Topic: Exploiting Flying Columns

[Dazgrim]

===
Empire of Man [1495 pts]
Warhammer: The Old World, Empire of Man
===

++ Characters [560 pts] ++

Wizard Lord [195 pts]
- Hand weapon
- Level 4 Wizard
- On foot
- Wizard's Familiar
- Daemonology

Wizard Lord [195 pts]
- Hand weapon
- Level 4 Wizard
- On foot
- Wizard's Familiar
- Daemonology

General of the Empire [170 pts]
- Hand weapon
- Light armour
- General
- On foot
- Armour of Meteoric Iron
- Talisman of Protection
- Giant Blade

++ Core Units [565 pts] ++

30 Veteran State Troops [335 pts]
- Hand weapons
- Halberds
- Light armour
- Drilled
- Sergeant (champion)
- Standard bearer [Griffon Standard]
- Musician

10 State Missile Troops [70 pts]
- Hand weapons
- Crossbows

7 Empire Knights [160 pts]
- Hand weapons
- Lances
- Shields
- Heavy armour
- Preceptor (champion)

++ Special Units [250 pts] ++

Great Cannon [125 pts]
- Great cannon
- Hand weapons

Great Cannon [125 pts]
- Great cannon
- Hand weapons

++ Rare Units [120 pts] ++

Helblaster Volley Gun [120 pts]

The plan is to use the tactic mentioned in a tournament thread to fling the 30 veteran halberdiers (deployed in marching column) into the backline of the opposing army using Steed of Shadows. With 36" of movement from the triple speed march, there should be plenty to wheel the unit 180° after it crosses the line.

Ideally in turn 2 I can combo charge a unit with the knights and the halberdiers (who drilled redeploy to 10x3).

Thoughts?

[commandant]

I wonder if you need the griffon banner. It might be worth dropping it to gain an engineer.   If you are deployed 10*3 you should generate a lot of combat attacks?

Also can you go from 4 to 10 with redress ranks?

[The Peacemaker]

It's a good trick but i think once opponent has played against it, it't won't work very often.

Griffin banner is worthless. Better just spend the points on more bodies since RAW you only get the bonus for the first rank since it's still capped. Might as well just take a war banner.

[Zygmund]

Griffin banner is worthless. Better just spend the points on more bodies since RAW you only get the bonus for the first rank since it's still capped. Might as well just take a war banner.

Aaah... RAW...

..can claim a Rank Bonus of +2 for each extra rank behind the first, rather than the usual +1.

So the question is, does the 'first' here denote the first rank, or the first extra rank.

I don't think even GW would create a 50pts magic standard that only gave an extra +1 for the third rank (second extra rank) in the unit. It would be worse than the Battle Standard universal +1 for 25pts.

I agree the rules are written in a relaxed tone. But you can be sensible and even use your imagination. (Like how would only the third rank be encouraged by the banner, but not the second?)

-Zyg

[commandant]

Even rules as written the first rank is the fighting rank, unless we are trying to claim the fighting rank is not a rank.

Mind you +2 from ranks if fights have only 5-6 attacks on either side is quite strong.

[PowerSeries]

It's clearly "extra rank behind the first [rank]", and it's trying to say exactly the same thing as previous griffon standards.

So normally it's 1 rank + 0, 2 ranks +1, 3 ranks + 2, 4 ranks +2

Griffon Standard: 1 rank +0, 2 ranks +2, 3 ranks + 4, 4 ranks + 4

And in 6e it's
1 rank +0, 2 ranks +2, 3 ranks + 4, 4 ranks + 6

This still makes it much worse than before, as you get a max of +2 for the banner instead of +3 like we used to.  So it's a War Banner which goes to zero if you get hit with first charge, but +2 if you have full rank bonuses.  Honestly I'd rather the war banner if they cost the same, but instead it's double the points.


I think some people are reading it as capping out at +2 bonus for ranks, not 2 extra ranks being counted, so it goes

1 rank +0, 2 ranks +2, 3 ranks +2, 4 ranks + 2

So it's just a worse war banner.  I clearly don't agree.

And I see someone saying

1 rank +0, 2 ranks +1, 3 ranks + 3, 4 ranks +3

if you are reading it as "behind the first [extra rank]", but that's just silly.

