Excelsior Entertainment Forums
Warzone => Game Questions => Topic started by: micmellon on December 12, 2011, 11:33:49 AM
-
Just imagine the following situation: Two Wolfbane Commandos are sneaking up (in stealth) to an Infantry Colonel.
The Colonel wants to spot the two squads. How many (successful) spot checks he has to make to see both squads?
I think two checks are necessary. To spot a stealth unit is not such an easy think over all.
If the first check is a perfect I can imagine that in this case he can see all stealth units in LD distance.
-
I do not understand if this is a question or a commentary.
The rules for Spotting are rather clear (including the FAQ). Please, clarify; thanks.
-
The question is quite simple.
Is it necessary to spot each stealth unit in a single spot action?
Or is it possible to spot all stealth units in one spot action?
When I read all the rules about spot and I exchange the word model with unit (like it clarified in the forum discussions) I get the feeling that it is necessary to make a spot action for each stealth unit.
It is just the feeling I get when I read the rules. But I would like to have a confirmation if I’m right or wrong.
I am not a native English speaker. Maybe I miss something obvious.
-
I believe it is necessary to spot one model at a time. If successful the entire squad becomes revealed (if applicable). So if there are two units within your leadership (modifiers included) then you have to spend at least two actions (one for each) to spot them.
Subsequent spot checks are covered by the rules but apply to each model/squad.
Obviously not official yet.
Hope this helps.
-
Thank you! Yes, this helps a lot.
It would be nice, if somebody of the FAQ-Team will confirm it.
-
Tim's example is not correct. His example mentions "models." If the unit which has Stealth has, already, been placed on the board as models (not a unit card), then they are, already, revealed; they cannot re-enter Stealth after being revealed.
In order to spot a "unit" ("unit" is synonymous with "model" only when the unit is comprised of only one model, such as an individual), one must expend an Action to perform a Leadership check. Success indicates that the stealthy unit is spotted and revealed, and remains so for the rest of the game. Failure indicates that the unit remains in Stealth mode. If the Stealth unit voluntarily reveals itself (moving faster than half its Move vale, attacking, etc.), it remains revealed for the rest of the game. At no point may a unit which has the Special Bility: Stealth "x" re-enter Stalth mode once it has been revealed.
Each unit that is in Stealth mode must be Spotted independently from another unit with Stealth; in other words, if a model performs a Spot Check, it may not reveal more than one unit per attempt.
Does this clarify it?
-
Yes, thank you!
-
After reading the posts about stealth I have one more question:
How does it work in the case a stealth squad is already revealed but still in stealth. This can happen.
(As an example: A Colonel spots a Wolfbane squad with his last action. Then a Trencher squad with a sniper kills the Colonel. Then the models are on the field but they are still in stealth.)
The next opponent unit wants to spot the stealth squad. So they have to spot a model like it is mentioned in the rules. Do they have to spot know each single model or is it enough to spot one model to shoot afterwards the whole stealth squad?
-
Once a model/unit is revealed, it is revealed to all; it can never re-enter Stealth, and never needs to be Spotted by another model(s) - it is permanently and irrevocably revealed.
Nowhere in the rules does it state that a model with Stealth is only revealed to the model(s) which Spotted it(them).
Your example, therefore, is moot. It cannot happen.
Does this clarify it?
-
If successful, any model in the Squad that passed the Spot Check, or any other Squad Given Orders by the spotting model, may act upon the formerly Concealed model. Friendly models separate from the Spotting model's Squad or outside the range of a Give Orders command cannot act upon the Concealed model, until they also Spot it.
Your statement doesn't fit to this one from the rule book (6.2.7). So you are rewriting the rule book now? I think we and the FAQ Team should interpret the rules of the rule book and not drop some rules and invent new ones. Sorry, but I cannot agree.
Don't get me wrong I am not upset or angry. I just don't agree and think the FAQ Team was until now not willing to rewrite rules and was just changing small typos. They should not start now to change this. Especially when I remember a lot of FAQ Team answers in the last time like this:
This has been answered. Reading, "unless FAQ'd, later," as, "This is not yet resolved," is similar to saying, "This game will never evolve past 1st Ed., unless there is a 2nd ed. or a complete re-write, or is discussed ad infinitum in the forums until I read an answer with which I agree."
