PDA

View Full Version : Are unit types mutually exclusive?



skank
20-01-2008, 13:10
Are the unit types (character, chariot, infantry, cavalry, warmachine and monsters) strictly divided or can a unit be a mix, such as monster/cavalry or character/chariot.

This has come up in other threads but could be useful to work through seperatly...

Atrahasis
20-01-2008, 13:14
This has been discussed at length in the past, and the final conclusion is usually "Who knows?".

It's impossible to prove one way or the other from the current rules.

DeathlessDraich
20-01-2008, 14:18
This is an obvious mistake in the rule book which should have been corrected by the FAQ.
"Units ... are divided into several types (listed opposite)"
The absence of 'some' in the above statement, implies that the list provided are the *only* categories.

Compare this with the Weapons list:
"Listed on the following pages are *some* of the many ... weapons"

There are obviously more than 6 types of units - I can count 12 types and 3 maybe 4 combination types.

Atrahasis
20-01-2008, 16:38
12 types, really?

Please do.

DeathlessDraich
20-01-2008, 17:55
You have to wait a few days before I can answer that - it is the current question in the Fantasy rules quiz.:D

DeathlessDraich
21-01-2008, 11:26
The question yielded
20 unit types!

My original 13

Infantry,
Cavalry,
Chariot,
Monster,
Character,
Monster and Handlers,
Pack or Herd (e.g. Giant Rats, Squig herds, Beast Herd),
Mixed units (e.g. Rat Ogres, Salamanders)
Flyers,
Scouts,
Skirmishers,
Swarms,
Warmachines.

Other suggestions:
Ogre Infantry, Fast Cavalry, Un-mounted cavalry (e.g. Warhounds, Centigors, Bull Centaurs), Flying Cavalry, Light Chariot or Unit of chariots, Lone Crazed model? (Fanatic, Doom seekers), Mounted unit? (Pleasure seekers, Plague Riders, Bloodcrushers)


Unit combinations (a combination is a unit of 2 or more unit types is different from Mixed units where the each element is a specific unit type):

Flying character
Mounted character (on a steed, chariot, Monstrous mount, or a unique Mount e.g. Shield bearers, Palanquin),
Warmachine-chariot (WLC),
Fast Cavalry-unit of chariots (TK),
Weapons teams and Jezzails (combination of infantry and cavalry),
Monstrous Chariot Warmachine (Steam Tank? Hellcannon?)
Flying Mounted unit - Changebringers

7 combos!

Griefbringer
21-01-2008, 11:39
Interesting listing, though I would not really qualify scouts as a distinct unit type in the same sense as the others - they only have a special rule regarding deployment.

Leogun_91
21-01-2008, 11:47
Interesting listing, though I would not really qualify scouts as a distinct unit type in the same sense as the others - they only have a special rule regarding deployment.

But as do Fast cavalry. They are just cavalry with a special rule. I would let both qualify.

skank
21-01-2008, 12:25
Flyers, scouts, skirmishers and the like are not unit types!!! they are just rules that can be applied to the unit types. Beastherds are not a 'pack or herd' unit type, just an infantry unit with a variation on the skirmish special rules.
A monster and handler unit is obviously just a monster unit with a few extra rules, it's even in the monster section of the book.
Flying character is a unit type? It's just a character with the flyer rules.

The unit types are set out at the start of the BRB, there are 6. These can take on any of the hunderds of special rules in the rest of the BRB or army books.

DeathlessDraich
21-01-2008, 19:40
1) The list is simply a suggestion agreed upon by several players.
It all depends on what you think necessitates categorisation.
Defining each unit type is really a job for GW but once it is done it has important ramifications for that unit - see (2)

2) It's strange that you do not feel it is necessary to categorise flyers. You would probably categorise them as infantry -thereby allowing them to enter buildings but the infantry definition is inadequate for this. Many players would disagree that they are infantry and no one would be right or wrong until GW decides. I feel Ogre infantry should not be a separate category from infantry but quite a few players feel they need to be a separate unit type.

3) Pack or herd exists and certainly merits being a unit type. If they were to be categorised, then their general rules would place a unit like Beast herds under their category or under skirmishers. It all depends on the exact definitions used.

4) Monster and handlers - Hydra; does not appear under the Monster chapter but under Skirmishers. It cannot be a unit of Skirmishers as it is more similar to a Mixed unit and it certainly cannot fall under the Monster type which applies to only single monsters. So it either has to be a separate unit type or the definition of Mixed type, Monster or Skirmishers have to be broadened to encompass it.

