PDA

View Full Version : Single models and ranks



Kayosiv
14-07-2012, 01:36
So this is a question involving ranks and steadfast.

Are units such as monsters and chariots that are single models, considered to have a rank? So if a model, lets say a giant, charges a unit of swordsmen that are 5 wide and kills a bunch. Will they be steadfast only if they have 10+ models left in the unit, or will they be steadfast if they have 5+ models left because they have 1 complete rank which is more than 0 that the giant has? I'm also curious if the same rules apply to other things like chariots or single base human sized characters.

In the rulebook it talks about infantry ranks, but not really single models, so I assume they don't have any ranks at all... or at least ranks that count for ranks in steadfast and rank bonus situations. Anyway, I'd like it cleared up if at all possible.

Rudra34
14-07-2012, 01:38
Single models of any kind never have ranks. They can't claim a rank bonus, and a unit that has even a single rank (5 or 3, depending on unit type) can claim steadfast against them.

T10
14-07-2012, 06:16
A single model unit can be considered to have one rank and one file.

Most rules that involve ranks also require that for each rank they must have a minimum number of models (usually 5).

TimE_of_Death
14-07-2012, 09:00
Unfortunately that is not the case.

I really hope that changes in 9th. If monsters counted as just one rank (or could even disrupt if they flank), that would vastly improve their combat ability and make them more worthwhile to take. I'm mainly talking about monsters from the 8th edition book. It would make them more versatile.

Kayosiv
14-07-2012, 18:13
OK so they have a rank and file, but do not count as having a "complete rank" for purposes of steadfast. That makes sense. Thank you for the responses.

T10
17-07-2012, 10:06
Unfortunately that is not the case.

While you are wrong, I must assume from the context of the rest of your post that you merely mistake the term "ranks" with "ranks that count for something". A single-model unit like a monster or a chariot does in fact have one "rank" (of 1 model), and you are right in that this does not count for much since it is not a "rank that counts for something".

dms505
17-07-2012, 10:49
A couple tournaments ago this question came up against my Stegadon having a spell cast one him that does d3 hits per rank. The ruling by the peoples in charge was that he had no ranks and thus took no hits. I was actually willing to give him d3 hits but since we went to the judge because we both kinda just wanted to know the rule anyway they said zero ranks, zero hits. I can see this both ways but there is always a way it makes sense and a way they make things work for the rules to work correctly. Personally by the common sense method 1 single person/ monster isn't a rank because you'd need at least 2 to call them ranks. Otherwise it's just a person/monster standing by himself in a field. In GW rules terms it makes sense to force the use of the "full rank" policy for effects and spells because otherwise it would just cause more problems and loopholes. For instance a unit of skirmishers that were moving in a straight line 10 long would take a stupid amount of hits from a spell like I mentioned above. No yes in reality they would be all lined up perfectly for that type of straight line spell (Quigly lol), but in game terms I don't believe they intend that to happen.

T10 I'm not calling you wrong but could you please post the text or page in the BRB that states that a single model is a rank? I'm just assuming since you stated that that you have already looked it up and I would liek to be able to put a note beside it in my book. Those little post it tags that are colored and stick out f the book edge a little work great for finding pages with odd rulings.

Metacarpi
17-07-2012, 11:44
To have 0 ranks would mean there would be no model. It has 1 rank, but that rank doesn't count as a complete rank, so doesn't contribute to Steadfast, CR etc.

dms505
17-07-2012, 12:40
I did dig around and finally found where the BRB sort of half-$#@ alludes to this type of ruling. Page 5.

"A unit consists of 1 or more models. . . "

Then further on that page. .

"In addition, models in a unit must be arranged in a formation that consists of one or more horizontal lines, called ranks and a number of vertical lines, called files."

SO while it doesn't state it specifically in the book, (it may in an FAQ?), it does seem to allude to the idea that a single model in game rule must be a unit and thus must have at least 1 rank and 1 file.

Where my confusion came in the tournament I was in I believe was because mine was a monster and the rules state that a monster cannot join a unit. But does that exclude them from being a unit themselves as with characters that ARE able to join units? Apparently so. .

Page 85.
"Monsters are the largest beings in the Warhammer world, creatures so powerful that they normally don't form into units, but roam the battlefield on their own. . "

Going by "as is" with the rule above a Monster is not a unit and may not join a unit unless something in it's rules state otherwise. Such as the rules on page 105: Ridden Monsters and Special Rules, which paraphrased states that once a Monster becomes a ridden monster it forms one model. Since the character riding atop it must be counted as a unit then the whole model is now a unit and is now suject to spells as I mentioned above, though ti still only has one rank.

So it looks like the ruling on my stegadon was wrong because it was a ridden monster, the guy may just not have known the special rules for them, or he was just plain wrong. I will make sure he knows this next time I see him and see if he has other rulings that show otherwise.

But after that it leaves us with "as is" reading of the book that any spell or ability that targets a unit wouldn't be able to target a lone un-ridden monster. Now I'll be the first person to admit that's pretty stupid and I wouldn't play it that way. But if someone wanted to get stupid about it they could. In fact I almost regret posting these rules but it was interesting to me.

hamsterwheel
17-07-2012, 12:58
T10 is correct. Thankfully they included the description of a complete rank in the Steadfast description on page 54. Oddly enough when it describes Steadfast for multiple combats, it doesn't list the requirement of a complete rank, only more ranks. Of course, common sense tells you that Steadfast doesn't really work any differently than the explanation on page 54, but someone is bound to argue the point...its the internet after all.