PDA

View Full Version : Longbeard allowage



Mordu22
03-11-2006, 02:04
IF i have a Dwarf Lord it is possible for me to FIELD one more unit of long beard than warriors in a battle. So I can have 0 warriors and 1 longbeard.
It is still possible to field another unit of LongBeards upgraded to Rangers right? they are no longer longbeards they are rangers, just as quarrlers or warriors upgraded are Rangers and not there base unit name. They are FIELDED as Rangers not as longbeards. I would say yes i could use longbeards and ranger/longbeards with out any warriors hitting the table with my lord, Is that the way it works?

Ganymede
03-11-2006, 03:10
Longbeards upgraded to rangers still count against your longbeard allowance.

DeathlessDraich
03-11-2006, 08:06
Some players, like me, are uncomfortable with the '1 more than 0' interpretation - and thats when I'm playing dwarves!
Having 1 unit of Rangers as well is stretching the credibiltity of that argument.
It is a matter of interpretation unfortunately and I can find nothing in the RAW rules to refute your argument, Mordu.

Latro
03-11-2006, 08:19
The Dwarf FAQ seems to indicate that units upgraded to Ranger do no longer count for the Warrior/Longbeard ratio.

... so yes, that would allow you another unit of "Longbeards" without taking a Warrior unit.

DeathlessDraich
03-11-2006, 08:34
Q. If a unit of Warriors or Longbeards is upgraded to Rangers, does the unit continue to count as part of the ratio which restricts players to not having more units of longbeards than they have Warriors?
A. Rangers are not Warriors, so an army with Rangers in it must still include a unit of Warriors before it can field a unit of Longbeards.

I've read this twice and still think I can interpret it in 2 different ways!:p
So, I'm not sure it answers Mordu22's question, Latro. - 1 unit of Longbeards and 1 unit of Rangers without warriors seem forbidden.

heretics bane
03-11-2006, 09:06
ive had this disscusion with my local GW store manager(huge dwarf fan) says you MUST have 1 unit of warriors on the field in order to have two units of long beards

WLBjork
03-11-2006, 10:49
The question isn't so much about 2 units of Longbeards, but what happens when a unit of Longbeards is upgraded to Rangers.

Warriors upgraded to Rangers no longer count as Warriors; therefore logic would follow that Longbeards upgraded to Rangers no longer count as Longbeards either.

Unfortunately, GW and logic don't usually go together.

Avian
03-11-2006, 11:13
ive had this disscusion with my local GW store manager(huge dwarf fan) says you MUST have 1 unit of warriors on the field in order to have two units of long beards
Isn't that somewhat odd maths?

If (Dwarf Lord):
N(longbeards) <= N(warriors) +1

Thus
If N(warriors)=1, then N(longbeards) must be equal to or less than 2.
If N(warriors)=0, then N(longbeards) must be equal to or less than 1.
etc.

:eyebrows:

gortexgunnerson
03-11-2006, 12:45
ive had this disscusion with my local GW store manager(huge dwarf fan) says you MUST have 1 unit of warriors on the field in order to have two units of long beards

Staff members supporting rules is a close to guarentee that the rule should be interpreted in other way lol :D

I am of the belief that 1 is more then 0 its on of the few certainies in this argument. So I would say that you can field a unit of longbeards with no warriors if the army is lord lead.

I would also believe that troops upgraded count only as what they are upgraded to. Eg rat swarms are core they can be plague rats and get upgraded to special. They no longer are core and only could as special. If I remember the example correctly as away from my books.

So I would say that having a unit of rangers and longbeards in a lord lead army with no warriors is allowable. As it does not contradict any rule. The Q&A seems definate that ranger are rangers regardless of the prior source. But I can see the rule as more complicated in the case of upgraded longbeards as they are then longbeards and rangers in terms of abilities. But by RAW I think it is not disallowed and obeys all other rules if slightly unfluffy, but theirs alot of that around.

Avian
03-11-2006, 12:54
If I remember the example correctly as away from my books.
You don't, but that's not really relevant. A better example would be Inner Circle Knights in the new Empire book. ;)

xmbk
03-11-2006, 13:06
Barring a FAQ, the Lord allows you to field a unit of LB with no Warriors.

