unless specifically stated that it can not. (see warmachines)
And it is specifically stated that a pigeon bomb is used "instead of firing a weapon in the Shooting phase." In addition, I refer to my earlier post: in a S&S reaction, the unit makes a normal, although out of sequence, shooting attack. At least according to BRB p. 99, any template weapon is not a normal shooting attack.
-
C is completely unplayable. "The engineer may be armed with one of the following:"
Pigeon bombs are in the list with every other missile weapon, meaning it's only ever possible to have one missile weapon. Reading it in strict RAW, pigeon bombs, if taken, may never be used. Period.
Unless, of course, we ignore the FAQ - then it would work.
-
In a S&S reaction, the unit makes a normal, although out of sequence, shooting attack.
normal means: just like it would normally do (with all the rules)
out of sequence means: it is irrelevant that it is not the shooting phase.
leading to:
In a S&S reaction, the unit makes a shooting attack just as if it would be the shooting phase of that player. (this is the only reasonable interpretation)
-
It is not the only reasonable explanation, but it is the only one you can use for your interpretation.
-
1) Your definition is about 'Normal' shooting attacks, which is not the same as normal shooting attacks.
2) Also you can not use words like normal in definitions, because you want to be able to still use these words in context. (it is a small mistake, but GW makes them all the time)
3) If this would be a formal global definition then there would be no reason to give warmachine (except bolt throwers) the slow to fire special rule.
4) There would also be no need for an exception stated in the next part on page 99. The sentence would only need to say shooting attacks that do not use the normal shooting rules.
5) A doom-rocket would not be able to S&S
It is not consistent within the rules framework, not because I want it to be something. The rules should be consistent!
-
I read the comment of zifnab0 and the FAQ clearly states the Pigeon Bomb as a missile weapon.
However the problem is better put into words like this:
a. Pigeon bombs use the normal rules for missile weapons. With the rules for range and target given by the rules in the AB
b. Pigeon bombs do not use the normal rules for missile weapons and only use the rules given in the AB.
If we accept a, then it follows: You can stand and shoot with a missile weapon. Therefore you can stand and shoot with pigeon bombs.
If we accept b, then it follows: You cannot stand and shoot with Pigeon Bombs because the rules in the AB do not say you can. However you can shoot into combat, out of your forward arc and on non visible targets.
So the question is rather: Are the rules for normal shooting attacks added to the rules for Pigeon bombs (like in the case of other missiles weapons)
Or are they excluding the normal shooting rules and only use the rules written in the AB ?
I am happy with both of them, but I feel option A will lead to less problems with general rules than option B.
-
1) Your definition is about 'Normal' shooting attacks, which is not the same as normal shooting attacks.
2) Also you can not use words like normal in definitions, because you want to be able to still use these words in context. (it is a small mistake, but GW makes them all the time)
3) If this would be a formal global definition then there would be no reason to give warmachine (except bolt throwers) the slow to fire special rule.
4) There would also be no need for an exception stated in the next part on page 99. The sentence would only need to say shooting attacks that do not use the normal shooting rules.
5) A doom-rocket would not be able to S&S
It is not consistent within the rules framework, not because I want it to be something. The rules should be consistent!
1. Possible - as I myself indicated. It could also mean "attacks following the normal rules for Shooting" - which does not apply to pigeon bombs either.
2. Not impossible, but unconvincing as an argument - there are plenty of other ways available to convey that.
3. Or, for once, GW tried to plug obvious loopholes. Not that it helps - as Predatory Fighter shows.
4. I do not know what you are trying to tell here.
5. The rules of the Doomrocket actually specify it can S&S. The rules for the pigeon bombs do not.
-
5. No the rules do not. The FAQ does, however. But questions/answers are not rules (like you said).
4. "The only exceptions to this are shooting attacks that do not use the normal shooting rules, specifically [..]". Why make an exception if it is already clear that these shooting attacks are not 'normal' shooting attacks?
This shows how (non)consistent the rules of GW are.
-
5. No the rules do not. The FAQ does, however. But questions/answers are not rules (like you said).
Yes, the rules do, because it is an Erratum and not an FAQ.
By the way, comparison of the wording is suggestive, although not conclusive.
"The Doomrocket may be fired in the Shooting phase, or as a stand and shoot charge reaction."
"A Master Engineer with Pigeon Bombs can use them instead of firing a weapon in the Shooting phase."
-
The Doom rocket is not classified as a missile weapon. It is a Magic weapon. So actually it needs a rule to be able to S&S.
-
Yes - but the classification as a missile weapon does come from an FAQ. And without that FAQ, the paradox disappears - or at least has a good explanation.
-
"The only exceptions to this are shooting attacks that do not use the normal shooting rules, specifically [..]". Why make an exception if it is already clear that these shooting attacks are not 'normal' shooting attacks?
The "definition" of "normal shooting attacks" only occurs in the section of how hits are allocated when characters are in a unit. There is no indication that these rules are applicable outside of that section.
-
Noting that the night had barely started, Scheherazade initiated a new story: the Pigeon Council. There it was.
As it was customary every Wednesday evening, the Caliph Harun al-Rashid was receiving all plaintiffs which could not come into an agreement with the help of the district's Cadi.
The weirdest ruling of that night started when the Caliph’s guards brought in two plaintiffs and a man of science, who was carrying a large cage with six white doves.
Ja’far the Vizir introduced the case. He explained that one of the plaintiffs, named Rein, claimed that the man of science should be authorized, in case a warrior declared a charge against him, to remain standing and also to throw at him one of the doves.
The Caliph was very surprised and asked how it could be possible.
The man named Rein bowed, and provided all kind of explanations along with many quotes from the Sunnah. He argued with the finest jurisprudence, and concluded that it proved his case. Many people in the audience made gestures of approval.
Harun al-Rashid nodded and told: “I understand. You are right.”
Then Ja’far objected: “But my Lord, how can you judge without hearing the other plaintiff?”
The Caliph listened to his Vizir and agreed to hear the opposing party.
The contender was Fidelis, a well known Ulama from the great Mosque of Baghdad. He was versed in both Hanafi and Shafi'i schools of Sharia, the Islamic law. He provided enlightened interpretations of several parts of the Hadith, with many references to God’s Will (GW). His knowledge was so admirable that the Caliph could only approve and reply: “Now I see. You are right, of course.”
This is when the Vizir Ja’far showed some signs of desperation. “But… my Lord, this man and that man cannot be both right simultaneously!”
Harun al-Rashid stared at Ja’far. Then he looked silently at each plaintiff, at the man of science and at his six doves. The whole audience was breathlessly waiting for the Caliph’s ultimate judgment.
Finally, the Caliph ruled: “Indeed, Ja’far. I say it solemnly, you too are right.”
-
Indeed, Calisson, you too are right. :smile2:
-
very nice Calisson!
-
Well written, Calisson! :eusa_clap: