PDA

View Full Version : Rank Bonuses and Flank Charges



ReDavide
21-04-2005, 18:52
Ok, I got a couple more questions for the wise people of Portent:

1) I was browsing through the FAQ pdf, and noticed that it said something like "rank bonuses are claimed at the beginning of the close combat phase." Does this mean what I think it's saying? If I have 3 extra ranks of clanrats at the beginning of the turn, and the enemy reduces them to 2 ranks with his attacks, I can still claim 3 ranks towards combat resolution?

2) I've been a little confused about how being a skirmisher affects one's flank-charge ability. Is this right?:
-Getting flank charged by a large unit of skirmishers WILL cause a Panic test for the target.
-Getting flank charged by a large unit of skirmishers WILL give the target a -1 penalty to combat resolution.
-Getting flank charged by a large unit of skirmishers WILL NOT deny the target its rank bonus for combat resolution.

Atrahasis
21-04-2005, 19:01
1) I was browsing through the FAQ pdf, and noticed that it said something like "rank bonuses are claimed at the beginning of the close combat phase." Does this mean what I think it's saying? If I have 3 extra ranks of clanrats at the beginning of the turn, and the enemy reduces them to 2 ranks with his attacks, I can still claim 3 ranks towards combat resolution?

If you had 3 ranks suitable for rank bonus at the start of the COMBAT PHASE (not turn), then you can claim +3 to CR, regardless of how many casualties you suffer during combat.


2) I've been a little confused about how being a skirmisher affects one's flank-charge ability. Is this right?:
-Getting flank charged by a large unit of skirmishers WILL cause a Panic test for the target.
-Getting flank charged by a large unit of skirmishers WILL give the target a -1 penalty to combat resolution.
-Getting flank charged by a large unit of skirmishers WILL NOT deny the target its rank bonus for combat resolution.
[/quote]Yup, with the exception that its a +1 bonus to the skirmishers, not a -1 penalty to the target in point 2.

taer
22-04-2005, 01:10
It also means that a flanking unit of unit strength five or more that may deny rank bonus is reduced to below five unit strength, then they still cancel the rank bonus for that round.

ReDavide
22-04-2005, 19:07
Thanks guys.

I have another question for you (sorta a topic change, but hey it's my thread):

From reading other threads, I've gotten the impression that hand weapons give an additional +1 to your armor save in combat when used with a shield, and that only BASIC hand weapons do that - i.e., if the weapon has got even a single special rule or name other than just "hand weapon", it doesn't give the bonus.

Folks where I play at tend to reason "It's a single-handed weapon. It's in his hand. So it's a hand weapon", and want to allow magic swords, choppas, etc. to give the +1 save as well.

Are they right? If not, has GW ever stated in obvious terms that only the basic hand weapons count?

Festus
22-04-2005, 19:47
Hi

They are not right. The parry-Bonus (+1 Save in h-t-h only) applies only if you have a mundane shield and a mundane handweapon without any other rules and are on foot.

No Magic Weapon, no Magic shield, no spear, no choppa, nothing...
...and you may not be mounted.

A clarification is in the chronicles:
p.116, 2nd column.

Greetings
Festus

warlord hack'a
24-04-2005, 22:01
one little thing to add: a panic test for being charged in the flank must only be taken when the unit is already engaged in close combat.

Crazy Harborc
25-04-2005, 01:45
A flank attack remains just that for round 2 and on beyond. A unit leader/champ can move to the involved flank of their unit on their next movement phase if they are not already engaged in HtH.

EvC
25-04-2005, 20:35
On that hand weapon and shield query: if you have a unit armed with spears, then does the front rank get the HW/shield bonus save? What about if the unit charges, and doesn't get the spears bonus rank attack in the first round, does it get the bonus save then?

shroud
26-04-2005, 08:58
The unit is assumed to all be armed in the same manner. Therefore, the front rank would NOT get HW/Shield bonus...[EDIT] if you were using shields

Festus
26-04-2005, 09:03
Hi

The unit is assumed to all be armed in the same manner. Therefore, the front rank would NOT get HW/Shield bonus...[EDIT] if you were using shields
The important thing to consider is not that they are armed in the same manner (as all have Shield, Spear AND handweapon),
but that they all must use the same combination in a fight.

So they get the bonus if they all fight with hw/shield.

They all won't get the bonus if they fight with spear/shield.

Greetings
festus

Atrahasis
26-04-2005, 19:21
The important thing to consider is not that they are armed in the same manner (as all have Shield, Spear AND handweapon),
but that they all must use the same combination in a fight.

Actually, there's no rule that says they must.

Major Defense
26-04-2005, 22:45
Actually, there's no rule that says they must.

Other than the one that does? Posts like that make me wanna get my BRB back from my friend I loaned it to.

EvC
26-04-2005, 23:33
I don't think it explicitly says it anywhere- but in a Warhammer Chronicles article one of the WD guys did say you have to keep using the same combination. Either way, that's the way the rule is meant to be used.

Atrahasis
27-04-2005, 00:36
Other than the one that does? Posts like that make me wanna get my BRB back from my friend I loaned it to.

There is no rule that says an entire unit must use the same weapons. The rulebook says that troops must choose which weapon combination they are going to use at the start of the combat, and must use that combination until the combat ends, but their is no rule to say every model in a unit must use teh same combination.

BullBuchanan
27-04-2005, 05:55
if it isnt written specifically, then its an unwritten rule. Units act as they are, units. In almost every situation every troop within a unit is bound by what happens to his comrades. It would be completely ridiculous to have an entire unit act individually.

Atrahasis
27-04-2005, 12:20
if it isnt written specifically, then its an unwritten rule. Units act as they are, units. In almost every situation every troop within a unit is bound by what happens to his comrades. It would be completely ridiculous to have an entire unit act individually.

Note that Maneaters, City Guard, and the Lost Legion all have permission to be equipped differently, but there is no permission for them to use different equipment, so if what you say is true, all Maneaters in a unit with different weapons would be restricted to Ogre Clubs only.

mageith
27-04-2005, 15:38
The important thing to consider is not that they are armed in the same manner (as all have Shield, Spear AND handweapon),
but that they all must use the same combination in a fight.

P 88: WEAPONS AND UNITS: At the start of the first turn of combat, troops can choose which of their weapons to use. Whatever weapon they use must be used for the entire combat.
The troublesome word is 'troops'. Does it mean unit or individual model?

Here is dictionary.com:
A group or company of people, animals, or things.

A group of soldiers.
troops Military units; soldiers.
A unit of cavalry, armored vehicles, or artillery in a European army, corresponding to a platoon in the U.S. Army.
A unit of at least five Boy Scouts or Girl Scouts under the guidance of an adult leader.
A great many; a lot.


From this 'troops' means a unit. However GW doesn't consistently use troops to mean a unit. Sometimes they use troop to mean model. (Strictly that's a trooper.).

The other troublesome part, but less troublesome, is that the rule doesn't refer to armor (shields).

Nevertheless, IMO, the whole unit must choose one and the same weapon/armor configuration.

Mage Ith

therat
27-04-2005, 23:34
Ok people, I've never seen so much debating over such a simple rule. Combat starts, you choose from the equipment the regiment carries, you fight the combat and hopefully take some names. If you make it out, bully for you, go kill something else. Each model uses the same equipment, plain and simple. This is done for simplicity and the OBVIOUS REALITY that mixing a unit is VERY CONFUSING to the troops and so it is actually to their advantage to work as a whole using the same equipment. Thank you and have a nice day.

Crazy Harborc
28-04-2005, 00:58
There you guys go, trying to insert logic AND rules that are in the book. I do agree, since there are special rules for some units to be mixed, it's a safe bet that implies it has to be a special deal to not have a unit choose THE weapon THEY will all use in a HtH.

Atrahasis
28-04-2005, 11:28
since there are special rules for some units to be mixed, it's a safe bet that implies it has to be a special deal to not have a unit choose THE weapon THEY will all use in a HtH.

The rules for mixed weaponry are rules on SELECTION, not USE.


Each model uses the same equipment, plain and simple.

Point me to the rule.

peteratwar
28-04-2005, 13:15
Atrahasis this was done to death by you & others a while ago at great length on another thread. You weren't right then & you aren't now :p

Atrahasis
28-04-2005, 17:53
Atrahasis this was done to death by you & others a while ago at great length on another thread. You weren't right then & you aren't now :p

No-one has yet provided any proof that I'm wrong.

