PDA

View Full Version : Ogres and Rank Bonus



Duck Dodgers
22-10-2007, 23:05
OK... A question has come up in our campaign group, and I can't locate an answer. I hope someone here can help.

We know that Ogres had rank bonuses with less than 5 wide in earlier editions. However, we cannot find anyplace in the 7th edition rules that makes an exception for larger bases that are not "Large" creatures.

Do Ogres and Trolls have to have 10 figures (5 across, 2 deep) to get a rank bonus? If not, can you point me to where this clarification is?

Any help would be greatly appreciated!

EDIT -

This came up in a recent game involving a Dogs of War unit... 2 ranks of 3 Ogres each. Some rules were clear, but the Rank issue was not answered in the rules we had with us for the unit. If it's in the Ogre Kingdom books, I's like to know, as that was printed before the new 7th edition rule book. But a line in there saying X number of Ogres is a Rank would be acceptable...

feeder
22-10-2007, 23:53
OK... A question has come up in our campaign group, and I can't locate an answer. I hope someone here can help.
Do Ogres and Trolls have to have 10 figures (5 across, 2 deep) to get a rank bonus?

Yes. Static CR is VERY expensive for Ogres.

Just remember, rank bonus is counted using number of models and not Unit Strength, whereas outnumbering is counted using Unit Strength and not number of models.

Gorbad Ironclaw
23-10-2007, 08:18
Ogres didn't have any exceptions for rank bonus in the previous edition either, there they had to be 4 wide just as everybody else.

Duck Dodgers
24-10-2007, 14:20
Ogres didn't have any exceptions for rank bonus in the previous edition either, there they had to be 4 wide just as everybody else.

Ah... maybe that's the confusuion... he may have thought the 4 wide still applied.

Thank you both for the help!

DaBrode
26-10-2007, 05:10
We know that Ogres had rank bonuses with less than 5 wide in earlier editions.

Ogre's do not and did not ever receive a rank bonus "special" rule. That's what the above statement sort of implies. They did however count 4 as a rank simply because everyone counted 4 as a rank in earlier editions.

EDIT: And that's what I get for forgetting to hit reply for several hours. Sorry for the repetition.

Rodman49
26-10-2007, 06:24
Out of curiosity, since it has been ages since I played Fantasy; did this switch to 5 wide cause any widespread problems that the community has identified? The only thing I can think of is it may have made the Lance a little better than before . . .

devolutionary
26-10-2007, 06:28
It did little to make the lance better in and of itself, since a single lance can hit as many models in a 5 wide rank just as easily as a 4 wide, at least as far as I can tell anyway. It did make maneuverability of large units substantially more tricky though, especially with the increase needed to wheel. The biggest impact is felt in the Beastman lists where argument did rage over the wording of their ranking rules.

T10
26-10-2007, 07:23
Out of curiosity, since it has been ages since I played Fantasy; did this switch to 5 wide cause any widespread problems that the community has identified? The only thing I can think of is it may have made the Lance a little better than before . . .

No problems. Previously you could expect to see a lot of minimum sized 4x4 infantry units kitted out for maximum amour save. But I believe the change has caused players to now take smaller elite infantry units and larger poor-quality units.

-T10

Belerophon709
26-10-2007, 07:26
It made the lance ALOT better. Though it may still hit the same number of models and so on, the "problem" lies in the difference in points cost. A fully ranked up unit in 6th would consist of 16+ models. In 7th it's 20+. That's an increase of 25%+ in unit size and most importantly COST. When a lance comes'a'charging these days and hits one of these ranked up units and blows it away, it will still be blown away just as easily but there will be a greater reward for the lance. Both because the unit now costs more and so yields more VPs, but also because the extra points must have been taken from somewhere else, effectively decreasing the size of the army to begin with.

I think it's important to note that the Lance rules actually say "three wide instead of the usual four". I take this as a referrence to the normality of things, the lance in effect being one model less wide than other units, instead of just a static three-wide.
No one agrees with me that the lance should actually be four-wide at present, but for the sake of the game, I hope that the issue is resolved soon.

I've been talking to deaf ears so far ;)


Belerophon

Sashu
26-10-2007, 17:57
The one other area that going from 4 wide to 5 wide has had some issues would be with Beastmen. Because of the change Beastmen fighting anything smaller than 75 mm will not get their rank bonus.

Urgat
26-10-2007, 19:37
It made the lance ALOT better. [etc]
You can also have more uits charge the same target for maximum carnage :p (what, overkill?)


I think it's important to note that the Lance rules actually say "three wide instead of the usual four". I take this as a referrence to the normality of things, the lance in effect being one model less wide than other units, instead of just a static three-wide.
No one agrees with me that the lance should actually be four-wide at present, but for the sake of the game, I hope that the issue is resolved soon.

I've been talking to deaf ears so far ;)


Belerophon

That wouldn't be really a lance anymore, 4 wide... I already dislike the current version quite much (the old one was a pain in some occasions, but it looked so much better -plus my bro who played them loved it for the simple fact his knights could rank up so nicely-, so a 4 wide lance... huh.

Festus
26-10-2007, 20:19
Hi

I don't understand the fuss, really.

Ranks had previously be 5 wide to be counted, and in my not so humble opinion, they made the mistake of reducing this number to 4. Now they rectified it again.

So, what is the deal?

Festus

Mercules
26-10-2007, 20:34
I don't understand the fuss, really.

For 8-16 point/model armies expanding the frontage 1 model isn't a big deal. When my naked Ogres cost 35 points that is another 70 points for a rank bonus which really pushes a person towards the MSU scheme for expensive models.

It would be nice if base size and/or wounds were figured into determining how many models are needed per rank.

Flypaper
27-10-2007, 01:53
did this switch to 5 wide cause any widespread problems that the community has identified?
It made the fact that lots of plastic infantry are sold in boxes of 16 look all the more like a cynical marketing ploy. :o

...Personally I had a couple of issues with it, actually. Saurus Warriors were one of the few infantry units that could really benefit from a 4x4 'anvil' formation, as two additional WS3 attacks (at 5x3) are nowhere near enough to compensate for the loss of a full point of static CR. Also, (and this has more to do with my being an obsessive type!) the rule change forced me to re-deploy my Temple Guard to 6x3, because in a five-wide unit the Slann in the middle is always going to look off-centre!

There were other instances of the Law of Unforseen Consequences in other armies. For example, Dark Elves lost the use of their versatile 12-man crossbow blocks (6x2, which previously could reform to 4x3 when the enemy got close).

There was an interesting article (http://us.games-workshop.com/games/warhammer/gaming/councilofwar/default.htm) on the US GW site where players from every army commented on the changes in 7th edition - and it's suprising how many of them identified unexpected differences made by the change to unit widths.

T10
27-10-2007, 08:56
Ranks had previously be 5 wide to be counted, and in my not so humble opinion, they made the mistake of reducing this number to 4. Now they rectified it again.


I seem to recall that limit being 4 wide previous to 7th edition. When did they change from 5 to 4?

-T10

Alathir
27-10-2007, 09:07
I think it's important to note that the Lance rules actually say "three wide instead of the usual four". I take this as a referrence to the normality of things, the lance in effect being one model less wide than other units, instead of just a static three-wide.
No one agrees with me that the lance should actually be four-wide at present, but for the sake of the game, I hope that the issue is resolved soon.

I've been talking to deaf ears so far ;)


Belerophon

I'll die before I let the lance formation go to 4 wide! It would look ridiculous then and not ANYTHING at all what its meant to look like (which this current version achieves at least a little bit)

The lance formation only needs very minor tweaks to be fine, namely that it can only recieve a max of +1 rank bonus regardless of how many knights there are. That would sort out problems with Bretonnia mustering an uncharacterful amount of static combat res.

Rodman49
27-10-2007, 09:11
I seem to recall that limit being 4 wide previous to 7th edition. When did they change from 5 to 4?

-T10

I never remember it being 5 wide before 7th edition also - but I started playing in 5th edition, so it could have been 5 wide in 4th or earlier.

Lorcryst
27-10-2007, 09:25
Well, I've been following WFB since it's third edition, still have the books here, and I can confirm this : the 4 models for a rank was a change a the sixth edition, before that it was 5 models to make a rank ... I never understood why they changed that, and I still used ranks of 5 in 6th ed (because my blocks of troops were modelled like that).

BTW, since the Beast of Chaos book and the Bretonnia book were released during the 6th ed, they'll use the standard "4 models per rank" of that edition in all their wordings ... a bit of brainpower later, and those sentences like "instead of the usual four" becomes "instead of the usual five" ... same thing with the beast herd, the very point of their rule is to allow them to keep a rank bonus even if charging very narrow units, and since we need ranks of 5 in 7th ed (as it should be, IMHO), it makes sense to rank them 5-wide ...

Gorbad Ironclaw
27-10-2007, 11:53
Well, I've been following WFB since it's third edition, still have the books here, and I can confirm this : the 4 models for a rank was a change a the sixth edition, before that it was 5 models to make a rank.


Not true. I'm sitting here with the 5th ED rulebook, and on page 39 it says: "If your formation is at least 4 models wide then you may claim a bonus of +1 for each rank behind the first<snip>".

I don't have the 4th ed book at hand, but I don't remember a change in that at all. So if it was more than 4 models to a rank, it have to be in 3rd ed or earlier.

And yes, it made quite a few changes. For instance, unless you are at least 25 models strong, it's impossible to turn and still keep your rank bonus.

Lorcryst
27-10-2007, 14:19
Ooops, checked my books since I posted, and indeed, 4-models ranks were the rule in 5th edition ... my bad.

Must be in the 3rd ed book then, but since I loaned it to a friend (some nice fluff stories in there), I can't check it ...

I've always found that units ranked with 4 models per rank look silly anyway ... standard in the middle, flanked by champion and musician, and then a trooper on each side look better, IMHO.

Festus
27-10-2007, 18:49
Hi

Sorry for any confusion I caused.

I really was under the impression that 4-models wide ranks was a development of 6th ed. But I was wrong.

I rechecked all editions back to 3rd - and WHAncient to boot, just to realize that I do not have a clue how I came to the thought of ranks needing 5 models to count... and I was so sure that I was right I didn't even check to verify. :(

Silly me. So again: Sorry for any confusion.

Festus