The rules given by the GT-US clarify a lot of the superceded or out of date rules in the Ravening Hordes army list.��In some cases though, they make judgments that aren’t supported by Rules As Written.��There have been many discussions on these parts and I think we have had enough time to digest them all by now.
Personally, I think all of what it says is a good idea and should be recommended to all Chaos Dwarf players as long as they understand that it isn’t 100% official.��
I voted no because they’re completely unofficial and somewhat and therefore irrelevant to the rest of the world.
I just think that it would be a bad habit to get into rules that are unofficial, that’s all. It’s deffo a good idea to have the rules clarified for tournament purposes.
I voted no, because of the BB rule of not being able to fire when a friendly unit within the fire zone. I would vote yes if it said, if any Chaos Dwarf units are within the fire zone. CDs don’t care too much about killing slaves in battle. Everything else I play that way anyways.
I agree with the rest, in general the clarifacation is good but we need more and better. So I will use it(specially the rules about bull centaurs) but in the end, we need more.
I agree that the Sneaky Git wording is pretty poor, it looks like they missed out the word “phase” after it says “after every combat”. I don’t see a problem with Black Orcs not getting a banner but Big 'Uns do, it’s in the fluff that we don’t trust BOs and Orcs are just too disorganised to worry about. Yes there is loads more I’d add to improve the army list, but these only affect things that have changed since it was first written which is what an FAQ should do. A few useful steps (the BC and BB rulings at least) make it worthwhile IMO.
the sneaky git ruling is more problematic than it appears…
lets say it can do what we think it can do… it can make a free maneuver every turn… even when engaged by two enemies… if the gitz are subject to a rear charge while engaged to the front… they can expand their frontage by moving up to five models to their front rank… thereby moving out of base contact with the rear charged enemy… regaining ranks and probably breaking the enemy engaged to the front…
I voted yes and use them in my battles as they are pretty close to beeing official, We now know how sneaky gits work (crappy) and the bullcentaurs have been cleaned up. Remember that BC heros now have 360� line of sight is they stand alone, pretty nifty.
It is about time for an official faq and I think they will just copy-paste these rules.
I’m afraid I can’t get hold of these rules as GW downloads don’t work on my crappy old computer :(. I’m going to vote no anyway though. I think until GW give us an official FAQ the official rules for most games remain as they are, as this ruling only affects the US GT
Remember that BC heros now have 360� line of sight is they stand alone, pretty nifty.
baba yaga
i have corrected this elsewhere... no model on a base size larger than 25x25 have 360 LoS... BCs like all cav models, ogres, daemon princes etc follow the movement and LoS rules for monsters... 90 degree for you...
if the gitz are subject to a rear charge while engaged to the front...
they can expand their frontage by moving up to five models to their front rank...
thereby moving out of base contact with the rear charged enemy...
regaining ranks and probably breaking the enemy engaged to the front...
metro_gnome
If the gits got hit so hard that they lost two ranks worth of models in a single turn, would the unit in the rear suddenly become unengaged? Of course not. This situation is no different.
I’ll have to call you on that quote out of context. It refers to a model causing more casualties than it is in contact with, not moving units to make up for lost ranks.
p46 Redress the Ranks is far more appropriate, in fact I would have conceded to you after reading the final paragraph. However, the Free Manoeuvers section that follows makes it clear that the situation you describe cannot happen since it can only perform a Free Manoeuver if engaged in only one side, no exception is made for two or more units in the GT-US rules unless you use the meaning of the word ‘every’ to include situations explicitly forbidden by the rule. I wouldn’t go that far but maybe you would. Maybe there should be an FAQ for this FAQ! I’d say it was sloppily worded and supposed to mean that they can Free Manoeuvre even if they lose combat, rather than just if they win, but that’s just my opinion.
I didn’t realise this one thing would cause so much debate. Maybe I was wrong when I thought we all had time to digest it. Why didn’t you bring this up before?
Haha, Metro’s recently been involved in a lengthy argument over on Warseer over these rules, particularly as they pertain to Bull Centaurs.
To be annoying, I voted Yes, but the only reason I voted Yes is that I believe that Bull Centaurs should be treated as infantry as regards weapons (it seems to me that a weapon is more difficult to wield when you have to avoid hacking your mount’s head with it) and armour saves (why would a mount give them an improved save when they ARE the mount).
As for the other points at issue here, I completely agree that the Sneaky Git wording is ridiculous, although I had never paid attention to it before.
well i dont know how out of context it was… your unit did have to destroy 10 of my sneaky gitz to maintain contact… but you are correct redress the ranks makes the point clearer…
the restrictions for the maneuver are thrown out the window… the gitz do not have to win… they do not have to be engaged by only one enemy… they may expand frontage while flanked… and they could turn during a front charge… every turn is every turn… otherwise “every turn” means nothing as any unit can do it every turn… so long as they win combat, are engaed by only one enemy, etc… thats is if gitz can do it all… being “in combat” “after combat”… its a clear case some who didnt know what a free maneuver was tossing it in a FAQ…
for the record… i have brought this up before… but no one is ever really interested in talking about how bad the FAQ is as a whole… they defend it on principle cause it gives them their S6 BCs…
speaking of which… the heads of animals would not explain chariots or the disc of tzeench angryboy… and no one has ever argued that they should get the mounted AS… wolves do not… all i have ever argued is that the mounted GW rules should be looked at more carefully… this change was made for a reason… M8 models running around with +2S is supposed to be a thing of the past… and no rule supports the BCs are infantry position… infact they support the opposite… to give you a wacky example of what this actually means… infantry BCs can enter buildings… interesting eh?
as ive said i perfer a centigor style ruling… where hand weapons are treat as tho on foot… and other weapons are treated as if mounted… its the closest example of a similar creature type… and the most amicable solution all around…
I’m just stirring the s***, mate. I haven’t played fantasy battle since third edition (I did cram the fourth edition Chaos Dwarfs into 3rd for a few months, but I never had the rules), and I’m only collecting and building an army for the modelling. I had never realized the implications of the poorly-worded FAQ until recently and the only army book I have to compare rules to is the dwarf book (which with its overall lack of 25x50mm bases is useless in this case).
In any event, I certainly wouldn’t dream of defending an FAQ based solely on the advantages conferred to my models. I’m the kind of guy who puts useless units in his army purely for aesthetic reasons.
To be fair I think you have obviously thought it through very thoroughly. I read your house rule over on Warseer and thought it sounded eminently fair and well-considered.