Stark Bowmen
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 22

Thread: Stark Bowmen

  1. #1

    Default Stark Bowmen

    The stark bowmen ability says they “ignore interviening models and terrain”. Does this mean they ignore all terrain, or just interviening terrain? If a unit is inside terrain that provides cover do the bowmen ignore it?

  2. #2

    Default

    Units and some terrain block line of sight normally. There is no definition in the rules that I could find for "intervening" so I'm going to assume the standard English language definition for it. Therefore, if something that normally blocks line of sight (or has the Block LOS keyword) is intervening, the Stark Bowmen may 'see through' it.

    T W
    To the Iron Throne!

    T W

  3. #3

    Default

    What about the defensive +1 from cover? Do they ignore that also?

  4. #4

    Default

    That's in debate, need Michael to chime in on this one, personally I think targets get the cover bonus.

  5. #5

    Default

    It seems to me that the only benefit is that they can still see their targets (pretty huge benefit since they wouldn't otherwise be able to even shoot at them). That should NOT take away the cover bonus when models are in terrain that provides cover.

    T W
    To the Iron Throne!

    T W

  6. #6

    Default

    I would tend to agree with TGW. Plus, Cover is a modifier that specifically applies to the defender, so I don't think it'd be appropriate for the bowmen to be able to negate that effect.
    "I did warn you not to trust me." -Littlefinger

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheGrinningWolf View Post
    It seems to me that the only benefit is that they can still see their targets (pretty huge benefit since they wouldn't otherwise be able to even shoot at them). That should NOT take away the cover bonus when models are in terrain that provides cover.

    T W
    This makes sense to me. There's no reason why the Stark's ability would negate the +1 to the defender. it just allows them to gain LOS, that's all.

  8. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by serbaelish View Post
    I would tend to agree with TGW. Plus, Cover is a modifier that specifically applies to the defender, so I don't think it'd be appropriate for the bowmen to be able to negate that effect.
    I would agree, but there is one problem with that rationale. The exact wording in the Stark Bowmen: This attack may ignore intervening units and terrain.

    So it is not the attacker that is affected, but the attack. Compare this to Ser Gregor Clegane – The Mountain that Rides. His attack affects defenders abilities, denying Defense Saves.


    Still, I agree with all above comments. For me the word "intervening" is the key. LoS is intervening. Cover bonus to Defense Saves is not intervening.

  9. #9

    Default

    ARROW VOLLEY
    • Long Range
    • If this unit does not shift before attacking, this attack rolls +4 dice.
    • This attack ignores intervening units and Terrain.


    COVER: When checking Line of Sight for Ranged Attacks, if
    any line can be drawn through this Terrain piece to the defender,
    they gain +1 to Defense Save rolls. Attackers ignore the Cover
    keyword of Terrain pieces they are within 1” of
    .

    ---------------------------

    Question is: Does the Arrow Volley ability ignore Cover?

    For clarity, Arrow Volley should read "• This attack ignores intervening units and Terrain for Line of Sight".

    As currently written, all Terrain/Models are outright ignored, and if they are ignored then they cannot impact the attack in any way- they basically do not exist. This is not intent, and will be addressed in next FAQ round. The defender would still gain the benefits of Cover if something with that keyword existed between them and the Bowmen.
    Designer and Senior Developer
    A Song of Ice and Fire, Dark Age, Rum & Bones, World of SMOG: Rise of Moloch, Wrath of Kings, Xenoshyft

  10. #10

    Default

    Thank you for responding to questions often, Mike. Though I may be ignored I do want to speak up and ask that CMON stop changing rules as written, whether it be in future faqs/erratas or in clarifications. The game just came out and is harder to follow for who said what and where than games that've been out for years. We are trying to grow communities at our stores because the managers and owners are really excited about the game, but 1-2 times a day we're being told of or finding that rules are different than on the cards or in the rulebook. This makes it exceptionally hard to build a community and to keep interest in the game.

    On a side note, several people have also posted responses from CMON that contradict things you have ruled on. Is there a way to quell that?

  11. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TarkL View Post
    Thank you for responding to questions often, Mike. Though I may be ignored I do want to speak up and ask that CMON stop changing rules as written, whether it be in future faqs/erratas or in clarifications. The game just came out and is harder to follow for who said what and where than games that've been out for years. We are trying to grow communities at our stores because the managers and owners are really excited about the game, but 1-2 times a day we're being told of or finding that rules are different than on the cards or in the rulebook. This makes it exceptionally hard to build a community and to keep interest in the game.

    On a side note, several people have also posted responses from CMON that contradict things you have ruled on. Is there a way to quell that?

    1. The only event of items being changed from text are specifically covered in the Errata and FAQ, and of those there have only been clarification on timing- no effects have been changed from the rules as they are written with the exception of Ranged Attacks gaining Flank/Rear bonuses and Innate Abilities.


