Quick terrifying question

[greg1394]

The rule for terrifying says "make a morale duel when...Enter a terrifying effect range"

So...a terrifying model EG molly with the gorgons tear, moves in to range of an enemy , dose the model take a test ?

The reason I ask is I have just finished a game and molly walked in to range and we couldnt decide if it worked because the other model (pa pa loco) did not walk in to range and therefore did not willfully enter it.

[Chucklemonkey]

In the circumstances you describe I am fairly certain you played it correctly.

Edit: I have to fight the urge to make a joke every time there is a terrifying question.

Edited February 9, 2012 by Chucklemonkey

[Patchwork]

I don't believe Loco would test then and there, as he did not enter the terrifying range so much as it entered him. He would have to test upon activating however.

At least that how I've been playing it.

[greg1394]

In the circumstances you describe I am fairly certain you played it correctly.

so the stationary model takes a test ?

[Chucklemonkey]

Apologies, I appear to have mis-read your original post.

A model takes a test when beginning their activation in terrifying range;

Ending an action in that range;

Entering a terrifying effects range; (in your example I would not have had Papa loco test.)

Declaring a charge against a terrifying model.

Edited February 9, 2012 by Chucklemonkey

[Wolfgar]

I believe the testing model must move into the Terrifying effect rather than have the Terrifying effect come to them. In the example you gave Papa would not have to test until he started his activation.

[Fetid Strumpet]

Correct.

[Cunning]

Yep, exactly right. It is quite concisely explained in the manual.

[Keltheos]

What they've said.

Papa would check to see if he's terrified when he activates, not when Molly moves and he winds up in her Terrifying range. She's menacing him (not the spell, lol), but he hasn't had to actively confront her yet - if you need something more fluffy to go off.

[Wolfgar]

Yeah. I find it's best to think of Terrifying check as the model in question having to confront their fears directly.

[ravenborne]

If anyone cares, and since people seem to be looking at the rules more closely these days, this particular wording leads to some really odd results. The most notable is when a terrifying model charges another model, but the defending model isn't terrified at all. Yet if charging model wants to go after a terrifying model 10" away, it may decide to turn and run. Any chance of getting this looked at? Seems to make sense to have models check when they are charged or approached by terrifying models. Right now you can totally get around the terrifying rules with a little clever movement.

[Clement]

If anyone cares, and since people seem to be looking at the rules more closely these days, this particular wording leads to some really odd results. The most notable is when a terrifying model charges another model, but the defending model isn't terrified at all. Yet if charging model wants to go after a terrifying model 10" away, it may decide to turn and run. Any chance of getting this looked at? Seems to make sense to have models check when they are charged or approached by terrifying models. Right now you can totally get around the terrifying rules with a little clever movement.

I'm curious now. In your above example, the charged model is still going to take his test to see if he turns and runs, but it will be on it's activation instead of the chargers. What clever movement is going to let a model get around terrrifying exactly?

[ravenborne]

Movement tricks happen when a model with say, a 2" melee range walks up to a terrifying model with a 1" melee range and attacks it, but does not have to take a terrifying test to attack because its not in the melee range of the Terrifying model (only when it charges). So, if the same model had declared a charge it would have run off, but since it spent the same AP to walk up and attack, its fine.

This btw is yet another reason why Seamus is non-optimal.

Edited February 10, 2012 by ravenborne

[Kadeton]

If anyone cares, and since people seem to be looking at the rules more closely these days, this particular wording leads to some really odd results. The most notable is when a terrifying model charges another model, but the defending model isn't terrified at all. Yet if charging model wants to go after a terrifying model 10" away, it may decide to turn and run. Any chance of getting this looked at? Seems to make sense to have models check when they are charged or approached by terrifying models. Right now you can totally get around the terrifying rules with a little clever movement.

I really don't see any problem with this. It's perfectly reasonable for a model to react to a terrifying opponent only during its activation, since that's when models normally do things. If you can push the model out of the opponent's reach by some other means before it activates, good.

Testing in the opponent's activation would cause other problems. When would the retreat move occur in relation to the Terrifying model's attacks? I'd be pretty annoyed if I charged with a Terrifying monster and the target nicked off before I got a chance to mash it to bits.

The current system is clean, simple, and functional.

[ravenborne]

As for getting around activating in the terrifying range, this can be done by luring your own models or by various other push actions. OK, no big deal.

I suppose that isn't what bothers me, its being able to turn around and attack the same model because your model was moved just out of the terrifying model's melee range. Seems odd.

[Kadeton]

I suppose that isn't what bothers me, its being able to turn around and attack the same model because your model was moved just out of the terrifying model's melee range. Seems odd.

Things aren't as scary when you know they can't reach you and you've got a long pointy object to poke them with.

[Fetid Strumpet]

Terrifying is a very sub-par ability unless you can get multiple models with it to descend on a clump of susceptible models. Too many models have extra defenses against moral duels in some way, or are immune, and I think this condition exists precisely because if you do fail it it really seriously effects the other model in a very NPE kind of way.

I wish that falling back wasn't the result of failing a Terrifying duel, so that maybe Terrifying would see some actual form of use in game. The target number to beat most Terrifying duels is pretty low, even for only average WP models, and masters who are susceptible will almost never run because they have use SS.

Honestly the best Master able to utilize terror in the game is The Dreamer, because if the opponent has susceptible models he can load his entire crew with the trait and drop them en mass into the enemy, requiring multiple duels from every model.

For most of the Ressers, who have Terrifying as one of their faction abilities that can be pretty common across their models, mechanically, I wish the models had harmless, or irresistible, or similar as it would get more beneficial use than Terrifying does.

[ravenborne]

Not to mention, its overly complicated to keep up with (when the test is taken). Its one of those rules people keep going to the rulebook to check. I would prefer a simple concept that basically says, if you are going to take an action against a terrifying model you need a check (that isn't word-smithed into a game rule yet). You might only need it once. In this case I am thinking not so much about balance (that would come with testing) but about accessibility and ease of play.

[Buhallin]

To drag it back to a rules issue... <ahem>

I don't know that I'd ever considered it for some reason, but if you Lure a model into a Terrifying range, the Lured model would have to test, correct? As long as that model is the one moving, and it comes into range, WHY it's moving would seem to be irrelevant.

[Fetid Strumpet]

That's correct, I tried it a few times. It can be useful, sometimes when the opponent forgets how it works and is low on cards in hand.

[Calmdown]

Not to mention, its overly complicated to keep up with (when the test is taken). Its one of those rules people keep going to the rulebook to check. I would prefer a simple concept that basically says, if you are going to take an action against a terrifying model you need a check (that isn't word-smithed into a game rule yet). You might only need it once. In this case I am thinking not so much about balance (that would come with testing) but about accessibility and ease of play.

Actually the rules for when to take a check are very plain and clear in the book (one of the few things that are it seems nowadays, heh) and im not sure why people overcomplicate them.

Just read it carefully, note the differences between the words 'activation' and 'action' in some sentences, and youre good.

[Toonook]

So does Seamus' aura from (1) The Face of Death only come into play when a model inside the 4 inch actually activates, or because it's a spell can Seamus cast it and run at someone and cause them to immediately take a terrifying test. I'm assuming it's when the model activates but ask because I face Seamus a lot and would like to know for certain, because our Seamus player is adamant it's when Seamus moves and puts an enemy in his aura the terrifying test is taken straight away.

Edited February 12, 2012 by Toonook

[Fetid Strumpet]

You would only need to take the test right away if he used Lure to pull you into the aura. The rules state that a model has to test when it enters a Terrifying effects range. The model in this case did not enter the range, the range, could be said, to have entered the model. I don't agree with it, and think it complicates a rule that could be much simpler, but your friend is incorrect.