8th Ed. Slann,TG and heroes on C'O

[Bish]

Was thinking of putting some heroes on CO then putting in some TG with a slann. But what if the TG had no command and had 5 heroes on CO in front of the slann, would this work or be legal? Would the slann still be in the 2nd rank and be able to cast etc.?

Samuel

 

[Battlehamster]

I don't know of any rule against this. The heroes in the front displace the TG models including the command group. The slann should go into the second rank so right behind all your mounted heroes. However, unless you are doing a 3000 pt game, I'm not sure how you'll squeeze in 5 mounted scar veterans in the allotted points. A base scar vet with a CO is 105 pts apiece plus 50 pts for some magic goodies (which is the whole point of a hero). So you're already at 525 pts leaving you with just 100 pts for magic (in a standard 2500 pt game).

I must say that would be one expensive deathstar unit though, well over 1300 pts or so depending on the kit out of the slann and TG. I would definitely take a life slann with it to give my heroes regeneration and toughness.

Remember though, your heroes will not get look out sir rolls since they count as cavalry and TG are infantry so that is one thing to keep in mind.

You might try just having scar veterans on foot to save on cost. But try it out and tell me how it goes. Beware the purple sun and pit of shades!

 

[MI_Tiger]

I don't think this would be legal, but its not clear. The way I see it, for a Temple Guard unit, a rank is 25mm deep, so the mounted Scar Vets would take up the first and second ranks. The Slann has to go in the second rank, but that rank is already full of Cold One butts, so its not a legal build.

To show one the problems with the setup, what will the unit look like once one of the SVs is killed and his space is filled in with Temple Guard? If 1 SV is dead and 2 TG take his place, then clearly the other SVs are in the 1st and 2nd rank and the Slann is in the 3rd.

Note that this is VERY debatable, and it really depends on the same arguments from the Krox/Skink threads about how to count ranks. I doubt you will find anything close to a consensus.

However, if at least 2 of the SVs were on foot, then I don't see any objection to the initial setup - the Slann would tuck behind the 2 dismounted heros. No problem with the rest of the SVs riding Cold Ones.

 

[Bish]

Thanks for the replies. I'm playing a 3550pt game vs WoC. And this not something I would usually do. But have found that TG haven't been that good in 8th ed. and have been running lone slann, just wanted try this. Will put 2 SV on foot and give it a go.


Samuel

 

[BEEGfrog]

Ah the old "what rank am I?" question...

Whenever you are dealing with calculating HOW MANY RANKS a UNIT has then you use base equivalent as the measure. Base equivalency is only used by units, not models, and only for working out how many ranks a unit has, never for working out position within units.

Whenever you are dealing with MODELS and their rank WITHIN a unit then you count back actual models from the front of the unit.

In this example we are talking about models within a unit so you count back from the front.

If you have two characters on cold one immediately in front of the slann but the rest of the unit TG, then the slann is in the 2nd rank despite the models sharing ranks with him being in the 3rd and 4th rank.

 

[TheRolfgar]

No BeegFrog. They are characters and count as being in the first and 2nd rank for ALL purposes. This would in fact force the Slann into the 3rd rank....which he can't be in. There isn't any grey area like kroxigros in skinks.

 

[BEEGfrog]

No BeegFrog. They are characters and count as being in the first and 2nd rank for ALL purposes. This would in fact force the Slann into the 3rd rank....which he can't be in. There isn't any grey area like kroxigros in skinks.

Like to see a quote on that...

The rules for supporting attacks say you get one if behind a model in the front rank that can make an attack, look it up.

Look up where you saw the bit about characters taking up two ranks, isn't it in a bit about calculating how many ranks the unit has when it contains characters?

I have quoted the pages and paragraphs that support this elsewhere and I am not with the books to quote again. Look up the books, read the entire page and not just the single sentence and it becomes clear, base equivalency only used for calculating steadfast and rank bonusses.

 

[TheRolfgar]

No BeegFrog. They are characters and count as being in the first and 2nd rank for ALL purposes. This would in fact force the Slann into the 3rd rank....which he can't be in. There isn't any grey area like kroxigros in skinks.