Given the FAQ on Rangers, a unit of LB Rangers does not count as LB.

So you can reasonably field a Lord with a unit of LB, a unit of LB Rangers, and no Warriors. It's a far cry from powergaming (not too many players call elite RnF broken, esp when they have M3), so you should be able to do this with a clear conscience. If anyone gives you a hard time, start reaching for your Thorek gunline. They'll most likely stand down pretty quick. ;)

Mordu22
03-11-2006, 13:55
Kewl, thats they way i thought the FAQ was stating it, they are rangers not longbeards/warriors. No powergaming here, just thought it would be nice to have to core units as long beards. non fluff? yes, i don't want to deploy them as scouts just thought it would be funny to have someone charge a block of them then get hit by str 5 throwing axes before getting into combat:evilgrin:

Mordu22
03-11-2006, 15:00
:D Also by the FAQ ruling lets you have a unit of longbeard rangers and no warriors without a lord!

DeathlessDraich
03-11-2006, 16:13
"an army with Rangers in it must still include a unit of Warriors before it can field a unit of Longbeards."



I seem to be in the minority here but I can't see how 1 unit of Rangers and 1 unit of Longbeards without 1 unit of Warriors can possibly be deduced from the above phrase.
1 unit of Rangers only is possible if that's what is being said.

Mordu22
03-11-2006, 17:02
it's stating that when warriors upgrade to rangers they are no longer warriors, similarly if longbeards are upgraded to rangers they are no longer longbeards. The FAQ stating that you must have a group of warriors besides ranger upgraded ones to have long beards doesn't take into account that a lord allows you one more unit of longbeards that warriors. So you take one unit of longbeards and 0 warriors, one being greater than 0 by one;then rangers upgraded from longbeards, that no longer count as longbeards.

intellectawe
03-11-2006, 18:06
I dont see this as you guys say it at all.

The faq states only warriors count as rangers. Mentions nothing about longbeards.

as a matter of fact, army builder (which is more right than the army books themselves) calls upgraded longbeards, longbeard ranegrs, thus disallowing two longbeards in the same army.

The faq clearly states warriors OR longbears, not AND.... then it states warriors are rangers, not warriors. Nothing about longbeards at all.

Crazy Harborc
03-11-2006, 19:19
UMmmmm....Army Builder and it's maker do NOT claim to be more correct than the armybooks and or the rulebook for any GW system. Army Builder does tell you, you NEED the rulebooks and or armybooks.

intellectawe
03-11-2006, 19:24
UMmmmm....Army Builder and it's maker do NOT claim to be more correct than the armybooks and or the rulebook for any GW system. Army Builder does tell you, you NEED the rulebooks and or armybooks.

You are right, and the Faq does not state that longbeards cease to be longbeards only because of an upgrade. The faq only states this for warriors to rangers, thats it.

And yes, Army builder, I have found, to be more trusting than online sources from various forums and books.

Atrahasis
03-11-2006, 20:11
You are right, and the Faq does not state that longbeards cease to be longbeards only because of an upgrade. The faq only states this for warriors to rangers, thats it.It follows that if Warriors are no longer warriors when upgraded to rangers that longbeards are no longer longbeards either.

It isn't stated explicitly however.


And yes, Army builder, I have found, to be more trusting than online sources from various forums and books.I stopped helping update the AB files when anarchistica started refusing to acknowledge the answers given by Direwolf, despite Direwolf being stated in the AB files as an authoritative source. If you go by the current files, Warrior Priests of Verena and all sorts of unofficial stuff has crept in.

xmbk
03-11-2006, 22:37
as a matter of fact, army builder (which is more right than the army books themselves)

Huh?!? I must be misreading your intent here.


And yes, Army builder, I have found, to be more trusting than online sources from various forums and books.

Maybe I'm not. But you are helping to convince me not to trust online forum posts. ;)

intellectawe
04-11-2006, 05:52
Huh?!? I must be misreading your intent here.



Maybe I'm not. But you are helping to convince me not to trust online forum posts. ;)

Well... I am sorry, I wasn't clear.

For years people swore the "rules" given in the GW forum faqs were canon adn official. But they never were.

