Topic: FCG on demigryphs - worth it?

[zifnab0]

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.

Refer to p. 98.  There are three situations:
1) Character has the same size base as a R&F model - displace a R&F model in the front rank.
2) Character's footprint is "exactly the same size...as two or more models" - displace models to the back rank.
3) "If a character's footprint does not fit neatly into a unit..." he goes in the front rank in his own file.

Since the WP is not on a 150x75 base, (1) doesn't apply.  He also doesn't have a footprint the same size as two or more models, so (2) doesn't apply.  Therefore, he can only be placed in the unit according to (3).

[Calisson]

Ah, OK, I see what you mean.
I understand now why my proposal encountered such a hot reaction.
The wording in (3) "If a character footprint does not fit neatly into a unit" could be understood in two different ways, which explains the discussion above.


In your reading, there are three possibilities:
1) Character = R&F
2) Character = exactly 2 or 4 R&F
3) footprint does not fit = everything else.

In my reading, there are also three possibilities, but the third has another name, and introduces a new consideration.
1) Character = R&F
2) Character = exactly 2 or 4 R&F
3) When Footprint collide (that's the title of the paragraph)

The way I understood the sentence "If a character footprint does not fit neatly into a unit" was that it was a new condition, "If".
With that understanding, inside (3), I examine if it fits neatly or not.
(3a) If it does not fit neatly, then place on the side, as explained.
(3b) On the other case, if I find the character to fit neatly despite the odd footprint, then there is no additional guidance.
As there's no exception mentioned, I apply the normal rule. The normal rule is that the character goes inside the unit, not on the side.

With that reading, placing characters on the side happens only in few specific exceptions to the normal rules, when nothing else can be done.



Now I understand that for many of you, the word "If" was not introducing a new condition but just summarizing that the two previous options were not met. The very same sentence starting with "As" would have left no doubt.

Unfortunately, it starts with "If", so some people will consider that it introduces a condition.

[MrAbyssal]

I think the clincher is that that character 'needs' to be placed into the front rank. In small units where you force the frontage it can then be displaced by the command group but the character needs to be able to fit 'neatly' into the front rank. This makes sense when you take rules like 'Make Way' etc. into account. If it can't fit into the front rank then it is placed on the outside of the regiment, next to the front rank.

[Stolzeuhu]

Calisson, if there are two possibilities in paragraph "When footprints collide" why only one of it is described?

I think rules are clear here and You are going too far with the interpretation. Book does not say that there are two situations: 1) character has odd footprint but it fits neatly, 2) character has odd footprint and it does not  fit neatly. There is one situation - character has odd footprint. What does it mean? Paragraph describes it as a situation, when character's footprint does not fit neatly. Just it.

Don't you think, that the rulebook would cover the situation You described as 3b?
Also, there is handful of graphics explaining all the possibilities. Why there is none to situation 3b?

I would also like to hear of an example (other than WP in 3 DG) of situation, when character's footprint collide and does fit neatly into a unit. Why would it collide if it fits the unit?

Calisson, what You are doing is rules lawyering, and from my understanding of law when grammatical interpretation is not enough, you search for other ways to find the meaning of the rule.

The purpose of the rules is to make clear how characters are placed into units. All other rules point You to the conclusion, that character joining a unit is placed in the front of the unit. There is an exception (p.97), that says : "if there is no more room in the front rank, some characters will have to go in the second rank".

Sometimes situations occur, that character has different base than models in the unit. And rules for this situation are exception to general rules of character placement, but they are still written in mind, that character should be placed as close to the front as possible. If rules would allow different placement it would be and exception and such possibility should be clearly stated, not concluded via some inaccuracy.

In my opinion in "WP + 3 FCG DG" case two specific rules apply: "When footprints collide" and "Position in the unit if there is no more room". As collision of the footprint requires no room in the unit (apart from some rare occasions when there is no place on the table), because character is placed outside it ("on the edge of the unit"), character shouldn't be moved to the second rank (or even cannot be moved to the second rank, as footprint collision prevents player from doing that).