Like to see a quote on that...

The rules for supporting attacks say you get one if behind a model in the front rank that can make an attack, look it up.

Look up where you saw the bit about characters taking up two ranks, isn't it in a bit about calculating how many ranks the unit has when it contains characters?

I have quoted the pages and paragraphs that support this elsewhere and I am not with the books to quote again. Look up the books, read the entire page and not just the single sentence and it becomes clear, base equivalency only used for calculating steadfast and rank bonusses.

I'll just quote the important lines and let you figure out the rest. I don't feel the need to argue it again.

Warriors in the second rank do not sit idly by whilst their comrades battle away, but muster forward to strike blows of their own. We refer to the attacks made by these models as supporting attacks

You need to use that quote AND the part about being behind a model in base contact with the enemy. You must meet both requirements. You cannot ignore one of them.

If your character(s) fit into the unit in this manner, work out the unit's ranks (and therefore rank bonus) as if the space was filled with rank and file troops

That is a direct quote, you work out ranks (and therefore rank bonus). Its not just rank bonus and steadfast.

 

[strewart]

All rules questions aside, what is the point? 100% the rank behind the cold ones will be the third rank, and honestly I'd say the Slann could go there because he is just forced back there with no real choice. But I see absolutely no benefit in him being in the third rank instead of the second rank. And a downside, his arse is effectively in the fourth rank so you need a pretty deep amount of TG or he will be exposed to direct attacks from the rear.

 

[BEEGfrog]

Looks like I do need to trot out the actual rule again...

I'll just quote the important lines and let you figure out the rest. I don't feel the need to argue it again. Just as well, because your argument is wrong as you are trying to stretch an irrelevant semi-related rule to overrule the actual rule that is unusually clear and specific by GW standards

Warriors in the second rank do not sit idly by whilst their comrades battle away, but muster forward to strike blows of their own. We refer to the attacks made by these models as supporting attacks

This isn't the important line as it is irrelevant to deciding how to determine if someone is able to support attack, because, if you read on to the next sentence, it gives in specific detail the actual definition of how to get a supporting attack. So quoting the actual important bit (Pg 48 - so others can find it)
"A model can make a supporting attack if it is directly behind a friendly model that is itself fighting an enemy in base contact,..." So taking your quote that the second rank gets a supporting attack and my quote that the models behind a fighting model get a supporting attack, then the models behind the fighting front rank are the second rank for the purpose of determining which rank a model is in when calculating who can make supporting attacks.

Note no stretching of logic, no using unit level rules from other sections to overrule model level definitions within the actual relevant section, just using the text within the section.

You need to use that quote AND the part about being behind a model in base contact with the enemy. You must meet both requirements. You cannot ignore one of them.
Er..., no, the second sentence gives the actual definition and there is no rule anywhere that defines which rank a model is in apart from the sentence I quoted above. All the other references quoted as arguments against this point are all about how to calculate how many ranks a unit has and none of them ever come remotely close to saying that a model is in a rank, only how to calculate a total number or ranks.

If your character(s) fit into the unit in this manner, work out the unit's ranks (and therefore rank bonus) as if the space was filled with rank and file troops

That is a direct quote, you work out ranks (and therefore rank bonus). Its not just rank bonus and steadfast.

I believe this is from pg 98, note that even the bit you quoted says you use this rule to work out the "unit's" (note the "unit's" not the "model's") ranks (note again not rank in the singular as if you are working out the rank of a model, but ranks in the plural because you are working out the total number of ranks in the unit).

Where in this quote or anywhwere on pg 98 does the rule define a model's rank within a unit? No, I couldn't see it either! The only place this is covered is pg 48, where, as per the line you quoted, a model is in the second rank if it is behind a model in the first rank. So a clan rat behind a 5 rank equivalent deep screaming bell is in the second rank for purposes of supporting attacks.

The theoretical justification for this is basicly the same as the justification in the second paragraph of "The Horde" rules section on pg49, the extra depth having an effect on the enemy without necessarilly being in weapons reach.