Inferno shells for Griffons are clearly broken,

I don't have the FW rules so forgive me if this is wrong, this was used against me.  Three griffons all with inferno shells, around a hundred points each.

If the large template fired touches any infantry model, no requirement to wound, that entire squad must make a fall back move. No fearless, no mob test, nothing!

In the first turn this hurts a lot as many units will run off the board.

The fluff apparently is that they produce an area of burning promethium which even the bravest will not stand in.  My point is why fall back?

Why not randomize the direction run, or even better run a straight line from the centre of the template.  That would add a bit of fun to the game but still give them thier use as a weapon to get people out of cover.

I found myself in the position that as the template landed on the rearmost model the entire squad ran through the burning promethium to get off the board.  Just broken!

I agree, and in our playing group this rule is banned. Neve seen anything thats more broken(x3) really.

"Neve seen anything thats more broken(x3) really."

Tigerious in a drop pod not played in your area?? Runs off screaming for cover!

Never seen this played. Frankly, I'm the only person I've ever seen with a Griffon, much less three and with the IA shell option. I thought the shell options were just that, optional?

Never seen this played. Frankly, I'm the only person I've ever seen with a Griffon, much less three and with the IA shell option. I thought the shell options were just that, optional?

Nope. The fact that IA rules are frequently not allowed in tournaments has led to the idea that the rules are somehow optional; an idea that isn't supported by the books themselves.

Let me rephrase Yakface. I thought the ordnance rule being used itself might have been noted as optional, not IA per se. If it doesn't state something like that in the IA itself on this issue then I would agree completely.

If the large template fired touches any infantry model, no requirement to wound, that entire squad must make a fall back move. No fearless, no mob test, nothing!

Are you trying to say that a fearless unit will fall back?? I think you are wrong there. Fearless units NEVER FALL BACK.

Fearless units will fall back if there is no LD test involved. Flamer version akin to Entanglement.

where does it state that?? I have posted this earliar and nobody could prove this was the case?? Feerless dont fall back and will automatically pass leadership. Ok so no leadeship chech is required. Ok I agree but feerless dont fall back. Trhe rules dont say feerless tropps dont fall back if a leadership check is due. It say they NEVER fall back. NEVER meens never. Irrespective of leadership or special rules unless the rules clearly state that they affect feerless units.

The rule was explained to me by my opponent, I think the specific rules for the shell have it.

We've then got a problem

All units fall back - versus - never fall back

The fluff is that people aren't scared of it they just get quickly annoyed being 3000 degrees celcius. Fix the dumb rule making the direction run randomised by scatter dice and I'm happy.

Yea, this thing is broken.

Somebody lobbed two at a Necron Army. Phase out turn one...

Deploy farther foward! I hate it when people tell me that when I complain about Tigerous!

yeah the rule for the shell is that opponents automatically fall back. the rule for feerless is never fall back even if its automatic. IG player at my store did this to a kid he played but when he played me it did not work on my DC. he tried to argue it but the big rules overide others. I said to him unless you can show it says that his shell affects feerless units aswell then I will accept it. he could not. Realistickly just think about it. A feerless model who is not even scared or death or greater demons or anything would run from a bit of fire?? i dont think so. they are feerless they dont fall back from anything

also you dont have a problem as if it said all unit take a leadership test and feerless units never take one then wher is the problem>?? its the same. if a unit never falls back and something makes things fall back the NEVER takes precedence

Quote from a red shirt:

"Unless their are execptions"

Quote from a red shirt:

"Unless their are execptions"

what do red shirts use. it should be outlawed to qoute them. they did not write the rules. If there are exceptions it should say that it affect geerless units. if it does not say that then it does not/

Quote from a red shirt. ha ha ha it must be correct then

Posted By foil7102 on 07/18/2006 10:16 AM
Deploy farther foward! I hate it when people tell me that when I complain about Tigerous!

