Hobby Update: Skirmish trays

Hi All,

So in between preparing my beastmen list of doom (2 lvl4 and 2 lvl1 lore of wild, 2 cyclops things, rest of points on 5 cow/sheep/goat hybred ungor units-half in ambush-beastial surge FTW) for NZTC, I have started creating skirmish movement trays for my Woodies.

 have only finished 1 unit so far:

Still to go: 8x4 25mm trays, and 2x5 20mm trays...sigh

Why I dont take Combat Block detachments-Empire

Hi All,
Warhammer nerds in the modern age tend to spend time in forums discussing tactics, armylists, and debating rules. Fans of the Empire tend to gather at www.warhammer-empire.com.

With a new book released last year, there was a flurry of posts, and with 2 FAQs this has not ceased. This brings me to...

DETACHMENTS IN THE NEW ARMYBOOK.

They look awesome on paper. They benefit from prayers and special rules like stubborn. They can counter shoot and counter charge (though not as well as old book)...oh, and they can share Steadfast.


Now this created some discussion around what they meant by sharing Steadfast. So GW released this FAQ:


Q: If a Detachment has lost a combat, can it claim the Steadfast
special rule for its Regimental Unit’s ranks even if that unit is either
not in the same combat or is involved in another combat? (p30)

A: Yes. Always use the Regimental Unit’s ranks to determine
whether or not its Detachments are Steadfast. However, if a
Regimental Unit is involved in a separate combat in which it is
not Steadfast due to the number of enemy ranks, then its
Detachments are not Steadfast either, even if the Regimental
unit has more ranks than the enemy unit actually attacking its
Detachment.

Now there is a reason I dont use Detachments as anything more than 5 man archer chaff drops (and never bother measuring whether or not they are within 3 inches of the parent). The quote below (which can be found here. Credit to "Calisson") sums it up nicely. In the words of Fox News "YOU DECIDE".

Hi, all fans of steadfast detachment discussions! 
New information: FAQ has been amended but not the steadfast wording.
The wishes for further clarification were not granted. It seems that the FAQ is supposed to be clear enough.
I’ll try to summarize some of the previous discussions in this post.


1.   Where to find steadfast information.
What can a unit do with steadfast status?
Steadfast status has 2 uses:
-   Break tests, i.e. after losing a combat (BRB p.54),
-   Providing steadfast status to detachment (Empire AB p.30 + FAQ).

How to gain steadfast status?
Steadfast status can be investigated for any of the following 4 reasons, when specific additional conditions are met:
-   ranks (BRB p.54/ & 60),
-   stubborn (BRB p.76). This one is simple: {stubborn} => {steadfast}
-   building (BRB p.129),
-   parent unit (Empire AB p.30 + FAQ).
Several interpretations exist about the additional conditions, which matter only when detachments are involved.

How to deny steadfast status?
Steadfast status can be denied by any of the following 3 reasons, when specific additional conditions are met, except when the unit is stubborn:
-   Enemy’s ranks (BRB p.54/60 and Empire AB FAQ, exception for stubborn BRB p.76),
-   Forest (BRB p.119 – steadfast lost, but rank bonus kept),
-   River (BRB p.120 – steadfast lost, rank bonus lost, but ranks themselves kept).
The conditions for denying steadfast are clear and consensual.


2.   What’s the problem with passing steadfast to detachments at 3”?
Here, I list the problems, I don’t discuss them yet.

AB p.30 (not taking yet into account FAQ):  {parent steadfast} => {detachment steadfast}.
First issue: what is exactly steadfast satus is not consensual.
Second issue: the FAQ introduced new conditions.

