All times are UTC


It is currently Sun Nov 24, 2024 4:21 pm



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 7 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Confusion over ladders.
PostPosted: Mon Oct 21, 2013 1:20 pm 
Kinsman
Kinsman
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 2:55 pm
Posts: 221
Hi all. I don't know if this has already been discussed before but has anybody else found conflicts with the rules governing ladders and combat in elevated positions?
I don't know how to make these questions coherent so I'll number them for ease of reference. Any help or clarification would be greatly appreciated.
Now, bear with me because this is about to get complicated :P

1) The rulebook states that fights between attackers and defenders in elevated positions, such as at the top of a ladder, can be completed by moving the attacker to the foot of the ladder (rather than positioning the miniature on the ladder) and resolving the fight that way. If this is the case:
1a) If the attacker must back away does he back away 1 inch from the foot of the ladder?

1b) What would be the benefit/point of physically positioning miniatures onto a ladder (as described in the section governing ladders in the siege rules) when they can fall and hit friends who are also on a ladder? Wouldn't it be more sensible to fight all combats at the foot of the ladder (as described in the section governing "defending elevated positions")?

1c) How do you decide what "in the way" test is supposed to be made by the attacker who is fighting a defender up a ladder considering there may not be anything actually "in the way".

2. If a model is on the top of a ladder and is forced to back away where does he back away to? Does he move 1 inch back down the ladder?

2a) If so: is he considered trapped if he cannot back away because of friends on the ladder?

2b) If he cannot back away down the ladder because of friend in the way, but survives being struck by the defender, does the defender have to move back 1 inch as is the case in a normal combat?


3. When an attacking model fights a defender in an elevated position (that would normally require a climb test to scale) is a climb test required and, if so, when is the test made? The rules in the EFGT rulebook don't mention making a test and only reference the climb test if the attacker must back away, saying something like "if the attackers would have required a climb test they take falling damage".


4. If a single attacker charges a single defender behind a barrier can he jump over the wall if he slays the defender? I ask as the only reference made to crossing barriers after defeating defenders is made in the section governing combat involving barriers and multiple attackers so doesn't seem to apply to single combats over a barrier.


I think that's about it for now. Thanks for any help in advance. I don't have the rulebook to hand just yet so I may be getting things muddles up so apologies if I have.


Edited for spelling and clarity.

_________________
My Youtube Channel
Top
  Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Confusion over ladders.
PostPosted: Mon Oct 21, 2013 6:49 pm 
Elven Elder
Elven Elder
Offline

Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2012 12:18 pm
Posts: 2528
Location: Dallas, Texas
1. The rulebook states that this gap may occur to allow for the game to flow, the model is counted as being at the ladder top, but if for whatever reason you cannot physically place the model there it is acceptable to place the model at the base of the ladder.
*Note that it does not say at the base of the ladder but base of the slope and that it specifies "as close to the target as possible".

1a. He backs 1 inch down the ladder

1b. Again its speaking to the limitations of table-top gaming, if you look on pages 28, 29 (of the big rulebook) it specifies placing a single die next to a model to show his height off the ground when you cannot physically keep the model at the height.
As to the point its important when assaulting a stronghold to take the walls as quickly as you can, so if you have a soldier on the ladder who kills his opponent defending the wall and immediately takes the place of the model he slew, you now have additional models who can flood onto the wall beyond just the point where the ladder meets the wall (if they are already partially up the ladder)

1c. Its a wall if he's scaling the ladder (imagine the model swinging as he nears the top of the ladder, he obviously wouldn't be given the chance to climb all the way to the top of the ladder, stand on the top rung and duke it out).

2. Again, yes he backs 1" down the ladder

2a. If he is trapped he takes double strikes and must see if he falls (although ironically if he is killed none of his friends test to see if the falling body knocks them off the ladder)

3. I looked through the rules as well and my guess would be that they do not as it is difficult enough to take the elevated position.

4. Yes if he slays his opponent he may take his opponent's place

Hope that helps out. My advice is always if the current rules don't cover it and there's no FAQ, check the older core-rules and try and fill the gaps until its oficially cleared up

_________________
Commission Painting @FB http://www.facebook.com/squyrepainting
Commission Customers include:
GBHL Youtube Channel
MiniWargaming
Top
  Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Confusion over ladders.
PostPosted: Mon Oct 21, 2013 7:06 pm 
Kinsman
Kinsman
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 2:55 pm
Posts: 221
Yes, yes, yes. That helps me immensely! Thanks so much for taking the time to answer so clearly.
I think the EFGT book has a lot of information missing that would have made the rules clearer.

One more thing though.....Do you have an answer for 2b? Say my model on the ladder-top loses the fight and is trapped by friends on the ladder behind him. However, he survives the double strikes for being trapped and doesn't fall.
What then? In a normal combat, when my model is trapped and has nowhere to move my enemies must move back. Is this the case in ladder fights as it doesn't seem fair to the defenders? If the defender must move back they could fall off their ledge (taking fall damage) OR they could move back which leaves a gap for the attackers to climb through even though they attacker lost the fight.
Any thoughts on that?

_________________
My Youtube Channel
Top
  Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Confusion over ladders.
PostPosted: Mon Oct 21, 2013 7:31 pm 
Ringwraith
Ringwraith
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2007 3:05 pm
Posts: 3140
Location: Canada
Images: 4
I'm AFB (away from book) at the moment, but I'm pretty sure defenders of barriers never have to back away, especially if they don't lose the fight.
Edit: I guess in this case somebody has to back away, so I'd push the models down the ladder.
Top
  Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Confusion over ladders.
PostPosted: Mon Oct 21, 2013 7:32 pm 
Elven Elder
Elven Elder
Offline

Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2012 12:18 pm
Posts: 2528
Location: Dallas, Texas
My advice on 2b would be that you just do the best you can to show they are not longer "in combat", as defenders never back away from an obstacle unless killed. The instance you give of a winner backing away is to show that they are not locked in combat and are free to move however they wish next turn

_________________
Commission Painting @FB http://www.facebook.com/squyrepainting
Commission Customers include:
GBHL Youtube Channel
MiniWargaming
Top
  Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Confusion over ladders.
PostPosted: Mon Oct 21, 2013 8:08 pm 
Kinsman
Kinsman
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 2:55 pm
Posts: 221
That seems the best course of action and the most believable. Thanks everybody. You have no idea how much these situations have been winding me up.

I think GW should hire somebody with mild OCD like me to proof-read their rulebooks. :P

_________________
My Youtube Channel
Top
  Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Confusion over ladders.
PostPosted: Tue Oct 22, 2013 1:13 pm 
Loremaster
Loremaster
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2006 12:53 pm
Posts: 1827
Location: CO, USA
hannanibal wrote:
I think GW should hire somebody with mild OCD like me to proof-read their rulebooks. :P


And nothing would ever ship! Too many gaps and "open for interpretation" issues. :rofl:

_________________
Wait ye the finish! The fight is not yours.
Beowulf

http://TacticsInMiniature.com
Top
  Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 7 posts ] 

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron