Mierce Miniatures

Been browsing the FE book again and came across these three issues:

There seems to be a contradiciton with Hold and Gaze:
Pg.250 - 6.37.1.2: "A gaze weapon can never be used as part of a Hold and Shoot Engagement reaction"
Pg.326/327 - 7.10.6: "Hold and Shoot (Shoot, Throw, Spray, Gaze)" --> see also 7.10.6.3

Loop with being entangled and prone:
Pg. 312 and 314: You can't rise while being entangled and you can't disentangle while prone. So the warrior would be infinitely locked if an entanglement lasts until disentangled and he gets knocked down.

Constrict Test Modifiers:
Pg. 219 - 6.23.5.5.1: If the grabbed warrior is "bigger" than the constricting warrior the tests gets harder the bigger the enemy - logical.
But if the grabbed warrior is "smaller" the test gets easier the bigger the enemy actually is, as the strength is deducted and that is less the smaller the grabbed warrior is.


Finally I have a need for clarification, as I just couldn't for the sake of me find the absolute answers:

Impairing attacks:
Some units have different weapons with special rules that impair the enemy (like the Walvax/Grogon nets or the Tomb Spider Immobile Strike). But following Pg. 198 - 6.20.3.1.2 all of their attacks must be simultaneously. So that means if I entangle/immobilize an enemy my own attacks can't profit from the easier strikes, correct?
I think that was the main issue with "Mighty Strike" before the errata, but now am unsure how to handle it with comparable attacks.

Nobles, combine or split attacks with unit:
A noble has joined a unit and they activate together whilst being engaged.
I get that a Noble in a unit may combine his attacks with his unit and they attack simultaneously.
BUT, it says he MAY. (Pg. 197 - 6.20.3.1.1)
So if they f.ex. attack a single monster, may be noble decide not to combine his attacks with the unit, but still attack the same enemy?
Thereby reducing its defence before the unit strikes.
Or does attacking the same enemy automatically mean he "combines" his attacks with the unit?

last but not least a really basic one actually:
Is a warrior, that is attacking an enemy in it's blind arc considered "unseen" for the purpose of parries/strikes?
I'm wondering, because the strike modifiers especially mention one special blind arc situation, but there's no word about attacking someone who's in your blind arc or parrying an enemy in such a position. (Pg. 200 + 202)
Only under difficult strikes/parries being in the blind arc is used as an example, but I simply can't read it from the charts as long as I don't consider the unit in the blind arc "unseen". (Which might sound logical, but "unseen" is the Darklands term for invisible under other circumstances...)

WIth thanks

Sven

deadlydeceiver wrote:Been browsing the FE book again and came across these three issues:

There seems to be a contradiciton with Hold and Gaze:
Pg.250 - 6.37.1.2: "A gaze weapon can never be used as part of a Hold and Shoot Engagement reaction"
Pg.326/327 - 7.10.6: "Hold and Shoot (Shoot, Throw, Spray, Gaze)" --> see also 7.10.6.3

Yeah, the first one is wrong, you can Hold and Gaze. Obviously caught in two minds there!

deadlydeceiver wrote:Loop with being entangled and prone:
Pg. 312 and 314: You can't rise while being entangled and you can't disentangle while prone. So the warrior would be infinitely locked if an entanglement lasts until disentangled and he gets knocked down.

Indeed so, that's intentional. If you're prone and entangled, you're knackered. Whether that will ever be an issue, is the issue...

deadlydeceiver wrote:Constrict Test Modifiers:
Pg. 219 - 6.23.5.5.1: If the grabbed warrior is "bigger" than the constricting warrior the tests gets harder the bigger the enemy - logical.
But if the grabbed warrior is "smaller" the test gets easier the bigger the enemy actually is, as the strength is deducted and that is less the smaller the grabbed warrior is.

That is very true; bugger. Not sure if there's an easier way of doing it, but you'd have to reduce it by the Constricting warrior's strength minus the Constricted warrior's strength. Say it's Chysperis, a warrior of strength 1 would have a -11 test, and so forth. Does that make sense?

deadlydeceiver wrote:Finally I have a need for clarification, as I just couldn't for the sake of me find the absolute answers:

Impairing attacks:
Some units have different weapons with special rules that impair the enemy (like the Walvax/Grogon nets or the Tomb Spider Immobile Strike). But following Pg. 198 - 6.20.3.1.2 all of their attacks must be simultaneously. So that means if I entangle/immobilize an enemy my own attacks can't profit from the easier strikes, correct?

Correct.

deadlydeceiver wrote:I think that was the main issue with "Mighty Strike" before the errata, but now am unsure how to handle it with comparable attacks.

Other attacks don't benefit unless I specifically state so. Currently only Mighty Strike is like that; Immobile Strike and Entangling Strike (which is what I'll call Net attacks and so forth) will be exactly the same in terms of how they work. I'll add those to the errata. What I'll probably do is have a proper rule that covers how these strikes work.

deadlydeceiver wrote:Nobles, combine or split attacks with unit:
A noble has joined a unit and they activate together whilst being engaged.
I get that a Noble in a unit may combine his attacks with his unit and they attack simultaneously.
BUT, it says he MAY. (Pg. 197 - 6.20.3.1.1)
So if they f.ex. attack a single monster, may be noble decide not to combine his attacks with the unit, but still attack the same enemy?

Yes.

deadlydeceiver wrote:Thereby reducing its defence before the unit strikes.

Correct, but bear in mind all the attack dice must be declared upon a certain enemy before dice are rolled - see 6.20.3.2.2. And yes, of course, warriors with a higher SKILL go first (see p 195), so the beneficiaries would be the grunts.

deadlydeceiver wrote:Or does attacking the same enemy automatically mean he "combines" his attacks with the unit?

No; nowhere in the rules does it say that.

deadlydeceiver wrote:last but not least a really basic one actually:
Is a warrior, that is attacking an enemy in it's blind arc considered "unseen" for the purpose of parries/strikes?

No. The rules never say that.

deadlydeceiver wrote:I'm wondering, because the strike modifiers especially mention one special blind arc situation, but there's no word about attacking someone who's in your blind arc or parrying an enemy in such a position. (Pg. 200 + 202)
Only under difficult strikes/parries being in the blind arc is used as an example, but I simply can't read it from the charts as long as I don't consider the unit in the blind arc "unseen". (Which might sound logical, but "unseen" is the Darklands term for invisible under other circumstances...)

Bear in mind that even when faced in the rear, parries can occur - armour doesn't unwear itself, for example. The benefits to attacking someone in their blind arc appear in the Strike side of things; i.e., it's easy to strike them, but warriors still get to parry.

Shields are negated though, when being attacked in your blind arc; see p202, "sightless parries". Shields are borne, so they can't be used to parry an enemy in your blind arc.

Dammit I've just seen the line on p203 about difficult parries in your blind arc - that example is wrong, that shouldn't be there. There was a parry modifier that did this but it never made sense, so I removed it and failed to remove the example! Sorry for any confusion there.

Cheers
Rob

deadlydeceiver wrote:Finally I have a need for clarification, as I just couldn't for the sake of me find the absolute answers:

Impairing attacks:
Some units have different weapons with special rules that impair the enemy (like the Walvax/Grogon nets or the Tomb Spider Immobile Strike). But following Pg. 198 - 6.20.3.1.2 all of their attacks must be simultaneously. So that means if I entangle/immobilize an enemy my own attacks can't profit from the easier strikes, correct?

Okay, just a quick update on this.

Immobile Strike (see p68) comes into play when an enemy warrior is wounded, so immediately after Constitution is reduced - that's pretty explicit; so it's not quite the same as Mighty Strike.

After a bit of investigating what I've already done I'm not going to do Entangling Strike for now because I believe Grab covers it all; if it doesn't, let me know.

Cheers
Rob

Thanks a lot for answering my questions in such depth Rob! It is greatly appreciated.

I'll keep this as short as possible to spare you the work:

Calculating the constriction modifier with the difference in strength would absolutel make sense IMHO!

And yes, it was mainly the example under difficult parry and strike that threw me off.
So to summarise: The only effect of being in the blind arc in close combat is that I get easy strikes an the blind engaged warriors as per the modification table.

Very fair point on Immobile Strike! One yould also argue that it takes a moment for the poisin or whatever to settle, rather than a hit to the head.
I'll have a detailed look at Grab once again and will let you know in case I find something unclear. But in the end it's all about how YOU want it to work in game.

QUICK EDIT: So, reading three times through Grab I'd say there's reason to think Grab occurs before regular attacks and thus a warriors own attacks may benefit from entanglement.(6.23.2.1.3 - "... A large monster could Grab an enemy warrior (...) before laying into the enemy further with his weapon!" OR 6.23.3.2 - "Example ... He may devote two attack dice to Grab (...) and then use his remaining dice...."
But I would like to note that these two passages are worded rather vaguely and are more exemplatory in nature than part of the "hard rules". An extra line might not be superfluous as I could indeed find arguments in the wording that made me waver in my interpretation above.

With thanks

Sven

deadlydeceiver wrote:Thanks a lot for answering my questions in such depth Rob! It is greatly appreciated.

You're welcome!

deadlydeceiver wrote:And yes, it was mainly the example under difficult parry and strike that threw me off.
So to summarise: The only effect of being in the blind arc in close combat is that I get easy strikes an the blind engaged warriors as per the modification table.

Not quite, the guy whose blind arc it is cannot use his shield or any Borne armour.

deadlydeceiver wrote:Very fair point on Immobile Strike! One yould also argue that it takes a moment for the poisin or whatever to settle, rather than a hit to the head.

Yes ;o)

deadlydeceiver wrote:I'll have a detailed look at Grab once again and will let you know in case I find something unclear. But in the end it's all about how YOU want it to work in game.

No problem.

deadlydeceiver wrote:QUICK EDIT: So, reading three times through Grab I'd say there's reason to think Grab occurs before regular attacks and thus a warriors own attacks may benefit from entanglement.(6.23.2.1.3 - "... A large monster could Grab an enemy warrior (...) before laying into the enemy further with his weapon!" OR 6.23.3.2 - "Example ... He may devote two attack dice to Grab (...) and then use his remaining dice...."
But I would like to note that these two passages are worded rather vaguely and are more exemplatory in nature than part of the "hard rules". An extra line might not be superfluous as I could indeed find arguments in the wording that made me waver in my interpretation above.

For me it's basically *when* you use your Grab weapon. It doesn't need to be explicitly stated I guess. Feel free to "explicitly" (i.e., show examples) disagree with me!

Cheers
Rob

Hey Rob,

did you just adjust the Fomoraic Muster or am I the most stupid person in the world?

Net: A Walvax's Rope Net weapon must be used to Grab enemy warriors whose strength is less than or equal to his own strength, rather than half his strength, before any other Attack is performed by the Walvax.

It isn't possible to word that any clearer ^^ If that was there all the time, I must greatly apoligze for wasting your time.

BUT: Gorgon is missing that line, as is the Jute Crag Beetle (also later might be a special case of "entanglement")... can't think of any more Entangling Strikes to check atm...

Best Sven

deadlydeceiver wrote:Hey Rob,

did you just adjust the Fomoraic Muster or am I the most stupid person in the world?

Haha... nope, not the Walvax net anyway.

deadlydeceiver wrote:It isn't possible to word that any clearer ^^ If that was there all the time, I must greatly apoligze for wasting your time.

Haha it's okay, these things are always worth looking at and revising in any case.

deadlydeceiver wrote:BUT: Gorgon is missing that line, as is the Jute Crag Beetle (also later might be a special case of "entanglement")... can't think of any more Entangling Strikes to check atm...

Yeah, good point - I'll check and amend if necessary.

Edit: the Gorgon now has that line, and the Crag Beetle's entangling attack and subsequent entanglement is down to when the player uses the Crushing Horns weapon, basically.

Cheers
Rob