Well, he had 2 units of 20 warriors and they were spread out because he was facing 10 or so Ordinance pumping tanks. Spreading them out to avoid losing too many with a 12" deployment zone meant they got within 8" of the edge. He was as far forward as he could have been. Turns out the guy was cheating anyway.

Posted By foil7102 on 07/18/2006 10:16 AM
Deploy farther foward! I hate it when people tell me that when I complain about Tigerous!

I wish I'd thought of that, you can just imagine my footslogging Ork army hiding at the back of the board.  Thats why I painted 105 slugga/ard/skar boyz.  I always like to start as far from the enemy as possible!

And in the real world I had a 12" deployment zone which was full of the 105 orks mentioned above.  To allow for spreading out to avoid the three dinner plates none of my units could get more than 6 or 7 inches away from the edge.  Less than the average roll on 2D6 which cheered me up.

Just to clear things up, Fearless units DO NOT automatically pass leadership tests. They pass moral tests. These two things are different.

This is true, cuda. Perils of the warp / psychic tests and all that. This is different though.

There are units that not even 3000 degree promethium would stop, like berserkers. Yeah, Im sure a little fire would stop a greater daemon as well.

I guess the one fix for this would be for us chaos players to whip out the ole' infiltrating doomfist or doomchainfist .

Posted By cuda1179 on 07/24/2006 12:09 PM
Just to clear things up, Fearless units DO NOT automatically pass leadership tests. They pass moral tests. These two things are different.

read the rules properly.  feerless units never fall back.  never meens never.  the second part say they automatically pass morale/leadership checks.  i know the griffon ignores the morale check part but it does not ignore the fact that they never fall back.  it does not say they never fall back when required to take a morale check.  there is a difference.  whats a bit of fire to them.  there is no way to make a feerless unit fall back unless a special rule overides it by saying that feerless units are affected as well.  which the rules for the griffon does not say.

Hmmm...so everyone whose units ran off the board from Infernus shells actually *CHOSE* to deploy all spread-out? In order to avoid all the other pie-plates, that is.

Well then, deploy forward and bunch up! Eat a few pie plates if you lose the first turn roll...surely that's better than running off the board?

Have you ever tried to deploy 150+ guard infantry in a 12" deployment zone, such that they can't be consolidated through easily by the first assault force to hit the lines? And still have LOS from their heavy weapons? And possibly a bit of cover so that they actually get a save? It's not easy, but you don't hear Guard players crying 'cheese' about Dark Eldar, Assault Marines, Marine Bikes, Daemonbombs etc. simply because they make the Guard deployment full of difficult choices.

Speaking of nasty Guard tricks, has anyone ever tried using a Callidus Assassin's "A Word In Your Ear" to move a valuable squad *back* towards the deployment edge, then force it off with an Infernus shell or three? Man, I've got to try that!

Too bad Callidus can't affect HQ squads though; that move would be particularly amusing vs the Death Company.

You miss the point I think.

Most of the guys on the forum could think off ways to get around this problem.  My point is why should we. Fix the rule!

For beef,

I think the fluffy reason the troops fall back is because to stand still would mean melting, not maybe melting.  I haven't got a problem with that.  My problem is that it has to be a fall back move   Why not just a move.  The nearest parallel is DA Stubborn, they are essentially fearless but not stupid.  Therefore can still be pinned if they feel the other option is certain death.

INterstingly thats how fall back works in EPIC. You don't have to retreat, just move away. 

I don't think you'll see any changes in these rules. Evidently they've taken the old hellhound rules and converted them to ordnance. I like the idea denoted by cabbage-if hit you have to move away from the spot-not necessarily back. Another option would be a landmine equivalent-move through the area and save against damage sort of thing.

