Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

1). Area Effect lists the special rules that apply. It only lists 2D8, so there's no Marksman or Piercing on it.
2). Not right away you can't. Forced Fatigue is used to go back to models that already activated in a previous Turn.
3). Here's the clarified text (what the ability was trying to say....badly)

"Use this ability during the model’s activation, before or after an action, even if it is Engaged or Knocked-down. Friendly Salamanders (including the Veteran itself) and Fire Elementals are immune to the effects of this attack. All other models within 2" take 2 automatic hits with Piercing (1). Make Armour rolls as normal. This ability can be used once per game."

Matt, many thanks for your response! And I really appreciate that we can get an asnwer from a Mantic representative here.

Wow, I like the update of the Salamander Veteran ability, looks great!
Though, I am still confused by your answer to my first two questions. OK, the range effects on the boosted LB gets no Marksman and Piercing. But is it 3d8 (Marksman, Piercing) on the target plus the area effect on all models (including target) or just an area effect (2", 2d8) on all models in the area, i.e. without the 3d8 on the target the unboosted version provides.

And I have thought that forced fatigue works like this (all in the same round):
1) I activate a model
2) my opponent activates a model (or not if he/she has already finished all his/her activations in this round)
3) I can come back to the model activated in step 1) and force activate it now (or give action to another model, of course)
Do I really get it wrong.

The LB is only 2D8 for the Area Effect. The bit in brackets after Area Effect says how the Area Effect bit works. It can be completely different to the initial attack.

That is how Forced Fatigue works yes. But remember you can fatigue a model in 2 ways:

1. A Fatigue Action - this is done during the models' activation right after its normal actions. It doesn't coast a power to do this. This CANNOT be a repeat of one of the normal actions you make.
2. Forced Fatigue - this is when you go back to an already activated model later in the Round and then pay Power to Force Fatigue it. This CAN be a repeat of an action the model made earlier.

Matt, many thanks for your additional comments. I am glad you confirmed that I can "force fatigue" the model activated in my previus turn.

Though, I am afraid you did not answer my question about the LB, maybe I did not formulate it clearly enough. The question is whether one still keeps the 3d8 attack on the target in the boosted LB. I try to explain in more detail how I think the boosted LB works:
1) 2 power dice are spent to boost the spell
2) 3d8 (or 4d8 if the caster has a clear view on the target) are rolled to hit the target with Marksman and Piercing (1)
3) area effect (2", 2d8) is resolved, everybody in the area (including the target model) is hit, no Marskman or Piercing
Is the procedure correct? My question is whether the step 2) is there or not in the boosted version.

Sorry to pester you with the follow-up questions but I do not hink I got a clear enough answer on this point. The fact that one uses 2d8 for the area effect has been clear to me all the time ...

The boosted version says that the spell is the same, but gains Area Effect. Area Effect doesn’t replace the 3D8, it adds to it. So yes, step two still exists.

Good, everything clear now. Thanks for the answers!

We started our first campaing yesterday and obviously, I got a few more questions:
1) When a knocked-down (non-grunt) model is attacked and killed by range attack, it gets to roll for a Nerve test. If the same happens in Melee the model is removed as causalty (the same as grunt model would) without the Nerve test. I find the difference quite a bit confusing. Should it not be FAQued in a way that both, Range attack and Melee, work the same way in this instance.
2) Enemy model was knocked-down in a melee and fatigued, the fatigue counter got removed at the end of the round, so the model is only knocked-down. Can it stand-up (short action) and make melee attack (second short action) in the same turn. I would say so but the section about Engaged on page 17 says that knocked-down model cannot engage an enemy model. Does it really mean that it cannot Engage enemy model by standing-up? Should it not be worded differently, e.g. knocked-down model is not (instead of cannot) engaging any enemy model. Alternatively, one could read it as the model can stand-up (short action) and engage enemy model (without melee). Otherwise the rules sentence does not make sense to me.

I hope you do not mind I am piling my questions in one thread. Personally I find it better to have my (not so frequent)Q&As in one place.

1) That would make ranged attacks (already notorious for making balance difficult) quite powerful.
It's also less thematic, getting a fatal blow against a downed opponent is much easier close up.

2) The wording could be better, as you suggest sounds good.
As with headstrong, you can get up and melee if you get rid of fatigue somehow.

Good, thanks for your quick answers!

We played VG after a long time again and got another rules question:
One model had the Large Shield item enabling it to make the Brace action as a short action. The rules state that an engaged model can only make Melee or Break Away action. Does it really mean that the Large Shield is completely useless in combat (when Engaged). We interpreted it this way but find it strange ...

Like you played it, I also do not think it is intended that you can use it when engaged. Imho it would be too strong if you were allowed to do so.

3) The Salamander Veteran has a special ability, a ranged attack with 2d8, but the model has no Range value specified. What makes a successful hit. Clearly, this is not a question, rather an omission on the designers' part and it obviously requires a correction/FAQ, so if anyone is in touch with people at Mantic or with someone in the Vanguard rules committee, please inform them.

