Topic: FCG on demigryphs - worth it?

[GenOmar]

It says on p. 45 that if a unit of models with more than 1 wound suffers wounds, you must remove as many whole models as possible and that you are not allowed to spread the wounds to avoid casualties.

But that is not true in relation to champions, because for them to be killed, a wound needs to be allocated to them, and dividing the wounds states that they can (and will) be allocated to the Champion. The rule you reference is so that you cannot have 6 ogres all with 1 wound off each. Rather you would have 4 Ogres and 2 dead ones.

I'm not sure I get it. I would remove as many whole models as possible, and start allocating unsaved wounds to the champion when the others were dead (if we wasn't the target of directed attacks). Can I please ask for a page reference?

I think I missed excatly where this started, but page 93 in BRB, spells out champions in CC. a wound does not need to be allocated to them. unless they are slain by a direct attack(in base contact), they are the last RnF removed from the unit.

[Maza]

The issue was first about the possibility of spreading wounds in a unit of DGK's with champion. There were some different views on this.

I'm still a bit confused, but thanks anyway for your reply. 

I'll just interpret the rules in a way I will be able to explain to my opponent.

[GenOmar]

okay if there was a unit of DGK's with full command in CC with some enemy unit, and the enemy unit inflicted 4 unsaved wounds (by whatever means), the Muso would be remove as a casuality and the standard bearer would receive a wound, as per command groups on page 93.
if however all the attacks were directed at the unit champions for some reasons those 4 wounds would remove the champion, leaving both the Muso and SB unscathed, also only 3 wounds (the number on profile) would count towards CR.
wounds from attacks directed to the champion (or a character) do not carry over to the RnF models.
does that help?

[Maza]

Thanks GenOmar, that is how I will play! 

[Warlord]

Agree for CC.

For allocating wounds via missile fire though it is different.

I will see if I can find the reference.

[GenOmar]

page 45, remove as many as whole models as possible

[StealthKnightSteg]

My opinion:

Champion: added attack can help, so yes
SB: No, I won't take a magic banner besides the flaming attacks and I rather use that on a bigger or shooty unit as I don't want to risk the demi chickens against monsters or trolls (vomit attack is ouchie!) so no need to take the SB as it's also autokilled on breaking.
Mus: Maybe for the draw sitations, but the 3 demi chickens is a small enough unit that wheeling it would suffice and no real need for the chance on free reform.

[Calisson]

I just realized another reason for taking FCG with 3 demigriffs:
add a priest.
FC goes in front, the priest remains safely behind them. 
They got hatred plus whatever buffs.
And the priest can even participate from behind to the combat, where nobody can target him.
Nice with the big magic weapon which leaves out only one attack - but a mighty one - sorry, haven't my book ATM.

EDIT: This combo is based on a rule interpretation which is not supported by several other readers.
As shown  in the argumentation written in the many posts below.

Agree for CC.

For allocating wounds via missile fire though it is different.

I will see if I can find the reference.

3. Champion.
It's not about +1 attack. That's just a bonus. It's about wound allocation from shooting (you can suffer 4 wounds and not loose a single model) ...

Unfortunately, it is not the case.
BRB p.93. The champion is just the last one to get the wounds from BS shooting, there is no randomizing. Therefore, if you suffer 3 wounds, you do lose a model.

If 3 demigriff, full command, suffer wounds from BS shooting, this is what happens:
- the muso dies with the third wound
- the pennant dies with the sixth wound
- the champ dies with the ninth wound.

[Ambrose]

Can a mounted WP join monsterous calvary?  I did not know that.  Cool.

[StealthKnightSteg]

Can a mounted WP join monsterous calvary?  I did not know that.  Cool.

just like cavalry can join infantry

[zifnab0]

Wouldn't the WP have to be placed to the side of the unit because his base is incompatible with the Demigryphs?

[Ambrose]

That was my thought, making it not possible for the WP to avoid combat unless the bases of the DGK are large enough to keep him out of combat.

[Calisson]

Wouldn't the WP have to be placed to the side of the unit because his base is incompatible with the Demigryphs?

This happens "If a character footprint does not fit neatly inside a unit" (BRB p.98).
Three DG make a nice first rank.
A fourth model, be it a DG or a WP, has not the slightest trouble to be placed to the second rank, where he will be alone.
Even if there was a 4th DG, a WP could still be placed next to him without making any trouble.
Even 7 DG could have a WP on the second rank without trouble: FC in the front, 2DG + WP on the 2nd rank (where the WP could not be in the middle), last 2 DG behind the 2nd rank's DG. No problem.

[MrAbyssal]

Really though, they should have just given us the option to have heroes on demigriffs...

[Syn Ace]

The whole thing of running FC in a unit of 3 DG and then popping a WP in back to make him safe seems a bit suspect and definitely has a wiff of gaminess. Seeing as a character with a different footprint gets popped onto the side of the unit and upfront, ignoring the normal rules for rank composition (for example, 6 guys in the front rank when the rest of the block is 5) I would say that trying to put the WP in back would be illegal.