Now that the Forums have been axed, and the only sources we have to go on are...

1) army books
2) erratas and faqs on GW

people are going to have a fit trying to understand the rules. Without those unofficial faqs on the forums people's heads are going to asplode across the globe.

Simply put, the faq does NOT mention Longbeards losing their status when becoming a ranger. The first part of the question in the faq mentions BOTH warriors and longbeards, but the second paragraph ONLY mentions warriors, NOT longbeards.

So...

By going from what teh FAQ says ( and what army builder says) you cannot disregard the longbeard status when upgrading to a ranger unit. The longbeards become, longbeard rangers.

NO where does it state that longbeards lose their status like the warriors do. Because this doesn't exist.

This is just a rule hopefuls wish were true, so they try to justify it by saying "well, if it works for warriors it MUST work for Longbeards". Sorry guys, try again. Wishing and reality are two different things.

xmbk
04-11-2006, 14:03
Sorry guys, try again.

I'm game. :) Rangers have their own entry in the army book (0-1). They are not an upgrade listed under the Longbeard/Warrior entry. Longbeards are upgraded to become Rangers, as are Warriors and Quarrellers. This is the logic behind the FAQ ruling, so you really don't need the FAQ once you see it this way.

Of course, it sounds like you've already made up your mind. To be honest, the rules are not 100% clear on this. I think the preponderance of evidence shows they are not LB anymore once they become Rangers, though you certainly are entitled to play as you see fit.

But I'm not seeing a M3 15pt/model unit as being one of the broken things in Warhammer. And let's face it, the Scout rule is a joke for a non-skirmishing unit that can't even move through woods. If you figure out a way to powergame LB Rangers, please let me know. ;)

Mordu22
04-11-2006, 14:23
I still think, until an FAQ comes about, that long beards lose there status. If we want to go on EXACT wording, than my dear Intell, where can i read in the army book an entry for Longbeard Rangers? so far i have been unable to find such an entry. OR is it simply that they are Rangers with a stat line that is the same as a longbeards?

intellectawe
04-11-2006, 15:02
So then when longbeards become rangers, they lose thier abilities right, since they are no longer longbeards?

NO one has yet to show me where the faq or rules clearly state longbeards lose thier longbeard status. The faq clearly says this is so for warriros, but not longbeards. The question was posted on the first page, go check it out.

Mordu22
04-11-2006, 17:26
SOOOOooo.. when warriors are UPGRADED to longbeards they still count as warriors right? nothing says that they loose their warrior status. though i would asume that they do, based on the FAQ about loosing thier warrior status when upgraded to rangers...things upgraded seem to loose their previous unit typed, if not longbeards would still count as warriors, still allowing one to have a unit of longbeards, a unit of rangers upgraded from longbeards, and a lord ;)

T10
05-11-2006, 18:53
So the discussion addresses whether a unit of Rangers upgraded from Longbeards still count as Longbeards. Yes or no.

If you say yes, then you must also agree that they also count as a unit of Warriors, meaning that you taking any number of units of Longbeards automatically fulfills the requirement of having at least that many units of Warriors. Applying this interpretation renders the restriction meaningless.

If you say "no" you open the door for taking the Longbeard upgrade on one more unit.

Is it an Easter Egg? Maybe. Maybe not. I can only assume that if you find a way to circumvent a restriction as obvious as this one then you are probably doing something wrong...

-T10

Latro
05-11-2006, 19:41
... and I would like to add to this that such a Warrior-Longbeard-Ranger unit should also count as three core choices! ;)

xmbk
06-11-2006, 21:28
If you say yes, then you must also agree that they also count as a unit of Warriors, meaning that you taking any number of units of Longbeards automatically fulfills the requirement of having at least that many units of Warriors. Applying this interpretation renders the restriction meaningless.

Grrr, I'm angry I didn't find this logic gem! ;)

T10
06-11-2006, 21:51
... and I would like to add to this that such a Warrior-Longbeard-Ranger unit should also count as three core choices! ;)

Nah. It's just a single upgraded unit. :)

-T10

DeathlessDraich
07-11-2006, 18:31
If you say yes, then you must also agree that they also count as a unit of Warriors, meaning that you taking any number of units of Longbeards automatically fulfills the requirement of having at least that many units of Warriors. Applying this interpretation renders the restriction meaningless.

