seems to me that the Grey knight one has been tweaked a little too.
Q: Is Cleansing Flame a shooting attack or a close
combat attack? (p31)
A: A close combat attack
Q: What happens to an embarked Dreadnought that
suffers an Immobilized result from the hit when the
Stormraven it is embarked in Explodes? (p37)
A: It is Destroyed as it is unable to disembark
Q: Is a unit that assaults, or is assaulted by, multiple
units with rad or psychotroke grenades subjected to
the effects multiple times? (p60-61)
A: No
.. time to see if any of the others have been tweaked as well.
and the ork one too yes ..?
Q: If an Independent Character on a warbike joins
Snikrot’s unit before the game starts, can they still turn
up using the Ambush special rule? (p62)
A: Yes
Q: What cover save does kustom force field give to a
vehicle within 6" of it? (p35)
A: 4+. Note that for a squadron of vehicles only those
within 6” of the custom force filed will count as
obscured
.... errr... okay...
.. not how we'd been playing it.. makes the kan wall a bit less viable.
Q: What part of a skimmer on a large oval flying base
is used to determine if it is in/on terrain or if it is on
friendly or enemy models? (p71)
A: Just the base itself.
Q: If a skimmer on a large oval flying base is wrecked,
and its base is completely surrounded by enemy
models, are all embarked models killed? (p71)
A: Yes.
Q: Can you ram a skimmer on a large oval flying base?
(p71)
A: Yes, you have to make contact with either the base
or the hull
Q: What cover save does kustom force field give to a
vehicle within 6" of it? (p35)
A: 4+. Note that for a squadron of vehicles only those
within 6” of the custom force filed will count as
obscured
.... errr... okay...
.. not how we'd been playing it.. makes the kan wall a bit less viable.
Any Kan in the unit that isn't within 6" will get a 5+ invulnerable save, though, and this is actually how I see most people play it.
I feel extremely vindicated about the Grey Knight FAQ :
reds8n wrote: The CoD is pretty much from the recent WD.
Any Kan in the unit that isn't within 6" will get a 5+ invulnerable save
..they will.. ?
Well, they'll get a 5+ cover as any unit within range gets that. Vehicles count as obscured as per the FAQ, which actually isn't a rules change at all and is RAW.
Admittedly the 5+ cover technically only works on wounds, but GW has abandoned that line of thought pretty clearly in recent books and such. Therefore, so be it.
I'll have to read the Kustom Force Field rules again for the exact wording, but I'm not thinking that this FAQ ruling allows the vehicle the 5+ cover save, Neconilis.
Also,
Q: If a Librarian embarked on a vehicle attempts to use
Vortex of Doom and fails his psychic test, what
happens? (p25)
A: Place the template over the vehicle the Librarian is
embarked in and resolve the hit against the vehicle’s
rear armor value. (Librarians. Dicks of the 40th Millennium! "Hey Einstein! Get the feth out of my Rhino if your going to fling that lightning gak around!")
However, the Valks and Stormravens were a contradiction before this. If there was a tank sitting on an objective, I could ram it with another tank, hoping to take it out.
If a Valk was sitting on an objective, not only could I not ram it, but I potentially couldn't move up to contest the objective since I have to stay away 1" away from the opponent's models. Also a lame game mechanic.
Some interesting stuff in this FAQ release. Also, there are some answers to some extremely dumb questions. I really hate GW. There are legitimate questions that need some answering, but instead they answer stupid ass questions like this one:
Q: If a Razorback armed with a lascannon and twinlinked
plasma gun suffers a weapon destroyed result,
does it destroy both weapons or just one? (p92)
A: Only one weapon – either the lascannon or the twinlinked
plasma gun.
lolwut? Why waste time answering a question like that...
H.B.M.C. wrote:Yes, I understand the rules mechanic, I'm more talking about the absurdity of a tank ramming an aircraft.
It truly is the Dark Millennium.
(The real answer is that flyers are mundane skimmers with a fancy base in 5th edition, and in the absence of some special rule, are capable of being rammed)
Q: If a Razorback armed with a lascannon and twinlinked
plasma gun suffers a weapon destroyed result,
does it destroy both weapons or just one? (p92)
A: Only one weapon – either the lascannon or the twinlinked
plasma gun.
lolwut? Why waste time answering a question like that...
That's just a copy/paste from every other codex with a Razorback, it took no time. And you'd be surprised how often that question comes up.
Q: What cover save does kustom force field give to a
vehicle within 6" of it? (p35)
A: 4+. Note that for a squadron of vehicles only those
within 6” of the custom force filed will count as
obscured
.... errr... okay...
.. not how we'd been playing it.. makes the kan wall a bit less viable.
Not really. As long as half the unit is Obscured the whole unit gets the save. For some reason they felt the need to make sure people didn't try to claim the the save with just one of three Kans in range of the KFF.
Glad to see they gave ruling for the Kans and KFF. People I know have been playing it forever that if one Kan was in range they got a 4+. We'd only recently started playing differently in Cali before I left.
H.B.M.C. wrote:Yes, I understand the rules mechanic, I'm more talking about the absurdity of a tank ramming an aircraft.
Yeah I actually had my Valk rammed out of the sky by a Vindy the otherday....
Roll on 6th for proper flyer rules...
On the other hand that was hilarious so I'm more than happy for it to stay that way.
e: There's no question of Kans getting a 5+ cover as long as 1 of the unit is in range, and 4+ if two or more are (and the individual Kan in 6 would still get a 4+ cover in the first scenario). The wording is exactly consistent with stuff like Shield of Sanguinius.
But the squadron rules specifically tell you when you will get a cover save so they wouldn't get the 5+.
Units within 6" get a 5+ cover save.
A vehicle squadron is a unit, so they will get the cover save. There's nothing in the squadron rules that indicates they're somehow ineligible. The only argument that kinda works is that vehicles can't use cover saves, but there's enough precedent now that I don't think it holds.
Because people ask them and argue about them, repeatedly and often. And when one looks at the rules arguments that appear online, what seems obvious to one person clearly isn't to everyone. If someone had gone in the rules forum for 40K here six months ago and asked, "does the lascannon/plasma gun turret weapon on the Razorback count as one weapon or two?" there would have been a HUGE debate going on about it, some of the comments would surely have been acrimonious, and no resolution would have been reached to everyone's satisfaction. That is why GW answers questions like that.
Because people ask them and argue about them, repeatedly and often. And when one looks at the rules arguments that appear online, what seems obvious to one person clearly isn't to everyone. If someone had gone in the rules forum for 40K here six months ago and asked, "does the lascannon/plasma gun turret weapon on the Razorback count as one weapon or two?" there would have been a HUGE debate going on about it, some of the comments would surely have been acrimonious, and no resolution would have been reached to everyone's satisfaction. That is why GW answers questions like that.
