Topic: "Hold the Line!" by a Captain by himself?

[kris_kapsner]

As mentioned in a couple other threads, I'm new to Empire.  I saw someone on another thread mention that a captain bsb on a peg couldn't use his hold the line ability.  I guess the way I read the rule for "hold the line" is that any unit he is in can take advantage of that ability.  A captain on a pegasus running solo is a unit by definition just like a giant would be, a greater demon, a dragon rider, and so on.  So, the captain would be able to use that ability even if by himself.  Or, if the captain flew in to join another unit of infantry, they would also get to use this ability because he's in the unit.  Am I incorrect in this interpretation?

[Hoodling]

I'm afraid so. The Empire FAQ states that he has to be leading a unit to benefit from the rule. Essentially there has to be someone for him to shout at. Otherwise he turns cowardly and runs away. I guess Captains (and Empire Generals) are classic bullies...

[Captain Alard Krusen]

They are officers before they are heroes. There is good in this as well as bad, but I'll take an officer over a hero any day of the week.

[Fidelis von Sigmaringen]

Empire Official Update Version 1.0
Q: Can a Commander of the Empire who is on his own or riding a monster still make use of his Hold the Line! special rule? (p32)
A: No.

[Jabbercrow]

Oh no! I had a game on Saturday and used a General on a Griffin. Twice, Hold the Line saved my bacon at game-changing points. I assumed that the General and a Griffin constituted a unit as I thought I had read in the BRB. I feel awful as I was playing a friend and he lost potentially as a consequence.

[Fidelis von Sigmaringen]

Line (military): a formation in which the elements are abreast. A single model (on foot or mounted) doesn't consist of elements that are abreast. 

[dapper]

So what happens if we form a unit of 2 captains? Does that count? Or is that not considered a unit either...

[Fidelis von Sigmaringen]

Yes, in that case, they could use the HtL rule. They are a formation with two elements abreast. Of course, there might be some argument about seniority and who can issue the command HtL.

[dapper]

I could see a captain escorting a witch hunter across the battlefield though!

"Jones, go and make sure that the gentlemen reaches that blasted lord snoth safely!"
"Yessirrrr!"
"Never leave his side, you hear me!"
"Nosirrrr!"
"Make sure he doesn't get killed!"
"Yessirrr!"
"No matter how much I hate to say this: His life is more valuable than your Jones"
"Sir...? Yessirrr!"
whispering "and goddamn make sure he doesn't run of before he shoots that son of a ..."
"...certainly sir"

I could see hilarious action from 2 or 3 of these duo's running around the battlefield!

Now we just need some good names for them.....

[kris_kapsner]

Well that's an unfortunate ruling by GW.  I don't see how they justify saying a lone model isn't a unit for the Captain to use his ability with.  It makes sense that the captain and general of the empire are simply more heroic individuals than your average leadership 8 or 9 character...without going so far as to make them stubborn or something.  I don't see how GW rules in favor of things like the crumble/over-run ruling and yet tells us the captain on a pegasus isn't a unit.  If that's the case, when someone puts down a giant do we tell them they need to place another unit in their deployment zone as well because it doesn't count as a unit for alternating deploying our armies?

Page 142: Alternating Units - Where a battle calls upon you to alternate deployment of units, roll off to see who sets up the first unit, and then take it in turns to deploy a single unit in your deployment area.

Huh?  So, the Captain on a Pegasus isn't a unit?  I understand that he's a character.  But, how is his "unit" different than a single sabertusk, razorgor, scorpion...

I don't see how GW ruled that way in the FAQ.  It makes no sense to me.

Ok, end rant...off to play some Warhammer Fantasy!!!  My captains won't lose combat anyway!   

[Ratarsed]

They are officers before they are heroes. There is good in this as well as bad, but I'll take an officer over a hero any day of the week.

I'm holding out for a hero! 

[Borgio the Besieger]

The BRB does categorize a single mounted model as a unit for game purposes. The FAQ, however, has declared a captain may not use the Hold the Line ability on his own. It is a contradiction. Honestly GW has engineered so many contradictions and exceptions into there rules system, I don't know how they keep it all straight. 

[zifnab0]

I don't see how GW ruled that way in the FAQ.  It makes no sense to me.

IIRC, the rule says the captain allows a unit he has joined to use Hold the Line.  Since a captain on his own hasn't joined a unit, it doesn't count.

I'm holding out for a hero! 

Preferably one who is strong, fast, and fresh from the fight?

[Borgio the Besieger]

 

I'm holding out for a hero! 

Preferably one who is strong, fast, and fresh from the fight?
[/quote]

But........ "We don't need another Hero."

[Fidelis von Sigmaringen]

I don't see how GW ruled that way in the FAQ.  It makes no sense to me.

IIRC, the rule says the captain allows a unit he has joined to use Hold the Line.  Since a captain on his own hasn't joined a unit, it doesn't count.

Not quite: While a character with this special unit is in a unit, the unit etc.
Usually, it is specified, if both are affected: "A character and any unit he is in  (or has joined)" etc.
The "while" and the meaning of "line" also indicated that he could not use it himself. But none of this would be conclusive, given that GW can be rather sloppy at times.

[Athiuen]

They really just need to print off a big list of words at the GW HQ and stick them to all the toilet doors and all the fridges so that the GW employees actually know what the f*ck they are all talking about when they write rules like this.  A big list with words like Unit and Steadfast and then have clearly printed next to these words their sole definition. 
It just seems like every different employee is talking a different language and that there is absolutely no comprehension between them. 
Perhaps this is mainly just a problem with cruddace?

[Fidelis von Sigmaringen]

I do not think it is mainly a problem with Cruddace. It is simply human nature that things one has become accustomed to tend to stick even if they no longer exist (as such). The 8th edition introduced some major changes, but, as can be witnessed on this very website, the previous edition(s) are sometimes very much alive, even after 3 years. I am afraid, that is as true for the designers as for the players.
Your suggestion of a fixed list of current GW terms and definitions certainly would help to remedy that - provided it would actually be used, of course. 

[Syn Ace]

Warhammer is basically a game where you have a set of rules and then a lot of things are written as exceptions to these rules. And they are horrible when it comes to using terms - they play rather fast and lose with them.


Their ruling on HtL makes sense to me and was the interpretation I argued from the beginning, representing  our army being a professional force with well-trained officers who are able exert their influence on a disciplined, well-drilled soldiery rather than it being representative of their own personal bravery.

[The Ol Perfesser]

Back in the day, I used to play a lot of games from Avalon Hill.  That company produced a lot of very complex games and knew how to write detailed rules.  GW could learn a thing or two by studying that model.   

Heck, I remember the BRB for 6 ed. WFB didn't even have an index!   

[Syn Ace]

Yes, Avalon Hill's rules were highly detailed. GW isn't going for that experience, but they could do a lot better by having a proper content editor go through it before it goes to press rather than just look for misplaced punctuation marks.

When they included an Index, I thought we'd reached the promised land -- of course, their index still leaves a bit to be desired, but it was a vast improvement.