Attacks vs Ranks?

[Swab]

I was wondering what is better, having more ranks for the +1 bonus or getting in more attacks? I personally have 2 ranks of 6 with a spare in the back for the 13 sized squads (one box+command) that way I can deal the most damage on the charge or be able to retaliate from a charge. I thought about taking 7 wide but that decreases maneuverability and is almost too many points. What do you think?

I found out the hard way that ranks matter in armies such as dwarves who like static fighting.

But what about for elves with our low armor?

[Xerasi]

I'm sure a lot of people will be wanting to help you, but your question is very unclear. Are we talking about warriors? or elites? and in what situations?

A confused Xerasi

[Dyvim tvar]

Depends on the troop type.

Spearmen are cheap and can get a 4+ save in hth, but aren't very good at dealing damage. So it makes sense to max-out their rank bonus.

On the other end of the spectrum, Black Guard are expensive, so it is not a good return on investment to buy a lot of ranks. At the same time, with Strength 4 and Eternal Hatred, they are pretty good at dealing damage, so it makes sense to run them in wide units.

[Swab]

alright cool, thats what I was wondering.

[Prince of arnheim]

Depends on the unit.

Executioners,Witch Elves,Black Guard,and Xbow Warriors can work in 13's.

For Warriors use 19 with a mounted Character for 21 spaces deployed in a 3x7 formation. This will give you both attacks and ranks.

It is all about the frontages of 7.

Executioners can also be at 21 as they can sometimes get hurt badly by a charge and they are not stubborn.

This kind of army setup really works well with the Cauldron of Blood for support.

[Getwisteerd]

Warriors: ranks
Corsairs/executioners: can do both
Black guard, witch elves, cold ones: attacks.

If you're going for attacks its best to put them 7 wide, except with cold ones which have bigger bases and so are best 6 wide. This means that you'll get the maximum number of attacks at a 5-wide unit. I've never used executioners in 3 or more ranks but I suppose it could work because they are pretty cheap.

[Madlarks]

Is there a reason people keep suggesting 13 for 7 frontages? Why not 14 that way should you not loose one and get the charge you will still the get the rank Any particular reason why 13 is better?

[Zentaricai]

all of us "reanimated folks" vote Ranks :-)

[Manaurith]

they are most likly just geting as cheeply out of it as posible and stil get a rank bonus. personally I feald 14 looks neter

[Dyvim tvar]

Is there a reason people keep suggesting 13 for 7 frontages? Why not 14 that way should you not loose one and get the charge you will still the get the rank Any particular reason why 13 is better?

Actually, you can get rank bonus with an incomplete rank as long as there are 5 models in the incomplete rank. So a unit of 12 could deploy 7-wide and still get a +1 rank bonus.

Some people prefer 13 since that is a breaking point for panic purposes. If you only have 12, losing 4 models to missile fire/magic causes a panic test. A unit of 13 needs to take 5 wounds for panic to kick in.

But I don't think 13 is necessarily any better than 14 for a unit of elite infantry. Since our elite infantry is pretty vulnerable to missiles and magic, I like to have an extra body or two to help soak it up.

[Swab]

I think people suggest 13 wide for multiple reasons.

1. Still get a rank bonus.
2. Harder to break
3. GW sells 10 models in a box with 3 for the full command thus 13. Its cheaper
4. 13 is a lucky number