TO the cabbage
i am not fussed which way the troops fall back. fluff wise fire would not scare a greater demon who are feerless. why would they be scared?/
As for feerless troops they cant be forced to fall back as they never fall back irrespective of whether the griffon makes units fall back. those unit that are not feerless will fall back. Honour gaurds, termies, librarians etc but not troops that are feerless. This is what my point is. Some gaurd player did this to a guys marines and they fell back. Fair play they were not feerless. he tried to do it to my Khorne beserkers who were feerless and i said No they do not fall back. Look at the rule book. His argument was that it made any unit fall back. So i said does it say it affects feerless unit?? No. what does the rulebook say about feerless units? Never fall back.
Somebody mentioned entanglement and feerless unitscan get entangled, yes but thats cos there rules say they dont fall back but entanglement has nothing to do with it. its not a flamer version akin to entanglement i think not as they are 2 seperate things.

The difficulty si that we don't ahve the exact rule to read. I do know that old hellhounds pushed back fearless units as well.

I think it would be reasonable for units to merely have to move outside the template by the shortest distance possible, and not call it a 'fall-back move' - that would solve a lot of confusion re fearless units etc.

Here: "Any model underneath the template must immediately make a special move, moving the minimum distance to put its base entirely outside the template while maintaining coherency. Any model that cannot move its base completely outside the template while keeping coherency (eg due to impassable terrain, board edges, or other units being in the way) is destroyed". There, no mention of fearless etc., it's just a 'special move'.

I still think the written rules work fine though, and everyone should just suck up the fall-back, and deploy forward and bunched up if they're that afraid of it. Griffons are heavy support - they go deploy early. The most you should lose this way is one unit, and that's only if the scatter dice are friendly.

When I play Guard, I have to suck up that:

a) Marines can use Whirlwinds to lay Castellan mines on themselves, that only hurt enemies and never their own troops. And can saturate an objective with multiple minefields. And can cause an enemy unit to move multiple times in the same turn (via assault) on top of the minefield, while the mines jump up the Guardsmen's butts and miraculously avoid scratching the Marines' carefully polished armour.

Dark Eldar and some Chaos can get first turn assaults, which can roll the lines unless great care is taken in deployment.

Tau and Eldar get almost-indestructible skimmer tanks which can put out ridiculous firepower while moving 12", making them way more resilient and effective than AV14 Russes and Land Raiders

Nids get the Trygon for nasty deep-strike assaults.

Why shouldn't Guard get something uber to fight back with? Are Guard armies dominating tournaments (those that allow IA rules, as few as they are)? I hadn't heard

Most of the guys on the forum could think off ways to get around this problem. My point is why should we. Fix the rule!

Damn right! How dare they make us use our brains! This is outrageous!

Posted By jfrazell on 07/25/2006 10:33 AM
The difficulty si that we don't ahve the exact rule to read. I do know that old hellhounds pushed back fearless units as well.

Emphasis being on OLD hellhound.

 

and we should not have to suck anything up when the big rule book clearly states something.  whats newer?  the rulebook or the imperial armour book with the infernus shell?

Imperial Armor 3 is about a year newer than the BBB.

I will post the actual rule when I get home tonight.

I believe that the Griffon is missing the line that 'the unit is not actually broken...etc' that the Inferno Cannon has, so units should actually stop at the board instead of being removed, as I don't believe having your stuff run off the board was FW's intention rules-wise.

@beef

look at it like this. the shell puts up a wall, eliminating the choice of going forward.

i think you're getting hung up on the idea of your troops acting in a cowardly way.

we know, they're studs!

and i like the idea of allowing a unit to move other than back as well.

Well you have to remember Fearless = Stupid

Infernus Shells (cost of a meltagun)

The interior of an infernus shell is filled with a combustible substance, such as oxy-phospur gel or thermite. This instantly burns, setting the target on fire.

An infernus shell has the same effect as a high explosive shell, except aany infantry unit that is hit must make an immediate Fall Back move to avoid the fire now burning

once again not feerless units. never versus any any unit is a general term whereas this unit Never falls back is not so general its specific to that unit.

1) checked the old hellhound rules (old codex gotta love it). I was incorrect. Fearless units were imune to it. That was specifically stated.