It doesn't matterhow many times it has been said, without the rules to back you up your cries of "You're wrong!" mean nothing.

Festus
28-04-2005, 19:26
nevermind...

...we all get the game we deserve :(

Greetings
Festus

Atrahasis
28-04-2005, 20:32
You assume that because I argue by the letter of the rules in a rules forum that I'm unpleasant to play against?

Festus
28-04-2005, 21:26
No, I don't.

I just state that I would probably stop any game where someone tried this ******** (fill in your own word here) in a serious way, I would instantly quit and probably never again play in this environment/against this player.

The rules are very clear on this, if not in letter, even more so in spirit.

Noone I play with interpretes the rules like this and I use(d) to play more or less nationwide. Not that this makes me an expert, but I sure think that I know what the WHFB rules try to convey (even with all the inconsistencies et al. in it).

Greetings
Festus

Crazy Harborc
01-05-2005, 23:55
Where in the rules does it say that the unit doesn't have to use the same weapons as they select at the beginning of a HtH. IMHO, if it doesn't say you can't OR that you can do whatever, it should be decided with a die roll OR a vote of the gamers present. Going by "the letter of rules" should not include "it doesn't say you can't rules"

IF you must make a selection why would you NOT be required to use what you selected?

EDIT TIME; Since my first game of 6th Edition, I haven't seen or played a game where the weapons selected weren't used by the whole unit. The only exceptions were characters that joined the units and a couple of units with special rules/deals that allowed "certain unique" units to do otherwise in HtH.
But then, we just try to use logic, sportmanship, etc. to stay within the spirit of wargaming, fairplay......whatever.

the_night_reaper
02-05-2005, 02:36
in the first round of combat you can declare whether you're using spears or hand weapons and shields. And you must use those weapons for the entire combat.

Atrahasis
02-05-2005, 10:07
Where in the rules does it say that the unit doesn't have to use the same weapons as they select at the beginning of a HtH.

No-one is saying that they can change weapons, only that the entire unit does not have to choose the same weapon.

Moi
03-05-2005, 05:30
Can't find this particular rule, but here in Sherbrooke, Québec, Canada, we all understand this the same way. I've played some people from around the province and they all agreed that all models in a unit use the same weapon combination. Maybe you should write to GW about this... And maybe come back to us with the answer if we're wrong?

mageith
04-05-2005, 04:19
Can't find this particular rule, but here in Sherbrooke, Québec, Canada, we all understand this the same way. I've played some people from around the province and they all agreed that all models in a unit use the same weapon combination. Maybe you should write to GW about this... And maybe come back to us with the answer if we're wrong?

This rule?

P 88: WEAPONS AND UNITS: At the start of the first turn of combat, troops can choose which of their weapons to use. Whatever weapon they use must be used for the entire combat.

Troops means 'unit' not 'each particular model'. The choice is made for the unit. What's not clear?

Ith

Atrahasis
04-05-2005, 10:43
Troops means 'unit' not 'each particular model'. The choice is made for the unit. What's not clear?

As you've said yourself, GW doesn't use the word "troops" that way.

mageith
05-05-2005, 04:55
As you've said yourself, GW doesn't use the word "troops" that way.

Except they did here.

I think I said they weren't consistent.

Mage Ith

Lord Lucifer
05-05-2005, 12:58
It would normally go without saying that differentiating the arms of individuals within your unit is impractical and adds an unnecessary level of time-wasting to the normally fast-flowing rules.

In fact, it is the greatest example of Rules Lawyering you're likely to come across
The rules state that you can give your models any weapon configuration you like, provided the majority of the unit is armed the same so you can tell by looking at the unit what they're armed with, arguing that there's no rule against it on the strength of interpretation of the word 'troops' (which is used collectively in this sense) goes against the spirit of the rules (as set by the precedent of the WYSIWYG rule), even if you can twist the words this way and that to bend the rule without breaking it

So how many models in the front rank are going to benefit from the Hand Weapons and Shields? Because your Champion could easily be removed as a casualty in that fashion, where otherwise he may be missed, and then the saves revert back to the Shield and Spear saves...

Well, I've never come across anyone trying to weasel that sort of ruling in... but then again, the people I play against aren't the anal-retentive type ;)

Atrahasis
05-05-2005, 13:23
Except they did here.

