8th Ed. Kroxigar in Skinks

[HoverBoy]

Does arguing really matter, what are the odds of you two ever meeting.

 

[cyanhawk]

I just did something crazy and sent an email to GW customer service so that we get a written reply. Will both sides take the email response as an answer to this scenario?

Here is what I have asked them:

How many ranks do the kroxigors count as for the purpose of a horde formation?

If I have a unit :

ssssssssss <- Skink
kkkkkkkkkk <-Kroxigor
kkkkkkkkkk
ssssssssss <- Skink

This unit would be in horde formation with 10 skinks up front then 5 krox then 10 more skinks. Would the 2nd row of skinks get to attack i.e. is it the 3rd rank or the 4th rank?

if I have a unit:

ssssssssss <- Skink
sskkkkkkss <-Kroxigor
sskkkkkkss
ssssssssss <- Skink

This unit has 10 skinks up front then 3 kroxigor in the with 8 skinks filling out the middle rank than 10 skinks in the back. Would the far back row count as a third rank or fourth rank?

I have checked the LM FAQ and the BRB FAQ and neither are particularly clear. I think the tricky spot is that the LM book specifies that the krox count as 4 skinks for rank bonus and does not mention ranks.

Any clarity would be appreciated.

 

[TheRolfgar]

id rather give my opponent the extra 6 skink attacks then give him an extra rank for steadfast.

Steadfast is pretty clear and states "as determining rank bonus" or something similar, so the skrox get the extra rank for determining steadfast either way.

to cyanhawk: I appreciate the effort, however I still stand by my earlier statement that anything from CS outside of a direct faq isn't very useful. I'd be interested to see the answer either way, so long as they give reasoning to their claim.

And its also correct that arguing doesn't really matter, it was an interesting discussion for a while but there really isn't anything else to say.

 

[cyanhawk]

Well the customer service guys have referred me to the official GW faq team for an answer. gamefaqs@gamesworkshop.com has been emailed. I dont have high hopes for getting a response, but I would say if one comes from this email account it would be about as official as possible.

Personally I am in the camp that the krox count as two ranks worth of skinks. If you fill up your second horde rank with 5 krox you get no attacks from the 10 skinks behind them. if you only put 4 or less krox then the extra skinks in the krox ranks would get attacks. But I see some valid points from the opposition camp as well.

To everyone saying "its just 10 more skink attacks" Imagine those attacks after an okhams cast on the unit. Now it 10 more str 6 attacks. Sure its just ws 2, but that could do a lot of damage. In a dual slann light/shadow list the unit could be ws 10 in 10 str 6 with 35 attacks. God forbid time warp goes off too and you have 45 of those attacks ASF re-rolling misses. Could be nasty.

 

[SanDiegoSurrealist]

I am a Graphic Artist by trade and work better when things are presented to me visually, I created this chart to illustrate how this works, and hopefully this helps others better understand.

This unit is based on 20mm, so when you add a 40mm base it is just displacing the 20mm bases and counts as if 1 model was taking up 4 20mm bases.

A Slann (who is on a 50mm) base would be placed on the outside corner of this unit because he cannot evenly displace the 20mm bases.

 

[Coatl]

the only issue i have with your diagram is the middle and last statement. nowhere in the brb or the army book does it say either of those things. the rules don't state how to count different sized models within a unit, it only talks about characters and when they join a unit. im not saying either side is right or wrong, but if your going by the rules then you can't make the statement that they "count as" because it doesn't actually say that anywhere.

for instance, the screaming bell/plague furnace (only unique unit i can think of right now ) actually says that it counts as the number of displaced rats when it comes to counting ranks. it might be a solid assumption to draw the same correlation between the two units, alls im saying is its an assumption. some people don't see it that way and you can't really fault them for it

 

[Cravenus]

http://www.lustria-online.com/viewtopic.php?p=58463#p58463

Coatl does an excellent job debunking this post so I wont bother.

I just did something crazy and sent an email to GW customer service so that we get a written reply. Will both sides take the email response as an answer to this scenario?....

I Have no problem with this solution at all.

...I have checked the LM FAQ and the BRB FAQ and neither are particularly clear. I think the tricky spot is that the LM book specifies that the krox count as 4 skinks for rank bonus and does not mention ranks.

This nicely destills the point that I'm trying to make.

Steadfast is pretty clear and states "as determining rank bonus" or something similar, so the skrox get the extra rank for determining steadfast either way.

I find it odd that you notice that this rule specifically calls out rank bonus, while not being able to see the same terminology in the LMAB

Sandiego your picture is nice an I borrowed it to demponstrate my point(Sorry for violating your copyright)

This demonstrates my stance quite well, and stems from the following interpretation of the rules.
All models count as 1 rank/file reguardless of size. If you could stuff a stegodon into a squad without it being a character, youd get supporting attacks through it(it's an exagerrated example but what the hey)
the 1st rank in the squad is in front. The second rank is every model directly behind a model in rank 1. The 3rd rank is every model behind a model in rank 2. etc.
while a model can count as being in both ranks if its large enough(characters do this as per pg 95) normal models don't by default; any instance where they do would have to fall on thier army book as the BRB doesn't support that stance. Skrox units have the wording in our armybook that they do, but only when working out combat resolution.

 

[SanDiegoSurrealist]

Page 41 LMRB, but I think that pg 98 WHBR pretty much covers it with the statement -

“…Here we use a little common sense to make everything work.
If a character’s model base is larger than one model but has exactly the same size area (or “footprint”) as two or more models, simply displace those to the back rank and position the character in their place.”