5) Flying character - read the post carefully - is a combination.

The 6 types outlined in the book - I think you will be unique in believing they are adequate.

skank
22-01-2008, 10:36
It's fine if you feel the need to create your own catagiories but GW have already done so and they are adequate.

If you know a unit is a 'character unit' then it passes on leadership, can join units, can be a general etc. This is the basics of the unit that are then given flavour by adding rules such as flying.

Your catagory 'flying character' tells us that the unit is a character (passes leadership and all the rest from the character section) and also... it flys
As the flying rule is one that can be used by all unit catagiores:

Infantry* (yes i belive flyers need no further catagorisation, they act as infantry with skirmish and flyer rules)
warmachine*gyrocopter
monster*dragon
chariot* tomb king upgrade
cavalry*flying cav
character* daemon prince etc

The 6 unit catagiories are the basics that cannot be broken down any further they are not used to describe every unit in the game but every unit in the game can be placed in one of the 6.
You can go on creating catagoiries all day (daemon character?) but they are not the same as the basic types.
Hydra is mentioned by name under monster (p7) and all the catagories descride the sub catagories under their umbrella. The Monster unit type describes dragons (Large, flyer) eagles (ogre sized, mount) Hydra (handled monster) all come under 1 basic catagory, monster.
A spell that affects monsters will affect them all, no need for sub catagories.

the question i asked was if these 6 BASIC unit catagiorie could be mixed, i am quite aware that they can be given rules from the book to make them unique.

Atrahasis
22-01-2008, 13:19
Sorry DD, but Skirmish, Fly, et al are special rules and do not change a model's unit type.

I think you're wrong that most people wouldn't accept that flyers are infantry - even the die-hard intent-mongers on the Direwolf list accept it.

The 6 categories in the rulebook are absolutely sufficient - the only thing that is lacking is whether or not they are mutually exclusive.

DeathlessDraich
22-01-2008, 15:01
The 6 categories in the rulebook are absolutely sufficient

Sufficient only if they are properly explained. I'm sure you'll agree they are not.
There are 3 sentences used to describe Monsters, for instance, and they use the words - 'normally' and 'sometimes'. This is alright if it is preceded by a statement stating what a Monster actually is, but there is no such statement on that page.
Similarly 'on foot'** for infantry, 'some of the rules' for characters are too nebulous.

** Some flyers do not have feet obviously and therefore *cannot* be infantry by definition e.g. Screamers, Changebringers etc. [Do you really read comments at Dire Wolf?:p]

It is possible to have 6 types or even less but until each 'type' is explained clearly, players will always debate unit types of the weird units, and jump to conclusions based on personal perceptions instead of a rule.

Which of 6 unit types would you place the following?

1) Swarms
2) Bloodcrusher
3) Giant rat
4) Shieldbearer
5) Effigy of Mork etc etc etc

If you choose any of the 6 types you have forced the proverbial square peg into a round hole.

Chicago Slim
22-01-2008, 16:20
The 6 categories in the rulebook are absolutely sufficient - the only thing that is lacking is whether or not they are mutually exclusive.

Obviously, they are not: Characters MUST be infantry, cavalry or monsters, and (when infantry) may in many cases begin the game mounted on monsters or chariots.

Examples exist of several combinations, including the Hellcannon (a monster/warmachine), the War Altar (a war machine/chariot), Treeman Ancients and Dragon Ogre Shaggoths (both character/monsters), and arguably even Centigors (who have aspects of both infantry and cavalry, without ever being clearly defined as either).

I agree, though, that skirmisher, scout, flying and fast cavalry are just special rules, which are applied separate from "category" of the model.

skank
22-01-2008, 19:26
Characters do not have to be infantry, cav monster etc to function and whether they are mounted on a chariot/monster is of no importance.

A shaggoth champion is just a character that has the large target, terror rules as well as a bunch of others that make the shaggoth champion what he should represent. He has a higher unit strengh than a aspiring champ but an ogre has a higher unit strengh than a human. Both are infantry.
A shaggoth champ works fine like this, trouble only starts when you try to shoehorn him into the monster catagory at the same time.
Character can join units, monsters not. Rune of true beast affects monsters but not characters.

Several units would be one type according too the BRB but are stated that they are something else in their description. Steamtank should be a monster but is stated it is a warmachine. I belive the same is true of the hellcannon but i do not have the book with me.
Why is a waralter a warmachine?

