PDA

View Full Version : BoC Raiders Rule



Greyfire
10-06-2007, 15:39
In the GW FAQ regarding the Raiders rule and ranking up in 4 (this is not a discussion of that little question), it states:

we are confident the increased power of their Ambush rule in the new edition more than compensates for this

What's the "increased power"? I'm just not seeing it.

-=- Greyfire

Xavier
10-06-2007, 15:40
'Crossfire' maybe?

T10
10-06-2007, 15:43
I don't know. The ability to place a US 5+ herd behind an enemy unit may force it to accept a charge from the front, perhaps.

Edit: Curse Xavier and his Keyboard of Rapid Strokes +2!

-T10

DeathlessDraich
10-06-2007, 16:21
I asked a Beastmen player about this and he mentioned that there is a marginal advantage of how they arrive on the tabletop. I'm not sure what this really means??
Maybe it is a reference to the next BOC rulebook

Sherlocko
10-06-2007, 16:50
Earlier they moved in from a specifik point, meaning you had a point on the table and everyone moved 10" from that point. Now, you place all the models on a long line touching the edge of the table, then moving 5"

Sanjuro
10-06-2007, 17:46
Earlier they moved in from a specifik point, meaning you had a point on the table and everyone moved 10" from that point. Now, you place all the models on a long line touching the edge of the table, then moving 5"

But... how is that an advantage?

Sylass
10-06-2007, 17:56
Earlier they moved in from a specifik point, meaning you had a point on the table and everyone moved 10" from that point. Now, you place all the models on a long line touching the edge of the table, then moving 5"
Huh? :confused:

When did this rule actually change to the "line version"? As far as I remember the current book still uses the "mark a point" ruling, no? Or was there an errata/FAQ changing this? :)

Sherlocko
10-06-2007, 18:02
the unit will be placed back as close as possible to the same point from wich it left the table(IE, the marked point) ... and with all of itīs rear rank touching the table edge

I at least read it as the unit must touch the edge of the table, because all models must be placed on the table before they are moved, andthere is no allowance of actually putting them further onto the table. I feel I might be wrong here, but that is how I see it.

Atrahasis
10-06-2007, 18:04
IIRC Ambushing units are placed as though returning from pursuing an enemy off the table. Skirmishers which are returning in this manner must place all models touching the table edge.

mightygnoblar
10-06-2007, 18:17
thats the rule alright, however i still dont see how this "increases the power" of the ambush rule, it just seems that it will make things more awkard in my oppinion

Atrahasis
10-06-2007, 18:20
Well I believe the "increase in power" referred to in the FAQ is the strength already mentioned - US5 units behind enemy lines are hugely tactically advantageous in 7th.

The effect of the skirmisher rules to string the unit out along the table edge is certainly a disadvantage.

Lord_Byron
10-06-2007, 18:30
I at least read it as the unit must touch the edge of the table, because all models must be placed on the table before they are moved, andthere is no allowance of actually putting them further onto the table. I feel I might be wrong here, but that is how I see it.

Interesting, I read it as the ambushing player marks a point on the table where the unit will emerge from, and then all pieces in the unit move onto the table from that point.

Chicago Slim
10-06-2007, 18:33
As a Beasts player (among other armies), I gave some serious thought to what the FAQ might mean, before concluding that it's probably referring to this:

A unit of 10+ skirmishers (remember, Beast Herds are 10 models minimum) can cover up to 18" of table. A Beast Herd set up in such a line behind the enemy will serve to catch any units that break from a frontal charge-- that is, when my excellent infantry (be it Chaos foot or Bestigors) charge the front of your troops, and you break and flee from them, you're likely to run into my Beast Herd, which Ambushed in behind you.

Preliminary testing has supported this idea. With 2-3 herds, it's likely that I'll cover the enemy backfield, ready to auto-kill anything that breaks from my main effort. The Herds don't do a lot of fighting and killing (happens sometimes, but not that often), but they "kill" dozens of models (broken and fleeing into their waiting clutches), and then hang around to take table quarters at the end of the game.

Well worth the fact that, when fighting single models, they can't get rank bonuses (unless they flank-charge a chariot).

Atrahasis
10-06-2007, 18:36
Precisely. When people see my 15-strong fury unit they often laugh at what they see as a waste of points. And then that 15-strong unit kills 5 or 6 units in one turn just by standing in a line. They don't laugh much after that.

DeathlessDraich
11-06-2007, 09:22
Earlier they moved in from a specifik point, meaning you had a point on the table and everyone moved 10" from that point. Now, you place all the models on a long line touching the edge of the table, then moving 5"

Both rules oppose each other in some ways. It has always been accepted that army Special rules are exceptions to main rules and therefore supercede them.
Whether ambushing units are lined up on the edge or emerge from a point is still debatable.


Huh? :confused:

When did this rule actually change to the "line version"? As far as I remember the current book still uses the "mark a point" ruling, no? Or was there an errata/FAQ changing this? :)

Skirmishers pg 67 = last paragraph of Close Combat.


A Beast Herd set up in such a line behind the enemy will serve to catch any units that break from a frontal charge-- that is, when my excellent infantry (be it Chaos foot or Bestigors) charge the front of your troops, and you break and flee from them, you're likely to run into my Beast Herd, which Ambushed in behind you.
.

1) This 'long line advantage' is smaller in comparison to the greater possibility of being charged by a single model (e.g. Slayer character) or enemy skirmishers and not having the extra ranks bonus.

2) It is also offset by enemy units being able to do the same especially with Flyers, Fast Cavalry, tunnelers etc.