[Ambrose]

Ah, OK, I see what you mean.
I understand now why my proposal encountered such a hot reaction.
The wording in (3) "If a character footprint does not fit neatly into a unit" could be understood in two different ways, which explains the discussion above.


In your reading, there are three possibilities:
1) Character = R&F
2) Character = exactly 2 or 4 R&F
3) footprint does not fit = everything else.

In my reading, there are also three possibilities, but the third has another name, and introduces a new consideration.
1) Character = R&F
2) Character = exactly 2 or 4 R&F
3) When Footprint collide (that's the title of the paragraph)

The way I understood the sentence "If a character footprint does not fit neatly into a unit" was that it was a new condition, "If".
With that understanding, inside (3), I examine if it fits neatly or not.
(3a) If it does not fit neatly, then place on the side, as explained.
(3b) On the other case, if I find the character to fit neatly despite the odd footprint, then there is no additional guidance.
As there's no exception mentioned, I apply the normal rule. The normal rule is that the character goes inside the unit, not on the side.

With that reading, placing characters on the side happens only in few specific exceptions to the normal rules, when nothing else can be done.



Now I understand that for many of you, the word "If" was not introducing a new condition but just summarizing that the two previous options were not met. The very same sentence starting with "As" would have left no doubt.

Unfortunately, it starts with "If", so some people will consider that it introduces a condition.

With the above thinking, any model can fit in the back row of a DemiGryph unit that does not have a back row; heros on dragons, large spiders, etc.
This does not make sense to me.  I do see how you can read it the way you did Calisson, but I don't think it works that way.

Ambrose

[Calisson]

<now I feel accused, hopefully there's no witch hunter among the readers>

I don't want to bend rules.
I do NOT try to justify, for my sole benefit, an extreme use of a hard to believe combo.
My aim was to allow all willing people to use a legal combo, that they might not have thought about.


The way I have read the rules is as follows:
I saw a sentence starting with the word "If".
Maybe I've spent too long a time in computer science, but when I see an English sentence starting with "If", I expect the structure to be as such:
If {condition} then {consequence}.
Such sentence usually implies that {condition} can be met, or not met.
Naturally, I came to expect that there could be a case when {condition} was not met.
I only found out in this thread that many of you guys consider that {condition} is always met, so that's not a condition.
You guys react just as if the rule was written with the word "As", or "Since".

Apologises if I reacted as if the rule started with "If"... hey wait, it does start with "If"...
"Eppure si muove" (Galileo)

Hopefully, Your Honour, you understand now better how I came to the conclusions shown before.

Calisson, if there are two possibilities in paragraph "When footprints collide" why only one of it is described?

Because only that one introduces a divergence from the normal rules, perhaps?

The full conditional sentence is normally: If {condition} then {consequence} else {other consequence}. However, "else..." is not mandatory.
When {other consequence} is not mentioned, that means that there's no change from normal situation if {condition} is not met, period.

With the above thinking, any model can fit in the back row of a DemiGryph unit that does not have a back row; heros on dragons, etc.

Yes.
Why not? Is it any more strange than placing a Pegasus inside infantry?
BTW, thank you for making the effort to understand how I came to diverging conclusions - that I require nobody to share. 

Overall, I'm rather sorry that such rule discussion took over such a large space. It has been polite and argumented, thank you all for that.

Still, as we are here, could you tell me how you would place a WP in or next to a unit of 2+1 DG, FC?
Would it result in the WP being in front aside two of the CG, while the 3rd CG is left on the 2nd rank?
That would be odd, wouldn't it?
Or are you telling me that it is the case (4) of BRB p.98, when no solution is found?

[Stolzeuhu]

I would place him on the edge of the unit, no matter how many demigryphs are left. Just as the rules says to do it. I guess that BRB is written in a way to make rules as clear as it is possible, so there would be at least a line mentioning that situation 3b is possible.