If it applies to how characters fit in to units with different sized bases; I think it is safe to assume that it is transferable to all models when discussing base sizes and model displacement.

It is such a rare and specialized instance that it happens in regular troops that I can understand why they felt there was no need for a section discussing this when it came to Troops. Best left it to the individual army books to sort out.

 

[Cravenus]

If it applies to how characters fit in to units with different sized bases; I think it is safe to assume that it is transferable to all models when discussing base sizes and model displacement.

the problem with that is that its not transferable. If we worked the rules like that, i could take a single rank and file model(say left over from another squad who took casualties) and add him to any other squad, using the same transferring option.

But lets assume that it is applicable. When you have 2 rules in conflict, you default to the army book, not the core book.

the pg98 rule obviously conflicts with the SKrox rule in the LMAB. The two rules are similar, yet conflicting, thus you would default to the LMAB which affects fewer abilities.

Now, I'll be the 1st to point out in 7th ed(our codex edition) that there was no supporting attacks, and that ranks were pretty much only used to define combat resolution. However to assume that here would be RAI(depending on what GW intended) as opposed to RAW. It would have been nice of GW to FAQ it as it would only require the removal of the "when calculating combat resolution" part of our rules, but they didn't(or they did im too lazy to crosscheck the FAQ atm so)

 

[TheRolfgar]

No one is saying kroxigors work like characters in every way. What is being said is that if you choose to ignore pg 98 in regards to the krox, you don't have any rule at all. You are making a blind assumption, the LM AB does not explain this. Those choosing to look to pg 98 to resolve this issue are doing so because it is the only place in the brb that this scenario is explained at all. I would rather use a rule that is explained than use nothing at all.

The rules on pg 98 don't even give the model in question a special rule. It only describes how to handle their larger footprint.

 

[Cravenus]

No one is saying kroxigors work like characters in every way. What is being said is that if you choose to ignore pg 98 in regards to the krox, you don't have any rule at all. You are making a blind assumption, the LM AB does not explain this. Those choosing to look to pg 98 to resolve this issue are doing so because it is the only place in the brb that this scenario is explained at all. I would rather use a rule that is explained than use nothing at all.

The rules on pg 98 don't even give the model in question a special rule. It only describes how to handle their larger footprint.

There is no blind assumption being made.

If you look at the pg 98 rule. and look at the LMAB rule as well, there's ONLY 1 difference.

p98 treats the larger model as 4 small models for rank, and thus, bonus, and also supporting attacks, and everything else that might be affected by rank.

the LMAB rule says the same thing as pg98, it just limits it to rank bonus, not true rank.

the difference is that the LMAB rule doesn't affect all rank rules, just combat res, so you still treat the krox as 1 rank for supporting attacks, or any other non combat resolution rank rule.

 

[BEEGfrog]

I have been away from this fight for a few days and a whole lot of arguing has happened, without me!

The big point to me is that there is one section of the rules about which models get supporting attacks and an entirely different section of the rules about units and how to calculate ranks for rank bonusses and steadfast.

When looking at what is affected: One section about models, one section about units. When looking at what are of the rules is covered: again, one section is about supporting attacks and one section is about rank bonusses.

The rules in the two areas are about two different parts of the rules and they are about two different types of object.

UNITS count equivalent ground area for determining THE UNITS effective number of ranks.

MODELS count the number of actual models in front of them for determining if THE MODEL has supporting attacks.

The two sets of rules are different it is wrong to extend rules intended for whole units to rules intended for models within a unit.

There is an analogy to micro and macro economics: micro-rank rules determine supporting attacks as they are about how the model works within the unit; macro-rank rules determine a rank value for the unit as a whole. Both sets of rules are about ranks but from a different viewpoint and with a different subject.

 

[TheRolfgar]

Except the part where supporting attacks are in fact based on what rank you are in, not how many models are in front of you. Although you do only gain supporting attacks if you are both in the correct rank, and the model in the first rank is eligible to attack. I've already quoted the brb in regards to supporting attacks.

 

[BEEGfrog]

Except the part where supporting attacks are in fact based on what rank you are in, not how many models are in front of you. Although you do only gain supporting attacks if you are both in the correct rank, and the model in the first rank is eligible to attack. I've already quoted the brb in regards to supporting attacks.

Interested to see where the BRB has anything to do with supporting attacks or extra attacks close to where it talks about how to calculate ranks. The only place I have seen anything about supporting attacks says a model has to be behind a model able to fight.

The extra ranks of models rules talk about extra ranks fighting (again nowhere near the stuff about calculating rank equivalents for whole units) without giving a precise mechanism.

There is a precise method for determining if a model in a second rank can make a supporting attack.
There is a precise method for determining the number of ranks in a unit with mixed base sizes.
But there isn't a precise defined method for determining which models can supporting attack when the extra ranks rule is applicable as it just says an extra rank can fight.

This lack of precision means that other rules have to be extrapolated to cover the situation in units with mixed bases. I choose to extrapolate the rule from the making close combat attacks sub-phase about models making supporting attacks having to be behind an eligible attacker rather than the combat resolution sub-phase rules about how whole units calculate ranks after the fighting is over.

Counting actual ranks is a rule about how MODELS make attacks; counting base depth equivalents is a rule about how UNITS determine the result of a round of combat. Which one is more relevant to working out if a MODEL can make an attack?