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.

Actually steadfast specifies that the ranks are calculated as per combat res.

Lances just can't disrupt units.

Yes, Lances do get steadfast

Ahhhhh, noooo don't do it! Wasn't there an excruciatingly long argument about this in YMDC?

Red has a point, we won't agree, both positions are too close and too reasonable.


IIRC the line runs something along the line of

…as with combat res ranks are counted if five wide…

The fate of the lance rests on which half of that sentence is the important part.

Challenger

I think both sides are right myself.

RAI, I'm 100% sure that GW intends for the Lance to be steadfast and disrupt rank bonuses. Their 8E tactica article supports this.

Unfortunately, they didn't bother to actually write it into the Bret Errata. So RAW, you need 5 wide ranks for steadfast and disruption unless you are classified as monsterous infantry, cavalry, or beasts; period. And the 8E bestiary clearly list Bret knights as normal cavalry.

As has been mentioned, Rank Bonus (explicity granted by the Bret book) does not equal Ranks for steadfast and disruption... yet.

Fortunately my group just changed their verdict from RAW to RAI so my Bret knights are no longer totaly useless.

Back to using big lances I think

Challenger

I would do the same thing here too....

Challenger wrote:

88elite wrote:the only thing that keeps me around is using two damsels with the lore of beasts. i roll to see what spells i get and usually trade in one spell for both so they both know the signature spell...+1 to ST and T. it makes M@A beasts in close combat and helps out my lances when they get stuck in.

I must admit the look on my opponents face when one of my Prophetesses buffed herself with lore of beasts and started chasing a demon prince round the table was priceless. S7 T7 A4 lady

Challenger

gloating about my daemon prince staying away from a beefed up damsel are you for shame

especially after letting your questing knights get charged in the flank by a regiment of 26 strong bloodletters and 2 flesh hounds :-P

plus the look on your face when looking at what you had left was good aswell :-P

the revised FAQ v1.2 has fixed the problem of the 3 model wide rank for the lance...it now counts as a full rank with all the advantages of qualifying for and negating enemy steadfast....

So to all the RAW pundits..take that RAI wins!!!

No.. RAW wins. It's in the rules now.

RAI became RAW. Which frankly is the way they should do it in the first place.

I note they also, once and for all, clarified the Ring of Hotek(for DE).

Assuming that your interpretation of RAI that came from GW is correct... sure.

But wouldn't you be pretty pissed off to have me declare.

"No, it's cool, I know what Vulcan is actually thinking here"

And then installing what I think ought to be the way things should work which contradicts your carefully worded rules?

YAYYYYY FOR BRETONNIA!!! REJOICE!

I feel like this thread belongs on Druchii.net, its such a positive place now...

why?

Ragnar4 wrote:Assuming that your interpretation of RAI that came from GW is correct... sure.

Out of curiousity, did you read the 8E tactica article on their website? They made it pretty clear in the Bret section of that article that they had intended for the Lance formation ranks to count vs. disruption and steadfast.

They just forgot to write it into the rules, that's all.

But wouldn't you be pretty pissed off to have me declare.

"No, it's cool, I know what Vulcan is actually thinking here"

I... can't quite parse what you mean out of this. Can you clarify this for me?

And then installing what I think ought to be the way things should work which contradicts your carefully worded rules?

What about GW makes you think their rules are carefully worded? We have gotten through how many editions with vast amounts of confusion about various special rules interactions?

Vulcan wrote:

Ragnar4 wrote:Assuming that your interpretation of RAI that came from GW is correct... sure.

Out of curiousity, did you read the 8E tactica article on their website? They made it pretty clear in the Bret section of that article that they had intended for the Lance formation ranks to count vs. disruption and steadfast.

They just forgot to write it into the rules, that's all.

But wouldn't you be pretty pissed off to have me declare.

"No, it's cool, I know what Vulcan is actually thinking here"

I... can't quite parse what you mean out of this. Can you clarify this for me?

And then installing what I think ought to be the way things should work which contradicts your carefully worded rules?

What about GW makes you think their rules are carefully worded? We have gotten through how many editions with vast amounts of confusion about various special rules interactions?

1) I can go to the Tomb Kings tactica article/battle report they wrote when Khemri first came out, and show you how, in that article a king could be in a unit of only 3 chariots (not possible per the written rules) How the casting order isn't as locked down as they would have you believe (artifacts being used out of sequence) and a few other minute things.

Is this because they actually intended for the rules to be run this way? Or perhaps in the battle-rep and tactica articles, they made a mistake? They clarified the next issue that it was a mistake. But for the time being, I thought I had solid evidence that they intended for Kings to be able to be in a 3 chariot unit without him having to have his own. That does not mean I understand what GW's RAI are.

2) You cannot argue that GW forgot to write it into the rules, because you cannot be so prescient as to know what GW intends to do. Unless you're being paid by them. Are you? Presuming to understand the way they think is myopic.

3) The rules appeared to be carefully worded to me, because of how literal they are in the book, and how elegantly they sidestepped the same ruling in the FAQ's.. Past editions don't matter any more, when the people who wrote the past editions have been fired.

It's cool that they fixed it, I'm happy. I even thought that was the way Brets ought to be run. But I'm not so self aggrandizing that I would argue that they were RAI, and I had predicted their thought process. Instead I like to think they experimented within their rules and decided it wasn't going to work. That both rulings were Intended.

Wait, what?

You think I'm making some sort of claim of being special, or psychic, or employed in some meaningful fashion by GW, Ragnar? You've really read that much into my posts?

I'm sorry I gave you that impression; I went back and looked and I still cannot find where you might have gotten any of that from.

My statement about the RAI behind lances was derived from what they posted on their website, with the addendum that at no point has there ever been any sort of retraction or 'whoops, we goofed' posted or printed anywhere, and is ultimately proven by the latest errata.

When playing (previous to the errata), before the match started I would establish with my opponent what his opinion on Lances vs. Steadfast was. If he went by the (previous) RAW, that was cool. It just mean I changed my tactics to accomadate and tried to win anyway. Simple as that.

GentlemanGuy wrote:

Challenger wrote:

88elite wrote:the only thing that keeps me around is using two damsels with the lore of beasts. i roll to see what spells i get and usually trade in one spell for both so they both know the signature spell...+1 to ST and T. it makes M@A beasts in close combat and helps out my lances when they get stuck in.

I must admit the look on my opponents face when one of my Prophetesses buffed herself with lore of beasts and started chasing a demon prince round the table was priceless. S7 T7 A4 lady

Challenger

gloating about my daemon prince staying away from a beefed up damsel are you for shame

especially after letting your questing knights get charged in the flank by a regiment of 26 strong bloodletters and 2 flesh hounds :-P

plus the look on your face when looking at what you had left was good aswell :-P

Lol be nice to Captain Slow, its not his fault he packed a rubber lance for that battle. Besides everyone knows my peasants and prophetesses do all the heavy lifting

Challenger