PDA

View Full Version : Beastmen and ranks in 7th



TheWarSmith
20-08-2006, 07:15
I heard a rumor that since beastmen only rank 4 wide when going against 50mm models, that they wont' get rank bonuses in these situations. I'd assume this is wrong and that beastmen will simply now go 5 wide at the minimum to prevent this exploitation.

It's probably not official yet, something that will show up in a Q&A or errata, but what do you guys think?

Gorbad Ironclaw
20-08-2006, 07:52
Well, the rules are going to require you to be 5 wide to get a rank, and you won't be 5 wide against anything with a 50mm or smaller frontage.


As for an errata on it. I wouldn't count on it. We have discussed it several times over on TWF, and the designers are aware of it, but as best I can tell, there are not going to be an errata on it. We had Gav say that there would only be Q&As on strickly mechanical problems, not balance issues(mind you, thats how I remember it, I could be wrong). In short, don't expect this to be dealth with until there is a new beast book out.

Khorneflakes
20-08-2006, 08:04
man we just talking about this on the trip back from gaming in dunedin. im pretty certain that they will have 2 be 5 wide. the book was written b4 the changes, and if every1 else will be doing it i cant see the beasts not doing it.

Festus
20-08-2006, 08:33
Hi

You don't HAVE to be 5 wide, it is just the minimum to claim rank bonus in 7th.

I don't expect them to change that, either.

It was the knack with the first incarnation of the raiders rule as well, charging them with a single character and thus denying them rank bonus. To hit them in the flank with a ranked unit as well. Instant death for the beastie boys :D

Festus

BTW, Khorneflakes: Would you mind not using *net-speak* around here, as it is pretty annoying, especially for the ones who don't have English as their first language (just like me), or who are older than 16 (just like me)... :)

Shaft, Lord of Slaanesh
20-08-2006, 08:34
Nope, Beasts will still rank up up 4 wide. Read page 26 of White Dwarf 321 in the insert titled 'The Affected...'.

A minor complication but I am sure all great Warhammer Players will find a way around this (note to self - stay away from chariots...):D


Shaft "trying to paint a Chaos army in time for WFB GT heat 1 - not going to happen...", Lord of Slaanesh

Gorbad Ironclaw
20-08-2006, 08:37
A minor complication but I am sure all great Warhammer Players will find a way around this (note to self - stay away from chariots...):D



Chariots, monsters and characters will all make them rank up without ranks. Making the herds only have a CR of 2 at best(banner and outnumber).

Akuma
20-08-2006, 08:48
this is plain stupid ... if GW dosnt do errata on it or clarify it in some whitedwarf the beastherd will be much less used unit then its now ... and thay werent overpowered or nothing like that ...

Way to go GW make normal thing worse and leve broken things like ratling guns as thay are :/ - yeee

I hoped that 5" proximity rule will be removed totaly and not only for characters but under 7ed rules SAD armys will still be major thame in tournaments :/

T10
20-08-2006, 08:54
I am sure the intention of the games desgners was that Beast Herds should rank up with a minimum width in order to conform to the rules for rank bonuses. I am also sure that is still their intention.

I guess we'll house-rule that the Beast Herds now have a minimum width of 5 models.

-T10

Akuma
20-08-2006, 08:59
Yeah same here ... of course it would be best for the majority of non beast players to be the other way around but that is just plain silly - i think GW simply didnt thought about beast herds in advance and now trys to get out of it without saying - oh we overlooked something

CarlostheCraven
20-08-2006, 09:19
Umm, ratling guns have been nerfed.

p27 Skaven Army Book
"enemies wishing to target a weapon team with missile fire or spells have the same limitations as when targeting single characters on foot..."

Without the 7th ed rules on hand, targeting characters has been changed to the effect "a character outside a unit is just as viable a target as any other" ergo, skaven gun teams are always a valid target.

As for beast herds, its unfortunate that they get denied rank bonus buy large models. We may house rule differently, but then again, since many of us enjoy going out of town for tournaments, we may adhere to the rules so we do not get caught off guard (just like with the 40k FAQs).

Cheers

Akuma
20-08-2006, 09:44
so the guy the other day cheeted me :/

+ how wil 5 models wide for ranked infantry effect the beast herds ??? I mean thats one more model to btb to

CarlostheCraven
20-08-2006, 09:48
5 models wide may hurt you a lot, if they are also on 25 mm bases, depending on the size of your units. You will have to set yourself up 7 wide - you must maximise your frontage - which means maintaining 2 ranks for long will be much more difficult. With small herds this will be a problem, with big ones its ok as you get more attacks and still have rank bonus.

What I would really fear is 25 mm elite units extending to 6 wide with 2 additional ranks, where their potent hth abilities will compensate for outnumber and the third rank in standard infantry. That means you will have to open yourself up 8 wide....

Cheers

Gorbad Ironclaw
20-08-2006, 11:18
I hoped that 5" proximity rule will be removed totaly and not only for characters but under 7ed rules SAD armys will still be major thame in tournaments :/


There were only ever a 5" rule for characters, weapon teams just had a special rule saying they benefitted from it as well. Since that rule no longer exist...


I am sure the intention of the games desgners was that Beast Herds should rank up with a minimum width in order to conform to the rules for rank bonuses. I am also sure that is still their intention.

I guess we'll house-rule that the Beast Herds now have a minimum width of 5 models.

-T10


Yeah, that is quite likely the intention, however it doesn't seems like there will be any changes until a new beast/chaos book is released. You can of course house-rule it anyway you want.

TheWarSmith
20-08-2006, 15:18
To all the people thinking small based single minis deny our rank bonus, you're wrong.

Beasts currently ALWAYS have to rank 4 wide, no matter what. This was done purposely so they'll always go into a formation which would allow ranks.

My guess is that almost everybody will house rule them going 5 wide, as that's how the Raiders rule would obviously be written if the Beasts book were to come out under 7th.

mageith
20-08-2006, 16:04
Let's say a unit of 16 or less charges from maximum distance and only 4 or less (25%) are in range. Won't they also only rank up 4 wide? Even against a normal unit?

Ganymede
20-08-2006, 16:13
Unless your opponent has social problems that rival the issues of John Wayne Gacey, you will be able to rank up five wide if your raiders are charged by a single model.

Atrahasis
20-08-2006, 16:19
Unless your opponent has social problems that rival the issues of John Wayne Gacey, you will be able to rank up five wide if your raiders are charged by a single model.
Why is it sociably unacceptable to play by the rules? The design team do not consider it a big enough problem to fix, so why should I?

Cap'n Umgrotz
20-08-2006, 16:31
Oh, I dunno, because it's sporting?
Meh.
I'll play by this rule, even though it's a bit silly- the four wide thing was obviously meant to ensure they get their rank bonus.
But people will exploit any loophole they can find.

NakedFisherman
20-08-2006, 17:00
Beast Hers get worse when charged by single models, but better because of the 'crossfire' rules. You can ambush a big herd behind the entire enemy army and when they flee they get destroyed...

Also, 'nerfed' is netspeak and against forum rules.

Shaitan
20-08-2006, 17:04
It is prety obvious that the raiders are meant to be set up in a way to ensure they get their rank bonuses.
Maybe a bit of common sense would help to see what GW was intending to do with this rule...

Probably there will come an errata on this issue, or else I am sure this is fixed in the new BoC army book.

Cap'n Umgrotz
20-08-2006, 17:05
Looks like you just broke the rules.
Don't worry, I'll hold off the thought police, you run for the back exit.
God be with you.

NakedFisherman
20-08-2006, 17:16
Probably there will come an errata on this issue, or else I am sure this is fixed in the new BoC army book.

Most certainly.


Looks like you just broke the rules.
Don't worry, I'll hold off the thought police, you run for the back exit.
God be with you.

The thought police? No, I'm sorry, substituting netspeak for normal English hardly qualifies as 'thought'.

Cap'n Umgrotz
20-08-2006, 17:23
It is prety obvious that the raiders are meant to be set up in a way to ensure they get their rank bonuses.
Maybe a bit of common sense would help to see what GW was intending to do with this rule...

Probably there will come an errata on this issue, or else I am sure this is fixed in the new BoC army book.

Oops, sorry Shaitan, that wasn't directed at you.
I agree with your point.

Ganymede
20-08-2006, 17:30
Why is it sociably unacceptable to play by the rules?


Beware the strawman arguement, it is never a good thing.


I am not arguing that it is not socially acceptable to play by the rules, and you know such very well. My point is that sometimes popular convention is just as important as literal interpretation, and occasionally surpasses such in importance. I could draw parallels between the raiders rule and the model maximization rule or single-file wheels. Certainly it is legal to charge a unit with a chariot and only manage corner to corner contact, but is it right? No one I know believes so.


Also, 'nerfed' is netspeak and against forum rules.

"nerfed" is not netspeak, it is jargon. Specifically, "nerfed" is warhammer jargon, and is just as acceptable on this board as terms like "SAD" or "can opener".

Atrahasis
20-08-2006, 17:58
Beware the strawman arguement, it is never a good thing.


I am not arguing that it is not socially acceptable to play by the rules,

On the contrary, you said that in order to argue that the Beasts should not rank up 5 wide one would have to have severe social problems, implying that such an argument would not be socially acceptable.


My point is that sometimes popular convention is just as important as literal interpretation, and occasionally surpasses such in importance.

This is certainly true as far as house rules go, as the house generally sides with the majority. However, in competitive play, should someone disagree with the convention, we can only play the rules as written.

To say that "[u]nless your opponent has social problems that rival the issues of John Wayne Gacey" is both unfair and inaccurate.


I could draw parallels between the raiders rule and the model maximization rule

You could, and if you're arguing what is generally accepted as right or wrong in a purely moral sense, then you'd be correct; clipping is frowned upon. However, should someone do it it is not an indication of social problems.


or single-file wheels.Single file wheels are not legal. Single file formations snake, they do not wheel.


Certainly it is legal to charge a unit with a chariot and only manage corner to corner contact, but is it right? No one I know believes so.They might not like it, but that does not justify labelling those who play by the rules as social misfits.


"nerfed" is not netspeak, it is jargon. Specifically, "nerfed" is warhammer jargon, and is just as acceptable on this board as terms like "SAD" or "can opener".

It isn't warhammer jargon, more gaming jargon. Though I agree it is not netspeak. Just lazy and emotive.

neXus6
20-08-2006, 18:21
The rule is if the herd would normally form up less than 4 models wide it forms up 4 models wide. I can't say I've had that many instances where I couldn't put atleast 5 models into contact.
But yeah it does happen, my problem is that I don't like erratas and it is probably going to be a long time before the BoC book gets redone seeing as this is the only problem it has and it's just been created.

Now the rulebook is sensible enough to state "Dwarves get 4 dispel dice" how hard would it have been to put "Beast heards rank up to a minimum of 5 always" in the skirmish section or something. :rolleyes:

Also it is also really "leet" speak that is banned from posts on these forums not "netspeak." So nerfed is fine for that reason as well as the fact that it is jargon. :p

Ganymede
20-08-2006, 18:33
On the contrary, you said that in order to argue that the Beasts should not rank up 5 wide one would have to have severe social problems, implying that such an argument would not be socially acceptable...


...To say that "[u]nless your opponent has social problems that rival the issues of John Wayne Gacey" is both unfair and inaccurate.

I'm going to stress that my arguement is detailed in my second post, the post you are directly quoting. My original post is more of a display of distaste for an opponent who would force his mate to rank his beast herds up four wide.

As for my implications, I was simply implying that someone would have to be ka-wazy in order to do such a thing; nothing more and nothing less.

Go ahead and reference my second post if you would like my position articulated nicely. In fact, you can go ahead and completely ignore my first post in favor of my second post; it should eliminate some of the miscommunication we are having.


This is certainly true as far as house rules go, as the house generally sides with the majority. However, in competitive play, should someone disagree with the convention, we can only play the rules as written.

That's quite a defeatist attitude. Remember that the rulebook is never the final say in the game of warhammer. The final say, in competitive play, belongs to your locak tournament organizer. And personally, in my long years of gaming in the tournament scene, I have never played in a tournament that had any truck for people who tried to corner clip or slingshot fanatics. I doubt any tournament I attend in 2007 will force raiders to be four models wide.

Most tournaments are run by gamers like you and me, they are not a slave to the BRB any more than we are.




Single file wheels are not legal. Single file formations snake, they do not wheel.

Ooh my bad, I meant to say double-file wheels.

NakedFisherman
20-08-2006, 18:54
"nerfed" is not netspeak, it is jargon. Specifically, "nerfed" is warhammer jargon, and is just as acceptable on this board as terms like "SAD" or "can opener".

No, its etymology is from Ultima Online and it is netspeak. If you consider it jargon as well, so be it.

neXus6
20-08-2006, 19:06
NakedFisherman that doesn't change the fact that it is "leet" that is banned from the forums NOT words that are commonly used on the interet. I mean I relate "nerfed" to its usage in the real world before I relate to its use online.
This is an internet forum ofcourse "netspeak" is allowed, leetspeak on the other hand is generally messy and ugly so is banned from everywhere that isn't the wastes. :p

NakedFisherman
20-08-2006, 19:20
NakedFisherman that doesn't change the fact that it is "leet" that is banned from the forums NOT words that are commonly used on the interet. I mean I relate "nerfed" to its usage in the real world before I relate to its use online.
This is an internet forum ofcourse "netspeak" is allowed, leetspeak on the other hand is generally messy and ugly so is banned from everywhere that isn't the wastes. :p

lol k man w/e

DeathlessDraich
20-08-2006, 19:22
So many side discussions here which I won't get drawn into. :eyebrows:



Beasts currently ALWAYS have to rank 4 wide, no matter what. This was done purposely so they'll always go into a formation which would allow ranks.
.

Not quite WarSmith -

BOC pg 18 "When charging or charged, if the unit would normally form up less than 4 models wide, then it forms up 4 models wide"

and
BOC pg 18 "... gain a rank bonus of a max of +2"

75mm is needed for 3 gors to 'fit' exactly and allow 5 per rank.
So the following cases will prevent rank bonuses for herds:
Single Monster bases, Flank of 1 rank Cavalries, Front of a Chariot, Flank of 3 ranks or less of infantry. The herd will stiil have a static CR advantage of +2, namely outnumber and flank, for all except 15 models of ranked infantry, unles it is a small herd.
In the case of the flank of ranked infantry of 15 models, it has a disadvantage of -1.

**That makes just 1 situation where the BeastHerd is disadvantaged by the new rules and Only by a small amount. In the other situations it's previous advantage has been reduced.

*If I remember correctly, 7th Ed rules were meant to place greater advantage for normal infantry especially over skirmishers or 'semi-skirmishers' like Beast Herds.

Therefore I think GW got it absolutely right in this respect.
If Gorbad has heard correctly and GW does not intend to include any Errata for Beastherds for the ranks rule, then it has made the right decision.


... if GW dosnt do errata on it or clarify it in some whitedwarf the beastherd will be much less used unit then its now ... and thay werent overpowered or nothing like that ...
:/

They're still very good and weakened in only in 1 instance.


I am sure the intention of the games desgners was that Beast Herds should rank up with a minimum width in order to conform to the rules for rank bonuses. I am also sure that is still their intention.

I guess we'll house-rule that the Beast Herds now have a minimum width of 5 models.
-T10

Looking at diagrams B,C and D on pg 19 of BOC, I don't think that the intention was to always rank Beast herds 4 wide. The diagram shows them 6 wide!


I doubt any tournament I attend in 2007 will force raiders to be four models wide.
.

The rules does not specify that herds Must be 4 wide always. As a tournament referee, which pg reference of the rules would you quote to say that Herds can be/must be 5 wide.

Ganymede
20-08-2006, 20:28
The rules does not specify that herds Must be 4 wide always. As a tournament referee, which pg reference of the rules would you quote to say that Herds can be/must be 5 wide.

I think you're missing the point I was trying to address. A tournament organiser doesn't need lexical justification for any desicion he or she makes. Why would he? If you don't like rank bonuses on your beast herds, and the organizer would rather you had them, then you are free to not attend that particular event or to form a gentleman's agreement with your opponent.

T10
20-08-2006, 20:57
Looking at diagrams B,C and D on pg 19 of BOC, I don't think that the intention was to always rank Beast herds 4 wide. The diagram shows them 6 wide!


I said "minimum". They still have to get as many models as possible into base contact, but a unit of regular 25mm skirmishers will rank up 2 models wide when fighting a single 20 mm model.

A beast herd fighting a single 20mm model ranks up 4 wide. Or 5 wide if one goes for a house rule.

-T10

DeathlessDraich
21-08-2006, 10:31
I think you're missing the point I was trying to address. A tournament organiser doesn't need lexical justification for any desicion he or she makes. Why would he? If you don't like rank bonuses on your beast herds, and the organizer would rather you had them, then you are free to not attend that particular event or to form a gentleman's agreement with your opponent.

Yes, I agree with and understand your previous post.
If I remember correctly, I believe you are a tournament referee/umpire in N America.
I just wanted to know how you personally would approach and adjudicate this problem in a tournament.


I said "minimum". They still have to get as many models as possible into base contact, but a unit of regular 25mm skirmishers will rank up 2 models wide when fighting a single 20 mm model.

A beast herd fighting a single 20mm model ranks up 4 wide. Or 5 wide if one goes for a house rule.
-T10

Apologies, you did say minimum.
Would you agree that, even though a beast herd fighting a single 20mm model has a reduced advantage, that advantage is sufficient and fair under the new rules?
And in the case of herd vs narrow infantry flank, this reduced advantage is in keeping with the policy of giving greater advantage to ranked up infantry over a 'semi-skirmisher' like the Beast herd?

TheWarSmith
21-08-2006, 15:29
I meant always had to go 4 wide minimum, sorry for the wording confusion. I'm going to do it 5 wide until somebody bitches and complains. At the GW store I game at the staff said that the rules creators specifically mentioned 2 big faults in the rulebook

1)Beast herd ranking

2)Sacrament of the Lady

Sacrament of the Lady isn't a big deal, as an errata can simply state that dice caused by this are put into the pool.

The beast herd will be addressed.

To all the people bitching over whether nerf is net/leetspeak and complaining about forum rules, you yourself are in rules violation for posting way off topic.

anarchistica
21-08-2006, 23:50
Off topic:


Also, 'nerfed' is netspeak and against forum rules.
Nerf comes from nerf ball - basically paintball but with foam projectiles. This game is played in real life, it is an "off line" term to describe something that has been weakened.

Also, netspeak isn't against the rules. There is a Posting Guideline that states:

12: Please do not post in l33tsp34k, for no other reason that it really, really annoys posters.

Please, grow the copulate up and quit whining about the word nerf everywhere. It is very make loving annoying and both off topic and baiting to boot.

On topic:


Why is it sociably unacceptable to play by the rules? The design team do not consider it a big enough problem to fix, so why should I?
Oh? You can read minds? How then did you miss the part about "only putting rules/changes in books, not in FAQs"? The design team has acknowledged this flaw, and seeing as the Raiders rule was meant to always give Beastherds a rank bonus, i'm fairly sure the rule will be changed to reflect this.

If someone would refuse me to prematurely apply this change, this would indeed be a sign of a low social intelligence ("EQ"). If someone is more interested in winning than in the spirit of the game, that is very very sad.

Flame
22-08-2006, 07:08
I meant always had to go 4 wide minimum, sorry for the wording confusion. I'm going to do it 5 wide until somebody bitches and complains. At the GW store I game at the staff said that the rules creators specifically mentioned 2 big faults in the rulebook

1)Beast herd ranking

2)Sacrament of the Lady

Sacrament of the Lady isn't a big deal, as an errata can simply state that dice caused by this are put into the pool.

The beast herd will be addressed.

To all the people bitching over whether nerf is net/leetspeak and complaining about forum rules, you yourself are in rules violation for posting way off topic.

Staff know jack all about what happens at Lenton.

The development team KNOW about this problem, have commented on it, and are not going to change it. What does that tell you about it?

DeathlessDraich
22-08-2006, 09:00
The development team KNOW about this problem, have commented on it, and are not going to change it. What does that tell you about it?

2nd time that's been mentioned so it's probably true.
Maybe it's not apathy or incompetence but intended i.e. GW wants to weaken Beast Herds slightly.

Ganymede
22-08-2006, 12:28
I was under the impression that GW was loathe the introduce a FAQ or Eratta for 7th edition unless it was absolutely imperative. In other words, they would only release one if part of the rules made something completely unplayable. Beast herds still work fine from a rules perspective, so don't warrant that kind of attention.

AS GW has said time and time again, they are going to fix other problems with army books and not Eratta. I hope they change their mind though.

Atrahasis
22-08-2006, 13:00
I was under the impression that GW was loathe the introduce a FAQ or Eratta for 7th edition unless it was absolutely imperative.

Well, as the 7th book I saw stands, the section on skirmishers movement refers us to the section on character's movement, and the section on character's movement refers us to the section on skirmishers movement. How then, do skirmishers and characters move?

xmbk
22-08-2006, 13:17
Unless the number 4 was chosen for magical mystery reasons, Beast herds were intended to rank up with the minimum number for a CR bonus. The design team seems quite proud of the fact that they wrote the 7th edition rules without having to do army exceptions, and therefore let Beasts take a hit in order to make this claim.

While the rules as a whole have toned down all skirmishers, it's difficult to say that Beast skirmishers should be hurt even more than others, without any point adjustment. GW is all too willing to accept that they can't cover every gaming situation with a rule, and remind us that we should play "for fun". I'm quite capable of taking care of having fun myself :), but it would sometimes be a bit easier if they would go the extra mile with their rules.

[edit] Not to bash - obviously I like the game, but that doesn't mean I don't think they could do better.

unheilig
22-08-2006, 13:33
beastmen will still be ranking up 5-wide 90% of the time anyway.

NakedFisherman
22-08-2006, 14:02
Well, as the 7th book I saw stands, the section on skirmishers movement refers us to the section on character's movement, and the section on character's movement refers us to the section on skirmishers movement. How then, do skirmishers and characters move?

There's enough between the sections to understand it all. It's a bit silly, though -- I pointed it out in another thread.

Ganymede
22-08-2006, 16:33
Well, as the 7th book I saw stands, the section on skirmishers movement refers us to the section on character's movement, and the section on character's movement refers us to the section on skirmishers movement. How then, do skirmishers and characters move?

I understand your question, but I don't quite get why you quoted my message about FAQs in 7th edition.

Atrahasis
22-08-2006, 17:40
I understand your question, but I don't quite get why you quoted my message about FAQs in 7th edition.

Because my question illustrates a problem that really needs to be addressed as I imagine it will cause a lot of confusion, and I don't think GW will be quick to issue an erratum.

Ganymede
22-08-2006, 19:04
Personally, I never think GW will be quick to issue any eratta at all.

Voltaire
25-08-2006, 17:53
GW has said in the latest WD that the Beastmen will not automatically go up to 5. This is done so they are deliberately weaker. Check it out in the new WD.

TheWarSmith
25-08-2006, 18:58
yup, so we beasties have to suck it up and be cool.

All in all I think beastmen became more powerful overall. Our herds are cheap enough that taking enough to get our max rank bonus is very easy, and with the rule about being destroyed by fleeing into enemy units, we should be able to position beast herds using ambush to take care of this to take advantage.

Grimshawl
25-08-2006, 19:00
Staff know jack all about what happens at Lenton.

The development team KNOW about this problem, have commented on it, and are not going to change it. What does that tell you about it?

that GW is doing what they always seem to do about their mistakes, nothing.

anarchistica
25-08-2006, 20:04
GW has said in the latest WD that the Beastmen will not automatically go up to 5. This is done so they are deliberately weaker. Check it out in the new WD.
It says "Beastmen [sic] rank up four wide even when they shouldn't be able to. Now that ranks need to be five wide, this makes them slightly weaker."

Please point out where it says this is deliberate.

Atrahasis
26-08-2006, 11:48
GW has said in the latest WD that the Beastmen will not automatically go up to 5. This is done so they are deliberately weaker. Check it out in the new WD.

They've also said that a "change" going into 7th edition is that uncrewed war machines are destroyed when charged, which has been the case in 6th edition for about 5 years now.

That article (like anything in WD) is completely unreliable.

Voltaire
26-08-2006, 15:33
You're telling me that something published in White Dwarf magazine by the person who wrote the new rulebook is going to be 'unreliable'? I seriously doubt that somehow. If it is the case then I will admit I'm wrong but I see this as an example of Beast Herds finally having some sort of weakness and I personally think it is very fluffy that they are a mob and not a 'ranked' unit.

Also, the war machine example you gave, as I understood it, means they are automatically destroyed. In the previous edition, as I understood it, you had to physically make the attacks and roll to hit, wound etc. Not something you should really have to waste your effort with IMO.