-T10

It is the process of upgrading that is under restriction. A Longbeard unit can never count as a unit of Warriors as well being a Longbeard unit, because it is defined as an 'upgraded' Warrior. Once a warrior is upgraded to a Longbeard, it is called a Longbeard. It's status and unit type is changed from Warrior to Longbeard. It is a Warrior with added abilities - as defined by Longbeards and is not a Warrior, which hasn't got these abilities. That is the rule definition of a Longbeard. It cannot in any way still be a Warrior.
This is not a great mystery: Gutter Runners that are upgraded become Tunnellers. All rules relating to tunnelling apply only to Tunnelers and not Gutter Runners as well.
In the same way all rules relating to Longbeards do not apply to Warriors. A restriction on Longbeards apply to Longbeards and not Longbeards and their previous identity as Warriors!

A longbeard is an upgraded Warrior
A ranger can be either an upgraded Warrior
or an upgraded Longbeard.
Once either Warrior or Longbeard has been upgraded to Ranger status it can only be a Ranger and not both Ranger and Warrior or Ranger and Longbeard.
Since the points have been paid for being a Longbeard, when it is upgraded to Ranger, it must still have all the benefits of a Longbeard as well i.e. it is a Longbeard who Scouts.
A Warrior upgrade to Ranger is simply a Warrior who Scouts.

A simple comparison is:
Warrior = egg (or quadrilateral)
Longbeard = chick (or parallelogram)
Ranger (upgraded from Warrior) = male egg (or trapezium)
Ranger (upgraded from Longbeard) = Rooster ( or rectangle)

There is meant to be at least 1 egg for every 1 chick. When an egg hatches (upgrades) into a chick, it cannot be called an egg as well as a chick. It is a chick:D

The final question of whether the Longbeard upgraded to Ranger status must conform to the Longbeard/Warrior restriction is answered in the FAQ. - It must! Therefore if a Lord is included, then the Longbeard allowance is still applicable to a Ranger unit upgraded from Longbeards. However this restriction does not apply to a Ranger unit upgraded from Warriors.

Latro
07-11-2006, 19:23
Once either Warrior or Longbeard has been upgraded to Ranger status it can only be a Ranger and not both Ranger and Warrior or Ranger and Longbeard.


... I especially liked this part! :D

It can be so hard not to contradict yourself when you're trying to make logic outwit itself huh?


;)

xmbk
07-11-2006, 19:41
DD, I'm a logician and I gotta admit you lost me on that turn to Albuquerque. Is that a British trapezium or American? How does getting laid contradict T10?

Mordu22
07-11-2006, 19:55
DD, why again would rangers have an effect on longbeard allowance? you seem to state that Rangers can only be rangers not longbeard?
:eyebrows: (high-five to Latro)

intellectawe
07-11-2006, 20:16
I am amazed at how many people missed this simple iota of proof that rangers cannot be longbeards. I didn't bring it up because I thought it was obvious.

I love my warrior-longbeard-ranger unit.

DeathlessDraich
08-11-2006, 13:09
Sorry I'll be brief this time:
Q1 Does a Longbeard upgraded to a Ranger loses its special abilities as a Longbeard?
No because:

An upgraded unit gains abilities but does not lose other abilities e.g. A Frenzied/Stubborn unit that is upgraded with an additional HW gains an extra attack but does not lose its Frenzy/Stubborness.
Upgrade is not specifically defined in the rules but I think all players will agree to its definition above.
In the same way a Warrior upgraded to a Longbeard does not lose its benefits as a Warrior and when it is further upgraded to a Ranger it gains the Scouting ability and does not lose any of its previous special abilities i.e - still Immune to Panic etc.


DD, I'm a logician and I gotta admit you lost me on that turn to Albuquerque. Is that a British trapezium or American? How does getting laid contradict T10?