The answer to that question seems 100% clearcut to me. There could be no other way to play it. Other questions like how Ork Trukks work if it rolls a Kareen! result while immobilized does not seem so clearcut to me. My group plays it RAW and it doesn't move, but I have seen the threads over this tidbit and they are long and exhausting and it seems obvious to me that no two people agree on how it should work. What about the Shock Prow of a Raider counting as part of the hull? Have you seen THAT thread? The answers to those questions don't seem clearcut to me at all, and yet GW chooses to answer this one... not to mention countless other questions I have seen in the FAQs that just seem so mind-numbingly dumb that it boggles me as to how GW could even consider wasting the time answering such questions.
it seems obvious to me that no two people agree on how it should work.
That was my point and again, I'm sure it's why GW took the time to answer it in the FAQ. The next time someone tries to argue about it everyone can be glad that GW took the time to create an official ruling for it. I don't see any point in some people criticizing GW over answering questions like this, the constant arguments over items like that are why they do so. Everyone always thinks their point of view is the "obvious" common-sense view, the problem is there always seem to be at least two diametrically opposed views that are "obvious" to someone. And that's why there's a need for FAQs with "obvious" answers. To some, the answer was obvious, to others the answer is the exact opposite of what they thought was obvious.
Games Workshop Rulebook FAQ wrote:Q: Do any upgrades or special rules a vehicle has cease
to work once it is destroyed? (p61)
A: Yes. For example if a Land Raider Crusader is
destroyed by ramming an enemy vehicle, its embarked
passengers would not be able to launch an assault in
the ensuing Assault phase as they would no longer
benefit from its Assault Vehicle special rule.
Looks like that may solve anything to do with Trukks too.
H.B.M.C. wrote:Yes, I understand the rules mechanic, I'm more talking about the absurdity of a tank ramming an aircraft.
I imagine that Valk's to be the 40k equivalent of a Huey with some attached AT weapons. If a Huey is low to the ground dropping off troops, then it most certainly could be rammed. It is very possible for a Huey to be rammed by a tank, although most pilots will be able to get into the air before the tank gets there and dodge. Hence the save.
Q: What cover save does kustom force field give to a
vehicle within 6" of it? (p35)
A: 4+. Note that for a squadron of vehicles only those
within 6” of the custom force filed will count as
obscured
.... errr... okay...
.. not how we'd been playing it.. makes the kan wall a bit less viable.
Unless I'm reading it wrong this just clarifies the way Kan Wall works. Only the the Kanz in a squadron with in 6" of the KFF are obscured. So if 50% of squadron are obscured, the whole squadron gets 4+ Cover.
Q: What cover save does kustom force field give to a
vehicle within 6" of it? (p35)
A: 4+. Note that for a squadron of vehicles only those
within 6” of the custom force filed will count as
obscured
.... errr... okay...
.. not how we'd been playing it.. makes the kan wall a bit less viable.
Unless I'm reading it wrong this just clarifies the way Kan Wall works. Only the the Kanz in a squadron with in 6" of the KFF are obscured. So if 50% of squadron are obscured, the whole squadron gets 4+ Cover.
yeah,
I've been playing it wrong, I thought you only needed 1 kan.
But now I need 2 kans in range to get the 4++, this will makes it harder to keep the Kans covered but should still be do'able.
Time will tell!
I'm not sure about the idea of claiming a 5+ save for a squad with only one kan in range!? but it does say unit..
Q: What cover save does kustom force field give to a
vehicle within 6" of it? (p35)
A: 4+. Note that for a squadron of vehicles only those
within 6” of the custom force filed will count as
obscured
.... errr... okay...
.. not how we'd been playing it.. makes the kan wall a bit less viable.
Yeah, this is a big, big deal. The lines of logic for the old rationale (if more than one half of the squadron; i.e., 2 in three) seemed pretty solid.
Q: What cover save does kustom force field give to a vehicle within 6" of it? (p35) A: 4+. Note that for a squadron of vehicles only those within 6” of the custom force filed will count as obscured
It sounds like people are misinterpreting this already. Even FAQs don't seem to help with some rules. So much for anything being "obvious" to the whole gaming community.
Isn't this pretty clear that only the vehicles in the squadron that are within 6" of the field get the save from the force field? It doesn't say anything about majority of models and the effect on the whole squadron. It doesn't say anything about a 5+ save for models farther away. So be careful to which vehicles you allocate the hits, you'd clearly want to allocate them to the ones inside the force field first. For best FAQ results, try keeping it simple and don't extrapolate things from the language that aren't there.
Q: What cover save does kustom force field give to a vehicle within 6" of it? (p35)
A: 4+. Note that for a squadron of vehicles only those within 6” of the custom force filed will count as obscured
It sounds like people are misinterpreting this already. Even FAQs don't seem to help with some rules.
Isn't this pretty clear that only the vehicles in the squadron that are within 6" of the field get the save from the force field? It doesn't say anything about majority of models and the effect on the whole squadron. So be careful to which vehicles you allocate the hits, you'd clearly want to allocate them to the ones inside the force field first.
Right on. You're clarification of the clarification much appreciated!
By the way, I'm very suprised nobody has mentioned this:
GamesWorkshop FAQ wrote:Q: When two special rules or effects contradict each
other how is this resolved? (p2)
A: Roll off using ‘The Most Important Rule!’.
Q: What cover save does kustom force field give to a vehicle within 6" of it? (p35) A: 4+. Note that for a squadron of vehicles only those within 6” of the custom force filed will count as obscured
It sounds like people are misinterpreting this already. Even FAQs don't seem to help with some rules. So much for anything being "obvious" to the whole gaming community.
Isn't this pretty clear that only the vehicles in the squadron that are within 6" of the field get the save from the force field? It doesn't say anything about majority of models and the effect on the whole squadron. It doesn't say anything about a 5+ save for models farther away. So be careful to which vehicles you allocate the hits, you'd clearly want to allocate them to the ones inside the force field first. For best FAQ results, try keeping it simple and don't extrapolate things from the language that aren't there.
Please go back and reread the rules on cover for squadrons of vehicles. What you propose breaks some fundamental rules.
Units either benefit from cover saves, or they don't. If at least half of the models in a unit have a cover save, the whole unit gets a cover save. Nothing in the FAQ changes that - in fact, it ties in very easily (any vehicles w/in 6" of the KFF count as obscured; if 2/3 Kans are within 6", 2/3 of the Kans count as Obscured, so the unit has a 4+ cover save).
