It would be a bit cheeky if the monster player picked up the warrior, moved him to the opposite side of the monsters base then threw him the rolled distance. You'd be gaining an extra 40/60mm in that case depending on what monster you are using.[/quote]

That seems to make perfect logical sense, and appears utterly fair to me, as well as being quite playable in game terms.

Yep, that's what I meant.

I have to say I'm with Bilbo and SD on this one. The way I see it the monster picks up the opposing model so it's essentially in the middle of its own base and then throws it in any direction.

I don't think the rules intend the monster to be penalised if it throws the model in, roughly, 50% of the potential directions.

That said, I can understand where Whafrog etc. are coming from on this one and it's certianly not clear. For me it's one of those RAW v RAI things. Maybe worth sending in to get an FAQ answer?

_________________
Finished 2nd in the 2014 GBHL. My Wife's so proud

Free SBG fanzine: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=29569

But distances are always measured from the edge of a base not the middle so that makes little sense

How is it being penalized? The monster hurls a targeted model in base contact a predetermined distance from the victims current position. It does not (in my opinion) hurl it a predetermined distance plus the width of its own base. If the latter was the correct interpretation, then there would be no reason to state that the monster is unaffected by the trajectory of the hurled victim. That situation would never arise with the way you are currently playing it as it would never be in the path of the hurl.

_________________
You don't have to be great to start. But you do have to start to be great.

I don't have a Hobbit rulebook with me, but in the LotR one there is a section on measuring where "the distance between two bases" gets a definition. If the hurl rule says to place the hurled model 4 inches (for example) "from the Hurling monster" we should measure that 4 inches in the normal way we measure distances between bases. I.e. closest point to closest point.

Normally if my front edge is 12" away from your nearest edge and my back edge is 14" away from your back edge, I'm 12" away, not 14. We always measure distances between bases that way.

The victim may end up moving more than 4", but the FAQ makes it clear that we're not measuring from the victim's position but from the monster's. It seems to violate the basic measuring rules to say the model is hurled 4" away from the monster's base and end up closer than 4" to the monster. It needs to keep going until it is 4" away as "4 inches away" is defined in the basic rules.

Except in this case, as ukfreddybear says: "If the latter was the correct interpretation, then there would be no reason to state that the monster is unaffected by the trajectory of the hurled victim."

Spot on !

Sure there would, the victim moves from his position to a position X" away from the monster, potentially hurting everything along the way. You need an exception for the monster.

The line that the monster isn't affected doesn't impact things one way or another. The victim will move across the monster's base if he moves X" from his starting position or if he moves to be X" away from the monster.

It's the FAQ that doesn't make any sense if we're not measuring from the victim rather than the monster. If you're right and measuring from the monster is identical to measuring from the victim the question "Do we measure from the monster or the victim" doesn't make any sense. That can't be how GW is thinking of it, given that they think there is a difference between measuring from the victim or the monster and explicitly instruct us to measure from the monster.

If measuring from the monster's base means the point where the two models touch, what could that FAQ possibly mean? "Q: Do we measure from point A or point A? A: Always measure from point A!"

Another problem with measuring from the victim is that he might not clear the monster's base. If a Great Eagle tosses a Hunter Orc across his own base, on a 1 the orc won't clear the eagle's base. What then? The Eagle moves to make things fit? The orc does? The throw fails? It's not covered in the rules because if done the FAQ way it can't happen.

Another problem with measuring from the victim is that he might not clear the monster's base. If a Great Eagle tosses a Hunter Orc across his own base, on a 1 the orc won't clear the eagle's base. What then? The Eagle moves to make things fit? The orc does? The throw fails? It's not covered in the rules because if done the FAQ way it can't happen.[/quote]

Actually, that's quite an issue!

Well I always work out the distance first and then choose the direction. If the hurled model cannot clear the monsters base then quite simply that option isn't available to him.

I agree the FAQ is still misleading. The question is do we measure from A or B. I say neither. we measure from where A meets B.

_________________
You don't have to be great to start. But you do have to start to be great.

May I remind you to a 'rule' that said that any combat isn't stationary and that the models in it should be considerd constantly moving around anyway?