Let’s sum up what are the conditions for steadfast listed p.54.
There are three possible interpretations of steadfast status mentioned p.54:
A.   {more ranks + combat + defeated} => {steadfast}; and also, {no defeat} => {no steadfast}
B.   {more ranks + combat + defeated} => {steadfast}; and also, {no combat} => {no steadfast}
C.   {more ranks + combat + defeated} => {steadfast}; and also, {no enemy} => {zero enemy’s rank}
Note that it changes absolutely nothing for break test, except for a detachment’s break tests.
For that case, we need to go through the AB rule and its FAQ.

Let’s recall the issues with the FAQ.
There is a problem of interpretation in the second half of the question, about the parent’s position.
“either not in the same combat or in another combat” can be understood in two ways:
D.    “either in another combat or in another combat”, i.e. {only in combat}
E.   “either not in combat or in another combat”, i.e. {even not in combat}.

Furthermore, it has been argued that the FAQ may cancel the necessity for the parent unit to be steadfast at all, replacing the AB requirement by rank counting.
F.   {AB + FAQ} the parent needs to be steadfast in the first place.
G.   {AB + FAQ} The FAQ removes the AB necessity for the parent unit to be steadfast.
It makes a difference when the parent unit is in a river or a wood.

There’s one more issue when the parent unit is in a building, where two opposite interpretation exist:
H.   {parent in building} => {detachment steadfast}
I.   {parent in building} => {detachment counts zero rank}
That’s quite independent from other issues.


Three interpretations for detachment steadfast.
When we combine the different interpretations of the BRB and the FAQ, we have seen the following interpretations proposed about what is necessary for the parent not in the same combat:
J.   {even not in combat}, {more ranks + combat + defeated}
K.   {even not in combat}, {steadfast} {just use ranks}
L.   {only in combat}, {more ranks + combat + defeated}
The difference between J and K is that in J., steadfast status can be denied by a forest or a river; in K., steadfast status is not examined, only ranks.


3.   Arguments about steadfast status, BRB p.54.

The BRB index tells us that steadfast is referred in BRB p.54 and 60.
The tenants of either steadfast definition listed above (A., B. or C.) can justify their position with a quote, however, they struggle to really prove the other positions to be wrong.

A.   {more ranks + combat + defeated} => {steadfast}; and also, {no defeat} => {no steadfast}
Relevant quote: BRB p.54. “If a defeated unit has more ranks than its enemy, it takes a Break test without applying the difference in the combat result scores.”
Rationale: it is the first sentence; it is in bold; the whole page is about losing combat.
Weak point: the sentence does not contain the word “steadfast” it is supposed to define; it does not preclude a unit not in combat or not defeated to be steadfast, too, so it is necessary to argue that no other of the sentences p.54 can be considered as a definition of steadfast.

B.   {more ranks + combat + defeated} => {steadfast}; and also, {no combat} => {no steadfast}
Relevant quote: BRB p.54. "Simply put, a unit is considered to be steadfast if it has more ranks than its enemy.”
Rationale: the sentence {more ranks than enemy} => {steadfast} says that it defines what is steadfast; it is very consistent with the paragraph just before, which seems to specify the RAI for steadfast: “To represent this in our games, we have something called the Steadfast rule”.
Weak point: It does not mention anything about combat, just about enemy, so we’re left to suppose that a unit not in combat, having no enemy, is not steadfast. However, that is not obvious in the alleged RAI nor in the RAW.

C.   {more ranks + combat + defeated} => {steadfast}; and also, {no enemy} => {zero enemy’s rank}
Relevant quote: BRB p.54. “Simply put, a unit is considered to be steadfast if it has more ranks than its enemy. As with calculating the extra ranks for the purpose of combat resolution, the ranks have to be five or more models wide for the unit to be treated as being steadfast. (…). Similarly, the enemy’s ranks also have to be five or more models wide to counter your unit from being steadfast.”
Rationale: The second sentence {ranks of 5} => {steadfast} indicates that having ranks is enough to be a steadfast candidate; the last sentence {enemy ranks of 5} => {steadfast denial} indicates the necessary condition for a steadfast candidate to be denied steadfast; when there is no enemy with five models, there is no steadfast denial, therefore the unit is steadfast.
Weak point: it takes many quotes to reach the result {no enemy} => {zero enemy’s rank}.