How do you know in which sense they used it? If in every other instance they use "troops" as the plural of "troop", then what is different here?

mageith
05-05-2005, 15:21
How do you know in which sense they used it? If in every other instance they use "troops" as the plural of "troop", then what is different here?

Using all of the below.

1) Conventional usage.
2) A response by Gav which I know longer have.
3) Using the definition as actually defined.
4) Once again, the other uses of 'troops' is NOT as you describe. GW uses the term troops loosely and inconsistently.
5) Taking the most conservative approach to interpreting rules
6) The spirit of the Game. P 268: "Remember, the spirit of the game is the best guideline to follow, so try to do something that looks right and is realistic, as opposed to trying to stretch the rules to create a weird situation which looks obviously wrong [...] and gains some unfair advantage to one player."

BTW, almost any one of the above is good enough. Knocking down or jiggling one or more of them won't be enough. Its the preponderance of evidence in this case.

Ith

Atrahasis
05-05-2005, 20:20
1) Conventional usage.
The word is used both ways in everyday speech. (Well, as everyday as the word troops can hope to be used).

2) A response by Gav which I know longer have.Irrelevant. If its not printed, it has no bearing.

3) Using the definition as actually defined.Irrelevant - what matters is how GW use the word, not its dictionary definition. Look up "unliving" sometime.


4) Once again, the other uses of 'troops' is NOT as you describe. GW uses the term troops loosely and inconsistently. If they use it loosely and inconsistently, then how do you know which of the two uses they mean?

5) Taking the most conservative approach to interpreting rules

By conservative, do you mean generally accepted (traditional) or cautious?
If the former, then that is irrelevant. It does not matter how many people are wrong, they're still wrong.
If the latter, then that is merely a reiteration of point 6 below, which, as explained below, is irrelevant.


6) The spirit of the Game. P 268: "Remember, the spirit of the game is the best guideline to follow, so try to do something that looks right and is realistic, as opposed to trying to stretch the rules to create a weird situation which looks obviously wrong [...] and gains some unfair advantage to one player."The option is available to both players, and so cannot give an unfair advantage to either.


Its the preponderance of evidence in this case.


There is no evidence except the use of the word "troops", which you yourself have admitted is used loosely and is open to interpretation.

Crazy Harborc
06-05-2005, 00:24
For myself, I know from 12 plus years of gaming using GW's system, what the accepted method of what they use is....the whole darn unit period the end. The ONLY exceptions are special units that have special HtH weapons useage rules that spell out that specail deal..
.

Moi
06-05-2005, 07:21
"Q. Page 88 of the Rulebook, top right, says "troops can choose..." etc.
If a unit has multiple weapons (say hand weapon, shield, and spears),
could they opt to have part of the unit pick one weapon, and others
pick another? Not the unit half armed one way & the rest another, but
all have multiple weapons and just picking different weapons to use.
Or by 'troops', should it really mean the unit as a whole picks one
weapon & uses it for that combat? Example - the front rank armed with
hand weapon & shield, and second rank in spears?

A. The entire unit chooses the same weapon.
S. Gav Thorpe - Warhammer Design Team / Rulebook page 88"

Source : Direwolf FAQ

Link : http://www.geocities.com/mi_whplayers/dwfaq.html

Thanks to : scatterlaser to have pointed me to this FAQ.

Here's the printed answer of Gav on this issue. It's there. All of it. Bottom line.

Atrahasis
06-05-2005, 10:49
That may be the intent, but it isn't clear in the rules.

Plus, be under no illusions as to the nature of the Direwolf faq. It is the work of enthusiastic gamers, and is in no way official, even where it quotes Gav.

Until something appears in print in an official publication, it is in no way official.

therat
07-05-2005, 03:07
Haha, this is laughable. Let it go... If I were Gav and I saw this thread, I'd have to hunt Atrahasis down, look him in the eyes... and slap him. I am, however, not Gav and so I shall retreat once again, watching as this pitiful debate is drawn out to the last.

Lord Lucifer
07-05-2005, 05:01
It's in a rule, on page 88
You misinterpretted it

Gav pointed out your misinterpretting it
It doesn't warrant an FAQ mention because it's rare to find someone who DOES misinterpret it, i.e. for more than 99.999(etc.)% of the population it's not a problem.