Forgive my snarkiness, but I cannot clarify, further. I added the "unless FAQ'd, later" disclaimer as a way of saying that it is entirely possible that this might change at some future date based upon user input and designers' intent.
Please think one more time about my question and maybe you will find a different answer. Thank you!
-
Micmellon, I disagree.
One cannot simply take one particular paragraph from the rules without considering the whole body of the rules.
On page 80, Stealth is explicitly explained; "Once revealed, they remain so for the remainder of the game."
Please, understand that I a not rewriting rules or trying to make the rules bend to my interpretation. It is what it is. Stalk (and Lurk) work differently with regard to being able to return to a state of concealment.
The rule is analogous to Spotting a Unit Card that does not have the Stealth Special Ability; once the card is successfully Spotted, all enemy units may see the unit, the models are placed on the board, and remain "Spotted" for the remainder of the game. The Stealth Special Ability simply allows a unit to remain concealed past their inital activation, while a normal unit would be revealed simply by Activating. Further, Stealth makes that Spotting attempt much more difficult to pass.
I am unsure how one would differentiate between which units could see a formerly concealed unit, and which would still need to Spot it.
Further, this issue has actually been discussed by the FAQ Team along with the Big Kahuna, himself, and we are all in agreement on this. No one is rewriting rules in this instance.
-
At least we play so far without ignoring this paragraph and we are able to track who can see the stealth unit and who has still to spot them. It is a whole paragraph and not a single letter or word so it is unlikely a typo.
The paragraph is in my opinion not a conflict to the rest of the rules. It is possible to be revealed to one unit and be still in stealth to the rest of the board. If you want to say a model is revealed at the point when the unit card will be exchanged against the model it gets tricky with stalk.
When I follow your interpretation of stalk, (stealth, and revealed models) then I have to exchange the model(s) back to a unit card one more time when they reenter stalk. Otherwise they would be still revealed and then everybody can see them.
This sounds not very consequent to me because this will not be done by anybody. I really don’t think so.
Any way in most cases it happens short after a spot action anyway that the squad will reveal themselves to charge an enemy or to move faster on safe ground because it is not safe to move slowly in stealth when somebody can shoot you.
On page 80, Stealth is explicitly explained; "Once revealed, they remain so for the remainder of the game."
This sentence tells me only that they cannot reenter stealth and nothing more. But this was never questioned and everybody agrees to this.
-
Not to blow sunshine on anybody, but I had to note something.
Still proud about the attitudes and actions of this crew. In any country. I have been part and parcel of hundreds of arguments (not an exaggeration) about other games rules, and when I found this game, I found a different culture. The un-named games where permeated by rules that engendered argument because of how they where created. I still can enjoy those games, but more with friends than strangers, because all the "foibles" had been worked out. Gaming with a stranger can be interesting, good if they are about the game more than the winning, bad if otherwise.
What I love about this system is that it supports this kind of banter. It has a logical and balanced core, that you can adjust or debate logically, and the more you know about the game the more the rules make sense.
I checked the house rules from across the pond, and they where fun and understandable, If I bumped into any of those players I would play them with those "house rules" just to have fun, cause so long as everyone is on the same page, it's the same game.
Even though you guys might think some snark is going on, you are all being pretty civil, a good representation of this culture. As much as it looked like a little heat was building, it is still a warm breeze compared to the other gaming groups.
I know, a useless intermission during a rules debate. I honestly think though it shines a good light on the lot of our community.
Hope someday to play a few of the guys from across the pond! Be well all!
William
-
Dane/William, when ever you hit German ground you are invited to cross the blades with us and to fire some bullets across the table :)
-
P 42 6.2.7
... or any other squad given order by the spotting model, may act upon the formerly Concealed model...
why should i give order to act upon a concealed model, if it´s already spotted ( and therfore revealed )
... Friendly models seperate from the spotting model squad or outside the range of a Give orders cannot act....
in your opinion they can act because the stealth unit is revealed. doesn´t make sense to me, sorry....
-
Further, this issue has actually been discussed by the FAQ Team along with the Big Kahuna, himself, and we are all in agreement on this. No one is rewriting rules in this instance.
why can´t the discussion be in the forum ? and yes it´s a rewriting of section 6.2.7, indeed.