4.   Arguments about FAQ “either in another combat”
The quote is: “Q: If a Detachment has lost a combat, can it claim the Steadfast special rule for its Regimental Unit’s ranks even if that unit is either not in the same combat or is involved in another combat?”
Everyone agrees that the wording requires some interpretation. Not everyone agrees on the interpretation itself.

D.   {only in combat}
Rationale: Not in the same combat does not remove the necessity for combat. The FAQ is a tautology: either not in same combat or not in same combat, i.e. not in same combat, i.e. only in combat.
Weak point: grammatically not convincing; it requires GW to have made a mistake, and to have maintained that mistake in the next edition of the FAQ.

E.   {even not in combat}.
Rationale: If a unit is anywhere except in the same combat, it could be in two places: not in combat at all, or in another combat.
As the FAQ mentions “either/or”, which is grammatically exclusive, and the other combat is already mentioned after “or”, the only place “either” can be about is not in combat at all.
Furthermore, the French edition of the FAQ is not ambiguous.
Weak point: the grammar is not perfect either.


5.   Arguments about FAQ replacing or complementing the AB.

F.   {AB + FAQ} - the parent needs to be steadfast in the first place.
The FAQ is not an errata. See GW’s website about “Shrine of Knowledge - FAQ's and Errata”. It says “Errata provide corrections”, “Amendments are changes”, while FAQ “are not hard and fast rules”.
Therefore, the AB rule remains, the FAQ is just a comment, adding to the rule.
Weak point: obviously, the FAQ is not merely commenting the rule, it is at least amending it.

G.   {AB + FAQ} - the FAQ removes the AB necessity for the parent unit to be steadfast.
The FAQ mentions “Always use the Regimental Unit’s ranks”. It does not mention conferring steadfast. It is obviously not an FAQ but must be an errata.
Weak point: Whatever it is, it is mentioned by GW to be an FAQ, and remains an FAQ.


6.   Arguments about FAQ applying when parent is in a building.

H.   {parent in building} => {detachment steadfast}
Rationale: The FAQ says in the question: to “claim the Steadfast special rule for its Regimental Unit’s ranks”. The parent’s steadfast rule does not come from the regiment’s ranks, therefore buildings are outside of the scope of the FAQ. Therefore detachments are auto-steadfast.

I.   {parent in building} => {detachment counts zero rank}
Rationale: The FAQ applies, why wouldn't it? Furthermore, in a building, a unit has zero rank (per BRB FAQ) therefore the detachment would get to use the parent’s zero ranks when checking to be steadfast.


7.   Where come the 3 interpretations for detachment steadfast.

J.   If someone understands the FAQ sentence to allow {even not in combat}
and he does not believe that FAQ cancels AB,
then parent can be steadfast even when not in combat,
which proves the understanding of steadfast status exists even when not in combat.
{more ranks + combat + defeated} => {steadfast}
The only explanation can be that {no enemy} => {zero enemy’s rank}.
Weak point: it raises suspicion that one tries to get too much of the rules.

K.   If someone refuses the “no combat” interpretation of steadfast but still understand the FAQ to allow {even not in combat}, he can only insist that the FAQ cancels the AB.
In that case, the FAQ mentioning a parent {even not in combat} does not imply that the parent was steadfast in the first place. {steadfast} {just use ranks}.
Weak point: the argument that an FAQ cancels a rule altogether is hardly convincing, all the more that the FAQ has not been changed with a later revision.

