PDA

View Full Version : Fay Enchantress in the Lance



IronBrother
06-05-2008, 03:35
So I have watched and had to play against the Fay Enchantress with her Guardians. My question is how does she deploy inside the unit? And do the Knights behind her get their attacks?

This is how I (and a couple of others) interpret how she must deploy
F= Fay Enchantress, G= Grail Knight

GGG
GFF
GGG

or

GFF
GGG
GGG

I am asking this because we have seen a couple of players running it in a different way that has been complained about by their opponents, as being abusive.

The "Abusive" way

GGG
GFFG
GGG

I am asking this because I wonder how to do it correctly. Thanks for all of your help.

redrum
06-05-2008, 04:04
She has to be in either the front rank or the middle of the 2nd rank, not on the flank of the 2nd rank. So the 1st diagram is fine, the 2nd one is illegal and the 3rd (abusive) one is actually fine as well as long as that's how the formation was formed. If it started as a complete rear rank and there were casualties those have to be taken from the middle of the rank.

Oh and if she were on the flank of the first rank then yes, the knights behind her would get to attack as normal.

Belerophon709
06-05-2008, 04:12
The third option is illegal as well, since the lone GK in the last rank would have to form up on one of the flanks, and not in the middle as with regular units, per the bret lance rules.

redrum
06-05-2008, 04:28
You may be right but the rules for lance formation make no mention of models in an incomplete last rank other than to say that casualties must be removed from the center of the rear rank. It says nothing about where a model must be when forming the lance with an incomplete rear rank. I would say you're probably right but it's not really specific as far as the actual rules are concerned.

Masque
06-05-2008, 04:40
I'm pretty sure that in IronBrother's diagrams all the units are facing up not sideways. Thus there is no incomplete rear rank issue.

IronBrother
06-05-2008, 04:47
You are right Masque, they are meant to be face up.

redrum
06-05-2008, 04:56
lol, oops. Actually after re-reading the lance formation rules it specifically states that "characters must be placed in the front rank if at all possible, displacing Champions, Standard Bearers or Musicians into the 2nd rank (3rd if necessary)." So only the 2nd diagram is legal, she must go in the front rank. But the knights behind her in the lance should still be able to attack.

Tizz
06-05-2008, 05:25
Except for two paragraphs after where it says "A Damsel or Prophetess may be placed in the center of the second rank of the Lance formation rather than the front rank, as the Knights form up protectively around her."

So the first formation is your best possible formation.

Milgram
06-05-2008, 07:15
there is no 'damsel' or 'prophetess' in 'fay enchantress'... she does not fullfill the requirements to be placed in the second rank.

Faustburg
06-05-2008, 09:22
Indeed she will go in the front, she is not the same type of vulnerable lady needing protection as the run-of-the-mill bretonnian magic users, but the question still stands: Do you get two knights with her in the first rank, or just one (as in; Do you "round off" her 40mm base width up to the width of two cavalry bases, or down to one?)

Milgram
06-05-2008, 09:29
general agreement is that bigger bases 'use the space' they need. for rank bonus you would have to count heads, i.e. 5 knights and the enchantress for 1 rank bonus.

raw is something different and unplayable: there would be 2 knights beside her in the first rank, 3 knights in the second. (try it: it looks ugly!)

Leogun_91
06-05-2008, 09:41
I would play her without the lance formation looking like this
GGGGG
GFFGG
as this is the only way I can benefit from full comand (ie banners and musicians in the second rank doesn´t count as existing) and beacouse it leads to less confusion and arguing but the two first diagrams would be usable and so would the third (even if your opponent might disagree and argue about it),

Koryphaus
06-05-2008, 10:15
That's funny, I'd always assumed that they would count. Granted, I don't own a fantasy rulebook yet, so I'm less than familiar with the rules. Everyone in our gaming club plays that they count when not in the 1st rank of a lance, but maybe thats just a house rule..?

Tizz
06-05-2008, 10:41
Milgram, I dont know how you or anyone can seriously say that the Fay Enchantress is NOT on the same level as a Damsel of Prophetess in regards to how she would be placed in the Lance. Okay, fine the rules for Lance doesnt mention the Enchantress, but she is a special character, show me some other example where a normal rule includes a special character's name.