2) note the above rule does NOT indicate a morale or leadership test of any sort. I would posit that fearless ATSKNF etc. are irrelevant, much like entangled.

I believe in the IA update 2005, the infernus shell doesn't work against fearless units. I'll check when I get home. However, I believe you make a fallback move as if you had failed a moral check. I think it does mention that Fearless units are immune.
Capt K

If thats the case CK then you've clarified that puppy completely.

Although since this is proposed I would still be ok with either area denial (ala whirlwind) or forced movement away from the position in any direction.

 

"any infantry unit that is hit must make an immediate Fall Back move to avoid the fire now burning"

Hate to tell you this beef but it looks like your fearless units do fall back. Is your fearless unit an infantry unit? Yes? Than it falls back. Capt? Isn't IA3 newer than the IA update 2005? If so wouldn't IA3 trump it? Of course I can not remember of hand what came out first.

I agree with Strangelooper, IG have to deal with enough tricks from other armies.

Posted By beef on 07/25/2006 5:04 PM

Posted By jfrazell on 07/25/2006 10:33 AM
The difficulty si that we don't ahve the exact rule to read. I do know that old hellhounds pushed back fearless units as well.

Emphasis being on OLD hellhound.

 

and we should not have to suck anything up when the big rule book clearly states something.  whats newer?  the rulebook or the imperial armour book with the infernus shell?

Funny, we should read the doomfist posts. Since the Big rule book states that a powerfist is I1 then thats it. The Chaos Codex says the doom siren allows people to strike first regardless of weapon. Agreeing to the IA rules about the griffons is as bad if not worse than agreeing to the doomfist. I used doomfists once to illustrate a point and see how bad it could be. It was broken.
Same arguement. Which is right? Oh, yeah the idea that if something is conflicting go with sportsman ship in mind.
Fearless units are costly. They are never pinned and never fall back according to the big book. So why would fire scare them? Berserkers laugh when their champion dies. They fight to the last man against disgusting odds. They chuckle when their rhino pops and tries to pin them.

@Foil. IA Update 2005 is newer than the IA3 book. Again I'll check when I get home, but I am almost 99% sure that the inferno shells don't affect fearless units.
Capt K

If fearless units *are* immune to the Infernus shell effect, then I propose a new rule:

---------------------------------------
"Emporium" shells (20 pts).

Any Imperial Guard Basilisk or Griffon may upgrade to take Emporium shells. The shells contain a small amount of the, err.."vital essence"...of the Emperor himself. All non-vehicle units will immediately try to escape the embarrassment of being covered in such a substance, and all vehicles must stop to engage their external cleaning systems in order to remove the sticky substance.

As such, *any* enemy non-vehicle unit hit must make an immediate special move. This move is identical in direction and distance as if the unit were to Fall Back - however, this is not a fallback move and will affect all non-vehicle units regardless of special rules such as Fearless, ASTKNF, Synapse, Doomfist etc. Open-topped vehicles are automatically Stunned, and closed-top vehicles are automatically Shaken, in addition to any other effects - vehicle upgrades such as extra armour or daemonic possession do not protect against these effects.

Should the shell scatter onto a friendly unit, no casualties will be suffered by that friendly unit, as they are bolstered by the direct physical evidence of their Emperor's love for them and ignore any wound, no matter how grievous.

All Sisters of Battle units gain the Sustained Assault rules when fielded against an army that uses Emporium shells.


What do you think? Maybe limit them to one per army, just to make things fair?

It seems this rule was designed to make units move away from a certain area. They aren't retreating, or "falling back", they are making a "fall back" move because no other game term describes the move being made. Fearless troops aren't running away scared, they're just getting out of the way of a huge explosion.

My only change would be a restriction of 0-1 on Inferno Shells.

One is the equalizer, Three is the lame.

Yes because anything that works well for the guard is broken.

 

Fearless troops aren't running away scared, they're just getting out of the way of a huge explosion.