L.    If someone refuses the “no combat” interpretation of steadfast and refuses the FAQ to cancel the AB, then he can only interpret the FAQ the most restrictive way, {only in combat}. 
Then, he can consider steadfast to be restricted to defeated situations.
Weak point: the FAQ would be useless, except in the very restricted and rare situation when a parent has fought the combat first, has lost it, was steadfast and has passed the break test successively; then the detachment at 3” can only fight later to pretend to benefit from parent’s steadfast status.
Weak point: Who can believe GW create a new rule because such a case was “frequently asked”?

Natcon-Warhammer 2013

Hi all,

Mike King has asked that all us "bloggers" post this:

Natcon - Warhammer

The cut-off for early registration is approaching, $50 up until 25^th January.

Go to http://huttclub.co.nz/events/nationals to register.

The Warhammer Players Pack can be found at http://huttclub.co.nz/events/nationals/warhammer-fantasy

I’ve been asked one question via email which was

Q: Do you allow all Bound monsters since there are ones in White Dwarf Mags, Storm of Magic and Monstrous Arcanum?
A: Just those in Monstrous Arcanum.

I was also quizzed a little a Homecon over weekend as what sort of list I might veto, I have no preconceived builds in mind, as the pack says, lists that would be absolutely horrible and not enjoyable to play against will be my main consideration. 

SO bascially to sum up:

Take filth and unless you take Dwarfs you should be fine.

Sadly I cant make it due to prior committment in Oz, opening up the huge question of who is going to win it, so hopefully someone will have the foresight to take a counter to Hamish's "brick in pillow" list.  

Homecon write up to come.

Plastic Eagles...

So very exciting (if not some what expected), the next wave of Hobbit stuff is coming out including...



Yes...PLASTIC EAGLES!
 
This is looking like the release of the Hobbit that was actually going to sell-thank you WHFB having a lack of plastic eagles and 2 armies that use them. The release also includes some riderless Fell Wargs that will make some cool wolf replacements for the armies out there that use them (Vamps, WoC, fancy Goblin conversion etc), however I think the 'wolf' model is something GW have plenty of for the Hobbit ones to be rather overlooked by people wanting an alternative model.

Painting update: I ran out of black spray so have spent the last couple of days playing Civ 5, Deus Ex, and painting up my 40K Orks-I'll put up some pics soonish.

18 Inch ldship and re-rolling Demigryphs...

Painting update: Waralter.

Sticking closely to the Empire paint scheme. The Griffon and his base are not glued in for easy transport. I can't wait to try out the new and nerfed War Alter...though the 6 inch prayer and hatred bubble are going to make things interesting along with s5 Banishment...

The Princes are in Town

Hi All,

A quick painting update.

My summer goal is to get my Dragon Princes painted and the new War Alter (+ the odd high elf archer/RBT/spearelf/mounted BSB and Prince).

First up I have the minimum tabletop requirement of 5 Dragon Princes with Musician.

Stuck to the usual High Elf paint scheme. I've got 5 more to paint (Santa gifted me a GW voucher) with 1 done up as a Standard and one as a unit champ.

War alter is on the table, painting in progress, so pics should be up early in the new year.

On the gaming front I had a game last night vs Ryan's vamps.  My list:

lvl4: high, ring of fury, scroll (shield, curse of arrow, stubborn, flames, drain magic)
Prince: GW, Armour of Caledor, Seafarer Bow, Talisman of Loec
BSB: Barded Steed, GW, Heavy armour, Dragonhelm, luckstone
10 Archers: M
25 Spears: M, SB
25 Spears: M, SB-gleaming pendant
15 Whitelions: FC-Banner of Sorcery, Iron curse (to prove I wasnt tailoring!)
5 Dragon Princes: M
4 Eagles
4 RBT's

So yeah-5 bolts/turn. And man were they effective. Turn 1 = 7 out of 13 Black Knights skewered with only 4 able to shoot (diagional deploy -1 in reserve), and 1 missing (curse of arrow was dispelled). Sneaky eagle schenanigans = Whitelions with Prince flank the remaining "bus" and crumble Vamp lord and supporting vamp turn 3. RBT's then wipe out 38 Ghouls (with help from flames of phoenix and an ill-fated spears sandwich), and strip a zombie unit down to 4. Very exciting game, and looking forward to see how this incarnation of the Highelves plays out.