She's classified as a Level 4 wizard, maybe you'd use that fact against my argument, but then a Damsel is classified and a Level 1 and a Prophetess is classified as a Level 3.

Overall I think I agree with Leogun the most, Grail Knights are powerful enough without a full Lance formation, and there's nothing saying you have to form up that way.

Milgram
06-05-2008, 12:53
Everyone in our gaming club plays that they count when not in the 1st rank of a lance, but maybe thats just a house rule..?

legogun is not talking about lance formation. in lance formation the standard and the musician count in the second rank.

tizz, it does not have to say in the lance formation rules that she does get the damsel bonus. but it has to be mentionned in the special rules of hers. you cannot just assume rules!

BloodiedSword
06-05-2008, 15:46
You do have to bear in mind that GW is exceptionally bad when it comes to clearly wording how Special Characters fit in to general character rules.

For example, check the "Is Konrad a Wizard" thread, or whether Teclis gives you the +1 to dispel for having "a Mage or Archmage" in your army, etc etc etc.

GW have made so many oversights like this when it comes to classifying SCs that it's far more likely that this is another of those than a deliberate design decision. That said, by RAW if she's not specifically stated as counting as a Prophetess for the purposes of the Lance, then she may not hide.

redrum
06-05-2008, 16:07
It's really not all that complex. Whether she counts as a prophetess is debatable but the fact remains that the lance formation rules clearly state "characters must be placed in the front rank if at all possible, displacing Champions, Standard Bearers or Musicians into the 2nd rank (3rd if necessary)." As I said we can debate whether or not she's a prophetess but is anyone seriously going to claim she's not a character?

Mercules
06-05-2008, 16:18
It's really not all that complex. Whether she counts as a prophetess is debatable but the fact remains that the lance formation rules clearly state "characters must be placed in the front rank if at all possible, displacing Champions, Standard Bearers or Musicians into the 2nd rank (3rd if necessary)." As I said we can debate whether or not she's a prophetess but is anyone seriously going to claim she's not a character?

No... but it also says that Damsels or Prophetess can be placed in the middle of the second row as the knights form up protectively around her so we actually do need to argue about if she is a prophetess or not.:rolleyes:

redrum
06-05-2008, 16:25
Okay then we have 2 rules that contradict each other. One of them we have a question about (the damsel/prephetess debate) one of them we know for sure (she's a character).

Believe it or not I hate arguing about rules so I would just go with what we know. Which is how I'll run it if I ever run the Fay Enchantress. Btw it makes more sense to me that she would treated as a damsel/prophetess in this regard but it's not what the rules state.

Vishok
06-05-2008, 16:37
I think the real matter is something like this - Darwin believed in monkeys, but do monkeys believe in Darwin?

Or something equally fascicious and irrelevant.

I'd say put her in lance. I love breaking those things - such flankage!

Of course that's a house rule. I guess.

Mercules
06-05-2008, 16:55
RAW would make her a Character and not a Damsel/Prophetess so she would have to be in the front row. Yes the knights behind her would have a chance to attack assuming she is on a front flank.

Malorian
06-05-2008, 17:07
The time I used her I just used a single flank the avoid this.

Personally I think saying she isn't a damsel is like how Teclis didn't get the +1 to dispel. Might be right by RAW, but is obviously wrong. So I would have her in the middle of the second (wider) rank.

It might look funny, but it's the way that breaks the least rules. (Following same amount of models per rank, and the damsel being in the center of the second rank).

Mercules
06-05-2008, 18:14
She isn't a Damsel. Those she takes away and that come back are Damsels. Her fluff actually states that people fear her and her wrath. In fact one of her powers effects those in close combat. It does state that Grail Knights gather to her to protect her so they might surround her. The thing is, she can take any Lore and has random effects from the Lore of Heavens so for a lot of her magic she will want LoS. Might as well run her in the front rank.

Malorian
06-05-2008, 18:29
The LOS issue is a problem with all the damsels though. Once they changed lore of life all damsels had trouble.

She's a special characters doing special things, so it's going to cause trouble either way.

I just with they would have put unicorns on a regular cav base...

Mercules
06-05-2008, 18:54
They can't though. It would break their rules of Monstrous mounts being on 40mm or 50mm bases, not that GW follows all of it's own rules.