AgeOfEgos wrote:The thought of a Str 10 war boss on bike moving on from their board edge...then splitting off from their group to wreck havoc is pretty entertaining.
If I remember correctly, you can't separate from the unit the turn you arrive.
Q: What cover save does kustom force field give to a vehicle within 6" of it? (p35) A: 4+. Note that for a squadron of vehicles only those within 6” of the custom force filed will count as obscured
It sounds like people are misinterpreting this already. Even FAQs don't seem to help with some rules. So much for anything being "obvious" to the whole gaming community.
Isn't this pretty clear that only the vehicles in the squadron that are within 6" of the field get the save from the force field? It doesn't say anything about majority of models and the effect on the whole squadron. It doesn't say anything about a 5+ save for models farther away. So be careful to which vehicles you allocate the hits, you'd clearly want to allocate them to the ones inside the force field first. For best FAQ results, try keeping it simple and don't extrapolate things from the language that aren't there.
Please go back and reread the rules on cover for squadrons of vehicles. What you propose breaks some fundamental rules.
Units either benefit from cover saves, or they don't. If at least half of the models in a unit have a cover save, the whole unit gets a cover save. Nothing in the FAQ changes that - in fact, it ties in very easily (any vehicles w/in 6" of the KFF count as obscured; if 2/3 Kans are within 6", 2/3 of the Kans count as Obscured, so the unit has a 4+ cover save).
Except that the FAQ specifically states that, " Note that for a squadron of vehicles only those within 6” of the custom force field will count as obscured." So if a vehicle is not within 6 inches, it is not obscured. That seems pretty cut and dry to me. This is an example of a rule for a specific piece of wargear, trumping a general rule about squadrons and cover.
augustus5 wrote:Except that the FAQ specifically states that, " Note that for a squadron of vehicles only those within 6” of the custom force field will count as obscured." So if a vehicle is not within 6 inches, it is not obscured. That seems pretty cut and dry to me. This is an example of a rule for a specific piece of wargear, trumping a general rule about squadrons and cover.
I think that you will find that this is actually a case of a FAQ answer causing more problems than it solves. Won't be the first and it won't be the last. If it was cut and dry, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Real answer is 'check with your opponent'.
yeah, Take the KFF out of the equation for a minute.
If I have a squad of three walkers and and two are behind a building. two count as obscured and one counts as unobscured.
The squad as a whole counts as obscured because squadron rules tell us so and they recieve a 4+ save. Which is fair since you can only see one member of the squad.
now put the KFF back into the equation. If I have two kans within 6" they both count as obscured. the third kan does not. two obscured and one unobscured... Squadron rules now tell us that the whole squad counts as obscured and they all get a 4+ save.
But If I have only one kan within 6" it counts as obscured and the other two kans do not not. Squadron rules now tell us that the whole squad does not count as obscured. and none of the Kans gets a save.
augustus5 wrote:Except that the FAQ specifically states that, " Note that for a squadron of vehicles only those within 6” of the custom force field will count as obscured." So if a vehicle is not within 6 inches, it is not obscured. That seems pretty cut and dry to me. This is an example of a rule for a specific piece of wargear, trumping a general rule about squadrons and cover.
That doesn't contradict the normal unit rules for cover, though. Units gain a cover save if at least half of the unit is in cover. So if half of the squadron is obscured by the KFF, the squadron counts as in cover. If less than half the squadron is obscured, they don't.
yeah,
I agree with HBMC..
Jetfighters shouldn't get rammed.
but yeah a transport should be rammable only if it dropped off/ picked up troops in it's previous turn.
Games Workshop Rulebook FAQ wrote:Q: Do any upgrades or special rules a vehicle has cease
to work once it is destroyed? (p61)
A: Yes. For example if a Land Raider Crusader is
destroyed by ramming an enemy vehicle, its embarked
passengers would not be able to launch an assault in
the ensuing Assault phase as they would no longer
benefit from its Assault Vehicle special rule.
Looks like that may solve anything to do with Trukks too.
How does this affect trukks at all? *confused*
AgeOfEgos wrote:The thought of a Str 10 war boss on bike moving on from their board edge...then splitting off from their group to wreck havoc is pretty entertaining.
FFS...yet again, "Roll off on it!" being used in official FAQs? Why even bother answering the question at all if you're not going to give us an answer?
I don't get why so many people, including GW themselves apparently, refuse to even think about taking this game seriously. First of all, I want a tight, clear ruleset that leaves very little room for arguments in the first place, so I can focus more on playing the game and having fun than hour-long debates with people over whether or not wings count as being part of the vehicle they're attached to (by the way, guess I was right about that, too bad it took fething MONTHS to get an answer and I really don't give a gak anymore!). Failing that, I at least want FAQs that answer those questions so, once again, there's no debate and we can get on with the game. I don't wait months for GW to get off their asses and pretend to care, only to open up the FAQ and see complete bs like "Just roll a d6 on it!".
Hell, why not just roll a d6 for everything then? Roll a fething d6 at the start of the game: odds I win, even you win. Oh, psyche, we both win no matter what result comes up so there's really no point in doing anything! Hurr durr!
As for ramming flyers go: they're not flyers, they're just regular skimmers with stupid tall bases right now. It's stupid and makes no sense, but that's what happens when GW doesn't make real rules for flyers but really wants to force them into the game anyway so they can start making money off all the people who can't resist those cool plastic kits. There's really no way to make these models "work" at the moment without pissing off someone.
Games Workshop Rulebook FAQ wrote:Q: Do any upgrades or special rules a vehicle has cease
to work once it is destroyed? (p61)
A: Yes. For example if a Land Raider Crusader is
destroyed by ramming an enemy vehicle, its embarked
passengers would not be able to launch an assault in
the ensuing Assault phase as they would no longer
benefit from its Assault Vehicle special rule.
Looks like that may solve anything to do with Trukks too.
How does this affect trukks at all? *confused*
I just remember there being talk about the Ramshackle rule. Well, when the trukk is destroyed, Ramshackle (and all of its effects) disappears.
Edit: I could be thinking of a different debate altogether - one that doesn't apply at all to this conversation. That is entirely possible.
AgeOfEgos wrote:The thought of a Str 10 war boss on bike moving on from their board edge...then splitting off from their group to wreck havoc is pretty entertaining.
If I remember correctly, you can't separate from the unit the turn you arrive.
But the squadron rules specifically tell you when you will get a cover save so they wouldn't get the 5+.