[Clymer]

Griffin banner is worthless. Better just spend the points on more bodies since RAW you only get the bonus for the first rank since it's still capped. Might as well just take a war banner.

What? How are you concluding this?

BRB page 105, "**Note that in some cases the maximum Rank Bonus a unit can claim can be increased by special rules."

Griffon Standard, "...a unit carrying the Griffon Standard can claim a rank bonus of +2 for each extra rank behind the first, rather than the usual +1."

I can't see any way to read it the way you are interpreting it.

[Dazgrim]

Griffin banner is worthless. Better just spend the points on more bodies since RAW you only get the bonus for the first rank since it's still capped. Might as well just take a war banner.

What? How are you concluding this?

BRB page 105, "**Note that in some cases the maximum Rank Bonus a unit can claim can be increased by special rules."

Griffon Standard, "...a unit carrying the Griffon Standard can claim a rank bonus of +2 for each extra rank behind the first, rather than the usual +1."

I can't see any way to read it the way you are interpreting it.

The problem is that the banner doesn't grant an increase to the maximum rank bonus. So you get +2 per rank as you say, but you're still capped at a maximum rank bonus based on your unit type.

I agree RAI it is meant to work as it has in every other edition, but RAW it doesn't. Compare to the Horde rule which is explicit in allowing increased rank bonus above the maximum.

[The Peacemaker]

Yep. RAI is unclear too since the horde rule is explicit. ...they couldn't copy-paste?
So we go with RAW which means it hits the max rank bonus from 1 rank. So you pay 50pts for something you can get vy simply spending those points on more bodies.

[PowerSeries]

Anyways, you were the one to put it in your list in the OP.

What else are you going to do with the flying block?  It's still only one unit.

[commandant]

Griffin banner is worthless. Better just spend the points on more bodies since RAW you only get the bonus for the first rank since it's still capped. Might as well just take a war banner.

What? How are you concluding this?

BRB page 105, "**Note that in some cases the maximum Rank Bonus a unit can claim can be increased by special rules."

Griffon Standard, "...a unit carrying the Griffon Standard can claim a rank bonus of +2 for each extra rank behind the first, rather than the usual +1."

I can't see any way to read it the way you are interpreting it.

The problem is that the banner doesn't grant an increase to the maximum rank bonus. So you get +2 per rank as you say, but you're still capped at a maximum rank bonus based on your unit type.

I agree RAI it is meant to work as it has in every other edition, but RAW it doesn't. Compare to the Horde rule which is explicit in allowing increased rank bonus above the maximum.

Sure you are capped at the rank bonus of your troop type, which is +2 for infantry and +1 for cav and so on.

Though if you had it on a unit with the horde rule it would be +3 if infantry and +2 for cav and so on.

[Hoffa]

This is why I'm becoming more and more against applying RAW on the ToW rules. The rules are so loose with terminology. Someone obviously didn't realize that being able to claim bonus for a maximum of two ranks and being able to claim a maximum rankbonus of +2 is not the same thing. (Or perhaps the rules for the Griffion standard were written and then some one changed the wording in the rulebook without considering what impact this might have)

This is annoying because I think ToW at the core is a great game and the 8:th edition GW should have released instead of the one they did. Unfortunately we do not get to play this game due to badly written rules getting in the way.

[Clymer]

Dear lord, I feel like this is an English grammar debate, not a rules debate.

The word, “each” refers to multiples. So if you’re not applying an additional rank bonus for two or more ranks, then you’re not applying the rules of English grammar. Admittedly, English grammar is no better than Warhammer rules when it comes to simplicity and consistency. But the  thing is, this is really not a RAW argument. You’re simply choosing to emphasize the word “maximum” in the basic rules about rank bonus over the word “each” in the Griffon Standard wording, even though the basic rules make it clear that there are exceptions. So you can claim that +2 maximum rank bonus for the banner is RAW, but it’s really not; you’re ignoring the writing of the rules for the Griffon Standard to interpret it that way.

[commandant]

We have to remember that the rules are written by native speakers and intended to be read by native speakers. So there are things that are assumed as they would be assumed in general conversation. There are grammatical contractions because people don't feel the need to spell everything out.

I know this will seem weird coming from me, who is engaged in an ongoing row over the difference between charging and counts as charging but it is also worth remembering that TOW is a role playing game at its core and should be played in that spirit.

