[unixknight]

I don't have any page references to cite as my books are not with me at the moment but I have a couple of thoughts that have led to questions. Am I over-thinking this?

It states that the Unit Champion must be the last model removed from a unit when casualties are removed. Does that mean characters that have joined the unit are removed first?

It also states the Musician, Standard Bearer and Unit Champ MUST be in the front rank. Suppose you have a unit only 3 columns wide? Would characters have to join the second rank? (The Bretonnia book specifies that command section models are moved back to make room for characters when in Lance formation.) Any army can form a unit 3 models wide if they choose. How would that work for them?

 

[Putch.]

When a character joins a unit he displaces a model in the front rank.

 

[unixknight]

When a character joins a unit he displaces a model in the front rank.

I agree that's what makes sense, but does it explicitly say that anywhere? I only ask to strengthen my case against rules lawyers.

 

[Dave T Hobbit]

When a character joins a unit he displaces a model in the front rank.

I agree that's what makes sense, but does it explicitly say that anywhere? I only ask to strengthen my case against rules lawyers.

P97 second column (Position in Unit) states that the command group must remain in the front rank and if there is no room some characters must be placed in the second rank.

So - contrary to previous editions - the command group do force characters into the back ranks :ireful2:

So worth noting for tournaments; personally I would have no issue with someone asking to reverse that rule.

 

[Putch.]

P97 second column (Position in Unit) states that the command group must remain in the front rank and if there is no room some characters must be placed in the second rank.

So - contrary to previous editions - the command group do force characters into the back ranks :ireful2:

So worth noting for tournaments; personally I would have no issue with someone asking to reverse that rule.

Well spotted! Good to know that my chaos lord of doom and awesome gets bullied to the back by the horn blower

 

[Durzod]

In reference your first question: In order to wound a character in melee (aside from instability) you have to allocate attacks to it. So if the four man unit plus a character are attacked and suffer 5 wounds, unless any of those wounding attacks were allocated to the character, 1 wound is wasted. The exception to this is impact hits, which I believe are still allocated like shooting (my rulebook is also currently unavailable).

 

[Ancient Tiel' a fier]

Yes impacts work as shooting, so if there are five or more rank and file models then a character cannot be hit; if there are less then hits must be randomised (number each model and roll for each hit).

Also isnt it great that bretonians cant effectively use the lance formation anymore, well not if they want characters to do more than one support attack after the charge.

 

[unixknight]

P97 second column (Position in Unit) states that the command group must remain in the front rank and if there is no room some characters must be placed in the second rank.

So - contrary to previous editions - the command group do force characters into the back ranks :ireful2:

So worth noting for tournaments; personally I would have no issue with someone asking to reverse that rule.

Thanks. I was hoping I'd missed something somewhere...

Also isnt it great that bretonians cant effectively use the lance formation anymore, well not if they want characters to do more than one support attack after the charge.

Actually Bretonnians are unaffected. The Army Book for Bretonnia explicitly states that characters joining a unit in Lance formation move command section models to the second rank.

 

[neilbatte]

I know that your question has been answered but what confuses me is why would anyone put a unit 3 wide, other than monsterous infantry (who's command upgrades are normally too expensive to take all 3) and Brettonians who have their own rules.
The only other unit that I've seen that works 3 wide is detachments although this was in 7th and they can't have command upgrades.
Any combat unit needs to be at least 5 wide to get extra ranks and 10 wide to get horde so I've never seen a proper unit 3 wide.

 

[Sethis]

Probably to maneuver somehow, and they get caught in combat on the opponents turn.

 

[unixknight]

I know that your question has been answered but what confuses me is why would anyone put a unit 3 wide, other than monsterous infantry (who's command upgrades are normally too expensive to take all 3) and Brettonians who have their own rules.
The only other unit that I've seen that works 3 wide is detachments although this was in 7th and they can't have command upgrades.
Any combat unit needs to be at least 5 wide to get extra ranks and 10 wide to get horde so I've never seen a proper unit 3 wide.

I see Fast Cavalry units do it all the time to get more models along the sides to have LOS to targets, or to squeeze a formation between terrain features or other units. Admittedly it's rare, but I have seen it.

 

[Tim/Steve]

I use 3-4 wide units loads in my WE, but certainly not for combat units. For shooty skirmish units its really helpful, especially for the smaller/elite type unit. So I occasionally use glade riders 2-3 wide and normally use waywatchers 3-4 wide unless Im manouvering for a charge (last game I used them in my 1 unit of waywatchers charged 3 times and only killed 1 enemy with shooting- they took out a lv2 mage, bolt thrower and remnants of a combat unit in CC)... but I cant think of any unit that I would have full command in and use in funny ranks unless they had 1A and were <10 models left: so if I had a unit of 8 I might reform to be 4 wide to reduce my frontage since I lose no attacks and no rank bonus...

 

[Dave T Hobbit]

...what confuses me is why would anyone put a unit 3 wide....

There is an article on the GW website at the moment about designing narrow bridges to deny rank bonus to assaulting troops; so if you are playing a siege game with realistic bottlenecks you could have narrow ranks.

If your bases are 25 mm instead of 20mm you might need to narrow down to fit too.

 

[unixknight]

Although that brings up another question, doesn't it? Strictly speaking, is it even possible to narrow a unit that has full command down to < 3 columns if it has full command, as that would mean displacing command models into the second or third rank?

 

[Shadowfane]

I see Fast Cavalry units do it all the time to get more models along the sides to have LOS to targets, or to squeeze a formation between terrain features or other units. Admittedly it's rare, but I have seen it.

The other, possibly more common version, is the skaven unit with either a Bell or a Furnace in it - if its a six-wide unit, there isnt room in the front rank for any other characters, with three slots taken by the Bell, and the other three taken by the command group.

 

[karlhunt]

Page 92 Position with the unit "Any models in the unit that make up a unit's command group must be placed in the front rank of the unit, unless there is not enough room for them to fit. Where this happens, as many command models as possible must be placed in the front rank and any remaining models are placed in the rank behind."

And if you are wondering what happens if you are only one file wide then you are an idiot and I say that your unit champion kills himself for having failed so utterly!

Let me amend that. Following GW reasoning, the model in an invalid position must be removed as a casualty, as the musician is always the first model removed it stands to reason that the standard bearer shoves the fop's whistle down his gullet and he is forced to retire to have it surgically removed.