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.

Just check out the section of the book about being flanked, disrupted (IE losing rank bonus, but still being Steadfast.

That is a tough call, everytime i have played a skaven player they have, but there are allot of technicalites there, i guess it comes from the banner removing enemy ranks and steadfast or not, if it does, that is the doom of skaven armies.

kenshin620 wrote:That is a tough call, everytime i have played a skaven player they have, but there are allot of technicalites there, i guess it comes from the banner removing enemy ranks and steadfast or not, if it does, that is the doom of skaven armies.

Not according to the skaven army book – SiN last paragraph:
"If for any reason a Skaven unit looses its rank bonus, it also looses it LD bonus."
So they would loose bonus leadership, but not steadfast itself. Since the banner removes rank bonuses the rats can't add them to LD, but if the rats still have more ranks than the enemy they are steadfast.

I believe i know where UNREALPwnage gets confused.
A common mistake is to think that steadfast is related with rank bonuses, but it isn't, in fact many units that have no rank bonus can be steadfast, the most common example of this is a 5-9 model unit (with a single compleete rank) facing a single model (usually a monster or lone character), they would have no rank bonus since they only have one rank, but they still have one more rank than the enemy and are thus steadfast.

HoverBoy wrote:
Not according to the skaven army book – SiN last paragraph:
"If for any reason a Skaven unit looses its rank bonus, it also looses it LD bonus."
So they would loose bonus leadership, but not steadfast itself. Since the banner removes rank bonuses the rats can't add them to LD, but if the rats still have more ranks than the enemy they are steadfast.

I believe i know where UNREALPwnage gets confused.
A common mistake is to think that steadfast is related with rank bonuses, but it isn't, in fact many units that have no rank bonus can be steadfast, the most common example of this is a 5-9 model unit (with a single compleete rank) facing a single model (usually a monster or lone character), they would have no rank bonus since they only have one rank, but they still have one more rank than the enemy and are thus steadfast.

Interesting. Looks like I'll need to knock out banner of the lady's with my skaven now.

So what your saying if your quote from the last paragraph in SIN is correct, banner of the lady removes its rank bonus, its still steadfast, but at LD 6?

Correct, though at whatever leadership the unit or the general (If he's in range) or whatever character is in the unit.

makes definite sense to me...

That's the jist of it.

UNREALPwnage wrote:Lets say a bretonnian unit of 15 Knights 3 Wide and 5 deep charges 40 empire state troops who are 10 wide and 4 deep. The bretonnians out rank them by 1 rank, empire would have 4, bretonnians would have 5 ranks, thus the empire doesnt get steadfast: It is the same concept with the Banner of the Lady, instead the 10*4 empire unit would be counted as haveing 0 ranks even though it is 4 deep, Thus no steadfast.

Re-read the rules for steadfast. It specifically mentions 'ranks of 5.' The only exceptions made are for monsterous infantry/cavalry, which Bret cavalry is not.

Sure, the Bret book gives us rank bonuses for ranks of 3. That does not magically make they ranks of 5. And the Bret FAQ does not address that point either.

Sorry. Even though I am 100% sure GW intended to give the Lance formation the abilities you are claiming, RAW says otherwise.

thelordoflife wrote:So what your saying if your quote from the last paragraph in SIN is correct, banner of the lady removes its rank bonus, its still steadfast, but at LD 6?

Hmmm I should defiantly take a BSB with Banner of Discipline now!

Bret calvery is the exception, it says in the FAQ's that bretonnians get a rank bonus for 3 instead of 5. This means that we get the same bonuses for being 3 wide that you do for being 5 wide

UNREALPwnage wrote:Bret calvery is the exception, it says in the FAQ's that bretonnians get a rank bonus for 3 instead of 5. This means that we get the same bonuses for being 3 wide that you do for being 5 wide

No since steadfast isn't related to rank bonus.

i agree with unreal pwnage. Because i see what the intended to write. I think they perfectly meant to and so does my group thats how we play no need to argue over it. You are just wasting time.

IHEARTLARGEBLASTTEMPLATES wrote:i agree with unreal pwnage. Because i see what the intended to write. I think they perfectly meant to and so does my group thats how we play no need to argue over it. You are just wasting time.

Sure thing man, we shall all bow down to you'r mindreading capabilties.
Anything else you glimpsed while digging through the writers minds?

yeah that you need to chill out.. your not going to convince anyone with your smart as* attitude. Since there is a discrepancy in the rules it can go either way. dont force your point on to me.

There actually isn't any discrepancy in the rules. It's more of a case of not wanting to play by what the rules actually say. (I'll admit to being guilty of that)

This could all be avoided ny GW cleaning up this whole mess in the FAQ... a player can dream right?

Edit: And i'm not a smart as$, i'm a gluteus maximus of above average intelligence

HoverBoy wrote:This could all be avoided ny GW cleaning up this whole mess in the FAQ... a player can dream right?

But remember, one party will leave disappointed!

