For characters in units, you must use the movement of the slowest value in the unit. Therefore if the Unit troop type’s movement characteristic is slower than Character’s movement value, then you consider the whole unit to have the troop type’s movement, and vice versa if the character is slower.
CheTralfara: Hurrah! thanks dude :) it makes my plan a whole lot less suicide-like for the shaman
Fallen246: Yep you can. In the previous edition it wasn't so viable because the character could be targeted and they couldnt use the 'look out sir' rule but in the new version they can.
it's a bit of a pain in the bum with armies with 20mm bases, but with the orcs they just displace an extra fellow and rank up nicely :)
Captain Crayon
Mmm... actually. No it doesn't, Che is wrong. If the character can he WILL charge out of the unit. This has been true for a couple of editions. Read page 78 of the rulebook. Second paragraph.
Its the best thing about fighting against VC konrad, get within range and he has to charge out of his own unit :), then you get him, same as a mounted frenzy character in a unit
Charging from frenzy is compulsory movement, and the shamen must therefore charge out of his unit if he can charge and they can’t. A character is only limited to his unit’s speed as long as he stays with them. If he is forcvced to leave by comulsory movement he immediately reverts to his normal speed
I suggest you invet in a foot shamen or some boar boys
Ah okay… I managed to lose my rulebook when i moved house so i havent been able to check it…
I’ve ordered the Wurzag model, so either way its still a cool shaman mounted on a boar model
Wait why do you have a wizard in a unit? I don’t after he died 5 times-in-a-row from being pursuited
Godbob and his jolly rogers
I put Shamans in a unit because they get benefits from being in/near combat, especially if you give them Waagh paint which is a supercheap item and gives them +2 to casting if they are in combat. Then give them Martog’s best basha that gives him +1 str, ws & iniative)
They do tend to die, but then again their heads tend to explode too… so at least if he explodes he’ll hurt some of them
Looks like i’ll need to grab a savage orc shaman on foot too
Fallen246:
Yep you can. In the previous edition it wasn't so viable because the character could be targeted and they couldnt use the 'look out sir' rule
but in the new version they can.
it's a bit of a pain in the bum with armies with 20mm bases, but with the orcs they just displace an extra fellow and rank up nicely :)
Captain Crayon
So, does this mean the cavalry model counts as a model in the first rank and the second rank for determining rank bonuses? Is a Chaos Hero on a Palanquin of Nurgle (50x50 but still counted as cavalry) also allowed to join a Unit of Warriors? Will he count as two front rank and two second rank models... or am I getting ahead of myself?
So, does this mean the cavalry model counts as a model in the first rank and the second rank for determining rank bonuses? Is a Chaos Hero on a Palanquin of Nurgle (50x50 but still counted as cavalry) also allowed to join a Unit of Warriors? Will he count as two front rank and two second rank models… or am I getting ahead of myself?
So, does this mean the cavalry model counts as a model in the first rank and the second rank for determining rank bonuses? Is a Chaos Hero on a Palanquin of Nurgle (50x50 but still counted as cavalry) also allowed to join a Unit of Warriors? Will he count as two front rank and two second rank models... or am I getting ahead of myself?
Fallen246
A mounted character will contibute to the unit's rank bonus. Palanquins are therefore a really nice choice. It is the same as two models in base contact, but you get an extra +2 to your unit strength and a sick number of attacks
So, does this mean the cavalry model counts as a model in the first rank and the second rank for determining rank bonuses? Is a Chaos Hero on a Palanquin of Nurgle (50x50 but still counted as cavalry) also allowed to join a Unit of Warriors? Will he count as two front rank and two second rank models... or am I getting ahead of myself?
Fallen246
A mounted character will contibute to the unit's rank bonus. Palanquins are therefore a really nice choice. It is the same as two models in base contact, but you get an extra +2 to your unit strength and a sick number of attacks
AGPO
The characters in units have become somewhat troublesome under 7th ed. There's no rule that says they can count as as many models as they displace, in fact a Chaos unit with a 50mm character + 3 RnF 25mm models do not fulfil the exact requirement for ranks (5 models in each rank).