Oh lord. GW didn't resolve the KFF argument - they just shifted it's focus from "is the cover save 4+ or 5+?" to "do all vehicles in the squadron get a save if only one of them is in range?". How long do you believe it will take before GW erattas its eratta?
Resolved the Kan Wall KFF issue (for me at least), and touched on other tweaks such as Boarding Planks vs Walkers and Attack Squigs with Powerklaws. Even if the rulings were what people on these forums were preaching (and for a long time), it's nice to have it in a referable GWFAQ.
But the squadron rules specifically tell you when you will get a cover save so they wouldn't get the 5+.
No, they don't. They read as follows:
'Then he takes any cover saves available to the squadron - use the rules for vehicles to determine if the each squadron member is in cover (ignoring other members of the squadron, as if they were not there) and then the rules for normal units to work out if the entire squadron is in cover or not.'
Unless you want to have the same argument that vehicles aren't units again, it seems pretty clear - if one member of the unit is in cover, the unit has a 5+ cover save available to it, the same as a normal unit.
Corrode wrote:Unless you want to have the same argument that vehicles aren't units again, it seems pretty clear - if one member of the unit is in cover, the unit has a 5+ cover save available to it, the same as a normal unit.
The thing is, GW have themselves re-opened that debate, by inexplicably giving vehicles a different save from the KFF to every other unit.
Corrode wrote:Unless you want to have the same argument that vehicles aren't units again, it seems pretty clear - if one member of the unit is in cover, the unit has a 5+ cover save available to it, the same as a normal unit.
The thing is, GW have themselves re-opened that debate, by inexplicably giving vehicles a different save from the KFF to every other unit.
To support insaniak...
Reread the Vehicles Cover Save section of the rule book. It calls out two cases where vehicles are granted cover saves - one is 50% obscured, the other is if a special rule or piece of wargear confers to a vehicle the ability of being obscured. These are the exceptions to the normal rules for cover. So wargear that just gives out cover saves shouldn't work on vehicles - they have to be obscured.
As I posted in another thread that is unfortunately not that easy. GW has just plain stopped using "obscured" and shifted to just cover saves for vehicles.
Our new KFF rules now create a situation where either:
- some wargear need obscured, some not (if KFF suddenly requires obscured).
- wargear applies different cover saves to the vehicle squadrons depending how many units are in range (5+ or 4+).
Those new KFF rules are really clear and not complicated. Hey, at least 4+ is clear.
AgeOfEgos wrote:The thought of a Str 10 war boss on bike moving on from their board edge...then splitting off from their group to wreck havoc is pretty entertaining.
If I remember correctly, you can't separate from the unit the turn you arrive.
In other Orky news, it's good to see some other pretty frequent debates cleared up, like no destroying a Deff-Rolla, and Snikrot being the 16th man in a mob.
kronk wrote:I'll have to read the Kustom Force Field rules again for the exact wording, but I'm not thinking that this FAQ ruling allows the vehicle the 5+ cover save, Neconilis.
Also,
Q: If a Librarian embarked on a vehicle attempts to use
Vortex of Doom and fails his psychic test, what
happens? (p25)
A: Place the template over the vehicle the Librarian is
embarked in and resolve the hit against the vehicle’s
rear armor value. (Librarians. Dicks of the 40th Millennium! "Hey Einstein! Get the feth out of my Rhino if your going to fling that lightning gak around!")
Macok wrote:As I posted in another thread that is unfortunately not that easy. GW has just plain stopped using "obscured" and shifted to just cover saves for vehicles.
Which is what makes this KFF ruling all the more confusing. It's a step backwards.
They would have been better off just errata-ing out the bit about vehicles counting as obscured. That would have been clear. The FAQ entry as is clarifies the save as a 4+, and then confuses the hell out of everybody with the reference to individual vehicles being obscured.
Sidstyler wrote:FFS...yet again, "Roll off on it!" being used in official FAQs? Why even bother answering the question at all if you're not going to give us an answer?
You act like GW cares about the rules beyond their ability to drive sales of and provide a reason to push around some models.
Macok wrote:As I posted in another thread that is unfortunately not that easy. GW has just plain stopped using "obscured" and shifted to just cover saves for vehicles.
Which is what makes this KFF ruling all the more confusing. It's a step backwards.
They would have been better off just errata-ing out the bit about vehicles counting as obscured. That would have been clear. The FAQ entry as is clarifies the save as a 4+, and then confuses the hell out of everybody with the reference to individual vehicles being obscured.
I don't agree. If you errata out the bit about being obscured then you have that small minority of people still yelling that 'technically' vehicles that aren't obscured can't take cover saves that they've been trumpeting about Shield of Sanguinius & Stormcaller for a while now.
The fact is, the FAQ is clear. The only problem is that people continue to not want to read the actual rules for squadrons getting cover saves.
The rules very clearly state that you check to see how many models in the squadron are in cover (obscured) and if that's at least half the vehicles, then the whole squadron counts as being in cover.
Once you actually read and understand those rules, the FAQ is perfectly clear IMHO.
kronk wrote:
A: Place the template over the vehicle the Librarian is
embarked in and resolve the hit against the vehicle’s
rear armor value. (Librarians. Dicks of the 40th Millennium! "Hey Einstein! Get the feth out of my Rhino if your going to fling that lightning gak around!")
This is why we need a Like button around here.
H.B.M.C. wrote:Yes, I understand the rules mechanic, I'm more talking about the absurdity of a tank ramming an aircraft.
Im still bummed from last update when SW powers were nerfed...
No more autohit
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MasterSlowPoke wrote:
Hulksmash wrote:@Corrode
But the squadron rules specifically tell you when you will get a cover save so they wouldn't get the 5+.
Units within 6" get a 5+ cover save.
A vehicle squadron is a unit, so they will get the cover save. There's nothing in the squadron rules that indicates they're somehow ineligible. The only argument that kinda works is that vehicles can't use cover saves, but there's enough precedent now that I don't think it holds.
Except the FAQ now disagrees with you...
Vehicles, unlike infantry, cannot bunch up... this ruling is obviously to represent that the fact that a fixed base size unit could usually bunch closer together than the tabletop representation... however, bikes and Kans cannot.
As to the how to ram a flyer/skimmer? It would go something like this:
Oh man, the thought of ghazkull coming in on an enemy's board edge then waagh, has me salivating. Any Ork IC warboss for that matter. Talk about a game changer.
jspyd3rx wrote:Oh man, the thought of ghazkull coming in on an enemy's board edge then waagh, has me salivating. Any Ork IC warboss for that matter. Talk about a game changer.
Indeed. It's always been legal in my opinion, but now, no one can argue about it. This will quickly become a staple in many Ork lists. People will hate the color green for it, and I will rejoice.
Please go back and reread the rules on cover for squadrons of vehicles. What you propose breaks some fundamental rules.
I am well aware of the main rule book. What I'm proposing is that people follow the FAQ as it was written with unequivocal clarity on the issue at hand.
Please go back and reread the rules on cover for squadrons of vehicles. What you propose breaks some fundamental rules.
I am well aware of the main rule book. What I'm proposing is that people follow the FAQ as it was written with unequivocal clarity on the issue at hand.
But FAQ answers are not errata, they are not rules unto themselves. They answer questions about the rules and therefore to take them out of context and try to make them completely ignore the written rules when the FAQ answer does not do that, is incorrect.
The FAQ simply says that with squadrons, only the members within 6" count as being obscured which matches 100% with how the rules in the rulebook are written. You only get to take cover saves for the squadron if at least half of its models are in cover (obscured).
There is no secret language here being applied only the answer to the question in context to the rules.
So there are two questions answered by this FAQ:
1) What cover save do vehicles get from a KFF? The answer is a 4+ cover save.
2) How does the KFF work in relation to squadrons? Only the members within 6" of the KFF count as obscured and then per the normal rules for vehicle squadrons, you only get the save if at least half of the squadron is in cover. Which also could work, for example, if you only had one member of a 3-man vehicle squadron within range of the KFF (obscured by it) but then ANOTHER member was actually obscured by terrain. Again, in this case you'd have at least half the vehicles in the squadron in cover (obscured) and therefore the squadron would get cover saves.
I wasn't going to venture back in here at all, but the fact that the last post was from Yakface intrigued me and I rightly assumed it would be worth reading, reasonable, etc.
However, normally a unit either gets a saving throw or not based on whether or not the majority of those members qualify. Once that is determined either the whole unit gets the save or none of it. What people are suggesting here is that the majority rule still applies when the FAQ has already BROKEN that rule by applying the saving throw only to the models within the 6" distance from force field source. In other words, going by the FAQ does appear to be an exception to the normal rules, not something that meshes with the normal way of doing things.
BrassScorpion wrote:I wasn't going to venture back in here at all, but the fact that the last post was from Yakface intrigued me and I rightly assumed it would be worth reading, reasonable, etc.
However, normally a unit either gets a saving throw or not based on whether or not the majority of those members qualify. Once that is determined either the whole unit gets the save or none of it. What people are suggesting here is that the majority rule still applies when the FAQ has already BROKEN that rule by applying the saving throw only to the models within the 6" distance from force field source. In other words, going by the FAQ does appear to be an exception to the normal rules, not something that meshes with the normal way of doing things.
And what I'm saying to you is that the FAQ answer does not say that squadron vehicles within 6" get a cover save. It says the vehicles within 6" of the KFF are 'obscured', not that those models get a cover save. And if you re-read the rules for squadrons, there is absolutely no contradiction. You need at least 50% of the vehicles in the squadron to be in cover (obscured) to get a cover save.
Q: What cover save does kustom force field give to a vehicle within 6" of it? (p35) A: 4+. Note that for a squadron of vehicles only those within 6” of the custom force filed will count as obscured
Hmm, the language includes both the word "cover" save and the word "obscured" as the answer to "what cover save does...". Vehicles within 6 inches of the force field count as obscured. Obscured vehicles get a save. Vehicles not within 6 inches of the force field don't count as obscured according to the FAQ and are therefore not getting the save that the ones within 6 inches are getting. I've pointed out what seemed important to me, no need to keep repeating and I'm going to unsubscribe to avoid annoying anyone further.
puma713 wrote:I just remember there being talk about the Ramshackle rule. Well, when the trukk is destroyed, Ramshackle (and all of its effects) disappears.
Edit: I could be thinking of a different debate altogether - one that doesn't apply at all to this conversation. That is entirely possible.
Trukks are never destroyed until after the ramshackle resolution, so the FAQ has no effect on it at all.
MasterSlowPoke wrote:
Q: What part of a skimmer on a large oval flying base
is used to determine if it is in/on terrain or if it is on
friendly or enemy models? (p71)
A: Just the base itself.
AH! So in the end it DOES work as I thought it did
Yakface, it's a bit hard to tell from all the quoting, but are you saying that a vehicle squadron can't benefit from the 5+ cover bubble if they have less than 50% in range?
AvatarForm wrote:
MasterSlowPoke wrote:Units within 6" get a 5+ cover save.
A vehicle squadron is a unit, so they will get the cover save. There's nothing in the squadron rules that indicates they're somehow ineligible. The only argument that kinda works is that vehicles can't use cover saves, but there's enough precedent now that I don't think it holds.
Except the FAQ now disagrees with you...
Vehicles, unlike infantry, cannot bunch up... this ruling is obviously to represent that the fact that a fixed base size unit could usually bunch closer together than the tabletop representation... however, bikes and Kans cannot.
MasterSlowPoke wrote:Yakface, it's a bit hard to tell from all the quoting, but are you saying that a vehicle squadron can't benefit from the 5+ cover bubble if they have less than 50% in range?
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. The FAQ specifically asks what cover save vehicles get from the KFF and the answer is a 4+, not 'a 4+ some of the time and a 5+ other times'.
Per the FAQ, vehicles get a 4+ cover save from KFF, and with a squadron you have to have at least 50% of the squadron within range.
With actually happens to be exactly how I've been playing for quite a while with my Kan wall, so I can tell you it is still a completely viable way to play, you just have to actually pay attention and make sure to keep 2 Kans from a squadron within range of the KFF at all times.
Da Boss wrote:Wow, who wouldn't take Snikrot now that he can attach biker bosses?
Me, I think this ruling is obsurd. Snkirots fluff is says nothing about letting him sneeks IC behind enemy lines. They have got this all wrong IMO this rulling should have never got through. Snikrot is a great character don't sell him based on obsured rules GW.
Well, it says that vehicles get a 4+ cover save if it is within 6", and that only models within range will get this obscured save. That's not really any different from the codex (aside from clarifying that it is indeed 4+).
It doesn't explicitly say that the squadron is ineligible for the unit-wide 5+; the two situations aren't mutually exclusive.
I could see the argument that vehicles couldn't take it because vehicles can't take cover saves directly, but GW's rulings in other, similar situations make me feel that argument doesn't hold anymore.
Because people ask them and argue about them, repeatedly and often. And when one looks at the rules arguments that appear online, what seems obvious to one person clearly isn't to everyone. If someone had gone in the rules forum for 40K here six months ago and asked, "does the lascannon/plasma gun turret weapon on the Razorback count as one weapon or two?" there would have been a HUGE debate going on about it, some of the comments would surely have been acrimonious, and no resolution would have been reached to everyone's satisfaction. That is why GW answers questions like that.
The answer to that question seems 100% clearcut to me.
It isn't 100% clear cut as you see, dreds muddy the water on this one. A dread with a DCC and in-built storm bolter etc can be destroyed with one weapon destroyed result so the logic goes that if it is listed in the vehicle entry as one thing (like the twin plasma gun and lascannon combo is) then it counts as one thing for weapon destroyed result etc.
Personally i'd have called this the other way aswell and say that the twin plasma gun and lascannon is one weapon with regards weapon destroyed, just seems more fitting if people remember the old model.
MasterSlowPoke wrote:Well, it says that vehicles get a 4+ cover save if it is within 6", and that only models within range will get this obscured save. That's not really any different from the codex (aside from clarifying that it is indeed 4+).
It doesn't explicitly say that the squadron is ineligible for the unit-wide 5+; the two situations aren't mutually exclusive.
I could see the argument that vehicles couldn't take it because vehicles can't take cover saves directly, but GW's rulings in other, similar situations make me feel that argument doesn't hold anymore.
No the question specifically asks what cover save does the KFF provide to vehicles and the first answer is: 4+.
That is the answer. A KFF gives a vehicle a 4+ cover save...and that's it!
MasterSlowPoke wrote:It does give a vehicle a 4+ save, but that doesn't stop it from providing units with a 5+, which it has always done.
That's not true.
The problem has always been that the KFF was written in 4th edition when vehicles couldn't get a cover save and being 'obscured' meant something totally different. Even though vehicles were still 'units' in 4th edition, it was perfectly clear (although not technically correct) what it meant in 4th edition. You had two different effects: one for (non-vehicle) units and one for vehicles.
Obviously the release of 5th edition brought that technical issue to the forefront since now vehicles could get a cover save, now you had an issue where the rules seemed to suggest that the vehicle could get both a 5+ cover save for being a unit AND obscurement for being a vehicle.
Hence the FAQ question, which specifically asks what type of cover save a vehicle gains from a KFF, and the answer for that question is completely and utterly straight forward: a 4+.
Anyone who is now trying to claim that their vehicles can gain a 5+ cover save from a KFF is blatantly disregarding the FAQIMHO.
yeah, You seem to think that it is only capable of giving one type of save. dispite the wargear giving 5+ cover save to units (kans apply) and obscured to vehicles (kans apply)
So two Kans out of three under a KFF 6" gives the squadron a 4+/5+ save... and the ork player uses the best save available.
Isn't it possible that a piece of wargear give out two different saves? it's not that far fetched eg 2+/5++ terminator armour.
The FAQ rules say what save a single vehicle gets if it's under the KFF... 4+ and it adds to that that only models from a squadron within 6" count as obscured... It doesn't say units of vehicles do not benifit from the 5+ cover save...
1. It gives a cover save to units.
2. It grants the obscured status to models.
These two functions are not mutually exclusive.
The FAQ answer also clarified two things:
1. The obscured status granted by the KFF is indeed 4+.
2. Reiterated the fact that the obscured status is only granted to models, and not units, so only the models in range can receive it.
There is no problem with a unit having multiple cover saves (see the Astral Aim vs 3+ cover debate), and the best is always taken. Therefore, a vehicle within 6" will have a 4+ save, as the 5+ is redundant. Likewise, a unit of vehicles will need a majority within 6" (or otherwise be obscured in their own right) to be counted as having a 4+. Again, this is not in opposition to the 5+ the unit already has.
The key concept here is the delineation between models and units.
I think Yak does understand the difference between model and unit.
The key concept is actually the ability to use cover saves by vehicles without being obscured. If that is true, and right now GW seems to ignore this BRB entry, then one kan = 5+.
MasterSlowPoke wrote:A KFF does provides two functions:
1. It gives a cover save to units.
2. It grants the obscured status to models.
These two functions are not mutually exclusive.
The FAQ answer also clarified two things:
1. The obscured status granted by the KFF is indeed 4+.
2. Reiterated the fact that the obscured status is only granted to models, and not units, so only the models in range can receive it.
There is no problem with a unit having multiple cover saves (see the Astral Aim vs 3+ cover debate), and the best is always taken. Therefore, a vehicle within 6" will have a 4+ save, as the 5+ is redundant. Likewise, a unit of vehicles will need a majority within 6" (or otherwise be obscured in their own right) to be counted as having a 4+. Again, this is not in opposition to the 5+ the unit already has.
The key concept here is the delineation between models and units.
This is exactly the point I've been trying to make made as accurately as it can be put. The ability to get the obscured 4+ save doesn't prevent the Kans from also being eligible for the 5+ save.
jspyd3rx wrote:Oh man, the thought of ghazkull coming in on an enemy's board edge then waagh, has me salivating. Any Ork IC warboss for that matter. Talk about a game changer.
Except you can't Waagh on the first turn. Ghaz can't even Waagh first turn anymore per the errata.
"Page 58 – Prophet of the Waaagh!, first paragraph Change the second sentence to “Ghazghkull’s Waaagh! can be summoned at any time, but only once per game, and not on the first game turn.”
When you think about it that really shouldn't have needed clearing up...because you know, normally you can't get rid of wargear with Weapon Destroyed results.
When you think about it that really shouldn't have needed clearing up...because you know, normally you can't get rid of wargear with Weapon Destroyed results.
Unless that wargear is a gun, like a pintle-mounted storm bolter.
yakface wrote:... now you had an issue where the rules seemed to suggest that the vehicle could get both a 5+ cover save for being a unit AND obscurement for being a vehicle.
Hence the FAQ question, which specifically asks what type of cover save a vehicle gains from a KFF, and the answer for that question is completely and utterly straight forward: a 4+.
The thing is, the fact that they only want vehicles to gain a single effect from the KFF is exactly why this FAQ answer is backwards. What I've been arguing for the KFF was that the obscured status and the 5+ save were one and the same thing... being obscured simply gave the vehicle the ability to use the save. By 'clarifying' that vehicles get a 4+ save despite the KFF specifying a 5+ for all units, they've reinforced the idea that the effect from being obscured is something separate from the cover save provided by the wargear.
Which is what results in the 4+/5+ situation.
I completely agree that vehicles should only get a single cover save... the 4+/5+ thing is ridiculous. But they needed to either go with the 5+ that the KFF specifies, or be a little clearer on the fact that they want squadrons to ignore the 5+. Or just make up their minds as to whether or not vehicles need to be obscured to take cover saves...
jspyd3rx wrote:Oh man, the thought of ghazkull coming in on an enemy's board edge then waagh, has me salivating. Any Ork IC warboss for that matter. Talk about a game changer.