Until it comes up in the FAQs I would play it as an auto-hit. I think that is how its supposed to be, you are only allowed to do it once per game anyway.

And another question related to using the Forces of Nature warband. I have noted on Mantic blog that some rules of this faction are updated, in particlular the Ambush rule. Some new unit cards were also added. Is it going to be reflected in a FAQ. If so, when? In a week or two we are going to start a campaign that will be running for some time. Thus, I would like to prepare my warband anticipating any new rules (and units) for the FoN faction.

You will not find those things in the FAQ but they are supposed to be found in two places. Back on release Mantic announced that units when they come out will be found in the free rules roster as well as in the online army builder that has is officially linked in their store page (just like the free rules). I thought that concept is great!

Sadly Mantic has still room for improvement in this regard: Their Vanguard releases were made with a good bit of fanfare and created good exitement (at least for me), I have the feeling the releases are not all too well coordinated:

On releases, the free army rulebook is not updated, questions about the new unit rules might pop up the moment they are put on the blog, but do not get answered, the official online army builder does not contain the new units....
For example, the new Goblins are not yet online in the army builder, nor are they online in in the free rules, it is still unknown if the new traps can catch flying units... and then on the website on the vanguard store front (http://www.manticgames.com/mantic-shop/kings-of-war-vanguard.html) the goblins are not present on the page, only as a link... maybe Mantic only wants the real dedicated or eagle-eyed hobbyists out there to buy them

Enough whining, the good news for you:
I just double-checked by checking the initial-free-rulebook with the one currently online:

The new rules for FoN are indeed already online:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/drxs8vnxvrsm9lx/Vanguard%20abridged%20Warbands-dec31.pdf?dl=0
The army builder is also updated for you to create the new FoN lists:
http://vanguard.easyarmy.com/

update for Goblins on both of them still pending...

Can a knocked down model on its last wound be auto-killed with a shooting attack?

We have always played that shooting can do this.

Standing and attacking is fine too.

 StygianBeach wrote:
Can a knocked down model on its last wound be auto-killed with a shooting attack?

We have always played that shooting can do this.

Standing and attacking is fine too.

The text under "armor rolls" under "ranged attacks" on page 28 (printed rulebook) do not mention an auto kill possible via a ranged attack.
Because the rules explicitly just state it on page 30 under "armor rolls" in the "melee attacks" section i think its NOT meant to apply for shooting too. Especially because most of the test of the text is just copy-paste. That's at least our interpretation

 Schmendrick wrote:

Because the rules explicitly just state it on page 30 under "armor rolls" in the "melee attacks" section i think its NOT meant to apply for shooting too. Especially because most of the test of the text is just copy-paste. That's at least our interpretation

Indeed, as DarkBlack confirmed it is really ment to be different for shooting and melee. I am fine with it but find it confusing especially because most of the text is just a copy/paste and it is easy to miss the places which differ. IMHO it would be much better if the relevant text (what to do when the model wounds drop to zero or below) was there just once specifically saying what applies only for melee, or only for ranged attacks.

A question about how to handle fatigue on a down-but-not-out result came up. Is the following correct:

Scenario:

ROUND ONE:
Warrior Model A activates, then fatigues, takes his 2+1 actions and then ends its turn. It is marked as fatigued & activated.
Warrior Model B activates, takes his 2 actions and ends its turn. It is marked as activated.
Warrior Model C activates, takes his 2 actions and ends its turn. It is marked as activated.

Warrior Model A is now attacked, it gets mortally wounded, succeeds its nerve roll: It is now "down but not out". The model is knocked down. it also has its "activated" marker. and REMAINS with its fatigued marker (a model can only ever have 1 fatigue marker).
Warrior Model C is now attacked, it gets mortally wounded, succeeds its nerve roll: It is now "down but not out". The model is knocked down. it also has its "activated" marker. it is marked as fatigued.

Next ROUND begins, NO fatigue markers are bought off with power points by the players. All "activated" markers are removed.

ROUND TWO:

Warrior Model A activates. It stands up (its one short action it may do) and it's fatigue marker is removed. The model gets an "activated" marker.
Warrior Model C activates. It stands up (its one short action it may do) and it's fatigue marker is removed. The model gets an "activated" marker.
Warrior Model B is now attacked, it gets mortally wounded, succeeds its nerve roll: It is now "down but not out". The model is knocked down and marked as fatigued.
Warrior Model B activates. It stands up (its one short action it may do) and it's fatigue marker is removed. The model gets an "activated" marker.

therefore:
=> even though in ROUND ONE Warrior Model C took one less action and was not fatigued before getting a "down but not out" result, BOTH of them will be able to remove their fatigue marker at the end of their activation and be at the same state at the beginning of round two.
=> even though Warrior Model B took the "down-but-not-out" result THIS CURRENT ROUND, because it is its first activation this round, it can remove the fatigue marker at the end of its activation just like Warrior Model A and Warrior Model C.

