Some clarifications needed

A place to read and talk about our official updates, errata and addenda for Darklands. Please post all rules queries here!
User avatar
DrNO172000
Posts: 93
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2016 7:04 pm

Some clarifications needed

Postby DrNO172000 » Fri Mar 22, 2019 4:33 pm

1) Joining units

Under joining a unit it states

"Commander: the Join unit is a part of the Joining noble's command..." (with the general being the exception of course)

In the muster rules it states this about nobles mustered inside commands

"...Nobles mustered in this manner
are not commanders in any way
and follow all the other rules for
units within a command."

So in the case of a command that consists of a Dreaguth Thain as commander, a Dreaguth Deathbringer, and a unit of Dreaguth, am I correct to assume that the Deathbringer cannot join the unit of Dreaguth as he is not the commander, but the Thain can join either the unit of Dreaguth or the Deathbringer as they both count as units in his command?

2) Orders

In the orders section, it says that commanders and individuals always have move order and move + attack orders respectively. This is in addition to the battle order the general issued them at the start.

Using the above command that should mean that the Deathbringer is only under the commands battle order until changed as he is neither a commander or individual, correct?

3)Valor test vs terrifying

There are some discrepancies in the valor test requirements when it comes to egagers vs engaged.

Under the section for engagement reaction, the requirements read

"Trait: Fearsome units that are not being engaged by a terrifying unit"

However in the actual engagement reaction the requirements for the engager to take a valor test state that a fearsome unit does not have to test to engage a terrifying unit. That would mean they would only test if being engaged. Is this a typo and should the requirements essentially be the both for same types of valor test?

4) Fearsome units being engaged by a terrifying unit

In the engagement reaction section under the rules pertaining to a successful valor test that if the unit that is engaging them is terrifying, they do their reaction but get an afraid token unless the engaged unit is terrifying itself.

Under failing the valor test though it states that if a unit fails it's tested against a terrifying engager than it flees unless it is fearsome, then it simply reacts as normal but gets an afraid token.

This would mean fearsome units being engaged are afraid whether they pass or fail and rolling the test is pointless. I assume it is meant to read that a fearsome unit that passes does not get an afraid token and only units that are not fearsome get an afraid token after a passed valor test against a terrifying engager?

5)Never vs Must

Does never always take precedence over must? I can not find anything about this in the rulebook. Example under breakthrough requirements it states that a frenzied unit MUST always breakthrough but also a unit that did not charge or do a charge attack action may NEVER breakthrough. I assume it is NEVER that takes precedence, is that true in this case and all cases?

6)Slammers breakthrough

Under the rules for Slam it states that slammers can breakthrough if they end up unengaged after the slam. However, a slam is neither a charge nor are any linked attack actions a charge attack. So should the breakthrough requirements read charge or slam? Am I missing a passage that states a slam counts as a charge? Or should slammers not be able to breakthrough?

Thanks
User avatar
Rob Lane
Site Admin
Posts: 2730
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2013 2:46 pm
Location: Warsop Vale, Nottinghamshire
Contact:

Re: Some clarifications needed

Postby Rob Lane » Fri Mar 22, 2019 4:52 pm

DrNO172000 wrote:1) Joining units

Under joining a unit it states

"Commander: the Join unit is a part of the Joining noble's command..." (with the general being the exception of course)

In the muster rules it states this about nobles mustered inside commands

"...Nobles mustered in this manner are not commanders in any way and follow all the other rules for units within a command."

So in the case of a command that consists of a Dreaguth Thain as commander, a Dreaguth Deathbringer, and a unit of Dreaguth, am I correct to assume that the Deathbringer cannot join the unit of Dreaguth as he is not the commander, but the Thain can join either the unit of Dreaguth or the Deathbringer as they both count as units in his command?


That is correct.

DrNO172000 wrote:2) Orders

In the orders section, it says that commanders and individuals always have move order and move + attack orders respectively. This is in addition to the battle order the general issued them at the start.

Using the above command that should mean that the Deathbringer is only under the commands battle order until changed as he is neither a commander or individual, correct?


Correct.

DrNO172000 wrote:3)Valor test vs terrifying

There are some discrepancies in the valor test requirements when it comes to egagers vs engaged.

Under the section for engagement reaction, the requirements read

"Trait: Fearsome units that are not being engaged by a terrifying unit"

However in the actual engagement reaction the requirements for the engager to take a valor test state that a fearsome unit does not have to test to engage a terrifying unit. That would mean they would only test if being engaged. Is this a typo and should the requirements essentially be the both for same types of valor test?


Yes, that's wrong - change it to "is not Terrifying itself".

I'll errata it, I thought I'd already done it to be honest!