[Lord Solar Plexus]

That's my reading as well. Different* footprint = front & side.



*as in really different, not just larger but fitting as a Pegasus.

[rufus sparkfire]

Really though, they should have just given us the option to have heroes on demigriffs...

Especially the grandmaster. It's nonsensical that he can't ride one.

[Calisson]

The whole thing of running FC in a unit of 3 DG and then popping a WP in back to make him safe seems a bit suspect and definitely has a wiff of gaminess. Seeing as a character with a different footprint gets popped onto the side of the unit and upfront, ignoring the normal rules for rank composition (for example, 6 guys in the front rank when the rest of the block is 5) I would say that trying to put the WP in back would be illegal.

Definitively not illegal. I quoted the exact rule already: "If a character footprint does not fit neatly inside a unit" (BRB p.98).
As you can read, it's not about being "different", but it's about "not fitting neatly".
How in the world could you argue that 3 DG in front and 1 WP in the rear is not as neat as 3 DG in front and 1 DG in the rear?
Please don't call illegal what is breaking only your modified version of a rule. Make your home rules if you wish, though.


As for the fluff, I'd easily imagine the priest exhorting the knights
"Go and attack those heretic enemies of Sigmar - but please keep your beasts's beaks away from my horse"

[Stolzeuhu]

The rule is clear - If the footprint does not fit neatly You put the model "on the edge of the unit beside front rank". The general rule is to give the characters possibility to fight, any other rules that gives You the option to hide characters are just exceptions. There is no exception in my book that allows to do what Calisson wrote, unfortunately.

[Stiv]

Definitively not illegal. I quoted the exact rule already: "If a character footprint does not fit neatly inside a unit" (BRB p.98).
As you can read, it's not about being "different", but it's about "not fitting neatly".
How in the world could you argue that 3 DG in front and 1 WP in the rear is not as neat as 3 DG in front and 1 DG in the rear?
Please don't call illegal what is breaking only your modified version of a rule. Make your home rules if you wish, though.

It's quite illegal.

"Fitting neatly" is when 40x40mm base fits neatly into a unit of 20x20 infantry or 25x50 cavalry base fits nicely into 25x25 infantry unit. 25x50 cavalry model under no circumstances "fits neatly" into 50x75 unit size. The only thing "fitting neatly" into a unit of demigryphs is a giant 

[zifnab0]

An arachnarok (100x150) could also "fit neatly" into a unit of Demigryphs. 

[Lord Solar Plexus]

Please don't call illegal what is breaking only your modified version of a rule. Make your home rules if you wish, though.

Please do not call legal what is only your incorrect interpretation. Oh wait, I'm going to enhance my argument typographically!

[Calisson]

I try to read what is written, without skipping some words, without adding some words. I expect you to do the same, please.

The rule nowhere requires the character to have an exact multiple of the other model's footprints.
To fit neatly inside the unit is enough.
Sure, exact multiple footprints do fit neatly. All the examples you provide are perfect examples of multiple footprints.
But if multiple footprints are a solution, it is nowhere written that it is the only, mandatory solution.
Here, I try to investigate an alternative.


I fully understand that if the WP wanted to join a unit of 9 DG, placing him anywhere inside the first or second row would disturb the ranks behind him. With no solution to place him inside without disturbing the unit, he would have to go on the side.

But here, I am talking specifically about a very small unit of 3 DG.
In the case I examine, the 3 DG together make a rectangle 150x75.
Suppose I had a 4th DG, that would make a "L-shape" unit, made of the same 150x75 rectangle with a 50x75 extension behind.
Adding a WP instead of a 4th DG makes a "L-shape" unit as well, it's just that the extension is smaller, only 25x50.

How can anyone argue that one L-shape is less neat than another L-shape?
They are both legal, even if they don't please some of you.

[Stiv]

Do you REALLY, HONESTLY believe you are right, or are you just trolling? In either case - 

[Calisson]

Do you REALLY, HONESTLY believe you are right, or are you just trolling? In either case - 

The arguments I bring are too elaborate, patient and respectful for a troll
Hopefully you're not that much out of argument that only calling names remain! 

I did edit a little bit my previous post while you were answering, so I'm not sure about what you are referring at exactly.
But yes, I really think that a WP could be placed behind 3 DG with FC.
Actually, I would also accept a WP inside a unit of 2 DG in front (command group) and 1 DG behind along with the WP.
I would not accept a DG behind a WP, if they were many DGs. That would leave holes in the unit, and this is not neat.

The general rule is to give the characters possibility to fight, any other rules that gives You the option to hide characters are just exceptions. There is no exception in my book that allows to do what Calisson wrote, unfortunately.

Yes there is. BRB P.97, "position in the unit".
As the command group takes the whole first rank, characters go in the second rank.