I understand Your way of thinking, though as I see it, every argument apart from pure textual interpretation of "If" word is against it: paragraph layout, other rules, character placement rule purpose, etc.

And also there is no example of situation when footprints do collide but footprint fit neatly. You wrote that 3a brings divergence to normal rules, but isn't 3b also different (normal rules are when character joins unit. When they have different bases, You stop using normal rules and start using "Different-sized bases" from p.98)?

I enjoy that conversation as much as all warhammer rules discussions, If I sounded harsh, please excuse me. I just don't think that this combo is legal.

[Lord Solar Plexus]

"If" (or rather "If not 1 or 2) does indeed introduce a new condition. This new condition is met if 1 or 2 do not apply. It is however an opposite, not a summary, just as vice versa. "Colliding" and "not fitting neatly" should IMO be considered interchangeable variants, not two distinct possibilities.

If the new condition is met, the character has to be placed in the front row to the side.

With that understanding, inside (3), I examine if it fits neatly or not.

I think this examination comes prior to option 3, or in other words, option 3 follows from the result of this observation if we assume that "fits neatly" = "odd" = "collides".

The sentence cannot start with "as" since it does not follow from the other two. You could not say 1) same base size, 2) a multiple of the base size, 3) as/because it does not fit.

[zifnab0]

Maybe I've spent too long a time in computer science, but when I see an English sentence starting with "If", I expect the structure to be as such:
If {condition} then {consequence}.

The sentence does work that way.  If {doesn't fit neatly} then {place beside the unit}.  But the sentence doesn't tell us what "neatly" means.  There are two possible results:
1) The preceding paragraphs describe an exhaustive list of models "neatly" fitting.  Any model not meeting these requirements doesn't "neatly" fit.
2) The preceding paragraphs describe other situations, but don't limit what is "neatly fitting."  This leaves the limits of the term "neatly fitting" undefined and subject to player interpretation.

#2 doesn't seem likely, because it creates an instance where you must follow a rule, but doesn't describe what the rule is.

Still, as we are here, could you tell me how you would place a WP in or next to a unit of 2+1 DG, FC?
Would it result in the WP being in front aside two of the CG, while the 3rd CG is left on the 2nd rank?
That would be odd, wouldn't it?

If you've got 3 Demigryphs arranged in 2 ranks and added a mounted warrior priest, your first rank would contain two demigryphs and a warrior priest.  The second rank would contain a single Demigryph behind one of the demigryphs in the front rank.

[Calisson]

Yeah, it seems that I made unwillingly too RAW a reading.
Thanks for the patient, educated explanations.
Edited the initial post with a warning.

If you've got 3 Demigryphs arranged in 2 ranks and added a mounted warrior priest, your first rank would contain two demigryphs and a warrior priest.  The second rank would contain a single Demigryph behind one of the demigryphs in the front rank.

Now we've found a way to have a member of a command group in the second rank when a character is in the front rank of the same unit!
Have one.

... and the proud war priest galloped towards the enemy, thinking:
"Sigmar be blessed.
I had asked for years the protocol about how to get the pennant bearer to ride behind me, the true servant of Sigmar.
Finally, we've found the answer!
Now, let's make sure that the griffon's beak is not too close to my horse."

[Ambrose]

Calisson, I did not mean to offend.  Sorry if it came across that way.

As for fluff, I totally see Warrior Priests joining any and every unit of the Empire except those that are magic heavy.  I even see them leading huge hordes of flagellants.

Me and my group have always read the rule 'fitting in neatly' as a base size being able to divide evenly into a larger base side.
eg. 20x20 based models in a horde could fit any multiple of 20 base side into their unit (40x40, 40x60, etc...).  Now, there are rules that certain unit types cannot join units (monsters, etc...) but if they are allowed to enter other units, then their base sizes should evenly divide into each other.

.....I think I just confused the situation even more....