People usually assume or interpret that the character's base size will count for ranks, but the only thing giving guidance is actually a 6th edition WD article on the subject. It is a very unfortunate absence in the BRB, that and actually having rules for US and basesize in armybooks.
Snowblitz - There has been a WD article on this, which answers the question perfectly clearly. Granted in 6th edition, but as there is no new rule to contradict it, we can assume the old ruling stands
Snowblitz - There has been a WD article on this, which answers the question perfectly clearly. Granted in 6th edition, but as there is no new rule to contradict it, we can assume the old ruling stands
AGPO
I'm not saying that's the way it should be, but 6th edition rules (well FAQs for the main rules anyway) for all intents and purposes aren't valid anymore. Sure houserule it but don't say it is official and in the rules when it isn't. I've gotten an earful by doing that in other places...
I’m going to bump this because there’s an interesting development.
GW has released a 2nd part to their main rules FAQ, which answer this question. They now officially endorse the “counts as as many bases it covers” which is kinda cool. Though the corpse cart is going to be really annoying in a Grave Guard regiment. Of course they also endorse an alternate solution I’ve never even thought of using.
Snowblitz - There has been a WD article on this, which answers the question perfectly clearly. Granted in 6th edition, but as there is no new rule to contradict it, we can assume the old ruling stands
AGPO
I'm not saying that's the way it should be, but 6th edition rules (well FAQs for the main rules anyway) for all intents and purposes aren't valid anymore. Sure houserule it but don't say it is official and in the rules when it isn't. I've gotten an earful by doing that in other places...
snowblizz
IF sixth ed stuff isn't directly contradicted by the new stuff it stands, otherwise tomb kings, dwarfs, bretonians, wood elves and ogres can't use their armies...
Snowblitz - There has been a WD article on this, which answers the question perfectly clearly. Granted in 6th edition, but as there is no new rule to contradict it, we can assume the old ruling stands
AGPO
I'm not saying that's the way it should be, but 6th edition rules (well FAQs for the main rules anyway) for all intents and purposes aren't valid anymore. Sure houserule it but don't say it is official and in the rules when it isn't. I've gotten an earful by doing that in other places...
snowblizz
IF sixth ed stuff isn't directly contradicted by the new stuff it stands, otherwise tomb kings, dwarfs, bretonians, wood elves and ogres can't use their armies...
AGPO
So you are saying I'm allowed to pull out one of the early warmachine articles by Gav or Alessio that really mess things up and try to find some loophole there that wasn't explicitly mentioned in the new rulebook? Or that I can take stuff from 4th, 5th or earlier editions as long as there was no new rules made? It has got to stop somewhere.
Would you use the 6th ed DE FAQs for the new 7th ed DE book? I'd hope not as the rules it refers to are no longer used. Same deal with main rules FAQs, they refer to a ruleset no longer existing, it just evaporated into thin air. Just as you wouldn't use old FAQs from 4th or 5th edition. That the rules look very much alike is no excuse, they were not made for this edition and so shouldn't be used to explain it either.
The same way you can't use the 6th ed DE armybook because there is a new DE armybook. You can't point to the "6th ed" book and say "they would be gone" as you yourself say, they haven't been replaced. However the 6th edition rules HAVE been replaced, all of them. We don't use 6th edition rules anywhere. The armybooks aren't "6th edition armybooks" I doubt it says so anywhere, they are just armybooks released before this new ruleset that may or may not need some clarifications to use currently.
Anyway this point is moot as I pointed out above. GW has finally managed to plug this annoying hole in an official FAQ, and about time it was! Now I no longer have to hear people gleefully point out that passage of rules which speaks against the approach used almost universally.