-
Apparently, I am not explaining this well enough.
As I understand it, the rules are clear. There are other references which contradict other rules within the entirety of the UWZ rules. It is my strongest opinion that this case is an example of contradiction.
Perhaps it is, indeed, an interpretation issue.
Suffice to say that the ruling is in the interest of game balance, game play, game speed and minimizing bookkeeping. If a Concealed model is revealed, all models on the board may see it. If it may return to a Concealed status, then all models lose sight of it.
A ruling was requested. A ruling has been given. Unless and until an update is posted and/or entered into the FAQ, this is the official ruling. The official ruling only applies if you wish it to apply; no one (least of all, me) is able to force you to use the rule.
If this still remains unclear, I am unsure how to be clearer.
-
I am unsure how one would differentiate between which units could see a formerly concealed unit, and which would still need to Spot it.
This is easy. Just place next to each stealth unit a marker. Each unit who can see the stealth unit gets an identical marker. When they are finally revealed then take the markers away.
-
"A ruling was requested. A ruling has been given."
I have to say I am going to rib you for the royal tone on that one this weekend my brother. I agree with the ruling, but you said that in a funny way.
Just so you guys know dmgee1 is one of the best dudes to play this game with, I recommend it highly. He is a competitive PITA, but never loses sight of the fun and when I win against him, it was a worthy fight. I am not shooting for the "can we just get along" post, everybody stated themselves well.
Play the game the way you have fun guys, if the house rule has been working for you, then by all means enjoy. We will debate the issue if we meet at a convention someday, I look forward to it.
That is why I bring template weapons guys, solves the argument at the first model spotted.
Dark Symmetry rules
-
Forgive the tone of authority. What I was trying to convey was that I cannot tell someone to use whatever rules they see fit; it would go against not only my inner nature with regard to house rules and it would cause confusion for tournaments and/or other "official" events.
Neither am I stating that my word is law. I qualified that with the "unless and until" clause.
For fear of being misunderstood through translation, I stated as clearly and as succinctly as I am able, "This is the rule. The rule is official. It is how it would be interpreted in a tournament or other official event in which I was the referee."
If I have offended anyone or if I am being too heavy-handed, I apologize. Please, understand; I make every attempt to make my interpretations of the rules from the letter of the entire body of the rules. When I am unsure, I do, indeed, seek guidance from others on the FAQ Team and from Thom. In their absence and/or unavailability, I present my interpretations in an attempt to avoid delays in answering what are, obviously, very important questions to the players.
When I stated...
A ruling was requested. A ruling has been given.
...it was my way of saying that I did not know how to be clearer regarding this issue and that I could not offer further insight if the questioner was going to simply to continue to argue their point in the face of an explanaton.
I appreciate the patience and support shown by all, thus far. Thank you.
-
As a first thing I and I think everybody of my gaming group really appreciate the work and effort of every member of the forum and of the FAQ-Team to solve issues and to keep some progress in the game. And hey this is not my first and for sure not my last discussion with DMCGEE1 and I am used to his humor and his sometimes a little bit grumpy way to answer after I harassed him a little bit. I think he is used to my style of writing, too. At least I hope so.
Generally we are happy to agree to the final answers we get in the forum but in some cases it just don’t fit to our way how to interpret the rules. I even think this is really the first time I can’t agree at all. I mean I understand somehow your way how to tackle the problem but the answer is to extremely far off the rules of the book and not necessary from our experience. That is just my opinion.
We have a certain philosophy how to handle rule questions. The foundations are the rule book and the first FAQ document from 2007. Everything else has to fit to these two documents. All answers, new rules, and house rules has to fit without causing conflicts to the existing rules.
If you take a look into our house rules you see at the end some rules we are still testing. These rules a quite new and it took us some time. We all had ideas where some small changes would gain us a better game flow or more fun but at the end more than half of the ideas were discarded and the ones left will be tested some time before we finally decide which we will keep and which one we won’t use in future.
Our house rules are not written in stone anyway. Maybe in one or one and a half year some house rules are changed one more time or even discarded because we found out that these rules are not okay like they be.