Maybe Beef would accept the following description.

Any unit hit by the infernus shells tactically retreats to better cover in a impressively manly fashion.

no i wont except that call falling back what you want , ie tactical retreat, moving out the way etc but its still falling back and feerless unit never fall back. as the trooper said "They are never pinned and never fall back according to the big book. So why would fire scare them? Berserkers laugh when their champion dies. They fight to the last man against disgusting odds." in game terms fallback move is made directly back to your table edge. thats retreating. you guys can argue and say you wish you could do the fallback move in a different direction like left or right but thats not what i am argueing. i am argueing that feerless units will not fall back full stop

Posted By Strangelooper on 07/26/2006 3:05 PM
If fearless units *are* immune to the Infernus shell effect, then I propose a new rule:

---------------------------------------
"Emporium" shells (20 pts).

Any Imperial Guard Basilisk or Griffon may upgrade to take Emporium shells. The shells contain a small amount of the, err.."vital essence"...of the Emperor himself. All non-vehicle units will immediately try to escape the embarrassment of being covered in such a substance, and all vehicles must stop to engage their external cleaning systems in order to remove the sticky substance.

As such, *any* enemy non-vehicle unit hit must make an immediate special move. This move is identical in direction and distance as if the unit were to Fall Back - however, this is not a fallback move and will affect all non-vehicle units regardless of special rules such as Fearless, ASTKNF, Synapse, Doomfist etc. Open-topped vehicles are automatically Stunned, and closed-top vehicles are automatically Shaken, in addition to any other effects - vehicle upgrades such as extra armour or daemonic possession do not protect against these effects.

Should the shell scatter onto a friendly unit, no casualties will be suffered by that friendly unit, as they are bolstered by the direct physical evidence of their Emperor's love for them and ignore any wound, no matter how grievous.

All Sisters of Battle units gain the Sustained Assault rules when fielded against an army that uses Emporium shells.


What do you think? Maybe limit them to one per army, just to make things fair?

The only addition is that I would allow for Sisters of Battle to be able to use it while they are locked in combat with another force. So when an SoB is locked in combat with an enemy it will invigorate them to the point of gaining feel no pain and fearless.

pst beef. its was a joke.

If we accept your view then a cul-du-sac is the ultimate defense against fearless units. (again joking).

I checked the IA 2005 no mention of Fearless units ignoring the fallback. However, I am with beef on this one. Fearless ignore any fall back move...the only guy that can make them run is the Deceiver. I emailed Warwick over at Forgeworld for a clarification. Hopefully he'll respond soon.

Capt K

the big rule book overrides everything else. unless something in a codex says different. if a codex says this power affects all units including feerless than it includes feerless. so if the griffon said it makes all ubits fall back including feerless than thats cool.

by the wat this has been covered before
http://www.dakkadakka.com/Default.aspx?tabid=93&forumid=15&tpage=1&view=Topic&postid=72055

I am going to have to go against beef, they models are not falling back, they do not have to rally they do not have to worry if an enemy unit is with in 6 inches ect. They are simply making a fall back move. ie they are moving toward their board edge 2d6. Look at the rule, effects any infantry unit. Is death company an infantry unit? Therefore if they get hit, they fall back 2d6.

the rule says" any infantry unit", not any infantry unit except for beef's "feerless" Marines.

i'd say it does affect fearless units as well.

The rule states that the infantry makes a "fall back" move, right? If thats the wording then they meant a fall back move, not a regular move. Its not like when you summon daemons and the scatter on your squad how they have to move to the nearest open space.

Since the wording is fall back I dont see how units that cannot fall back be forced to do so.

Fearless units do not fall back. 

Infurnus shells cause a unit to "make a fall back move"

THIS is different from falling back

A fall back move is something that a unit that is falling back does.  It is also a descritption of the move that is required (2d6 to 3d6) toward the nearest board edge.

A unit that is falling back makes fall back moves until it reaches the board edge and is removed, or it regroups.