The Tyranid Doom SC was subjected to this in their faq

HoverBoy wrote:

IHEARTLARGEBLASTTEMPLATES wrote:i agree with unreal pwnage. Because i see what the intended to write. I think they perfectly meant to and so does my group thats how we play no need to argue over it. You are just wasting time.

Sure thing man, we shall all bow down to you'r mindreading capabilties.
Anything else you glimpsed while digging through the writers minds?

No mindreading is required. Check out the 8E tactica article - specifically the last sentence on the Bret page - to see their intent, which is quite clearly that Bret Lance ranks are supposed to count for disruption and steadfast.

Unfortunately, the writers forgot to actually put that little caveat into the actual rules which is why we have this discussion every week.

It boils down to this: Rank bonus does not equal Ranks. The best argument for this is the single rank of 5 vs. a monster. Neither side gets a rank bonus, the single rank still has a rank and is therfore steadfast vs. the single monster.

Now, if you and your mates want to play it RAI, be my guest. If the other guy is willing to let me do it, I'll be happy to do so, and vice versa. Unfortunately, it is not RAW, so your opponent is fully justified in saying that no, your Lance ranks of 3 don't count for disruption or steadfast.

And as a Bret general, a) I want to know that before the game, so I can b) compensate and win anyway...

Vulcan wrote:And as a Bret general, a) I want to know that before the game, so I can b) compensate and win anyway...

This is the right way, with the RAW full of weaksauce it's best to just settle this with you'r opponent ot the TO.
And you shouldn't be surprised by the fact that people who don't have the skill to win with the harder to play army are gonna whine.

Well I also think that this argument is a bit stale. Where I play we didn't even argue about it. We realised that RAW didn't give Brets an exception because of the old book, but since they aren't exactly top tier anymore no one complained when Bret busses deny steadfast. Even at 3 wide it costs a ton of points so nobody cared. It was actually the most civil "breaking of the rules" I have ever seen.

The core of the problem is not that Brets can't be semi-effective, they can, just not as Brets. To be effective Brets have to run a "Empire wannabe" army. Lots of bowmen, max Trebuchets, large Lances and Lv 4 Lore of Life. It's just not Brets anymore. There are others that can do the type of combined arms force better. Empire and WoC spring to mind. I have nothing against less point and click and more tactics, that's good. My main opponent is a very good HE player so even in 7th I had to dance around and try to get a good combo charge off otherwise he would just counter charge and smash me. I don't think I ever got a turn 2 charge against him, turn 3 was pretty rare too. Neither do I have anything against a combined arms force, Bret players have been asking for Foot knights for years. I just would like to play my Brets how they were meant to be played, mostly Cavalry. Not 100% Cav, 50-60% cav would be fine (units not models). I'd like the Bret "feel" back

If someone wants to start Brets, do so. The book is still solid, they are good to learn with and suited for beginners. They have nice models and look great when well painted, even with a less than perfect paint job they still look really good.
Brets are neither underrated nor do they suck. Some good generals can win often with them, most others will have a harder time but will learn a lot.

I am 13-2 with my brets. All that matters is that you pick your fights carefully with the knights. I also run 2 50 man blocks of M@A and lots of bowmen, but i always win with the heroic knight charge. BTW GRAIL KNIGHTS>EVERYTHING

HoverBoy wrote:Sorry to brake it to ya UNREAL but GW reeeeealy screwed up the bret FAQ, and even tho i believe lances should be able to get steadfast with ranks of 3, unless it has the same wording as say monstrous infantry all the brets will get is the CR related rank bonus. As for the banner it dosen't remove steadfast because it isn't a "combat bonus from ranks" its a "rank related bonus for brake tests".

I've just checked FAQ as now it's (mostly) updated for 8th.

Page 40 – Forming the Lance; Change the second sentence of the first paragraph to “Where most cavalry need five models for the rank to count towards rank bonus, steadfast and so on, Knights in Lance formation needs only three models. Essentially, wherever the rules say ‘a rank of five or more models’ treat it as reading ‘a rank of three models’.”

Aynho, someone (I forget who) mentioned that the Chalice of Potions uses power dice now as it casts as bound spells. Well, actually the FAQ says it doesn't.

Page 77 – The Chalice of Potions; Change “[…]equal to the minimum casting level for the spell).” to “[…]equal to the minimum casting value for the spell. This requires no power dice and cannot be increased in any way).”

I know this has been dead for a bit so sorry if this irritates anyone but I thought it best mentioning the above

Eruantien wrote:

HoverBoy wrote:Sorry to brake it to ya UNREAL but GW reeeeealy screwed up the bret FAQ, and even tho i believe lances should be able to get steadfast with ranks of 3, unless it has the same wording as say monstrous infantry all the brets will get is the CR related rank bonus. As for the banner it dosen't remove steadfast because it isn't a "combat bonus from ranks" its a "rank related bonus for brake tests".

I've just checked FAQ as now it's (mostly) updated for 8th.

Well look at that something i said 9 months ago is now wrong.
Shocking!!!

Locking thread for thread necromancy.