Down and Dirty in the Maw pit

Hi all,

First day of the Summer break =  a chance to get in some Warhammer. Scouts had reported a marauding force of Ogres had made their way down from the Worlds Edge Mountains, so an expeditionary force from the local garrison was sent to intercept.

The force sent to intercept:

Art Collector: GW, Armour of Meteroic Iron, 4+ ward
lvl4: light, scroll
BSB: Full Plate Armour, Enchanted Shield, Warriorbane
lvl1: fire, rubyring
Engineer

48 Halberds: Full Command
2x5 Archer Detachment
10 Archers
10 Inner Circle Knights: Full Command-Gleaming Pendant

2 Cannons
2x4 Demigryph knights: Musician

Hurricanum
Hellblaster

The Scouts had managed to inflitrate the Ogre camp and managed to report back (alive) that their warband consisted of:

Ogre Warband:

Slaughtermaster: Glittering scales, WS10 sword, Crown of Command
BSB: (armour) GW...possibly other stuff but the scouts never managed to break into his tent
Firebelly: ASF sword, scroll
Firebelly: I10 sword, rubyring

7 Bulls: Full Command-Runemaw
8 IronGuts: Full Command-banner of swiftness

2x3 Mournfang: Musician
3x1 Sabretusks

2 Iron Blasters

The Empire marched out at day break hoping to catch the Ogre warband unawares, only to find them ready for battle...the armies lined up and an erie silence fell across the land between them.

TURN ONE
However, it was the Empire's finest that were first off the mark (taking advantage of Ogre cultral pre-battle taunting traditions to start the battle). A bit of a shuffle forward to get into a comfortable position for most of the army, while the archers eagerly marched forward. The light mage muttered under his breath and the Demigryphs to his left found themselves moving as if they were in a timewarp. The Bright wizard then yelled in fury to unleash the largest hail of fire he could muster on the Ironblaster (Empire right), however the Slaughtermaster ate a squirrel just in time (does Ogre magic still work like this?). The Light wizard then had a go, attempting to Banish it to another dimension, taking a single wound. This of course, just encouraged the "Gunshow" who, not to be out done by the posing mages in silly robes, promptly blew the Ironblaster up.

The Ogre General then found himself in an awkward position. The mournfang were eager to get into the fight, but the un-natural speed of the Demigryphs meant they had no way to safely move...so instead they shuffled forward a little confused. The Ironguts and Bulls however, were not restricted by such trival matters and marched foward in blood lust.

The Slaughtermaster then dug into his bag of treats and ate a rock...much counter yelling by the Empire mages stopped the Mournfang on the ground getting tougher, however while the Mages were yelling to stop that, the Slaughtermaster took a sip from his flask; the Mournfang were overtaken by aroma of the brew stolen from a Dwarven stronghold, and were filled with stubborn steadfastness. The Ironblaster took a shot at the Hellblaster...it can re-roll bounce, but it can't re-roll 1's to wound!

TURN TWO
The archers saw this as their moment. The centre detachment ran into the face of the Bulls and pulled funny faces and made rude comments about their mothers.The unit on the right (along with some Demigryphs!) charged a sabretusk. The timewarped Demigryphs smashed into the Stubbborn Mournfang, while the ICKs strategically moved up to tempt the 2nd unit away from a flank charge/provide a good incentive not to take the Demigryph flank!

Magic drew out a scroll, however the real phase was the Gunshow. 2 cannons = dead 2nd Iron Blaster, while the Hellblaster let rip on the Ironguts, stripping a rank.



In combat, the Demigryphs could hit the Mournfang, but only managed 4 wounds...thankfully all 4 went through the armour, for the loss of a single wound in return. The Dwarven brew was still floating around, and the Mournfang stood their ground.