I don't think that contradicts T10. Do Americans always end up lost in Alberquerque?:p


DD, why again would rangers have an effect on longbeard allowance? you seem to state that Rangers can only be rangers not longbeard?
:eyebrows: (high-five to Latro)

Not quite. Longbeards are upgraded Warriors i.e. Warriors who are immune to Panic etc. and rule references to Longbeards are referring to a specific upgraded type of Warrior. Try using the following substitutes in the rules:

Warrior = an unupgraded Warrior
Longbeard = a Warrior with an Immune to Panic etc upgrade
Ranger = A Warrior with a Scouting upgrade.

Any rules references to Longbeards refers to the upgraded version of a Warrior and not the ordinary Warrior. It cannot refer to both!
Similarly any rules mentioning Rangers refers to Warriors who Scout who might or might not be Immune to Panic etc. It cannot refer to Longbeards or Warriors.
I'll explain this in the next post if necessary.

Mordu22
08-11-2006, 13:52
okay, Similarly any rules mentioning Rangers refers to Warriors who Scout who might or might not be Immune to Panic etc. It cannot refer to Longbeards or Warriors. Would you like to go on to say that any rules that refer to longbeards refer to warriors that are immune to panic? I would a sume yes, and the rules for long beard ratio refer to warriors (not-upgraded) and long beards (warriors immune to panic) but nothing about rangers (warriors with scout immune or not to panic). In which case it is is still possible to have rangers (from longbeards) and longbeards and a lord. with no warriors

DeathlessDraich
08-11-2006, 17:11
No, 1 unit of Warriors will be needed with Royal Blood rules - 1W, 1LB, and 1 Ranger unit upgraded from LB.
The 'etc' in my previous post also incorporates other rules for Longbeards and Rangers.

Taking the rules one at a time:
a) "you cannot have more units of Longbeards than Warriors".

Therefore a
Longbeard unit = Warrior unit which is 'Immune to Panic, Grumble, with a unit limitation fewer/equal to units of ordinary Warriors'.
A Ranger unit upgraded from this:
Ranger = Warrior unit which is 'Immune to Panic, Grumble, with a unit limitation fewer/equal to units of ordinary Warriors AND who can Scout'.

This is formulated on the basis that Rangers and Longbeards are upgrades and that rules for Rangers and Longbeards are additions to this upgrade. To put this simply - all rules for Longbeards and Rangers are 'upgrades'.

b) Royal Blood : An army may have one more unit of Longbearsd than it does Warriors.
Applying the same principle of (a) to (b) above.

Longbeard unit = Warrior unit which is 'Immune to Panic, Grumble, with a unit limitation fewer/equal to units of ordinary Warriors unless Royal Blood permits it to have one more unit of Longbeards than Warriors'.
A Ranger unit upgraded from this:
Ranger = Warrior unit which is 'Immune to Panic, Grumble, with a unit limitation fewer/equal to units of ordinary Warriors unless Royal Blood permits it to have one more unit of Longbeards than Warriors AND who can Scout'.

The underlying principle is an upgrade adds or modifies characteristics/special abilities while keeping other characteristics/special abilities unchanged.

Mordu22
08-11-2006, 22:00
Ranger = Warrior unit which is 'Immune to Panic, Grumble, with a unit limitation fewer/equal to units of ordinary Warriors unless Royal Blood permits it to have one more unit of Longbeards than Warriors AND who can Scout'.

it clearly states in the FAQ that rangers are not to be considered warriors, they lose their warrior status as a part of the LB Warrior ratio.

Latro
09-11-2006, 07:22
b) Royal Blood : An army may have one more unit of Longbearsd than it does Warriors.
Applying the same principle of (a) to (b) above.

Longbeard unit = Warrior unit which is 'Immune to Panic, Grumble, with a unit limitation fewer/equal to units of ordinary Warriors unless Royal Blood permits it to have one more unit of Longbeards than Warriors'.
A Ranger unit upgraded from this:
Ranger = Warrior unit which is 'Immune to Panic, Grumble, with a unit limitation fewer/equal to units of ordinary Warriors unless Royal Blood permits it to have one more unit of Longbeards than Warriors AND who can Scout'.

The underlying principle is an upgrade adds or modifies characteristics/special abilities while keeping other characteristics/special abilities unchanged.