3) This tactic hinges largely in a successful prediction that the Beastmen army will be able to break the selected enemy unit. If this fails the Ambushing unit itself is vulnerable in the next turn.

Overall I'm not sure whether there is sufficient compensation for the loss in ranks.

MarcoPollo
11-06-2007, 22:53
I agree, there is not sufficient compensation for the loss in ranks, and I think that the new book will fix this issue. But beastherds do well for their points. Even with this nerf, the unit is still quite a viable tool. Magic items like Rune of the True beast, and a BSB can help offset this loss.

One of my new strategies, (given that most players know to charge the herd with small frontage units), is to not take a musician. This allows you to field two characters in the front rank (A BSB and a Beastlord -- say).

Also, expanding frontage if you win combat is important. You can get your ranks by exanding frontage after the round you win combat. These are all small things that can help reduce the effect of the loss of Ranks.

Chicago Slim
12-06-2007, 02:47
1) This 'long line advantage' is smaller in comparison to the greater possibility of being charged by a single model (e.g. Slayer character) or enemy skirmishers and not having the extra ranks bonus.

On the other hand, if I let a Mv 3 character get into combat with my Mv 5 skirmishers, then I deserve to take it on the chin!


2) It is also offset by enemy units being able to do the same especially with Flyers, Fast Cavalry, tunnelers etc.

The fact that this advantage is not unique to Beast Herds does not lesson the advantage itself.


3) This tactic hinges largely in a successful prediction that the Beastmen army will be able to break the selected enemy unit. If this fails the Ambushing unit itself is vulnerable in the next turn.

True enough-- you won't win the game if you never win a combat! Though I don't see how the Ambushing unit becomes vulnerable, just from being in the backfield-- usually, an opposing unit will have to turn to face them (thus exposing their rear to the rest of the Chaos horde).

Honestly, a lot of the advantage of the Ambush rule is and has always been that it freaks opponents out, and draws them into over-reaction. IF the opponent makes that mistake, it typically gives the chaos player the opportunity to sieze the initiative, and make something ELSE happen.

alextroy
12-06-2007, 15:33
One of my new strategies, (given that most players know to charge the herd with small frontage units), is to not take a musician. This allows you to field two characters in the front rank (A BSB and a Beastlord -- say).

No need to do this, Marco. If you have more models required to be on the front rank then space, you get to select which ones go in the second rank. The only disadvantage is that those models not in the first rank don't count in combat. So you can buy your Musician and have him stand in the second rank until you have a chance to expand frontage.

metro_gnome
12-06-2007, 16:54
not with musicians unfortunately...
the musicians say specifically that they must be in the front rank...

this is however different for both standards and champs...
either of these command models may be placed in the second rank...

alextroy
12-06-2007, 19:35
The rules for characters joining a unit specify Standard Bearer, musican, champion and/or other characters may be displaced if there is not room for them all.

metro_gnome
12-06-2007, 19:40
not really... it simply lists musicians as part of the problem...
then goes on to say that one of the problematic models must be moved...
the musician however may not be moved as it is always placed in the front rank...

alextroy
12-06-2007, 23:27
I disagree. The Character rules clearly state that one of the models listed may be moved out of the first rank. Add that the Musician rules (under Drawn Combat) states "If a unit of troops has a musician in the front rank..." means that you can clearly not have the Musician in the front rank of a unit.

Masque
12-06-2007, 23:36
not really... it simply lists musicians as part of the problem...
then goes on to say that one of the problematic models must be moved...
the musician however may not be moved as it is always placed in the front rank...

Are you implying that the wording that states a musicians goes in the front rank is somehow stronger than the wording for other command models and characters?

BRB, Page 80, Position Within Unit
"The unit's champion, standard bearer, musician and any characters that have joined it, must be placed in the unit's front rank."
"If all such models cannot fit into the front rank, the player must place some of them into the second rank. Champions, standard bearers, musicians and any characters in the second rank cannot take part in close combat in any way unless they are directly engaged, via a flank charge for example."

Musicians are listed as models that could be in the second rank. If they were somehow prevented from this I think the BRB would mention it somewhere.

MarcoPollo
13-06-2007, 04:17
It seems that you could decide who stays in the front rank and who stays in the back rank. So you could still use a musician, but you won't get his help during CR if you chose to put him in the back ranks.

Jonke
13-06-2007, 05:34
There are two conflicting rules here. First we have p. 80 'Position within unit' wich says musicians (along with other command models) may be moved to a rear rank if necessary. And then on p. 81 'Musicians' it says a musician is placed in the front rank.

To me the intent is clear here. All command models and characters may be moved back. The sentence on p. 81 is just a reminder (and a totally un-necessary one together with the whole passage).

Peace!

ehlijen
13-06-2007, 08:02
How can you expand frontage later if originally you were forced to rank up four wide?
I mean usually you rank up as much as can get into contact. If that leaves you with less than 5 per rank, you can't change that by expanding frontage. Any manouver allowed to the winner of the combat can only be performed to increase the number of models in base contact (p46 free manouvers).

Masque
13-06-2007, 08:10
How can you expand frontage later if originally you were forced to rank up four wide?
I mean usually you rank up as much as can get into contact. If that leaves you with less than 5 per rank, you can't change that by expanding frontage. Any manouver allowed to the winner of the combat can only be performed to increase the number of models in base contact (p46 free manouvers).

Actually, the errata for the BRB removes that stipulation.

ehlijen
13-06-2007, 09:32
Fair enough. I must have missed that.