Indeed. It's always been legal in my opinion, but now, no one can argue about it. This will quickly become a staple in many Ork lists. People will hate the color green for it, and I will rejoice.
It's a good day to be an Ork.
Is there a reason it says an independent character on a bike? I do not see anywhere as to why a bike would make a difference and I hope it doesn't mean that Ghazgkull or Grotsnik can't join and ambush.
Q: Can an Ork that is attacking an enemy vehicle by
using a boarding plank do so even if his unit fired at a
different target in the Shooting phase? (p93)
A: Yes.
I find this an interesting addition as I always felt like I had to shoot at the vehicle I was going to assault and opens up new options to destroy more vehicles. for 5pts. boarding planks are awsome!
jspyd3rx wrote:Oh man, the thought of ghazkull coming in on an enemy's board edge then waagh, has me salivating. Any Ork IC warboss for that matter. Talk about a game changer.
Indeed. It's always been legal in my opinion, but now, no one can argue about it. This will quickly become a staple in many Ork lists. People will hate the color green for it, and I will rejoice.
It's a good day to be an Ork.
Is there a reason it says an independent character on a bike? I do not see anywhere as to why a bike would make a difference and I hope it doesn't mean that Ghazgkull or Grotsnik can't join and ambush.
Ghazkull and Grotsnik are both Infantry. Maybe they worded it that way to emphasis IC that use wargear to become a different unit type are still allowed?
Or they were doing it to allow Biker Boss' but not Wazzdakka?
It says that enemy models cannot be within 1" of the base of the flying stand. In essence, this means that the wings or hull of the actual model could be hanging over enemy models. However, if you immoblize it, you are supposed to remove it from its stand and place it on the table. How can you do this if its wings/hull is over an enemy model? Is it destroyed? Do you move it the minimum distance possible?
Kurce wrote:Question about units with flying bases:
It says that enemy models cannot be within 1" of the base of the flying stand. In essence, this means that the wings or hull of the actual model could be hanging over enemy models. However, if you immoblize it, you are supposed to remove it from its stand and place it on the table. How can you do this if its wings/hull is over an enemy model? Is it destroyed? Do you move it the minimum distance possible?
Actually, if you immobilize it, you remove it if you can. The rules fully allow a hovering immobile vehicle.
kronk wrote:I'll have to read the Kustom Force Field rules again for the exact wording, but I'm not thinking that this FAQ ruling allows the vehicle the 5+ cover save, Neconilis.
Also,
Q: If a Librarian embarked on a vehicle attempts to use
Vortex of Doom and fails his psychic test, what
happens? (p25)
A: Place the template over the vehicle the Librarian is
embarked in and resolve the hit against the vehicle’s
rear armor value. (Librarians. Dicks of the 40th Millennium! "Hey Einstein! Get the feth out of my Rhino if your going to fling that lightning gak around!")
Nothing comes with out some risks... You don't want a vortex hitting your Land Raider or Rhino? Then get him out and risk him getting shot. Simple...
MasterSlowPoke wrote:A KFF does provides two functions:
1. It gives a cover save to units.
2. It grants the obscured status to models.
These two functions are not mutually exclusive.
The FAQ answer also clarified two things:
1. The obscured status granted by the KFF is indeed 4+.
2. Reiterated the fact that the obscured status is only granted to models, and not units, so only the models in range can receive it.
The first part is correct, the two are not mutually exclusive.
At least, they were not. The FAQ specifies that vehicles get a 4+ cover save, and it does not say that they get a 5+ sometimes. That is a change to the rules, and a departure from how the rules tell you it works.
You second part is therefore wrong. Yakface has it absolutely correct IMO - and I don't always agree with him. The question is specfically about what cover save vehicles get, and the answer is specific to 4+. Vehicles can never get the 5+ cover save anymore, simply because the FAQ tells you they get the 4+ (subject to normal squadron rules where applicable).
Platuan4th wrote:Ghazkull and Grotsnik are both Infantry. Maybe they worded it that way to emphasis IC that use wargear to become a different unit type are still allowed?
Or they were doing it to allow Biker Boss' but not Wazzdakka?
They directly addressed the issue of an IC on a bike because there never should have been any real debate on infantry IC's joining+Ambushing. Snikrot's Ambush special rule is not a unit special ability, but rather it is a special rule given to a unit by Snikrot. The last FAQ update that said IC's join units before deployment should have cleared up any confusion on the matter.
Simply because you don't like the rules doesn't give you a reason to ignore the rules.
MasterSlowPoke wrote:A KFF does provides two functions:
1. It gives a cover save to units. 2. It grants the obscured status to models.
These two functions are not mutually exclusive.
The FAQ answer also clarified two things:
1. The obscured status granted by the KFF is indeed 4+. 2. Reiterated the fact that the obscured status is only granted to models, and not units, so only the models in range can receive it.
The first part is correct, the two are not mutually exclusive.
At least, they were not. The FAQ specifies that vehicles get a 4+ cover save, and it does not say that they get a 5+ sometimes. That is a change to the rules, and a departure from how the rules tell you it works.
You second part is therefore wrong. Yakface has it absolutely correct IMO - and I don't always agree with him. The question is specfically about what cover save vehicles get, and the answer is specific to 4+. Vehicles can never get the 5+ cover save anymore, simply because the FAQ tells you they get the 4+ (subject to normal squadron rules where applicable).
yeah, It says that Vehicles within 6" get a 4+ cover save. (This is clarifying that obscured gives a 4+ save as per the BRB) goes further to explain that only vehicles within 6" count as obscured. (which clarifies squadron rules <1/2 obscured no obscured save... >1/2 obscured = 4+ obscured save)
But the KFF rules in the codex also has benifit of giving units within 6" a 5+ cover save... Where in the FAQ does it say that a unit of vehicles doesn't count as a unit? Where does it say a unit of buggies with one model within 6" doesn't get the 5+ cover save... I must of missed that bit.
40k has been around for 20+ years and GW cant give clear, definitive answers to questions about rules that THEY MADE. I recently started playing 40k about 3 months ago, and, coming from playing high level competitive M:tG, this is insane. I understand if they make a new edition, or new faction, there are going to be kinks they have to work out that they couldn't find in play testing, but if the ork codex came out in '08, why the hell is there any discussion about this at all?
I would like to assume they keep in contact with the community and/or read forums at least, and realize which rules there are discussions about. Therefore they would either:
A) Have a forum to discuss this and answer them officially, or
B) Make the rules available for free online(as they pretty much are already) where they can change them as much as they want.
