PDA

View Full Version : Cancelling Ranks / Flank & Rear for CR



Malagant
16-05-2008, 04:12
BRB pg 38 says that rank bonus is cancelled if unit is engaged to flank/rear by "an enmy unit with a unit strength of 5 or more."

It also says that a bonus is recieved if attacking an enemy unit in the flank or rear "so long as your unit has a unit strength of 5 or more after both sides have attacked."

My "rules lawyer" concern is over the use of the singular "unit" in these rules.

Do these rules as written mean that I have to have a single unit of at least US5, or can I have multiple units of less than US5 on the same flank to achieve a "flank" attack and cancel ranks?

For example, will two Chaos Spawn (US3) charging the same enemy unit's flank cancel that unit's rank bonus?

Jonke
16-05-2008, 04:14
You must have a single unit of at least us 5, you can't combine the unit strengths of several units.

Mercules
16-05-2008, 04:52
Just as Jonke said. The UNIT has to be UNIT STRENGTH 5 or more. See the connection there?

Yehoshua
16-05-2008, 05:31
I bet he already did.

Spirit
16-05-2008, 12:53
Im fairly sure there is a rule saying "you take the highest unit strength" whenever you have to use unit strength (such as the flee direction).

So if its in combat with 5 spawn in the flank and 4 chaos warriors in the front, it wont lose ranks, you wont get +1 and will flee in the direction opposite the warriors.

Malagant
16-05-2008, 16:31
Thanks for answers all! Except Mercules...sarcasm not appreciated or required. :P

Mercules
16-05-2008, 17:12
Sorry... I do tech support for a living. I get tired of translating English into English.

Customer: "So what does it mean when it says, "The report is invalid?""
Me: "That the report from that test you are trying to print is invalid."
Cust: "Oh... so it's not valid then?"
*groan*

Customer: "Every time I try to access the Report Inventory it says, "<software name> can not find the Report Counter, please be sure that it is plugged in." What does that mean?"
Me: "That the report counter isn't plugged in."
Cust: "By god you are right, it isn't. Okay, I plugged it in and now it seems to be working. You're a genius."

I just thought "Unit Strength" was rather obvious as the strength of one unit. Otherwise it would have been written, "Unit(s) Strength" or "Units Strength". My appologies.

Malagant
16-05-2008, 17:44
You have, in so many words, called me an idiot for trying to clarify an unclear rule in the forum specifically dedicated to providing rules clarifications. :cries:

Thanks, but in the future I could do without your brand of jaded help.

I find the rule unclear because there is no provision for multiple units on an enemies flank. :confused:

While RAW is, as you so succinctly point out, clear enough...it doesn't pass the sensibility test.

To continue the example of Chaos Spawn...what if I have ten Chaos Spawn all lined up on the rear of an enemy unit (a big one! :eek:). RAW says they don't count as being on the rear, even though their combined US is 30...does this make sense to you?

It doesn't to me, that's why I asked. I'm sorry you found it so profoundly difficult to be civil about it. You're off my Christmas card list too, smart guy! ;)



Sorry... I do tech support for a living. I get tired of translating English into English.

Customer: "So what does it mean when it says, "The report is invalid?""
Me: "That the report from that test you are trying to print is invalid."
Cust: "Oh... so it's not valid then?"
*groan*

Customer: "Every time I try to access the Report Inventory it says, "<software name> can not find the Report Counter, please be sure that it is plugged in." What does that mean?"
Me: "That the report counter isn't plugged in."
Cust: "By god you are right, it isn't. Okay, I plugged it in and now it seems to be working. You're a genius."

I just thought "Unit Strength" was rather obvious as the strength of one unit. Otherwise it would have been written, "Unit(s) Strength" or "Units Strength". My appologies.

mav1971
16-05-2008, 18:16
Sorry... I do tech support for a living. I get tired of translating English into English.

Customer: "So what does it mean when it says, "The report is invalid?""
Me: "That the report from that test you are trying to print is invalid."
Cust: "Oh... so it's not valid then?"
*groan*

Customer: "Every time I try to access the Report Inventory it says, "<software name> can not find the Report Counter, please be sure that it is plugged in." What does that mean?"
Me: "That the report counter isn't plugged in."
Cust: "By god you are right, it isn't. Okay, I plugged it in and now it seems to be working. You're a genius."

I just thought "Unit Strength" was rather obvious as the strength of one unit. Otherwise it would have been written, "Unit(s) Strength" or "Units Strength". My appologies.

Thats a good one. I'm a big a fan of sarcasm.

Mercules
16-05-2008, 19:25
You have, in so many words, called me an idiot for trying to clarify an unclear rule in the forum specifically dedicated to providing rules clarifications. :cries:

Thanks, but in the future I could do without your brand of jaded help.

Um... I apologized for a reason. I did not mean to come across that way... apparently either time. I wasn't trying to be mean I was trying to point out what the rules state and how you would have to interprit it no matter what would make sense if it was actual beings fighting and not plastic figures.



I find the rule unclear because there is no provision for multiple units on an enemies flank. :confused:

While RAW is, as you so succinctly point out, clear enough...it doesn't pass the sensibility test.

The rule is very clear and you are right, there is no provision for multiple units on an enemy's flank in the rules. Basically it doesn't matter how many <US5 units you have in the enemy flank because the rules don't address it. There should maybe be a new rule created but till then it is clear what this rule states. I wish rules could always pass the sensibility test but some things just are not accounted for when making rules.



