Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Steadfast rule 2nd paragraph

Page 54

.. the rank has to be 5 or more models for being treated as steadfast. The rank doesn't have to be complete, but must have at least 5 models. Similarly, the enemy's ranks also have to be five or more models wide to counter your unit from being steadfast....

Page 81

Monsteros Ranks. only have to be 3 wide and it counds for steadfast and so on (paraphrased)

Brettonian book: Doesn't contain the wording "steadfast and so on" when talking about 3 wide ranks.

Brettonain FAQ: Doesn't contain the wording "steadfast and so on" when talking about 3 wide ranks.

Therefore: Brettonians in lance formation do not ever count any of their ranks for steadfast creation or breaking. Meaning that a unit charged by a Bretonian lance is always steadfast as long as it has at least one qualifying rank (3 or 5 models).

Discuss:

This will answer all your questions.

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m1260019a_FAQ_Bretonnia_2010.pdf

lol.. actually it causes the questions that I've come to. There is no verbiage in that document that suggests that the lance gets steadfast. Like the way it's outlined in monsterous cavalry in the book.

I think GW wants them to have it, but I'm forced to draw the conclusion they dont.

Honestly ive being fidlding with this idea even though I dont play bretonnians anymore.

Its a better idea to have a unit of knights 6wide by 2 deep.

You get all there attacks, one rank and if you manage to slay enough you could kill off your opponents ability to be steadfast.

The differance between them is that in lance htey would be missing 3 attacks but they would be getting 2 extra ranks whilest in the 6x2 formation you get one rank and all attacks.

Makes lance kind of useless now really.

Makes lance kind of useless now really.

not the way i see it. (but I'm no master tactician either so.... )

First: with the new step up rules Brets are going to want to minimize the amount of attacks coming back at them in any way they can. So if they are only three wide they can be cutting out at least one file of attacks.

Second: With 12 knights in 6x2 you get 12 knight attacks and 6 horse attacks and 1 rank

but

In 3x4 you get 10 knight attacks and 9 horse attacks and 3 ranks. The ranks mean you get +2 combat rez over the first one. so basically you auto hit with those two knights that you are "losing" attacks for, and also gaining 3 horse attacks. And if you start losing models and therefore ranks you can always reform into a 6x2 formation.

Thirdly: i believe that Bretonnian Cavalry will no longer be the staple unit it was before and will now be a hammer unit smashing into flanks of soon to be fleeing enemies so the frontage is going to need to be small enough to fit into enemy flanks. now i understand that some will be so huge that it wont matter but 6x2 is a large frontage and against some of the more elite units it wont fit into its flank and therefore be a waste of points.

Regarding the original poster, i feel that they do get to use their ranks for steadfast making and breaking, mostly based on the fact that that's probably what GW intended as you said. besides it feels right, if they count their ranks for everything else but not this one rule? i dunno, maybe i'm just biased

Page 40 – Forming the Lance
Replace “The unit gets a rank bonus for each complete rank of
three models, rather than four.” in the first paragraph with
“The unit gets a rank bonus for each complete rank of three
models.”

And steadfast says that if you have more ranks then them, you get steadfast. And since the FAQ says that they get a rank bonus for a complete rank of three models instead of 5, then you can get steadfast.

Hate to say it but the rulebook is fairly clear that rank bonus =/= ranks for Steadfast.

The example even shows a unit losing its rank bonus from a rear charge but remaining Steadfast.

Challenger

Karon wrote:Page 40 – Forming the Lance
Replace “The unit gets a rank bonus for each complete rank of
three models, rather than four.” in the first paragraph with
“The unit gets a rank bonus for each complete rank of three
models.”

And steadfast says that if you have more ranks then them, you get steadfast. And since the FAQ says that they get a rank bonus for a complete rank of three models instead of 5, then you can get steadfast.

Go read the monsterous cavalry entry in the BRB. Go ahead. I'll wait. Did you see that part in the descrption where it said: These ranks count for steadfast?

Go find it in the Brettonian book, and or FAQ's Please highlight the wording in which brettonian lances count their ranks for CR AND for Steadfast. Because for the life of me. I can't find it.

Finally, there's a Battle Report from GW that seems to add some clarity to this rule, in which it seems that RAI suggests that Brets do get steadfast from their 3 wide ranks. But there are mistakes that occur in BR's. (anyone remember the tomb kings release debacle, where the TK's player cheated like a mofo like 7 times.. and had an illegal-as-all-hell list?

First, I'm confused as to why you even mention the monstrous Cavalry rules. Bret Knights, while good, are not monstrous cavalry. They are standard cavalry.

Steadfast uses your current ranks vs your opponents to determine if you can use the rule. Normally, you need to have a minimum of 5 models to count as a rank.

The bretonian lance formation needs only 3 to count as a rank. Army book rules take precedence over the BRB. See page 11 of the BRB if you want confirmation.

So, on page 54 and/or page 60 of the BRB under steadfast, anywhere is says 5 models for a rank, the bret book supercedes it with 3 models for the lance formation.

Bret knights get rank bonus, per the FAQ cited above, at 3 models. Ranks are used for CR and steadfast.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
In addition, the Bret book/faq isn't changing what ranks are used for for knight lances, just how ranks are calculated.

At risk of repeating myself, it is stated rather clearly in the BRB that the number of ranks =/= rank bonus. Its possible to have steadfast due to have more "ranks" while having no "rank bonus" due to being charged in the flank.

Challenger

Challenger, I think issue is being over complicated by mentioning CR for rank bonus and ranks for gaining steadfast.

As stated already by JJB, the only requirement for gaining steadfast is to have more ranks then your opponent. In the codex (again as JJB mentioned, it takes precedence) for the bretts it is stated that in the lance formation, which is 3 models wide, they get a rank.

I don't see any reason a unit of knights can't benefit from steadfast under the right circumstances.

Because Steadfast requires ranks of 5 models.

Infreak wrote:I don't see any reason a unit of knights can't benefit from steadfast under the right circumstances.

The main problem would be the very explicit rule requiring the rank to be 5 wide. No exception is made for the lance formation.

We can discuss the RAI till the cows come home, but the RAW clearly do not allow for knights in a lance formation to count ranks for steadfast

Challenger

JJBCollect2 wrote:First, I'm confused as to why you even mention the monstrous Cavalry rules. Bret Knights, while good, are not monstrous cavalry. They are standard cavalry.

I'm not saying they are monsterous infantry JJB.

What I'm saying is: in the monsterous infantry section. There's a special rule. The special rule quite clearly states that you only need to be 3 wide to gain the special rule if you are monsterous infantry.

That's why I brought them up.

The brettonians have no such rule.

One would argue, that since GW had the foresight to put into their work that Monsterous cavalry did, they would also have the forethought to put that SAME CLAUSE in the Brettonian book. They do not.

Steadfast rule clearly states your ranks must be 5 wide. The monsterous cavalry rule overrides that. The Brettonian lance rule does not.

Well... only problem is

The Lance Formation is mostly fail in the first place, with the new rules.

That being said, If you go by strict rules wording, in fact yes they do not get steadfast, likely due to an oversight in the Bret FAQ when it is very clear that GW is trying to say that the Bret's Lance that is 3 wide "counts" as 5 for purposes of a Rank.

But, by strict rules wording, the Blood Angels Vinidictor didn't use a Large Blast template until the FAQ came out correcting the -exact- same Typo that was in the Space Marine Book. But everyone and their mother knew it was a large blast template.

Then again, I would suggest bringing the issue up with 1)the organizer of the tourny at a prior date if possible, and 2) If it is a "casual" match, bring it up with your opponent prior to the game beginning and reach an agreement.

edit.

*sigh* I'm only bringing up the monsterous cavalry example to establish that the precedent exists.

I swear, I'm not calling brets monsterous cav.

Just suggesting that GW included the rule for 3 wide for monsterous cav, and not for brets.

Ragnar4 wrote:edit.

*sigh* I'm only bringing up the monsterous cavalry example to establish that the precedent exists.

I swear, I'm not calling brets monsterous cav.

Just suggesting that GW included the rule for 3 wide for monsterous cav, and not for brets.

Its kind of pointless to bring up a ruling like that. It would be like suggesting we get stomp because were calvary to.

Karon wrote:
Oh, wait, go check your douchebag meter, go ahead, I'll wait. Its probably in the "Complete Douche" range right about now.

