[Aramoro]

Right i've been getting up to speed on the rules and from the Errata for the Army Book Lance formation means you can claim Rank Bonus from 3 wide not 5 wide.

My question is, can a Bretoinian Lance ever disrupt a unit. To cause disruption the book is clear you need 2 ranks of 5 dudes in your Flank Charge, which you cannot have. Also to remove Steadfast from a unit you must have Ranks of 5.

So say 9 Knights in a Lance has a Rank Bonus of +2 because of the FAQ, but effectively no ranks for Disruption and Steadfast.

Aramoro

 

[maddermax]

RAW, no, RAI, yes. They just haven't spelt it out anywhere, and it kind of sucks, but the intention is obviously to have 3 wide ranks, just like monstrous infantry/cavalry. Here's a discussion on it from a Bretonnian forum, which might help.

 

[Aramoro]

Yeah I had read the section on Monstrous Infantry.

So RAW, no ranks but a rank bonus

RAI, probably has some ranks.

Aramoro

 

[unixknight]

I think, especially in friendly games, everybody would agree that knights in the Lance formation can disrupt and get Steadfast, in accordance with RAI.

On the other hand, you do have to be careful in tournaments because it can be ruled either way.

 

[Karnox]

Well isnt the rule that armybook rules first, BRB second, so therfore if the lance formation means that the 3 wide counts as a 5 wide, then apply that to all the rules where it says for 5 wide. Also how do support attacks work in the lance formation, is it just the one guy in the middle of the second rank that makes the supporting attack? So a unit of 9 knits of the relm would then have 9 attacks including the champion

 

[CaptainBudget]

Unfortunately it's still not the case I don't think. I can't find the army book but from memory Bretonnians only claim a rank bonus (not actual ranks) from being 3 wide, and cannot therefore counter steadfast if there's enough of them in a lance formation. This means you have to choose whether you want an additional rank to break steadfast on units three ranks deep, or the lance to get more attacks. I do agree with everyone else though that you SHOULD get ranks, but hey ho. They must get an update soon so just hang on and pray to the Lady this gets sorted is my advice.

As for the 2nd, the FAQ says you do:
http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m1310249a_FAQ_Bretonnia_2010_v11.pdf

 

[maddermax]

Indeed, Captain Budget is right. Bretonnians get Rank bonus when in the lance formation, they don't actually count as having ranks for other purposes. It's a gross oversight of the FAQ, not that GW cares much about Bretonnians. RAI though, just about everyone

Oh, as a funny side note, if you read the Bretonnian Tactica article on GWs website, it mentions that Bretonnians can break ranks while 3 wide. This, of course, means nothing, especially considering the HUGE mistake they put in the very next line.

See if you can spot it:

GW Bretonnian Tactica:
One-hit Wonders
In days of yore, you could have expected your knights to smash clean through enemy regiments, however the Steadfast rule has ended those halcyon days. If you hurl a unit of Knights of the Realm at a unit of Goblins, Skaven or Empire state troops you'll find yourself lancing them into ribbons, but not breaking them as they invariably pass their Leadership test. The following turn, when you're not charging and you don't get any Strength bonuses can be difficult indeed. Of course, you can get around this by carefully manoeuvring your units. Don't forget how fast your horses are. You'll remove the enemy's rank bonus with just six Knights Errant in their flank (since Bretonnian Lance formations get a rank bonus with just three models). This means they can kiss their Steadfast bonus (and their unchivalrous hides) goodbye!

Yep, that last line there is sure a kicker. Way to go GW.

 

[Wolf_Lord_Skoll]

Screw you GW, Screw you.

They play with both of those Errata's (Lance Formation gets ranks in 3 wide, Disruption kills Steadfast) but don't give us an official one to use.

Bastards.

 

[unixknight]

Also how do support attacks work in the lance formation, is it just the one guy in the middle of the second rank that makes the supporting attack? So a unit of 9 knits of the relm would then have 9 attacks including the champion

Correct. That one did make it into the FAQ, but unfortunately the question of ranks didn't.

 

[hellsteath]

Well if anyone pulls the non disrtuption thing on you, well you can always argue in that case my ranks dont qualify for extra damage from certain spells such as peircing bolts of burning from the fire lore.

 

[Asmodeun]

OR you could punch them in the face. Purely a matter of preference I suppose.

Humour aside, I think you should be able to claim the bonuses(and disadvantages) but it is apparent that that may not happen.

 

[maomolin]

On topic with brets disrupting ranks, taken from GW @ http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/co...00050a&start=3

Under the Sub-Header of One-Hit Wonders:

"Don't forget how fast your horses are. You'll remove the enemy's rank bonus with just six Knights Errant in their flank (since the Bretonnian Lance formations get a rank bonus with just three models). This means they can kiss their Steadfast bonus (and their unchivalrous hides) goodbye!"