After an enemy unit makes a fall back move from an infurnus shell it does not have to regroup, it does not have to test, it does not have to be further than 6 inches from an enemy unit.  It simply moves 2d6 or 3d6 toward its own board edge. 

After an enemy unit makes a fall back move from an infurnus shell it does not have to regroup, it does not have to test, it does not have to be further than 6 inches from an enemy unit. It simply moves 2d6 or 3d6 toward its own board edge.



and then what?? it keeps going untill its off the board?? falling back is the same as a fall back move. i will not bother arguing this point. feerless units will not make a fall back move or fall back. argue this till the end of time.

A fall back move is something that a unit that is falling back does. It is also a descritption of the move that is required (2d6 to 3d6) toward the nearest board edge.

its the same thing? so no feerless units will not fall back they will ignore that and just keep going whichever way i want them to go.

then you'd be breaking the rules.

not really i wouldnt. some think feerless dont fall back some do. who right? none off us wrote the rules so untill gw clarify we get to play them whitchever way we want.

It is perfectly clear to anyone who can read. Might not be so clear to someone who wants their units to be all powerful.

Posted By foil7102 on 07/28/2006 7:11 PM
It is perfectly clear to anyone who can read. Might not be so clear to someone who wants their units to be all powerful.

it obviously is not that clear as several people would not have queried it.  just cos you think it makes sence does not meen it makes sence to everybody else.  it can be looked at in 2 ways.  all units make afall baCK move vs Feerless never fall back.  therefore its not so clear cut. is it/

My last word on the subject

Making a fall back move does not mean you are falling back. I do not understand how you can link the two unless you are trying to wiggle some kind of advantage vs an exceedly rare unit combination.

making a fall back move is falling back. where in the rulebook does it say that making a fall back move is not falling back?? Lets keep it simple. Forget your opinions just go by the rule book. When a unit falls back due to leadership or moral or whatever it makes a FALLBACK move. thats what the move is called. its not called tactical retreat or going backwards its called fall back move. look at the rule book. faaling back and fall back move are the same thing. And since Feerless units never fall back we are back at square one.

What advantage are you talking about?? The feerless units are not an advanttage against something that can make all infantry fall back apart from the feerless unit. And the Griffon is not that rare either as I have seen quite a few gaurd armies with them.

READ the rule book page 48 under FALL BACK

"making a fall back move is falling back. "

bull. making a fallback move so you don't get burned to death, is a hell of alot different

than fallingback because you just had your *donkey*handed to you in HtH.

"Lets keep it simple."

i agree, play by the rules.

your a joker alarmingrick you say play by the rules. have you read the rulebook?? where does it say there is a difference between
making a fallback move so you don't get burned to death, is a hell of alot different

than fallingback because you just had your *donkey*handed to you in HtH. its still falling back according to the rule book. read it i put the page up so people would see its the same thing.

therefore i was right and you are still wrong. Feerless units never fall abck. if they dont fall back they cant make that move which troops falling back make called a fall back move. try and see it differently. dont worry yout griffons not useless now.

beef, ever heard the saying "you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink"?

i really don't think there's any more point on this. you have stated your opinion, and the rules

have been quoted on what the shell does.

and before you call the Griffon "broken" ,look at what a Guard player has to go through to

use one. special rule books (about $125.00 USD for both before S/H) that may or may not be allowed

depending on the game. a tourney may not allow them, and a majority of players are unfamiliar

on there validity. then good luck trying to find the actual model. you can order the bits on GW's

site. and then there's the hit and miss of Ebay.

like foil has said, this is the last i have to say about this.

what the money factor got to do with it? just cos the book is expensive does not make it make feerless units fall back. if you cant afford the hobby dont play. i have the book in front of me and the rulebook and i can read the rules unlike some people.

"what the money factor got to do with it?"

$100.00 for IA #1

$25.00 for IA update 2005.