DrNO172000 wrote:4) Fearsome units being engaged by a terrifying unit

In the engagement reaction section under the rules pertaining to a successful valor test that if the unit that is engaging them is terrifying, they do their reaction but get an afraid token unless the engaged unit is terrifying itself.

Under failing the valor test though it states that if a unit fails it's tested against a terrifying engager than it flees unless it is fearsome, then it simply reacts as normal but gets an afraid token.

This would mean fearsome units being engaged are afraid whether they pass or fail and rolling the test is pointless. I assume it is meant to read that a fearsome unit that passes does not get an afraid token and only units that are not fearsome get an afraid token after a passed valor test against a terrifying engager?


It's a typo, and I've errated it - see here: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=628, under the "Passed Valour Test" part.

At least I think that's what you mean...

DrNO172000 wrote:5)Never vs Must

Does never always take precedence over must? I can not find anything about this in the rulebook. Example under breakthrough requirements it states that a frenzied unit MUST always breakthrough but also a unit that did not charge or do a charge attack action may NEVER breakthrough. I assume it is NEVER that takes precedence, is that true in this case and all cases?


It's not never vs must because it doesn't matter what the frenzied unit's rules are. A unit can only Breakthrough if it has performed a Direct Engagement regardless of whether it's frenzied or not. However, if a frenzied unit has performed a Direct Engagement and kills everything in its path, it must perform a Breakthrough reaction rather than any other reaction.

DrNO172000 wrote:6)Slammers breakthrough

Under the rules for Slam it states that slammers can breakthrough if they end up unengaged after the slam. However, a slam is neither a charge nor are any linked attack actions a charge attack. So should the breakthrough requirements read charge or slam? Am I missing a passage that states a slam counts as a charge? Or should slammers not be able to breakthrough?

Thanks


A Slam is a Direct Engagement (see p154, 6.10.1.1: Direct Engagements), so units that Slam can perform a Breakthrough reaction.

Cheers
Rob
User avatar
DrNO172000
Posts: 93
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2016 7:04 pm

Re: Some clarifications needed

Postby DrNO172000 » Fri Mar 22, 2019 5:10 pm

4) That is what I mean but I'm actually referring to 7.10.2.3 not 6.10.5.3.2 as is in the errata. I assume though the errata works for both.

6) Ok, so as I understand your response a Direct Engagement action of any type always allows a breakthrough then?

Currently the rules at 7.62.1 read

"Action: Units that have not Charged in their current activation, have not performed a Charge Attack action or that are not triumphant as a result of their Charge Attack action, can never breakthrough"

So this should read as Direct Engagement reaction instead?

I got voted the rules maestro for my group somehow so just want to make sure I'm not giving out incorrect info.
User avatar
Rob Lane
Site Admin
Posts: 2730
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2013 2:46 pm
Location: Warsop Vale, Nottinghamshire
Contact:

Re: Some clarifications needed

Postby Rob Lane » Mon Mar 25, 2019 10:07 am

DrNO172000 wrote:4) That is what I mean but I'm actually referring to 7.10.2.3 not 6.10.5.3.2 as is in the errata. I assume though the errata works for both.

6) Ok, so as I understand your response a Direct Engagement action of any type always allows a breakthrough then?


As long as the Direct Engager fulfils the requirements of a Breakthrough, yes.

DrNO172000 wrote:Currently the rules at 7.62.1 read

"Action: Units that have not Charged in their current activation, have not performed a Charge Attack action or that are not triumphant as a result of their Charge Attack action, can never breakthrough"

So this should read as Direct Engagement reaction instead?

I got voted the rules maestro for my group somehow so just want to make sure I'm not giving out incorrect info.


Hmm it should be Direct Engagement really. I'll have to errata that... thank you!

Cheers
Rob
Tiern Gwitreg
Posts: 18
Joined: Thu Mar 21, 2019 1:28 am

Re: Some clarifications needed

Postby Tiern Gwitreg » Sun May 12, 2019 11:17 am

About the first question, I'd like to ask for further clarification :

Can a noble who is in the host's command (but not the general itself) join another unit in the host's command ? Say, I have a Teyrn as general, and he has an Abad and a Teulu Unit in his host's command. Can the Abad Join the Teulu ?
User avatar
Rob Lane
Site Admin
Posts: 2730
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2013 2:46 pm
Location: Warsop Vale, Nottinghamshire
Contact:

Re: Some clarifications needed

Postby Rob Lane » Mon May 13, 2019 9:12 am

Tiern Gwitreg wrote:About the first question, I'd like to ask for further clarification :

Can a noble who is in the host's command (but not the general itself) join another unit in the host's command ? Say, I have a Teyrn as general, and he has an Abad and a Teulu Unit in his host's command. Can the Abad Join the Teulu ?


Yes.

Cheers
Rob

Return to “Darklands Rules and Musters - Updates, Errata and Addenda”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests