PDA

View Full Version : llizardmen and chaos warriors screwed by new rules



yohanes13
03-09-2006, 21:44
theres a new rule that ranks only count if there 5 accross i understand for most units it makes sense and looks better however models on the bigger basses such as my lovely saurus and chaos warriors have to have ridiculously large units that look stupid and are unweildy and are troops are more expensive so we cant afford as many ranks as easily as others argh

am i insane or is this a problem

alextroy
03-09-2006, 22:04
Your not insane. It's not a problem. It's a change. Your saurus and chaos warriors are either going to need to earn their wins with kills instead of rank bonuses or your going to need to pay more points to get your ranks.

SlaaneshSlave
03-09-2006, 22:13
I like tho run my Chaos warriors 6 wide with a single rank. The rule change just ensures that all models are always in combat. Not bad for me...

Ironhand
03-09-2006, 22:15
The rules have changed. Live with it. As alextroy said, you can either hope you get enough kills or pay the extra points to give the units 5 models per rank.

The thing that ought to worry most Chaos generals, given that their armies are usually rather small, is the new rule about a unit being destroyed if it's forced to flee through an enemy unit.

Incidently, I've always played my Chaos infantry in blocks of at least 25, and I don't consider them "stupid and unwieldy".

Voltaire
03-09-2006, 22:29
It makes anything look better. Esp a more martial force like Chaos or Lizardmen. You're complaint is unwarranted.

Theadium
03-09-2006, 22:38
I dont have to worry about this, because I disreguard everyone on this website saying "oh, 4x4 blocks work best" and go with the fluffy number of slaanesh and go with 18, in a 6x3, so I will laugh as other units trying to get thier rank bonus get attacked by my now 19 attacks from my chosen! HA!

Horus38
03-09-2006, 22:50
I play LM and I've always had units five across.

As far as complaining I think Ogre Kingdoms have taken the worst hit as ranking up isn't really an option for them at all now.

lord_blackfang
03-09-2006, 22:54
As far as complaining I think Ogre Kingdoms have taken the worst hit as ranking up isn't really an option for them at all now.

One could also say they're the least affected of all, since honestly ranking up was never an option in the first place.

Z-chan
03-09-2006, 22:59
Chaos Warriors and Saurus win through causing wounds which can be achieved by increasing the frontage and not ranks and CR trickery.

I for one field my warriors 6x3...

EvC
03-09-2006, 23:00
It makes anything look better. Esp a more martial force like Chaos or Lizardmen.

Except of course, the centrepiece unit of Lizardmen with a Slann in the middle- that's going to look utterly appalling with the Slann's off-centre placement!

squiggoth
03-09-2006, 23:32
Except of course, the centrepiece unit of Lizardmen with a Slann in the middle- that's going to look utterly appalling with the Slann's off-centre placement!

So you make the unit six wide. That's 13 S4 attacks, or 19 if the guys have spears. More than makes up for the loss of a single point of Rank Bonus.

Voltaire
03-09-2006, 23:38
Oh yes, I forgot all about the sinister frog of doom. You could always do something really 'out there' and rank it up around the Frog and try and make it look good. Just like Squiggoth said, a six wide unit looks good.

Cap'n Umgrotz
04-09-2006, 00:17
I've always played one of my units of saurus 6 wide 3 deep and the other 4 wide 4 deep. Now I'm gonna switch to 5 wide 3 deep for that one. Meh, I trade 1 rank bonus for 2 attacks.(3 actually, seeing as they're spearmen)
It's not too bad. Poor beasties are one of the really unlucky armies due to them not ranking up against certain units any more, most notably the bretonian lance.And two of my regular opponents are bretonians. Ouch. So do you know what?I'm gonna flank charge the bastids. That'll learn 'em.
Instead of whinging, work around it.It's do-able.

EvC
04-09-2006, 00:30
When charged by the Lance, your Beasts should rank up in rows of five for proper rank bonuses (Unless you have really anal opponents who've measured their cavalry bases, found them to be 24mm wide and refuse to accept they should be the same width as Beastman's base).


So you make the unit six wide. That's 13 S4 attacks, or 19 if the guys have spears. More than makes up for the loss of a single point of Rank Bonus.