$??.00 for the tank itself.

when you spend that much on something, it doesn't feel broken as much as well earned.

" i can read the rules unlike some people."

yeah, but you're not quite getting the whole spelling and comprehension bit.


"like foil has said, this is the last i have to say about this."

okay i lied, this is my last bit of yelling at the wall.

like i said previously if you cant afford it dont play with it. thats neither here nor there though.

you said "when you spend that much on something, it doesn't feel broken as much as well earned".

thats crap, just cos you pay alot of money for something does not meen you can take something thats broken and make it well earned. if it cant make feerless units fall back due to the rules in the rulebook, then it cant. Just cos you paid lots of money does not make something that good. the price is not equivelent to how good something is. Its not like the more you spend on a mini the better its supposed to perform.

Also it could be considered that i am yelling at a brick wall as you dont seem to grasp the rules or are interpreting them as you see fit. i have had this out countless times with IG players at tournies and at local GW's and the day somebody can 100% say that griffons even make feerless troops fall back then i will believe it. Short of GW publishing a faq or something i wont believe it. Its mainly gaurd players that say so anyway but then they would.

alarmingrick, that logic is more than just flawed. "when you spend that much on something, it doesn't feel broken as much as well earned".

I really can't believe you just used it as a part of the arguement. I digress... so you would have no issue going against a Greater Bloodthirster in a 1500 point game or a Titan perhaps?

the arguement of whether or not it's "broken"?

sarcasm loses something when typed over the interweb....

sorry to let you down.

Posted By alarmingrick on 08/01/2006 5:04 PM
the arguement of whether or not it's "broken"?

sarcasm loses something when typed over the interweb....

sorry to let you down.

No, it doesn't.  It was a comment about how the IG have to do some crazy searching and spending money to make the broken unit. As if the spending of money suddenly validates a misinterpreted rule that is otherwise unclear.  IG are not Orks or Thousand Sons.  IG's strength is in its shooting.  They dont need some stupid break all rule. 

[sarcasm]All that ordinance / tanks / million man army is just crap!  An army that can get awesome tanks, are becapable of being anti anything and have some of the cheapest infantry units in the game surely needs to be beefed up with unclear rules that are obviously unfair.  But hey, the IG have obviously been neglected and if mommy shells out the cash for the FG bits, junior should obviously be allowed to take advantage of the rules. [/sarcasm]

Sarcasm tags go a long way.

FEERLESS. YAAARRGGGHHHHH

The way I understand the Griffon is that you must get approval before the game to use it as it is not in the current IG codex and is considered a special unit like any of the units in the Imperial Armour Vol 1.

Warrior 50

You are INCORRECT SIR!

Warrior 50 please see one of HBMC's countless rants on the IA subject

Griffons are perfectly permissible and need no opponent permission. The only thing that could stop you from fielding it is a tournament organizer that doesn't allow IA. Other than that, have at it!

Capt K

PS: Just for the record the griffon is not broken.

Besides everything is "opponent permission." If your opponent doesn't like it they don't have to play you.

Jfrazell you are right on that one. No one is compelled unless it is in a Tournament.

i will agree to that aswell. although some stupid gw stores dont let you play with that stuff. I bought a titan and my local store was being a bit crappy about letting me play with it in store.

Posted By beef on 08/03/2006 10:31 AM
i will agree to that aswell. although some stupid gw stores dont let you play with that stuff. I bought a titan and my local store was being a bit crappy about letting me play with it in store.

Thats just prima facae stupid.  I've never seen anything gather a crowd in a GW store like someone putting a warhound on the table. I've also never seen anyone turn down a game against one, just to say they did it.

How lame. Someone brought s gargant to a megabattle. Everyone was excited. The local store even let the guy leave the gargant there for storage.

The last mega battle I saw at least 2 titans on the field...