Because you don't like a rule is no reason to insult the person who brings up the rule.

ok thread re-opened. More personal attacks will result in more suspensions. All posters to this thread are put on notice.

Golga wrote:

Ragnar4 wrote:edit.

*sigh* I'm only bringing up the monsterous cavalry example to establish that the precedent exists.

I swear, I'm not calling brets monsterous cav.

Just suggesting that GW included the rule for 3 wide for monsterous cav, and not for brets.

Its kind of pointless to bring up a ruling like that. It would be like suggesting we get stomp because were calvary to.

That's a logical fallacy.

You're arguing that since it doesn't implicitly say we don't get the rule, we ought to get it.

I'm saying: Since it doesn't implicitly say we get the rule, we don't get it.

BRB says that Rank bonus for combat resolution requires ranks of 5 or more.

Steadfast says, "Simply put, a unit is considered to be steadfast if it has more ranks than the enemy. As with calculating extra ranks for combat resolution, the ranks have to be five or more models wide to be treated as being steadfast."

So, ranks are treated the same way as they are for CR. If you can get a rank bonus in combat from your rank, no matter its size, then it counts in your favor for steadfast. When it talks about 5 models wide for ranks in the BRB, this is because that is the standard qualification for ranks in the BRB. You need to satisfy the minimum requirement for ranks in order to receive all of the benefits for ranks, such as combat resolution, steadfast, and disrupting ranks.

Caboose wrote:BRB says that Rank bonus for combat resolution requires ranks of 5 or more.

Steadfast says, "Simply put, a unit is considered to be steadfast if it has more ranks than the enemy. As with calculating extra ranks for combat resolution, the ranks have to be five or more models wide to be treated as being steadfast."

So, ranks are treated the same way as they are for CR. If you can get a rank bonus in combat from your rank, no matter its size, then it counts in your favor for steadfast. When it talks about 5 models wide for ranks in the BRB, this is because that is the standard qualification for ranks in the BRB. You need to satisfy the minimum requirement for ranks in order to receive all of the benefits for ranks, such as combat resolution, steadfast, and disrupting ranks.

Id agree with this if only for the fact that gw hasent put in the faq that 3 models wide in lance formation would give us stead fast. Just the rank bonus.

Just because we all think we should get it because we make ranks with 3 models doesent mean we do.

Also theres that litlte part where 5 or more models HAVE to be present in order to be treated as stead fast. Theres no ruling for regular calvary to suggest other wise.

Yes. I know that part is what is hanging everyone up on the ruling. But like I said, it mentions 5 models wide because that is the game standard. I also agree with who ever said it, that they should have put the one sentance in the FAQ that would clear this up. Either "Bretonnian knights can use the ranks of 3 models for steadfast." or alternatively "Bretonnian knights must still have 5 models in each rank to count as being steadfast." Either one would work and it took less than 30 seconds to type each sentance. Is it too much to ask that things be made clear.

Now thats just crazy talk

Well...actually, I went back through the "steadfast" rules.

If someone could put them down word for word here, would be great.


But I believe Brets would get it on the grounds of the wording they used, and in the order they worded it.

You mean like I did a couple posts up? Or did you mean more completely, such as every paragraph of the rule?

Noted, got the sentence required.


"As with calculating extra ranks for combat resolution, the ranks have to be five or more models wide to be treated as being steadfast."

From the Bret FAQ.
Replace “The unit gets a rank bonus for each complete rank of
three models, rather than four.” in the first paragraph with
“The unit gets a rank bonus for each complete rank of three
models.”


It "could" be argued that how it states "as with", and how the Lance changes the requirement for models per rank, means that in fact.. you are steadfast with 3 instead of 5, as it is the same as it is with "extra" ranks.

Thats a fair point

Challenger

Sakuzhi wrote:It "could" be argued that how it states "as with", and how the Lance changes the requirement for models per rank, means that in fact.. you are steadfast with 3 instead of 5, as it is the same as it is with "extra" ranks.

I agree with you 100%. But there are those RAW people out there that are going to say "The rule says that it needs 5 models, and there is no specific sentence anywhere that specifically says that they get steadfast with ranks of three models."

So what Im saying is, I agree and thats how Im going to play it.

I think I'll be trying that arguement as well

Thanks for showing me another way of looking at the way the rules were written

Challenger