I agree that the rules are not perfect and some units are hard to catagorise but that does not mean you should ignore the BRB where it states unit types are divided or ignore the fact mixed catagories are not mentioned anywhere in the book.
Giant rats are tricky but i would say they are infantry as they are similar to rat ogres, they have to be cav or infantry (being units of multiple models and not chariot units or warmachines).

Mixed catagories are a fudge IMHO.

Atrahasis
22-01-2008, 22:00
[Do you really read comments at Dire Wolf?:p]Worse; I'm on the FAQ Council ;)


Which of 6 unit types would you place the following?

1) Swarms
2) Bloodcrusher
3) Giant rat
4) Shieldbearer
5) Effigy of Mork etc etc etc

1) Infantry
2) *
3) Infantry
4) **
5) *

*Obsolete, non-standard items from a publication that is out of print and was so before 7th edition and the concept of stringent unit types even arrived, and thus red herrings.

**Not a troop type, but an upgrade; so again a red herring. You might as well ask what unit type an axe is.


the War Altar (a war machine/chariot),What makes you think the Waltar is a war machine in any way, shape or form?

DeathlessDraich
23-01-2008, 10:05
Worse; I'm on the FAQ Council ;)

You could do better than that surely. lol




1) Infantry
2) *
3) Infantry
4) **
5) *

*Obsolete, non-standard items from a publication that is out of print and was so before 7th edition and the concept of stringent unit types even arrived, and thus red herrings.

**Not a troop type, but an upgrade; so again a red herring. You might as well ask what unit type an axe is.


You have done exactly what you should not.

Instead of using *infantry rules* on pg 7, to determine whether a unit is infantry, you have used instinct and your perception of an infantry unit as your criteria.

The 10 lines of infantry rules contain *no information* of use except for the useles phrase "fighting on foot".

Do Screamers fight on foot? Do they even have feet?:p

The other meaning of 'on foot' is 'walking' - even cavalry and monsters can walk. The 2 words used to 'define' infantry are too imprecise.

No, sorry I just can't see why pg 7 is clear or adequate.

skank: At least you agree that pg 7 is not perfect. Lower your adoration of it by 2 notches and you will be fine. :p


The list I put up is more a list of possible unit types that need to be defined. As I mentioned earlier, it can be reduced to 6 or less (with subcategories) but definitely not in the way they are presently explained.

Chicago Slim
23-01-2008, 13:31
Characters do not have to be infantry, cav monster etc to function and whether they are mounted on a chariot/monster is of no importance.

On the contrary, it is sometimes of substantial importance. Consider the Lore of Beasts spell that affects cavalry and chariots-- do you suggest that characters mounted as cavalry, or on chariots, are immune to that spell, because they're exclusively characters?


A shaggoth champion is just a character that has the large target, terror rules as well as a bunch of others that make the shaggoth champion what he should represent. He has a higher unit strengh than a aspiring champ but an ogre has a higher unit strengh than a human. Both are infantry.

How do you reconcile that? Is the Shaggoth an infantry champion, or a character? You've just claimed each. (That said, I'll admit that the Shaggoth isn't my strongest argument).

How about the Treeman Ancient? If he's a character (and, well, he IS listed in the "Lords" section of the army list), and as you claim therefore NOT a monster, then one ought to be able to put him in a unit, and cap his Unit Strength at no more than 3 (considerably less than those younger, weedier Treemen).

This is one of the few arguments that I'd bother having with an opponent during a game, if it came up: my Treeman Ancient is a Monster, and has a US equal to his starting Wounds. He's also a Character, and can participate in challenges.



I agree that the rules are not perfect and some units are hard to catagorise but that does not mean you should ignore the BRB where it states unit types are divided or ignore the fact mixed catagories are not mentioned anywhere in the book.

Division does not necessarily indicate mutual exclusivity, and there are lots of rare, fringe cases that aren't mentioned in the book.

My point is that even a single example of non-exclusivity proves that the unit type categories aren't exclusive.



Mixed catagories are a fudge IMHO.

Mutually-exclusive categories are a fudge in mine.

I admit that mixed types are rare, but I also suggest that they offer a better way of dealing with some specific cases, than does your rigid assumption of exclusivity.

skank
24-01-2008, 01:00
I think it can be accepted that 'on foot' means unmounted (ie.creatures moving under their own steam) and you don't need actual feet...

