Supporting with ranged weapons?

Theik · **Posted:** Tue Mar 05, 2013 2:55 pm

Pox wrote:

from a thematic point of view it is quite simple.

when the enemy is far away your mate is simply standing in front of you and it is easy to shoot past him when standing directly behind him (heck he might even crouch down for you, who knows.)

Wouldn't that make it equally impossible to support somebody with a spear, or heaven forbid, support somebody with a lance from behind somebody supporting the guy in combat with their own lance?

I can understand the guy on the other end of the fight being in danger because they might get hit if the shot misses, but surely if a spear can go past/through the defender, an arrow could do the same thing?

And I still do not see how the rules are quite clear on it. If anything, they are vague and do not clarify how the two rules interact.

If you list a rule first, you are expecting people to understand that as the most important rule. If you then later want to make an exception to that rule, you should point it out at that point.

If you do not properly point it out you get really confusing situations like the one we are in right now.

SouthernDunedain · **Posted:** Tue Mar 05, 2013 2:56 pm

Lances can't be used to support...

Problem solved...need to read rules better and as written, rather than as interpreted in the way so I can win.

Theik · **Posted:** Tue Mar 05, 2013 2:59 pm

SouthernDunedain wrote:

Lances can't be used to support...

Problem solved...need to read rules better and as written, rather than as interpreted in the way so I can win.

Obviously I meant halberd, or what are they again? You know what I mean, the weapon that allows you to support a guy supporting a guy.

And isn't that exactly what I am doing? I am reading it as it is written. I couldn't care less about how the rules work if I win or not because my friend and I already agreed on a solution, I'm just curious to see what the actual official ruling on it is.

SuicidalMarsbar · **Joined:** Sun Apr 24, 2011 1:14 am **Posts:** 1712

No need to claim that Theik is metagaming SD. It is a rather honest question given how vague the ruling on shooting behind friends is.

Also, i made a post on the last page, but i think it got swamped down, so here it is again:

Read the new wording in the Hobbit rulebook guys.

The rules for shooting from behind friends clearly state that models in base contact do not count as an obstruction for the purposes of shooting, it no longer says "models in base contact do not require an in the way roll to shoot through", it says that "while other models are typically considered to be obstructions when it comes to making shots, we make an exception for models who are in base contact with a friendly model"

To me, even though that rule has arguably the vaguest wording, it still sounds like it trumps the 'shooting into combat' rule.

whafrog · **Posted:** Tue Mar 05, 2013 3:04 pm

Theik wrote:

If you are carrying an umbrella, you can't get wet.
If you are walking in the rain, you get wet.

Now obviously, you will not get wet while walking in the rain if you have an umbrella.

That doesn't apply here, because one condition clearly affects the other. The SBG rules are not so clear. Besides, as Pox said, people in combat move around unexpectedly...using your analogy, if you're carrying an umbrella in a hurricane, you're still going to get wet.

Anyway, I'm done debating. It's a question that was settled a long time ago. You'll find other questions that will come up of a similar nature (competing conditions), and the same logical principles apply.

SouthernDunedain · **Posted:** Tue Mar 05, 2013 3:05 pm

Not a halberd. Pike maybe? We have told you the official ruling yet you seem to be ignoring it...

Games workshop don't apply logic to their games. If they did, then eagles etc would have knockdown.

@SM, the good cant shoot into combat rule is the ace card of ace cards.

Edit: agreed with whafrog on this.

BlackMist · **Posted:** Tue Mar 05, 2013 3:56 pm

I've seen so much confusing text in this thread and it's pretty simple...

Good can't shoot into combat. If evil shoots into combat then you randomise who you hit, regardless whether your friend is in base contact with you or not because you are shooting into combat.

If you are aiming at a model that is not in combat, for example a model on a hill 20" away then you do the following:
1. Are you in base contact with a model in combat? If so, ignore that model.
2. Is the enemy in combat in your way?
a) Yes - You must shoot via combat and you risk hitting your model. If you are good, you may not shoot
b) No - Fire with no obstacles.

The end.

Note: Combat represents warriors struggling and moving rather than being stationary. Because of this there is always a risk of hitting your friend.