I realise my previous comment is also unclear to my intention.

Basically the Griffon Banner doubles your rank bonus. Obviously there could be an FAQ but I always read the +1/+2 or whatever to be the maximum number or ranks that could be claimed.

As with other rules its worth considering what is trying to be simulated and if your reading of the rules does not simulate that then reconsider your reading of the rules.

[Clymer]

Also, it’s a bad precedent to judge one rule to other rules in the book. I get that there is low confidence in reading rules as they are plainly written, but most of these controversies are only popping up because someone looks at a rule and it’s not what they expect because of the way another rule is written, so they tie themselves in knots trying to create a logical consistency, when there isn’t any. You could just play the game instead of second guessing everything and trying to make the game 100% consistent between all rules. It’s just a game, dude.

[Clymer]

As with other rules its worth considering what is trying to be simulated and if your reading of the rules does not simulate that then reconsider your reading of the rules.

I find that this resolves like 90% of rules disputes... what were they trying to do? Do that.

We have to remember that the rules are written by native speakers and intended to be read by native speakers. So there are things that are assumed as they would be assumed in general conversation. There are grammatical contractions because people don't feel the need to spell everything out.

Yes, this is true... that's usually my first stop when I read some of the rules dispute on forums/discords... is this a native English speaker? There are just so many ways things can get lost in translation... English is a bastard language of a thousand fathers.

[Hoffa]

I can se no other way to read the rules raw that

Normal . Apply +1 for each additional rank up to the cap defined by maximum rankbonus.
Griffon banner. Apply +2 each additional rank up to the cap defined by maximum rankbonus.'

So if I have 2 extra ranks I apply +2 for each rank getting +4 but this is then reduced back to +2 by the cap.

Anyone that wants to play differently and claim raw needs to demonstrate how the cap is increased by griffon banner and what the cap then becomes. (Clymers argument about the literal meaning of each leads to there being no cap)

But my general advice is this. The rules for ToW only describe the basic case, if you try to play rules as written for more complex cases the game becomes unplayable. If the intentent of a rule is obvious and you are willing to bet money on how it would be faq:ed. Play it that way.

[The Peacemaker]

If a person is going to start changing rules, why not fix the whole book? Change the points too.

...and if we are doing that, why not do it for the whole game?

If if doing it for the whole game, what do we need Gamesworkshop for?

[Rodman49]

Assuming the Griffon Standard doesn't increase the cap is literally one of the most bizarre interpretations I would ever see - I could understand if you chumps weren't Empire players but here are the reasons that it clearly increases the max rank bonus.

• I know some of you think GW is stupid; @Peacemaker points out the Warbanner is better or equivalent in all cases with the narrow interpretation. In that case the War Banner costs less points and is usable by every army - the designers ain't that stupid.  Like they may not pay their guys much but even a guy making 30k pounds a year won't be that bad
• It's not like TOW exists in a full vacuum - we can infer some degree of intent by comparing to prior editions (precedent would be the legal term I think).  The biggest argument besides Clymer's quote from p.105 on how special rules allow the max bonus to change is probably the 6th edition wording of the item - the item is almost completely unchanged - https://6th.whfb.app/magic-item/griffon-standard - with the exception that they removed the not pursue requirement (which is probably good as it gives it more counterplay)
• The narrow interpretation sucks - why would you take an interpretation about playing with little toy soldiers that makes the game worse . . . bizarre.

[Jonnies]

I can se no other way to read the rules raw that

Normal . Apply +1 for each additional rank up to the cap defined by maximum rankbonus.
Griffon banner. Apply +2 each additional rank up to the cap defined by maximum rankbonus.'

So if I have 2 extra ranks I apply +2 for each rank getting +4 but this is then reduced back to +2 by the cap.

Anyone that wants to play differently and claim raw needs to demonstrate how the cap is increased by griffon banner and what the cap then becomes. (Clymers argument about the literal meaning of each leads to there being no cap)

But my general advice is this. The rules for ToW only describe the basic case, if you try to play rules as written for more complex cases the game becomes unplayable. If the intentent of a rule is obvious and you are willing to bet money on how it would be faq:ed. Play it that way.

