|
Post by Liam Thompson on May 16, 2009 15:45:48 GMT
Twice in the last week I've come across players who thought that there were rules in Warhammer Fantasy allowing models on the top of a hill to see over those on the slope of a hill (who could also see over models on flat ground) or that models on the 'rear' slope of a hill couldn't be seen. The core rules make no allowance for slopes or steps on a hill which quite a few people have stated to be wrong.
This leads me to think that the Warhammer players of the club ought to get together and decide on a set of club house rules that would always be in effect for all games played at the club (with the exception of games played against outsiders such as in an inter-club tournament).
If so, what rules would people want to put into such a list of house rules?
|
|
|
Post by carl on May 16, 2009 16:03:49 GMT
personally i think that if 2 models are on opposite slopes of a hill they cant see each other.
as hills are 'supposed' to block line of site, even for giants (i think), then it seems only fair that you can only be seen from one side of a hill if you are actually on top of that hill.
however, as long as players agree before a game then there should not be any problems.
i for one would not want to deviate too far from the actual rules re hills and scenery etc as we do tend to go to GT's etc and we could make mistakes there re terrain as we would get into a particular mindset if we adopted too different a house rule for say a hill.
the simple solution i think is that as we have enough hills at the club to actually pile them on top of each other so that they are taller the the largest model on the table therefore eliminating any questions over whom can see whom.
|
|
|
Post by Andy"windy"Miller on May 16, 2009 18:27:26 GMT
Hands up here, I was one of those players. I'm fairly new to WFB so hadn't read that section fully and relied on what I'd picked up, a mistake I know. I can see both sides. It would be good to stick closely to the core rules for the reasons mentioned above. Even though, as Carl points out, they do not follow common sense in every respect. My general view on it is the engineers mantra, KISS Keep It Simple "Stupid"
One rule, the same each time. To be honest having a house rule may well work against us, as we will learn/ use tactics that rely on the house rules and then have to adapt/ relearn for tournaments. Even as a newbie, that's my ten penneth worth ;D
|
|
|
Post by wstevens on May 22, 2009 18:27:27 GMT
I think at the club people have been playing that the hill - including the slopes were counted as a whole. I can see what Liam is saying. I normally play that the top of the hill (the flat) can see over models on the battle terrain board. If models are placed on the slope this still counts as part of the hill. However, what (and I presume) what Liam is referring to may be seen in this example. A unit of 20 handgunners shooting from the flat of the hill (the top) over a unit of 10 crossbowmen on the slope, who can also shoot over units on the flat terrain board. If we play that the hill as a whole then the guys on the top of the slope should have their line of sight blocked by the guys on the slope. If we play that the hill is "stepped" and designate the slope as a "step" then they can.
However at the doubles Steve and I ran into a rule that quite phased us. I had a unit of dire wolves was just touching one end of a sloped hill. On the opposite side of the sloped hill were some Dark riders. The opponents decreed that if the dire wolves were on the opposite slope of the hill they could be seen to be charged at or shot at. However if I placed them just at the base of the hill (not on the hill but on the terrain board) they could not be seen. For a mm I thought that it was a bit cheesy. If this is how people play at the tournaments then maybe we should employ this - however I did disagree but let it roll just to get on.
If this is the case this would mean that there is no more defence for hiding on opposite slopes of the hill if the opponent is on it as well, both can see each other to be shot at. But if the dark riders were on the opposite slope and I was not on it (yet) then they could not see me until they got the hill top (the flat).
Is this what you mean Liam?
|
|
|
Post by paulr on Jun 22, 2009 9:16:42 GMT
I'm totally with Carl on this, any troops on the slope of the hill cannot see over the hill (and can't be seen), that is common sense and is how the world works.
Any players who suggest otherwise usually do so because it gives them an advantage. The rulebook can't cover everything.
As to Liam's other point, multiple slopes allowing for layers of seeing over troops. My view is that if the hill has clearly defined sections i.e. two or more plateaus, then and only then can two sets of troops see over those on the ground.
A good point raised by Liam and once everyone has posted thier views maybe Liam can set up a poll for voting on the issue.
|
|
darkangel1(Darrell)
Gates of Antares
Master of the Ravenwing
The Dark Angels the First Legion the true Angels of Death
Posts: 1,060
|
Post by darkangel1(Darrell) on Jun 22, 2009 18:16:31 GMT
house rules are a good idear i think but we have to be very carefull about them i think if we look at GW throne of skulls tournes it would be a good starting point. on the subject of hills if a unit is on the front slope of a hill it could see a unit on top of the hill however it would be unable to see a unit reguardles of size on the rear slope of the hill or either side, then unit on top of the hill could see over any unit on any slope becouse they are higher this makes sence to me otherwise we could end up going down the 40k way of true line of sight and i dont think that would work
|
|
|
Post by carl on Jun 22, 2009 22:15:45 GMT
warren; perhaps bearing in mind your opponents stance at the tournie, could you contact GW and ask 'their' standpoint on the matter and then we could vote on taking that as 'read' for the club rule so to speak.
just a suggestion
|
|