Dr Grant · **Joined:** Fri Aug 03, 2012 1:50 pm **Posts:** 1339

Gotta say I agree with the majority on this one, I don't really see where the confusion arises. Not accusing the OP of metagaming but It does seem to be a case of 'what I want the rules to say' rather than 'what the rules actually say' and, far more importantly, 'what the rules clearly intend'.

Good can't shoot into combat.

If evil shoot into combat they risk hitting their own guy.

Being in base contact with the combat makes no difference.

Beowulf03809 · **Posted:** Tue Mar 05, 2013 5:51 pm

whafrog did a great job (as usual) in the clarification by pointing out that one rule does not exclude the existence of the other. Both conditions apply so both rules apply.

Are you in base contact with a friendly model? Yes, so you can shoot around it.
Is your target in combat with a friendly model? Yes. If you are Good you can no longer shoot. If you are evil you risk an In The Way.

SuicidalMarsbar · **Joined:** Sun Apr 24, 2011 1:14 am **Posts:** 1712

I don't think the op was metagaming, or hoping the rules would sway in his favour, to me it just seemed that he was really not sure, as the wording of the 'shooting behind friendly models' is really quite vague now.

hithero · **Posted:** Tue Mar 05, 2013 11:05 pm

It's as everybody (almost) is saying, both conditions still apply, yes the shooter can shoot past his friend in combat and yes, he is still shooting into combat.

JamesR · **Posted:** Wed Mar 06, 2013 3:24 am

SuicidalMarsbar wrote:

Read the new wording in the Hobbit rulebook guys.

The rules for shooting from behind friends clearly state that models in base contact do not count as an obstruction for the purposes of shooting, it no longer says "models in base contact do not require an in the way roll to shoot through", it says that "while other models are typically considered to be obstructions when it comes to making shots, we make an exception for models who are in base contact with a friendly model"

To me, even though that rule has arguably the vaguest wording, it still sounds like it trumps the 'shooting into combat' rule.

This is ridiculous. It's simple, you have two seperate rules here.
Rule 1: You may fire past a friendly unit withou taking an in the way role if they are in base contact.

Rule 2: When firing into combat you must roll to see whom the arrow strikes.

And furthermore since you are nit-picking words, here are two points.
Pg 34 the hobbit manual (when speaking on shooting into fights) "...Good models wouldn't dare take such a shot for fear of striking their friends"

And the point you keep making about the "in base contact" exception to an allied "in the way" notice that every time an "in the way" roll for units in combat is called a "special In The Way test". This is consistant in figure 19 and the main rules paragraph. So a unit in combat is not subject to the exception because the allowance for an ally to shoot past a friend in base contact only applies to a normal "in the way" not a "special in the way" end of story

SuicidalMarsbar · **Joined:** Sun Apr 24, 2011 1:14 am **Posts:** 1712

JamesR wrote:

SuicidalMarsbar wrote:

Read the new wording in the Hobbit rulebook guys.

The rules for shooting from behind friends clearly state that models in base contact do not count as an obstruction for the purposes of shooting, it no longer says "models in base contact do not require an in the way roll to shoot through", it says that "while other models are typically considered to be obstructions when it comes to making shots, we make an exception for models who are in base contact with a friendly model"

To me, even though that rule has arguably the vaguest wording, it still sounds like it trumps the 'shooting into combat' rule.

This is ridiculous. It's simple, you have two seperate rules here.
Rule 1: You may fire past a friendly unit withou taking an in the way role if they are in base contact.

Rule 2: When firing into combat you must roll to see whom the arrow strikes.

And furthermore since you are nit-picking words, here are two points.
Pg 34 the hobbit manual (when speaking on shooting into fights) "...Good models wouldn't dare take such a shot for fear of striking their friends"

And the point you keep making about the "in base contact" exception to an allied "in the way" notice that every time an "in the way" roll for units in combat is called a "special In The Way test". This is consistant in figure 19 and the main rules paragraph. So a unit in combat is not subject to the exception because the allowance for an ally to shoot past a friend in base contact only applies to a normal "in the way" not a "special in the way" end of story

First off, can i just make it clear that i'm not claiming you can shoot through friendly models who are in combats. Now go back and read my post/the rule. It says nothing about 'in the way' rules when talking about shooting from behind friendly models anymore, the wording has changed since the ORB, it is now much more vague and simply says they do not pose an obstruction.