Steak wrote:A) Have a forum to discuss this and answer them officially.
They actually nuked their own forums when complaints started to roll in about their product.
As for their rulesets, they are a company that is relatively insular. They do listen, but changes come slowly. Perhaps it is the nature of the game itself due to extra dimensions the game incorporates or perhaps the mentality that the game need not be formal and strict and thus their rules are left with holes that semis can drive through or interpretations that are fixed with house rules (which is what happens in tourneys).
Meanwhile MtG is the other end; there are absolutes and every contingency that could be concieved in a situation is well thought out because there are nearly ten thousand cards that could be altered by the addition of one new card or the revision/change/or removal of a rule or clarification of one thereof. MtG has had rule problems before, but that is because it is nigh impossible to find every single one until the cards become public. Plus they do have a forum for addressing complaints and concerns in a public setting. To my knowledge, GW only does so on a personal basis with those who go out of their way to contact them.
WarOne wrote:or perhaps the mentality that the game need not be formal and strict
I can understand that. If they want to keep it friendly and not put too much focus on competitive play, but they are ignoring a community that WANTS definitive rules, if this thread isnt an example of that I'm sure you could go to other warhammer forums and find the exact same thing.
If you know much about magic, you know you can make a living doing it if you're good enough. Wizards of the Coast has put a lot of time and effort into the competitive scene, and it shows. But, they also see that there are players who only play casually. They continually release cards that usually only appeal to casuals, and recently released an entire set that can't be used in tournament play.
I'm not trying to say that WotC is BETTER than GW but it definitely seems like GW's solution to certain problems is just to ignore it and hope it goes away.
I'm not talking gak or trying to convert people. I'm well aware that they are 2 completely different games. But I do believe that they need to take a step back and re-evaluate the direction they're going in and what they could accomplish.
WarOne wrote:or perhaps the mentality that the game need not be formal and strict
I can understand that. If they want to keep it friendly and not put too much focus on competitive play, but they are ignoring a community that WANTS definitive rules, if this thread isnt an example of that I'm sure you could go to other warhammer forums and find the exact same thing.
If you know much about magic, you know you can make a living doing it if you're good enough. Wizards of the Coast has put a lot of time and effort into the competitive scene, and it shows. But, they also see that there are players who only play casually. They continually release cards that usually only appeal to casuals, and recently released an entire set that can't be used in tournament play.
I'm not trying to say that WotC is BETTER than GW but it definitely seems like GW's solution to certain problems is just to ignore it and hope it goes away.
I'm not talking gak or trying to convert people. I'm well aware that they are 2 completely different games. But I do believe that they need to take a step back and re-evaluate the direction they're going in and what they could accomplish.
Edit: You're sig is amazing war.
If they wanted to keep the game friendly, then they would write rules such that there is no room for arguments, competitive or no. There's no such thing as a friendly game that's delayed by an hour or two by rule arguments.
CiaranAnnrach wrote:
There's no such thing as a friendly game that's delayed by an hour or two by rule arguments.
If this is happening, I don't think those people you're playing with are actually your friends.
No, the guys I played with back in Memphis were pretty cool about that sort of thing. Generally, if there was a disagreement, we'd roll off on it and go about our day.
But some of my coworkers up here love to argue and rule-lawyer, and discussions can rage for a half hour or more, particularly around lunch. And these guys absolutely hate the idea of "rolling off" to settle the argument.
I find the idea of running Thraka and Snikrot together iffy. I know its a low chance but with the size of thraka and snikrot's bases if you roll double 1's youll lose the whole unit. Not only that but if a worthy unit isnt near a table edge you wont get the big hit you want from them. I think Ill keep him in a wagon where he belongs
Chosen Praetorian wrote:I find the idea of running Thraka and Snikrot together iffy. I know its a low chance but with the size of thraka and snikrot's bases if you roll double 1's youll lose the whole unit.
It would have to be triple ones, since Ghaz is an IC, so has Move Through Cover...
Chosen Praetorian wrote:I find the idea of running Thraka and Snikrot together iffy. I know its a low chance but with the size of thraka and snikrot's bases if you roll double 1's youll lose the whole unit.
It would have to be triple ones, since Ghaz is an IC, so has Move Through Cover...
I thought he lost that when he joined a unit? I may be wrong though
Chosen Praetorian wrote: Not only that but if a worthy unit isnt near a table edge you wont get the big hit you want from them. I think Ill keep him in a wagon where he belongs
They do have a charge range of up to 18 inches from any table edge they want.
Chosen Praetorian wrote: Not only that but if a worthy unit isnt near a table edge you wont get the big hit you want from them. I think Ill keep him in a wagon where he belongs
They do have a charge range of up to 18 inches from any table edge they want.
True, I personally dont like the tactic though. I prefer having potential 27.5 inch assault range out of a deff rolla armed wagon. I will try the tactic out before i right it off completely, Im refusing to be that guy anymore
Chosen Praetorian wrote:I find the idea of running Thraka and Snikrot together iffy. I know its a low chance but with the size of thraka and snikrot's bases if you roll double 1's youll lose the whole unit. Not only that but if a worthy unit isnt near a table edge you wont get the big hit you want from them. I think Ill keep him in a wagon where he belongs
Triple 1s. Both Kommandos and Ghaz (as an IC) have Move Through Cover. The chance is amazingly minimal.
Chosen Praetorian wrote:I find the idea of running Thraka and Snikrot together iffy. I know its a low chance but with the size of thraka and snikrot's bases if you roll double 1's youll lose the whole unit. Not only that but if a worthy unit isnt near a table edge you wont get the big hit you want from them. I think Ill keep him in a wagon where he belongs
Triple 1s. Both Kommandos and Ghaz (as an IC) have Move Through Cover. The chance is amazingly minimal.
The chance is very minimal with trip dice. Im just saying Id like to see the tactic used before i try it in a big tourny. You see things like this on the web all the time and people go nuts. In my opinion i think the biker boss may be better with them, due to threat range the turn after he comes in. Plus you could give him a kombi rokkit with a runt and have a chance of popping a box before you jump into assault
nosferatu1001 wrote:It doesnt work brilliantly, as you would expect - having a warboss actually on the table means you have control over where he goes and when.
Agreed, I do wanna try the tactic tho, Ive stuck my foot in my ass way to many times by thinking a tactic sucks then loosing to it on the table
Wyches get dodge saves against cleansing flame! 
"Hey Einstein! Get the feth out of my Rhino if your going to fling that lightning gak around!")