To continue the example of Chaos Spawn...what if I have ten Chaos Spawn all lined up on the rear of an enemy unit (a big one! :eek:). RAW says they don't count as being on the rear, even though their combined US is 30...does this make sense to you?

They don't have a combined Unit Strength though as they are not a unit. Yes it doesn't make sense from the standpoint of a bunch of beings fighting in a battle, but once again we have to look at it from a rule point of view and no rule accounts for such a thing the game considers those units all separate. Trust me... playing Ogres I wish a lone Tyrant and a Yhetee(who can't join together) could negate a Rank.



It doesn't to me, that's why I asked. I'm sorry you found it so profoundly difficult to be civil about it. You're off my Christmas card list too, smart guy! ;)

Again I apologize. I come across weird sometimes as I have a few issues lets just say I often say things that I never realized would actually upset someone as such things rarely upset me.

Malagant
16-05-2008, 19:58
Thanks for apology. No harm, no foul. You're back on the Christmas card list! :)

I don't think it takes a "new rule", it just takes non-lawyerly interpretation of the existing rule and application of "sense" instead of verbatim compliance.

Yes, I know that's wishful thinking, but I'm a big believer in things making sense, and I'm far more worried about the Yehtee and Tyrant behind me than the five zombies! :p

SENSE > RAW! :D


Um... I apologized for a reason. I did not mean to come across that way... apparently either time. I wasn't trying to be mean I was trying to point out what the rules state and how you would have to interprit it no matter what would make sense if it was actual beings fighting and not plastic figures.



The rule is very clear and you are right, there is no provision for multiple units on an enemy's flank in the rules. Basically it doesn't matter how many <US5 units you have in the enemy flank because the rules don't address it. There should maybe be a new rule created but till then it is clear what this rule states. I wish rules could always pass the sensibility test but some things just are not accounted for when making rules.



They don't have a combined Unit Strength though as they are not a unit. Yes it doesn't make sense from the standpoint of a bunch of beings fighting in a battle, but once again we have to look at it from a rule point of view and no rule accounts for such a thing the game considers those units all separate. Trust me... playing Ogres I wish a lone Tyrant and a Yhetee(who can't join together) could negate a Rank.



Again I apologize. I come across weird sometimes as I have a few issues lets just say I often say things that I never realized would actually upset someone as such things rarely upset me.

Mercules
16-05-2008, 20:04
SENSE > RAW! :D

That would be nice, but I have a feeling if we all tried to apply Sense instead of RAW we would all insist on what made the most sense to us... for our army.

I have this picture of the days of old when you played Cops&Robbers or Army with your friends and you had the "I shot you." conversations. It all works fine for those who are willing to be reasonable, but you always have that one kid who refuses to admit anyone shot him and never falls down. That is why they invented Paintball Markers. "Nope, you missed me!" *phut-phut-phut-phut-phut-phut-phut-phut* "Okay... okay! I'm out!"

It is, unfortunately, why we need to apply RAW to most situations.

Gazak Blacktoof
17-05-2008, 10:18
I don't think it takes a "new rule", it just takes non-lawyerly interpretation of the existing rule and application of "sense" instead of verbatim compliance.

It would be far easier to get several low unit strength units into a unit's flank than one big unit. The rules are specific in this regard for a reason.

Certain models like chariots are priced appropriately because they can't break ranks. If you could throw them two of them or just one and a mounted character into a unit's flank they would have to be considerably more expensive.

SuperBeast
17-05-2008, 10:29
It would be far easier to get several low unit strength units into a unit's flank than one big unit. The rules are specific in this regard for a reason.

Certain models like chariots are priced appropriately because they can't break ranks. If you could throw them two of them or just one and a mounted character into a unit's flank they would have to be considerably more expensive.
Hell yeahs.
QFT!

Faustburg
17-05-2008, 12:08
Really, what is it with this forum and not getting "QFT"?

QFT is not about agreeing with the previous poster, it is about keeping a snap of the statement, to avoid unscrupulous posters from editing their earlier posts and then say "I wrote nothing of the kind!" !

It just chafes me, that's all.. :p

Masque
17-05-2008, 14:06
Really, what is it with this forum and not getting "QFT"?

QFT is not about agreeing with the previous poster, it is about keeping a snap of the statement, to avoid unscrupulous posters from editing their earlier posts and then say "I wrote nothing of the kind!" !

It just chafes me, that's all.. :p

Wikipedia disagrees with you.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Internet_slang#Q

Two out of three definitions at Urban Dictionary disagree with you. The third allows for both your usage and the usage you disagree with.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=QFT

Faustburg
17-05-2008, 18:58
Interesting, guess it is just me being old school then, because that is the original use of the term, from when forums started having edit functions, late 90's...

Carry on then... :)

Malagant
17-05-2008, 23:32
I don't disagree, but the opposite extreme (such as the example I gave) is just as broken.

Thanks for responses, all!


It would be far easier to get several low unit strength units into a unit's flank than one big unit. The rules are specific in this regard for a reason.

Certain models like chariots are priced appropriately because they can't break ranks. If you could throw them two of them or just one and a mounted character into a unit's flank they would have to be considerably more expensive.