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.

The new disruption rules state that you have to have two ranks with at least 5 models to stop the enemy from counting ranks in combat. The Lance formation allows you to use 3 models to form a rank.

Can Bretonnians disrupt any enemy unit when attacking an enemy from the flank or rear and using the Lance formation?

Yes, because specific > general.

In general ranks of 5 are needed. Brets have a specificc rule staing only 3 are needed.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Yes, because specific > general.

In general ranks of 5 are needed. Brets have a specificc rule staing only 3 are needed.

I realize that Specific > General, I was really asking because in the Lance formation is states that they can use 3 models for 'rank bonuses' and makes no mention (obviously as it's an older book) that they can also use 3 models per rank for disruption. In the disruption section it's very clear that you need 2 or more ranks with at least 5 people. No where does it mention that you have to have 2 or more ranks with 'rank bonuses' to disrupt the enemy.

IN order to get a rank bonus you must have a legal rank. If you are getting a rank bonus of +1 you must have two legal ranks...

RAW vs. RAI, actually.

The 8E book is VERY specific. It says 'two ranks of 5', period. RAW. And nowhere in the FAQ or Errata (either BRB or Bret) does it say otherwise.

On the flip side, it would make sense for units with rank bonus to count as having two ranks. And the Brets section of the 8E tactica article mentions that 2 ranks of 3 knights can bust ranks... but that is about as unofficial as GW material gets. (It also says that they would bust Stalwart, which would make Lances unique in the game! ) So arguably Lances busting ranks is RAI.

Take your pick. Both interpretations are valid depending on your point of view.

That's not really true Vulcan. Do you think 3 models of Monstrous Infantry do not disrupt?

The FAQ clearly says Bret lances get a rank bonus for each complete rank of 3 models.

....and in order to have a rank bonus you must have ranks, meaning if you have 6 bret knights in 2 rows of 3, you have 2 ranks and can therefore disrupt.

Killjoy00 wrote:That's not really true Vulcan. Do you think 3 models of Monstrous Infantry do not disrupt?

Well that's the big difference. In the Monstrous Infantry section specifically says "Where most troops types need five models for the rank to count towards rank bonus, steadfast and so on, a unit composed purely of monstrous infantry needs only three models."

In the Bretonnian book it only mentions rank bonus .. not steadfast, etc.

Except, as has been explained, it does not need to.

In order to gain a rank bonus you must have at least 1 legal rank beyond the initial. This means you have "ranks" and, specific > general, disrupt as such.

Actually, rank bonus does not always equal to the number of ranks.

Specific example - 10 empire spearmen arranged in a 2x5 formation. If there is a BSB with the Griffon Banner in there, they have a +2 rank bonus. However, if they are fighting things with 3 ranks (And a natural +2 rank bonus), they do not automatically break Steadfast.

Exactly my point - and the RAW supports that. Bret cavalry is not monsterous infantry; it is normal cavalry. So assuming that rule applies - however much sense it might make - is not strictly RAW.

Now, personally I think Lances should disrupt ranks. However, if I am playing someone who disagrees (and believe me, they are out there!), I want to establish before the game even starts as to how we are going to play it. It is a huge waste of time to argue the point once the critical Lance charge goes in to argue; and an even bigger waste of time to set up a whole strategy around it and then have it overturned by a roll-off to end the debate.

So I make sure that if there is going to be a roll-off over it, I want to do so before any models hit the table. I can work around needing 5 wide to bust ranks, so long as I can deploy properly. Dealing with it on the fly is usually a lost cause... and a lost battle.

By RAW, Bret lances will not disrupt an enemy formation, but it can break steadfast.

The rules for steadfast include a caveat that 'As with calculating extra ranks for the purposes of combat resolution' to the 'they must be five models' rule...This tells me that if something gives a rank for purposes of combat res, then it will count towards breaking steadfast.

The note for monstrous infantry is just a reminder.

The important thing for disruption and comparing for steadfast is how many ranks you have. Monstrous infantry and Brettonians therefore disrupt and can have more ranks to remove steadfast by having 3 models per rank rather than 5.

That is not what RAW says. It is likely that it is what RAI is though.

The rules are quite clear. Bret lances get rank bonus if they have 3 models in a rank. However, no where does it say that they count as ranks of 5 models.

Rank bonus is not the same, RAW, as the number of ranks.

No, that's not true. Look at the rule for rank bonus. It clearly references 5 or more models, pg. 52.

They get a rank bonus because they count as RANKS. There's no other way to get a rank bonus via just models (ie, without a magical item) otherwise.

Bretonians have a special rule that allows them to get a rank bonus with 3 models. Nothing says that they count for ranks for anything other than the rank bonus.

Only if you read the FAQ to the exclusion of the BRB and the Bret rulebook.

Taking the FAQ into consideration, the Bret book now says:

"Knights in Lance formation form up into ranks only three models wide. The unit gets a rank bonus for each complete rank of three models."


A 6 knight unit in lance formation would have 2 ranks, with a rank bonus of 1.

If you read the rule as you try to interpret it, the 6 knight unit would have a rank BONUS of 2. Reading it in context and with the BRB context shows that is ridiculous.

Bret lances rank up in 3 models wide. They get a rank bonus for every additional rank of 3. Therefore they can disrupt units if they have at least 6 models. They can prevent an enemy from being steadfast if they have more ranks of 3 models than the enemy has ranks (of whatever number is appropriate to them).

While they may form ranks of 3 models and get a rank bonus for them, 3 models is still not 5 or more models as required for disruption.

Like Vulcan and I have been saying, this is probably an oversight, and we would play that they get to disrupt with 3 model ranks. However, this is not what the rules actually say.

The rules only "say" that when you look at the rule in complete isolation.

Everyone agrees that it is the wrong way to play the game and most people agree that it is the wrong interpretation of RaW. So, take what you will from that.

It's more a case of 'I don't like what the rules say' argument...

The rules say Lance formation forms ranks with 3 models wide. It isn't that hard to figure out.

Either way, I don't like that the rules say that or if the rules said what you think they say. I have no preference - I don't play Brettonian and no one I played with plays Brettonian.

Sure Brets form ranks of 3 models wide. Any army can do that. Brets get a bonus to CR for 3 wide ranks. Nothing gives Brets an exception for the requiring ranks 5 models wide for disruption.

And that is the point we're trying to make.

I'm 100% certain that GW intends for Lance Formation to count as full ranks and give all the benefit that full ranks do. The problem is, right now the rules say that the Lance Formation only gives rank bonuses. That is it, that is all, nowhere does it say otherwise.

Sure, we can infer that since the Lance formation gives a rank bonus, it should get all the other bells and whistles that implies. BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT THE RULES ACTUALLY SAY.

A good example of this in another place is the general crossbow rule that crossbows are move-or-shoot. The DE repeater crossbow lacks the move-or-shoot rule. Since it's a crossbow, then obviously it must be move-or-shoot, right?

Wrong. The rules on that one have been upheld; since it lacks the 'move-or-shoot' rule, it is not a move-or-shoot weapon.

Infering what the rules intend to say is not the same as what the rules actually say. And while I believe (and vastly prefer) for the Lance formation to be able to disrupt ranks and break steadfast, the rules do not explicitly give it that capability. And if I am playing against someone who believes the Lance Formation does not give that capaility... well, like I said earlier. I want to know which way we are going to play it before deployment, not after I've charged and it's way too late.

Incorrect argument: "crossbow" is a defined term (proper noun) and thus is different to the proper noun "Repeater crossbow"

In exaclty the same way that a storm bolter is not a heavy nor regular bolter.

I don't play Brets but if anyone ever tried to claim that I couldn't break ranks or disrupt with my lance formation I would pick up and leave. Problem solved. GW writes rules that are ambiguous at best, so when people say the rules clearly state "this" I am always a little skeptical. The Bret rule is in an old army book. I am sure that GW did not see every possible implication of each verb and noun in their new rulebook. A sense of fun and fair play is needed when reading GW's books. They are British and have admittedly not tried to write a tight set of rules. They think that people will be fair and settle it fairly amongst themselves. It is only people who value winning more than fun that would even try to claim that Brets lance formation would not break ranks. Which brings me back to the pack up my stuff and go comment.

This is not really in reference to the argument but the last comment made by Juggling fool - 'They are British and have admittedly not tried to write a tight set of rules'

Its nice to see an ignorant Ameican making gerneal comments about the British - it would be like me saying all white Americans are redneck racists - which they arent....

As for the rules - there are many things that need to be amended following the release of 8th Ed - things like the lance formation which should break or cause disruption otherwise a core rule for them is deemed useless and it takes the effectiveness away even further.

Most of the complaints ive seen have come from DE players who dont have everything their own way. At the end of the day its a game thats supposed to be fun.

And of course, the old 'If you follow this rule, you're a bad person' argument pops up...

I personally believe that the RAI is that they disrupt. However, RAW they don't. For the reasoning, you have to look at the entry for MI and MCav. In there, it specifically says that you replace all mentions of "rank of 5" with "rank of 3". The Brets don't have that statement anywhere therefore they don't disrupt since the rule for disrupt is 2 ranks of 5 not 2 ranks.