Well actually if you want a Saurus unit looking after a Slann to look good, you go from 12 Saurus arranged [4 x 4] with a rank bonus of 3 to [6 + 6 +2], so you lose two points of rank bonus. That may not seem a big deal to you or me, and in fact it probably isn't, but if you were told your centrepiece unit can either look crap on the battlefield, or you can drop two of its ranks to make it look better (or add another 150 points worth of troops to a unit worth 500 points or more already), I'm sure you wouldn't be overjoyed. Though I'm sure not everyone will be bothered...

der_lex
04-09-2006, 00:31
I agree with the posters above, it's a new challenge and not a real issue, even though my 4x4 blocks always did well up until now. As a Tzeentch player, and therefore always notoriously short on points, I'm wondering whether to go for 5x3 or 6x3 blocks, though... Is that one extra guy in the front really worth it?

^DrAgOn^
04-09-2006, 00:56
I'm just going to be changing my khorne warrior units from 4x4 to 5x4, they aren't that unwiedly.

Cap'n Umgrotz
04-09-2006, 01:00
Oh, thanks for that clarification, for some reason, edge to edge had slipped my mind!
Thanks!

Gabekun
04-09-2006, 02:35
Changing my warrior units to 20 strong was kind of a pain (making new movement trays and having to buy another box for the extra 10 troops), and they do cost alot more... but hell, the unit looks even more imposing than before, and is more survivable to shooting. Change is fine by me.

Every lizardmen player I know has always used blocks of 20 saurus, 5x4, so it shouldn't bother them all too much.

fracas
04-09-2006, 02:58
a wider unit is a problem because you increased your chance of being hit by two units or having to hit two units and either way get outnumbered and outranked.
the reason i have fielded my saurus 4 wide is because this is the same size as the 20mm base x5. most 20mm based units tend to be rank 5 wide (for the looks partly i am sure) but also because 20mm based unit tend to be weaker in hth.
the question i have isn't so much lining the 25mm based units 5 wide but will the 20mm based units fo 6 wide. this will allow them to take another combat model without the risk of having to engage more than 1 25mm based unit

squiggoth
04-09-2006, 11:43
but if you were told your centrepiece unit can either look crap on the battlefield, or you can drop two of its ranks to make it look better (or add another 150 points worth of troops to a unit worth 500 points or more already), I'm sure you wouldn't be overjoyed. Though I'm sure not everyone will be bothered...


Hey, I've been playing with a Nurgle Mortal infantry army since 2002. I'm pretty well used to the fact that my units look good and are utter crap, regardless of wether they're 4 wide, 5 wide or 14 wide, or doing the congo. ;)


As a Tzeentch player, and therefore always notoriously short on points, I'm wondering whether to go for 5x3 or 6x3 blocks, though... Is that one extra guy in the front really worth it?

I've been thinking about keeping my old 10-man unit (MoN, great weapons, shields and musician) for flanking support, and change my 15 Warriors with MoN, full command, shields and Exalted Champion into 13 or 14 warriors with MoN, full command, shields and a mounted Exalted Champ.
That way I loose a rank bonus but get 4 S5/S6 attacks in return, plus a S4 attack from the horse (horses always kill stuff!) - not a bad deal. :)

Avian
04-09-2006, 11:55
a wider unit is a problem because you increased your chance of being hit by two units or having to hit two units and either way get outnumbered and outranked.
To be honest, that has always been a problem for any unit and being forced to go 5 wide doesn't really affect that. Added to that is the fact that a lot of people have run their units 5 wide for ages and still managed, so it's not as if 5 wide is suicide.


It is however, not a rule that helps infantry the least. And I don't particularly like it, even if I only get bonuses from it (my greenskins are all in units at least 5 wide anyway and my Ogres don't ever try to get a rank bonus).

fracas
04-09-2006, 13:01
i agree
as i had stated, the real question is when the 25mm based units go 5 wide, should the 20mm based units go 6 wide?

Avian
04-09-2006, 13:09
I am rigorously opposed to that, since I would have to drasically modify my army transport case. ;)

I am a bit worried that some of the 7th edition alterations have been last-minute additions without proper play testing and forcing units to go 4 wide does not help expensive infantry the least - you can argue that elite infantry should go 5+ wide anyway, but in any case requiring 5 wide removes options. In my last battle a chaos player could not benefit from the "turn to flank if you win the combat rule", since that would have left his Chaos Warriors with no rank bonus (25 warriors is a very expensive and not too good unit)

EvC
04-09-2006, 14:46
So you can't turn to face and reform in a single victorious combat phase? :o

Avian
04-09-2006, 14:51
No, it's one or the other, though you could turn to your flank one turn and then expand frontage the next turn, if it turns out that the part about being only able to perform a free manoeuver if it brings more model into combat* should actually have said that you cannot reduce frontage when engaged to your front, to reduce the number of models fighting, turning should not be affected.


* something that makes the point about turning to your flank impossible since that cannot possibly increase the number of models fighting.