So there it is from GW, available on their site, now you can intelligently prove that Lance formations disrupt and can count vs. steadfast.

 

[maddermax]

On topic with brets disrupting ranks, taken from GW @ http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/co...00050a&start=3

Under the Sub-Header of One-Hit Wonders:

"Don't forget how fast your horses are. You'll remove the enemy's rank bonus with just six Knights Errant in their flank (since the Bretonnian Lance formations get a rank bonus with just three models). This means they can kiss their Steadfast bonus (and their unchivalrous hides) goodbye!"

So there it is from GW, available on their site, now you can intelligently prove that Lance formations disrupt and can count vs. steadfast.

Already discussed on the previous page. You'll note the last line of the quoted paragraph, that Disruption can overcome Steadfast, is completely wrong, and directly refuted in the Steadfast section. GW often gets the rules wrong in it's tactica articles and Battle reports, that's why no-one I know would ever accept them as rulings of any sort.

That said, it's still a case of "RAI, they should, RAW, they don't", so against any reasonable opponent, you shouldn't have a problem. Just be sure to check in pickup games and Tournaments, because lack of it can completely change the game for Bretonnians.

 

[rodmillard]

Its one of those things tounament organisers *should* make a ruling on, and add to the list of tournament house rules. "For the purposes of this tournament, Brettonian Lance Formations count as having full ranks of 3 models, and can disrupt units." As always, however, its best to check with the tournament organiser and get a ruling before you turn up rather than have to argue it out against every opponent and get a judge to make a ruling in every game.

 

[maomolin]

Already discussed on the previous page. You'll note the last line of the quoted paragraph, that Disruption can overcome Steadfast, is completely wrong, and directly refuted in the Steadfast section. GW often gets the rules wrong in it's tactica articles and Battle reports, that's why no-one I know would ever accept them as rulings of any sort.

That said, it's still a case of "RAI, they should, RAW, they don't", so against any reasonable opponent, you shouldn't have a problem. Just be sure to check in pickup games and Tournaments, because lack of it can completely change the game for Bretonnians.

Again this is wrong on your part, but only because you are meshing two ideas together.

Disruption negates the combat resolution rank bonus of an enemy unit, provided you are hitting them in the flank/rear with sufficient numbers (in the lance case, needing only 6). The quote I posted follows with this logic.

Steadfast can be negated by having more ranks. Brets Lance ranks up easier (only needing to be 3 wide). 12 brets knights in lance formation is 4 ranks, which is more than a lot of the infantry blocks out there. Page 54's diagram elaborates on the idea that one can be steadfast while being flanked, so there is no disputing that idea. The last sentence I quoted is GW continuing on the thought of bret formations being 3 wide, it is easy for them to rank up and compete against / beat infantry blocks. Please note they are seperate thoughts (/sentences) with no conjunction used.

Can lance formation disrupt? Yes.
Can lance formation break steadfast? Provided the sufficient ranks, yes.
Does disrupting a unit prevent steadfast? No.
Is it game breaking? No.
Is anyone going 'OMFG Brets are Tier 1!'? I haven't seen it.
Is it rules-lawyering to try and even argue this, despite common sense? Yes.
Do I think the whiners need to go back to warhammer 40Kindergarden? Yes.

 

[Wolf_Lord_Skoll]

The problem is, GW are unreliable in what they put in WD and the GW website. So whilst it shows that thats how it should be played, you have no arguement against the rulebook in a pickup or tournament game.

 

[Aramoro]

Again this is wrong on your part, but only because you are meshing two ideas together.

Disruption negates the combat resolution rank bonus of an enemy unit, provided you are hitting them in the flank/rear with sufficient numbers (in the lance case, needing only 6). The quote I posted follows with this logic.

Steadfast can be negated by having more ranks. Brets Lance ranks up easier (only needing to be 3 wide). 12 brets knights in lance formation is 4 ranks, which is more than a lot of the infantry blocks out there. Page 54's diagram elaborates on the idea that one can be steadfast while being flanked, so there is no disputing that idea. The last sentence I quoted is GW continuing on the thought of bret formations being 3 wide, it is easy for them to rank up and compete against / beat infantry blocks. Please note they are seperate thoughts (/sentences) with no conjunction used.

Can lance formation disrupt? Yes.
Can lance formation break steadfast? Provided the sufficient ranks, yes.
Does disrupting a unit prevent steadfast? No.
Is it game breaking? No.
Is anyone going 'OMFG Brets are Tier 1!'? I haven't seen it.
Is it rules-lawyering to try and even argue this, despite common sense? Yes.
Do I think the whiners need to go back to warhammer 40Kindergarden? Yes.

You are absolutly wrong on almost every count.

For Steadfast you MUST be in a ranks 5 wide, Brets have no exception for that.

To disrupt you MUST be in ranks 5 wide, Brets have no exception for that.

The rules are very explicit.

Aramoro