So a Monster picks up a model, turn in whatever direction he wants and throws the model X inches directly away from him. He must though, always throw straight otherwise he wouldn't, like Ring of Gyges said, end up X inches from the Monster.

_________________
MEMM I: 4th (Mordor+Harad) MEMM II: 4th (Galadhrim) MEMM III: 2nd (Thorin's Company)

Interesting little development...

I was chatting to Tom Harrison about this the other night (the guy who won the TOS in January) and he said that this exact question came up in one of his games at the tourney (one of his elves was getting hurled by a troll). He asked Simon Grant about it and the ruling was that you could pick any point on the monster's base and measure from there.

Apparently Simon said it was going to be FAQ'd but it obviously hasn't, although the current range of FAQs were nearly done at that TOS, they just take a while to get translated and uploaded.

Anyway, I know it's not definitive until it's in print but it seems that's the official ruling from GW.

_________________
Finished 2nd in the 2014 GBHL. My Wife's so proud

Free SBG fanzine: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=29569

it is in the FAQ Dr G



which is the most up-to-date version currently released and what he was probably going by at ToS. I guess we can ask him again in june at doubles.

_________________
12th GBHL 2013.
13th GBHL 2014
9th GBHL 2015


Mid Sussex Wargamers

I agree with you but that arguably leaves some ambiguity (as Whafrog, Freddybear and Bilbo have argued) about which point on the monster's base.

I think that could well be the FAQ question that was meant to clarify it but to make it crystal clear it needs to say 'Measure from any point on the Hurling Monsters' base'. Simon's comment adds that clarification, at least by word of mouth.

_________________
Finished 2nd in the 2014 GBHL. My Wife's so proud

Free SBG fanzine: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=29569

Interesting. I still prefer my interpretation not necessarily because of the wording wrt "passing through the monster", but because I think measuring from any point on the monster's base is overpowered. The sphere of influence is massive, and there is no counter. Measuring from the point of contact still allows the opposing player some way to mitigate the effect, and from that proceeds more interesting gameplay.

I played scenario 10 (The Battle of the Pelennor Fields from the Return of the King LOTRSBG book) as the Evil player with the suggested participants on Saturday. Two Ring Wraiths on Fell Beasts and two Mordor Trolls gets you a lot of Hurl brutal power attacks. I pretty much destroyed the Rohan apart from Eomer within four turns. On the first two turns it was ridiculously devastating!

I feel that the wording of the rules is there to prevent damage occuring to the Hurling creature if it happens to take the hurled model through the monster on its trajectory, which is measured from the nearest part of the monsters base to the direction of its trajectory.

The Heroic Strike used by Gandalf, Aragorn and Eomer really did help save the Good side and leant to a very balanced game. Though my opponant could really have benefited from using Aragorn's free might point to heroic march him into combat a lot earlier!

I've mainly played under the old rules, and monsters tended to not do terribly well. Are they really that bad with the new power attacks?

Heroic strike seems like it should make monsters shy. F7 is great, but without might the monster should lose to mid-range heroes who go in with some support.

Does it mean we just start seeing more wizards? Gandalf isn't scared of a Cave Troll at all. Nor is a Ringwraith scared of an Eagle.

Heroic monsters with might and will are spooky, but they tend to cost a fortune. At 350 points a Dragon should make a sticky mess of most things.

As I say, I've mainly played under the old rules, but I'm not getting "the sky is falling" from the new monster rules. IMO they needed a boost.

The new rules are definitely a great improvement and make monsters much more fun to use, and no more feeding the Balrog a Khazad a turn to neutralise its effectiveness. Monsters should be devastators which under the rules they now are. Also Heroes can stand up to them better, but will only have a few shots at this. From my experience it works and is well balanced.

After spending last weekend hurling models around with my eagles and getting hurled around by Fell Beasts at Battle Brothers I can confirm that the official GW ruling on this is that you can measure from any point on the monster's base. As I suspected Simon Grant also considered the issue resolved in the latest FAQ but I pointed out that there was still some room for ambiguity so he said he'd have a look at it for the next set (although he said they weren't due for a while).

Hope this helps.

_________________
Finished 2nd in the 2014 GBHL. My Wife's so proud

Free SBG fanzine: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=29569

Ok thanks for chasing it up

_________________
You don't have to be great to start. But you do have to start to be great.