 On the other flank...well archers + Demigryph (could only get a single 1 in base to base) = 2 dead archers, 1 wound on sabretusk = thank goodness I have a musician! Kitty runs, archers unsuccessfully chase, while the Demigryphs turn to face down the Iron Guts (and sit within the Hurricanum bubble...).

 The Demigryphs smelt them before they saw them; the Ironguts came smashing through the undergrowth into combat. The sabretusk thought they would have a go at the cannon, however it was a little too far to pounce on. Tossing up whether to hit the ICKs or the Demigryph flank, the Mournfang decided it was more fun to run at ICKs, and thundered off the hill at the Empire's finest.
The bulls, enraged by the unfounded comments about their mothers ran at the archers who fled...but not far enough. The Slaughtermaster went to cook them up, but the Empire Mages pulled out their recipe scroll and corrected their cooking techniques. In combat...12 Demigryph attacks hitting on 2's...especially when they had just been heated up by the Firebelly = some very, very, very dead, fleeing and run down Iron Guts. The Dwarven brew wore off and the last remaining Mournfang on 1 wound ran from the Demigryphs who decided it was better to turn around than chase. The ICK's didnt fair as well as hoped. 2 were squashed by the impact of the Mournfang. Their swords only managed a single wound before their armour failed them, 2 more dying to s4 attacks. Re-rolling ldship 4, the Standard bearer gets pulled down and the final 5 escape the over run.

TURN THREE
So what do you get when you have Halberds in the front, Demigryphs in the rear, and Demigryphs in the flank? Suspiciously woodelf-like tactics if I've ever seen them!

The ICK's rally and brace themselves for more Mournfang "fun".The Light mage after much "do I cast on single unit or bubble" thinking, decides to target just the Halberds with Timewarp only to IF it, wounding everyone that can generate dice (including hurricanum!)...however the Art Collector's ward proves true. The Gun show decided to light up the Mournfang. HellBlaster kills them down to a single wound. The cannon on Hill fails to finish it off (can't remember how), while the other one over hears the Slaughtmasters "hey wouldnt it be funny if the sabretusk got grapeshotted!"...and grape shots the sabretusk's last wound...thank you archers for your single wound contribution.

In the combat my Halberds rip into the bulls slaying many. The Slaughtermaster is taken down to a single fustrating wound and the BSB is wounded. All this slaughter is for naught as the Bulls hold on, due to the fancy headpiece the Slaughtmaster was wearing.

The remaining Mournfang thought he would try his luck and smashed into the ICKs. The fleeing Mournfang rallied, while the fleeing sabretusk ran off the board. However, the sneaky 3rd managed to make it to the the cannon on the hill. During the slaughter the flask containing the Dwarven brew's lid was knocked off and the remaining bulls found themselves not wanting the leave the presence of the wonderful drink. This of course was their downfall as all the bulls were pecked to death or pulled to their fate by the Halberds. All that remained was the Firebelly and the Slaughtermaster (protected by "hitting on 6's" and my inability to roll 4's to wound). The mournfang combat was lost by one, but the ICK's held true-encouraged by the action in the centre of the field.

TURN FOUR

The Empire went for the kill:

And kill they did. The Sabretusk wore a heap of arrows, The Light Mage IF'ed again (!) killing 4 archers, and everyone now with +1 to hit pulled apart the Slaughtermaster and Firebelly. The Mournfang vs ICK's was an awkward draw.







The Mournfang that relied hid behind the tower, hoping to sneak back to the Mountains to find another tribe to join, while the ICKs vs Mournfang combat continued as a draw for a few more rounds until the final wound was taken and the Empire were victorious!




END RESULT
The warband hadnt been routed, they had been cut down to literally an Ogre for the loss of 5 archers and 1 cannon. The valley had been saved from the marauding warband. Much celebrations and drinking ensued.