    2. The ONLY official rulings come from either posts here or the Official FAQ/Errata. I have noticed far too much conjecture online from people saying they heard/played something at a convention, or heard from "someone somewhere official", or "read it online" that X was said or ruled. If it's not posted here or the Official Documents, it's not an official answer.
    Last edited by CMON Michael Shinall; 09-11-2018 at 11:28 AM.
    Designer and Senior Developer
    A Song of Ice and Fire, Dark Age, Rum & Bones, World of SMOG: Rise of Moloch, Wrath of Kings, Xenoshyft

  12. #12

    Default


    Word!

    It's nice to get things answered here and have a source for authorized clarifications. Thanks for your effort, Michael.

  13. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mirawen View Post

    Word!

    It's nice to get things answered here and have a source for authorized clarifications. Thanks for your effort, Michael.
    QFT.

    However, just so I'm clear, as I'm new to the game, I should play it that they DO get +1 for cover? That's not how it's written but what is intended, correct?

  14. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CMON Michael Shinall View Post
    1. The only event of items being changed from text are specifically covered in the Errata and FAQ, and of those there have only been clarification on timing- no effects have been changed from the rules as they are written with the exception of Ranged Attacks gaining Flank/Rear bonuses and Innate Abilities.


    2. The ONLY official rulings come from either posts here or the Official FAQ/Errata. I have noticed far too much conjecture online from people saying they heard/played something at a convention, or heard from "someone somewhere official", or "read it online" that X was said or ruled. If it's not posted here or the Official Documents, it's not an official answer.
    1. There is also the pivot change and now you are talking about changing the Stark bowmen. Depending on how you rule on the ongoing debate about finishing a charge on top of an allied unit that will be a change as well. Regardless, the point isn't as much that there will be 4+ rules changes rapidly, it's the feel to players. It was already hurt by having to release a faq/errata so quickly to clarify other things that, due to the lack of initial clarity, they may have misinterpreted. To a player it will feel like a change even if it isn't one of those 4. It might not deter many or even most players, but when trying to build a community for it, losing even 2 or 3 potential players can be crucial.

    2. That's great. However, people are sharing screenshots from emails with CMON employees where they contradict what you say here. Those aren't an official answer and they shouldn't be, but surely you can see how that may confuse people or muddy the waters. I'm not asking for you to explain to me where the official answers are, I was simply suggesting to pass along within the company that rules questions should maybe be pointed here.

  15. #15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CMON Michael Shinall View Post
    ARROW VOLLEY
    For clarity, Arrow Volley should read "• This attack ignores intervening units and Terrain for Line of Sight".

    As currently written, all Terrain/Models are outright ignored, and if they are ignored then they cannot impact the attack in any way- they basically do not exist. This is not intent, and will be addressed in next FAQ round. The defender would still gain the benefits of Cover if something with that keyword existed between them and the Bowmen.
    This has not been clarified so far in FAQ nor ERRATA (current being v1.4).

  16. #16

    Default

    As of v1.4, Stark Bowmen should be played as written on the card- their Ability allows them to ignore intervening Terrain and Units, meaning that they will also ignore any associated Terrain Keywords (such as Cover) the defender might have benefited from.
    Designer and Senior Developer
    A Song of Ice and Fire, Dark Age, Rum & Bones, World of SMOG: Rise of Moloch, Wrath of Kings, Xenoshyft

  17. #17

    Default

    On side note (or just blatantly off-topic): I was surprised as there was a poll on FB group for voting which is considered as worst Unit (when considering it's price), and Stark Bowmen "won" that poll. Even though I am happy with Stark Bowmen personally, that almost made me feel, that maybe the Bowmen ability is good the way it is now. Meaning that Stark Bowmen should keep ignoring the Cover bonus (even if it was initially by mistake), just for balance.

    But that was just a poll without any real empirical data. Well see, if the big math differs on CMON's view of balance and Stark Bowmen are seen as too powerful instead, and this is for that reason eventually FAQ'd. But before that (if ever), lets enjoy 'accidentally' boosted Stark Bowmen. (But must admit, the boost is quite situational).

  18. #18

    Default

    I like to approach things more in a logical way, lets say the bowmen can do some nifty overhead shoting and stuff, nice.... but the enemy in the woods, hiding behind trees should still get their bonus as it has nothing to do with some tactical shooting ability... unless the arrows can cut through thinsg and take away the save

  19. #19

    Default

    Just re-starting this, as I posted above, these should absolutely be played exactly as written on the card- they ignore terrain and units, this means they are unaffected by any terrain keywords entirely (as they are ignored).
    Designer and Senior Developer
    A Song of Ice and Fire, Dark Age, Rum & Bones, World of SMOG: Rise of Moloch, Wrath of Kings, Xenoshyft

  20. #20

    Default

    Builder Stone Thrower
    Ignores intervening units and terrain

    Shinall makes it clear what this means RAW. It ignores all terrain including cover. My question is if this was intended or if this also slipped through the cracks like the bowmen. Is it supposed to be only for LOS or for all? What's the intent?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Privacy Policy  |   Terms and Conditions  |   Contact Us  |   The Legion


Copyright © 2001-2018 CMON Inc.

-->