I don't wish to speak for Atrahasis but i imagine he came to the conclusion swarms and giant rats were infantry by a process of elimination. Firstly it is not stated what unit type they are (like units that would be one thing by the BRB but GW want you to consider them another). They cannot be monsters as they are in units of more than one (and no handled monster rule etc) likewise characters. They do not follow the rules for warmachines or chariots so it's infantry or cav. Cavalry are on 25 by 50 bases (unless specified) so infantry it is.

I would not consider a shaggoth champion an infantry champion, he is a character. He is a lord choice and passes leadership, can be general etc. It's pretty much the exact same thing with the treeman ancient, not a monster and able to join units (except for a specific rule that stops him) and challenge etc.
There are no unit strengh caps mentioned in the character section, they can be unit strengh whatever.

A character on a monster/chariot would be affected by beast cowers as his movement is governed by the unit type(monster/chariot) he has joined, just like if he joined a unit of cav/chariots etc.
The character riding the mount can fight though even under the effect of the spell as the 2 are seperate units.

Chicago slim: You are right, even one example of non-exclusivity proves that the unit type categories aren't exclusive. There are none.
there are dozens of unit descriptions where the unit type is stated, all are single types. Even types you would expect to be mixed are not, the hellcannon is stated as a warmachine, not warmachine/monster. There are no examples.

Even if you fix a few problems with mixed types (doubtful) you create more. My Ogre hunter is a character/warmachine, do i deploy with other warmachines or characters? Is my shaggoth champ effected by rune of true beast? Can my Greater daemon join units?
Oh, my stegadon is a monster/warmachine maybe chariot too, why not? Which catagory take priority in the case of a clash?
Sounds like a fudge to me.

Gorbad Ironclaw
24-01-2008, 06:37
You have to wait a few days before I can answer that - it is the current question in the Fantasy rules quiz.:D


It's a bit of a bad question, isn't it? Considering there isn't a clear answer to it.


Personally I can't see how the game could work if they were mutually exclusive, as then you would run into silly things like a character mounted on a horse not being a cavalry model and such, but it's really not very clear from the rules.

It seems as if the rules are mostly written assuming both that unit types can be mix, but also that they are mutually exclusive just to make a further mess of things.

Atrahasis
24-01-2008, 12:03
Gorbad, the character rules specifically say that they "fight as" infantry, cavalry, mounted on monsters or chariots, or follow some of the rules for monsters.

There is no need to mix unit types at all - models belong to a particular type and sometimes take on some of the aspects of other types.

Chicago Slim
24-01-2008, 17:32
So, Atrahasis, you're saying that there's no mixed unit types, there's just models that ARE exactly one type, but ACT like they're some other type?

Okay, I give up.

Atrahasis
24-01-2008, 17:54
It sounds strange when you put it like that, but yes.

The Steam Tank acts (in this case moves) like a chariot, but you wouldn't claim that it is both chariot and war machine, would you?

To use a lazy analogy, bats fly like birds, but they aren't birds.

skank
24-01-2008, 20:48
It is ironic Deathlessdraich said "you have used instinct and your perception of an infantry unit as your criteria." Because that is the reason the mixed catagorie unit types were fabricated.
A character on a steed (wargear upgrade) must be a cavalry unit, it is logical but has no basis in the rules.

There are other units that consist of a creature mounted on another that are not cav units (squig hoppers, pteradons)
Also Gav thorpe said of shaggoth champions being effected by true beast rune (effects both cavalry and monster units)
"No, they are characters. Note that, for example, this means
a Shaggoth is affected, while a Shaggoth Champion isnít. A character
monster is assumed to have the strength of mind and willpower to
resist these sorts of things, yadda yadda."
This would apply to characters on steeds that are superior horsemen and that have the willpower to urge there beasts on, yadda yadda.

Ok, so you feel the character should be a character/cavalry unit anyway, because it feels right. Now you have problems, characters can join units, cav units can't. You could just ignore this and cherrypick the rules from cav units that allow you to play mounted character as you see fit but also your character is unit size 1 and cav units have to be several models strong (p6 paragraph 3). Theres a lot of stuff you have to ignore.

Chicago slim: "there's just models that ARE exactly one type, but ACT like they're some other type?" Spot on. Treeman ancients ARE characters, GW has given them treeman eqivalent stats/rules so they ACT like a (monster) treeman on the gametable. That is, until they want to pass on leadership and do all the things characters can.

Gorbad: "Personally I can't see how the game could work if they were mutually exclusive". I play the game, it works fine.