@Schmendrick: I hope I did not miss anything while reading your post but everything looks correct to me.

Al Quds wrote:
@Schmendrick: I hope I did not miss anything while reading your post but everything looks correct to me.

thanks Al Ouds!

Hi guys. After the latest vanguard battle in my campaign, my opponent rolled the "Merchant Train" result when we did the campaigning phases. He then rolled that one of his Models would need to roll on the injury table. He has a healer in his Retinue which took part in the Battle that happened prior to finding that Merchant Train. Would you say he may reroll the injury table if he so desires?

 Schmendrick wrote:
Hi guys. After the latest vanguard battle in my campaign, my opponent rolled the "Merchant Train" result when we did the campaigning phases. He then rolled that one of his Models would need to roll on the injury table. He has a healer in his Retinue which took part in the Battle that happened prior to finding that Merchant Train. Would you say he may reroll the injury table if he so desires?

My understanding is that the healer can be used any time a roll is made on the causalty table (including when explorations are resolved) but only once per "after the game" resolution. Thus, if the player did not use a healer when resolving causalties that happened during the game, he/she can still do it in the exploration part.

Some more questions. :-)
We played the Destroy the baggage train scenario. The attacker charged a wagon, put some wounds on it.
1) The attacking model added a die for 1 power to make 1 more melee attack. Seems OK to me. Can the defender add a die (for 1 power) to the armor saves?
2) Is the attacking model considered to be engaged with the wagon? I mean
2a) does the model have to pass a break away test when deciding to go away from the wagon.
2b) does the model roll for a morale when the attacker's warband is broken (below half their starting numbers).

Al Quds wrote:
Some more questions. :-)
We played the Destroy the baggage train scenario. The attacker charged a wagon, put some wounds on it.
1) The attacking model added a die for 1 power to make 1 more melee attack. Seems OK to me. Can the defender add a die (for 1 power) to the armor saves?
2) Is the attacking model considered to be engaged with the wagon? I mean
2a) does the model have to pass a break away test when deciding to go away from the wagon.
2b) does the model roll for a morale when the attacker's warband is broken (below half their starting numbers).

Sorry, for the late answer, I forgot my rulebook after my last vanguard game at my friend!

1) The attacking model added a die for 1 power to make 1 more melee attack. Seems OK to me. Can the defender add a die (for 1 power) to the armor saves?

No I do not think so. The rulebook says:
"Each Round, players have a limited resource of Power to spend and enhance the actions and abilities OF THEIR MODELS". It is not your model

2) Is the attacking model considered to be engaged with the wagon? I mean
2a) does the model have to pass a break away test when deciding to go away from the wagon.

No, because the wording is "A model that is Engaged by one or more ENEMY models" but the wagon is "neutral". i guess the new supplement will probably have some words about "neutrals" but we will see

2b) does the model roll for a morale when the attacker's warband is broken (below half their starting numbers).

I actually do not think it counts as engaged because the wording in "Setup" for the mission says "At least 1 model must be placed in base contact with each wagon." instead of "At least 1 model must be placed engaged to each wagon.", but about this I am least sure of all answers

Thanks, Schmendrick, for your responses. I appreciate you could find support for your answers in the rulebook. I also tend to agree with you on the 2b) answer.

Questions about hills:

What is the correct way to attack onto or off-from a hill?

See attached image "distance". If a model stands in a "canyon" and is 1,5" away from the slope and the model on top wants to attack it... can it do so? it cannot move down the hill because it does not have enough space... but its 1,5" away... is it allowed to attack?

My assumption: no it cannot. why? if it is not able to legally get into base-to-base-contact then tough luck!
but it means: if i want to defend a hill, i can put a conga line of my models 1,5" away of the slope and the enemy is denied to get on top.



See attached image attackupwardsheight2: can the model on the bottom with height 2 attack the model on the hill?

My assumption: no it cannot. why? because the hill is height 2 and the model is height 2 so it does not have any "height" left to make the attack.


See attached image attackupwardsheight2: can the model on the top with height 2 attack the model on the bottom of the hill?

My assumption: no it cannot. why? because the hill is height 2 and the model BEING ATTACKED is height 2 so the model on top does not "reach" enough to make the attack.


See attached image "height1": can the models engage and attack each other without any penalties or bonues

My assumption: yes they can. why? because its nowhere written that a model attacking upwards has any penalties or boni.



any thoughts or something in the rules/FAQ i missed?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
PS: any praisings on my stick-figure talents are appreciated

It is a bit grey area of the rules but I think the answer to your questions is yes, the model on the hill (or on the lower area/canyon) can be attacked. Do remember that the front of the model is not only one side of its base (the one the model "looks at"), the two "sideway" sides of the base are part of its front as well. Thus, you can engage the model on the two sides of its base adjacent to what we normaly consider to be its front side. Have also a look at a similar topic elsewhere.

Also, remember that the hill represents a hill - not a series of 5' steps.

The Auld Grump