Voltaire
26-08-2006, 15:36
It says "Beastmen [sic] rank up four wide even when they shouldn't be able to. Now that ranks need to be five wide, this makes them slightly weaker."

Please point out where it says this is deliberate.

As stated above, its probably for fluff reasons. I ddn't actually intend to type deliberate, but I think people got the jist of what I was saying :)

neXus6
26-08-2006, 15:36
But they still get ranks...they just don't get ranks against anything that they can only put 4 or less models against which is pretty much characters on their own and single monsters, in 99% of combats they are still going to get ranks. :p

Atrahasis
27-08-2006, 09:56
You're telling me that something published in White Dwarf magazine by the person who wrote the new rulebook is going to be 'unreliable'? I seriously doubt that somehow.You can doubt it all you like, the design team frequently display their lack of knowledge of the ruleset.



Also, the war machine example you gave, as I understood it, means they are automatically destroyed. In the previous edition, as I understood it, you had to physically make the attacks and roll to hit, wound etc. Not something you should really have to waste your effort with IMO.

Rulebook page 119 : "If a war machine is already abandoned when charged, it is destroyed..." (cf erratum Annual 2002).

Looks like you don't know the rules any better than Alessio :rolleyes:

Voss
29-08-2006, 19:42
But they still get ranks...they just don't get ranks against anything that they can only put 4 or less models against which is pretty much characters on their own and single monsters, in 99% of combats they are still going to get ranks. :p

Shhh. Don't tell anyone how the Raiders rule actually works. You'll stop the panic stricken rants!

:D

night2501
30-08-2006, 15:04
come on form the very start skirmishers where never suposed to get ranks...
the rider rule should never have existed, and as said in the withe dwarf they form 4 wide in those few situations... and I will make sure to make those situations count... the true they are to cheap for wath they do and the equipment they have, and now ambush will be deadlyer too, so see it as a trade off...
byt the way I wil make sure to make that rule count, mi biggest problem where the herd as they where imposible to outmanuver had great CC stats good T M and +2 ranks +1 standar + outnumbe rmost of the time... come on that was rock solid...

TheWarSmith
30-08-2006, 15:40
please work on spelling and word typos night2501

I personally love beast herds because they're so different. They're a skirmish unit that has some of the advantages of static infantry, but not all. People complain about herds, but they're really the only mainstay unit beastmen have. Bestigors really aren't very good for their points(maybe w/ nurgle or khorne), so they should be good.

TheNewOracle
30-08-2006, 16:21
Alot of understandably upset Beast players in this thread...not surprisingly.!

Note that the Design Team was aware of the fact that Beast Herds can be "abused" by a Chariot / lone character during the writing / testing of Warhammer 7th edition. Gav indicated this on TWF and Alessio further indicated this in the recent White Dwarf.

Due to the fact that Beast Herds can Ambush! and the new amazingly deadly "Auto-Destroy" rule affected fleeing enemy units, I believe the Design Team deliberately did not address the 4 wide issue as a compensating weakness...or at least used it as their justification for why not to amend the rule.

Even with the 4 wide "weakness" Beast Herds still play very valuable roles in the army, but those who field them will have to be much more careful in thier use when faced with chariots / "killy" single characters and may have to adopt some different overall army lists / tactics. I know that a list I just wrote up had less of them for mainline combat and more of them for harrassment / ambushing. Watching enemy units unable to flee charges from Dragon Ogres due to ambushing units behind them is going to be :evilgrin:

TNO

NakedFisherman
30-08-2006, 18:38
They've also said that a "change" going into 7th edition is that uncrewed war machines are destroyed when charged, which has been the case in 6th edition for about 5 years now.

That article (like anything in WD) is completely unreliable.

To be fair, the rule did change somewhat. Now units that charge a war machine (whose crew elect to flee from the charge) must stop when they reach the war machine and destroy it.

Atrahasis
30-08-2006, 19:21
The chargers no longer get the choice of following the crew or spiking the machine?

NakedFisherman
30-08-2006, 20:00
The chargers no longer get the choice of following the crew or spiking the machine?

Nope. If I remember correctly, they must stop and spike the machine.

Atrahasis
30-08-2006, 22:36
Nope. If I remember correctly, they must stop and spike the machine.

Still, that's nothing like what Alessio said in the article.