I understand what you are trying to say, I just don't agree with it ... mainly because the logic behind it is flawed. The "rule" you use to explain your point of view is used in two different ways here:

You can't use the same logic to claim that a Longbeard upgraded to Ranger still counts as a Longbeard, but that a Warrior unit upgraded to Longbeard loses it's Warrior status ... not without some solid evidence from the rulebook anyway.

Using the same principle to get different results in similar situations doesn't work.

DeathlessDraich
10-11-2006, 08:06
I understand what you are trying to say,

You can't use the same logic to claim that a Longbeard upgraded to Ranger still counts as a Longbeard, but that a Warrior unit upgraded to Longbeard loses it's Warrior status ... not without some solid evidence from the rulebook anyway.

Sorry, maybe I did not phrase my explanation clearly but you have missed the most important point of what I'm saying.

There are no rules defining an upgrade but it has always been used in a certain way:
e.g. A unit of Gutter Runners upgraded with poisoned weapons retains all its characteristics except the upgrade i.e. it movement, Initiative etc is unchanged. Only its attacks are changed to Poisoned while all other characteristics remain unchanged.
When this Poisonous Gutter Runner is further upgraded to a Tunneller, it does not lose its poisoned nature. It gains the Tunnelling ability without losing its other characteristics. It is still a Gutter Runner and a Poisionous Gutter Runner in all respects except for the upgraded characteristics

Keeping in mind that Longbeards and Rangers are now Upgrades and not a different unit as it was in previous editions, the same principle as the Gutter Runners should be used.

The restriction for the Warrior:Longbeard ratio is an upgrade rule.
The Royal Blood rule pertains to Longbeards and is therefore part of an upgrade as well.

Therefore a Longbeard is a Warrior in all respects EXCEPT for the upgrades i.e. it is a Warrior EXCEPT for these upgrades - it is a) Immune to Panic b) Grumbles c) Is subjected to a Warrior:Longbeard ratio restriction d) Is subject to the Royal Blood rules
In the same way a Ranger upgraded from a Longbeard has all the Warrior and Longbeard characteristics except it can Scout. i.e. it still has (a) to (d) above. This is because the upgrade just changes the non-Scouting ability to a Scouting ability - ALL previous characteristics remain intact i.e. it still has LG characteristics since this is not part of the upgrade.

Compare this with the Gutter Runner, Poisonous Gutter Runner , Tunneling Poisonous Gutter Runner analogy and I'm sure you will agree it is consistent.

The rule can be restated as "There cannot be more Warrior units that have been upgraded to Immune to Panic etc than there are ordinary Warrior units".

DeathlessDraich
10-11-2006, 13:07
it clearly states in the FAQ that rangers are not to be considered warriors, they lose their warrior status as a part of the LB Warrior ratio.

The FAQ does not seem to understand what an upgrade is. There are 2 ways of getting Rangers - one upgraded from Warriors and one upgraded from Longbeards.
The FAQ lumps both types as one which is clearly Wrong and does not comply with the normal method of 'upgrading'.
Please refer to my post above and I'm sure you'll find it makes sense.

xmbk
10-11-2006, 14:30
Please refer to my post above and I'm sure you'll find it makes sense.

Will you settle for following your logic and disagreeing with it? Mainly because I'm unwilling to ignore a FAQ, even if I don't like it.

WLBjork
10-11-2006, 14:45
Skaven rules apply to Skaven.

Dwarf rules apply to Dwarfs.

Dwarf rules say Rangers aren't Warriors. If Rangers aren't Warriors, then they can't be Longbeards either.

Skaven rules are 6th edition. Dwarf Rules are (semi) 7th edition. The way things work change between editions.

DeathlessDraich
10-11-2006, 18:25
Will you settle for following your logic and disagreeing with it? Mainly because I'm unwilling to ignore a FAQ, even if I don't like it.

Of course! This is a forum and different points of view are very welcome - certainly by me if it is backed up by good explanations.
However, don't you find the FAQ inadequate. I've read it many times and the reply fails to address the question being asked in the FAQ and certainly fails to answer the questions raised here.

I don't think an FAQ is even needed if you agree with my mechanism of an 'upgrade' which is universally the same as other upgrades.


Skaven rules apply to Skaven.

Dwarf rules apply to Dwarfs.

A truism! which shows you failed to read the most relevant parts of my previous post or did not comprehend its implications.