I don't Theik deserved to be pounced on, and i'm only trying to point out that there may well be a plethora (not sure what that word means but it sounds good) of newer players who will, understandably, be in much confusion about this rule due to it's cryptic wording.

P.S: Someone will point this out anyway but if you backtrack to figure 16 it talks about obstructions aswell, but even so they really should have just used the 'in the way' term in figure 18.

Thermo · **Posted:** Wed Mar 06, 2013 12:10 pm

Beowulf03809 wrote:

whafrog did a great job (as usual) in the clarification by pointing out that one rule does not exclude the existence of the other. Both conditions apply so both rules apply.

Are you in base contact with a friendly model? Yes, so you can shoot around it.
Is your target in combat with a friendly model? Yes. If you are Good you can no longer shoot. If you are evil you risk an In The Way.

Having read this entire thread, I think Beowulf breaks it down clearest and I tend to agree with his interpretation on this.

Hashut's Blessing · **Joined:** Fri Jan 15, 2010 8:41 pm **Posts:** 1279

The gist is - combats have an in the way roll. It doesn't matter which side your friend is on. They could be the opposite side of your opponent and you shoot into combat. There's an in the way roll.

Ultimately, the point is that the combat is in the way, not the model. Ergo, being in base contact and shooting into the same combat still ha an in the way roll, but standing in base contact and shooting elsewhere on the battlefield (despite your ally being in combat) means no int he way roll (for that model anyway).

Let me try to summarise:
BtB means no in the way roll.
Combat means in the way roll.
BtB doesn't stop their being a combat. The combat exists. The combat causes an in the way roll, NOT the model in combat. Ergo, in the way roll is made.

theavenger001 · **Posted:** Wed Mar 06, 2013 6:24 pm

Hashut's Blessing wrote:

Let me try to summarise:
BtB means no in the way roll.
Combat means in the way roll.
BtB doesn't stop their being a combat. The combat exists. The combat causes an in the way roll, NOT the model in combat. Ergo, in the way roll is made.

Exactly. Well (and succinctly) put.

Theik · **Posted:** Thu Mar 07, 2013 11:21 am

Alright, different situation that makes things even more confusing.

Bilbo (wearing the one ring) is in combat with a goblin. An archer wants to shoot at that fight. Is he allowed?

The rules for the ring say that the wearer can't be shot and in-the-way rolls are never made for the character, would that rule have priority over the combat in-the-way roll?

SouthernDunedain · **Posted:** Thu Mar 07, 2013 11:48 am

Is it a good archer shooting? If yes, then no because good models cannot shoot into combat.

Damian · **Joined:** Mon Apr 02, 2012 10:59 pm **Posts:** 246

Nobody can shoot into that fight.

Good can't simply because Good isn't allowed to shoot into a fight. Your archers may not know bilbo is there, but that doesn't matter. The rule is that Good may not shoot into a fight. You could imagine that some powerful magic is protecting the ringbearer if you like.

Evil can't because in order to shoot into a fight you have to have an enemy model to shoot at, you can't target your own guys. You don't shoot a fight, you shoot at a model in the fight. Since bilbo is invisible he cannot be shot at, therefore the fight cannot be shot at. Evil just gets to look on in confusion as one of it's warriors convulses weirdly.

If bilbo is wearing the ring and is in a fight with a dwarf and a goblin then Evil can shoot into the fight (it can see the Dwarf), an in the way roll is made and on a 1-3 the closest evil model is hit (The Goblin), on a 4-6 the target model (The Dwarf) is hit. Bilbo can't be hit as he can't be the target, because you can't see him.

Simples.

Theik · **Posted:** Thu Mar 07, 2013 12:06 pm

Sorry my bad, good can't shoot into fight even if there's no risk rule.

Make it gollum with the ring, fighting a dwarf then.
Does an evil archer shooting into that fight completely ignore the fact that it is a fight for purposes of in the way, because gollum can't be hit by arrow fire?

Supporting with ranged weapons?

Who is online