Clymers is correct, each by definition refers to more than one you don't use it to refer to a singular. At this point it is going over maximum rank every time, but the rule for maximum rank says some special rules let you increase it in the ** point. I would say this clearly does that as there is no other way to read it, no other unit can have more than 2 so it must hit this ** clause otherwise "each" would not be used to define the ranks. I don't think it has to explicitly says it increases the maximum rank rule as that rule itself has a clause for other special rules, otherwise you would not need the clause in the ** under maximum rank.   

I would go as far as saying there is no cap on the griffon banner RAW. Anyone who thinks otherwise in my opinion is simply trying to ignore the ** section of the maximum rank rule. I know it can be a bit dubious for some but as a native speaker but I don't see any other way around it, to say it caps at +2 is effectively saying the "each" statement of the griffon banner is pointless along with the ** section of max ranks.

I also think this would make sense as the item cost a lot of points.

[sedobren]

another rules issue with op's tactics:
does drilled allow you to charge when in column formation?
The rules allow you to declare a charge, and drilled to redress immediately before moving but does "moving" occurs at all since the column formation prevents you from doing the charge movement?

[commandant]

You can declare a charge in column formation, you just can't make a charge move.   

  Not all units can charge. Units that are already engaged in
 combat, that are fleeing, or that rallied during the Strategy
 phase of this turn cannot declare a charge or make a charge
 move. Units that are in Marching Column can declare a
 charge, but cannot make a charge move. In rarer cases, units
 maybe prevented from either declaring a charge, or making a
 charge move, by a special rule or spell effect.

I have always thought that this was an interesting thing to put into the rules.   Like it seems pointless, why would you want to declare a charge when you can't make a charge move.   The answer is because of drilled.   You declare the charge in column formation, use drilled to get into combat formation, then make your charge move which is now legal.

[Hoffa]

This is simply a question about playing the game as written or as intended. We all agree that griffon banner is intended to double the units rank maximum rank bonus to +2 or +4 depending on trop type. The question is how to deal with this type of mistakes.

Assuming the Griffon Standard doesn't increase the cap is literally one of the most bizarre interpretations I would ever see - I could understand if you chumps weren't Empire players but here are the reasons that it clearly increases the max rank bonus.

• I know some of you think GW is stupid; @Peacemaker points out the Warbanner is better or equivalent in all cases with the narrow interpretation. In that case the War Banner costs less points and is usable by every army - the designers ain't that stupid.  Like they may not pay their guys much but even a guy making 30k pounds a year won't be that bad
• It's not like TOW exists in a full vacuum - we can infer some degree of intent by comparing to prior editions (precedent would be the legal term I think).  The biggest argument besides Clymer's quote from p.105 on how special rules allow the max bonus to change is probably the 6th edition wording of the item - the item is almost completely unchanged - https://6th.whfb.app/magic-item/griffon-standard - with the exception that they removed the not pursue requirement (which is probably good as it gives it more counterplay)
• The narrow interpretation sucks - why would you take an interpretation about playing with little toy soldiers that makes the game worse . . . bizarre.

[Hoffa]

If a person is going to start changing rules, why not fix the whole book? Change the points too.

...and if we are doing that, why not do it for the whole game?

If if doing it for the whole game, what do we need Gamesworkshop for?

This is the thing, the game need fixing to be playable. Hopefully GW will faq the most urgent items relatively soon, otherwise someone else need to do it. I think ToW at the core is a really fun game. Problem is that due to badly written rules we currently don't get to play this fun game. Instead it is one frustrating thing after an other, all caused by badly worded or just missing rules.

My suspicion is that the playtesters work to closely with the designers and test RAI and not the actual text written in the books.

[commandant]

If a person is going to start changing rules, why not fix the whole book? Change the points too.

...and if we are doing that, why not do it for the whole game?

If if doing it for the whole game, what do we need Gamesworkshop for?

Also you are not changing rules in reality. Warhammer is a very very complex game with a lot of interesting interactions.   It is also written in a clear but not legalistic way.   Therefore the rules need to be read in a clear but not legalistic way.

My suspicion is that the playtesters work to closely with the designers and test RAI and not the actual text written in the books.

My suspicion is that the play testers assumed that people would read the rules for the meaning they convey instead of attempting to twist advantages out of them.