I've used a baneblade in a campaign at our local store. Thing was dead turn 3. Now if it had had those broken inferno shells...

yeah well i bought it agin the following week and spoke to the manager and said seeing as i paid for it and it out of shop hours (ie vets night) i can and will play with it. Ended up having a 10000 point battle. 5000 pnts each. i had a titan, 3 landraiders etc my opponent had a baneblade and 2 land raiders and some preds plus troops etc. Its just some of the staff can try and be idiots about it as they are used to dealing with children and feel they can bully them. But an adult telling them something usually shuts them up.

See, I would have gone with a Shadowsword against a Titan. Kill the shield and shoot it once with the volcano cannon. Mmmm fried titan.

Finally! I got a response from Warwick Kinrade at ForgeWorld. I asked him what the ruling on the Inferno Shell was, since he created the rules for it. This is his response from the email I received from him this morning:

Hi
Apologies for the later response, but due to other commitments I have been unable to answer the IA inbox for some time.
This is classic unstoppable force meets immoveable object problem. In this case I'd refer to the main rulebook, and as Fearless is into the main 40K rulebook, and Griffon inferno shells aren't, then the Fearless rule stands.
Fearless troops will not fall back from inferno shells. They're too mad to run off!

Hope that helps

Warwick Kinrade Imperial Armour Editor

Give it a week, and ask him the same question again

SEE I WAS RIGHT/ FEERLESS FEERLESS FEERLESS not scared of a bit of fire. what did I say?
although if Kinrade changes his mind next week i will ignore hima nd set fire to his wig.

Yes, Beef your toy soldier's manlyness is no longer in doubt. [ ]

"FEERLESS FEERLESS FEERLESS "

fearless

MY boys manlyness was never in question in my mind. Some people out there doubted but only cos they dont have such manly units in their armies.

Yes but if your opponent was fielding a proper artillery company you'd be facing 8-9 of them. Then we'd see how manly your manly men are boyo.

guess they're not that broken after all.

Posted By jfrazell 08/08/2006 3:24 PM
Yes but if your opponent was fielding a proper artillery company you'd be facing 8-9 of them. Then we'd see how manly your manly men are boyo.

"Into cover!" Infiltrating meltas... "HOOOOOOOOOOO!"

Old trooper
"Wow, the Griffon looks beautiful as it cartwheels in the air. The armor plate catches the sun's ray's just right, adding a nice purple hue to the flaming wreckage don't you think?"

New trooper
"Do it again! Do it again!"

Old Trooper
"Will do son. Will do."

Posted By jfrazell 08/08/2006 3:24 PM
Yes but if your opponent was fielding a proper artillery company you'd be facing 8-9 of them. Then we'd see how manly your manly men are boyo.

yeah but my manly feerless unit are immune to its so it does not make a difference if they field 100 griffons.  however the rest of my marines would be another thing altogether, they would fall back as they aint as manly as my insane DC.

Um no.. You're immune to the "fear" portion, but you're not immune to the joyous effect of 9 ordnance templates. Love is in the air!!!

and what does each template actually do?? S4 or S5 flames, ??? is that it??

I believe it's S6, actually...that wounds even FEERLESS boys on a 2+. Only AP4 though.

What you really need are 3 Basilisks and 6 Griffons to cover their min range. Oh, and a LOT more than 25% terrain, all of it size 3 area or taller than the basi gun shield...

yeah so my DC roll an armour save 3+ and a few fail? no probles let the feel no pain kick in on a 4+. the manliest feerless troops you will ever get bar the khorne beserkers with FNP and Blood rage.

So you've not faced and artie' company then? Ah the joys of youth.

As noted Str 6 / AP4
the Basi's are Str 9 AP3
mayhaps a nice Leman or two with plasma for those hard to reach terminator stains.
All with tank ace (re-roll direction dice on the ordnance and equivalent to sharphooters)

Your BA's may win (especially if you use drop pod), but it will be an eye opener.

yeah how many could you get in a 1500pts game?? remember if you spread the med out properly how many marines are you hitting per template?? 2 -3 at the most. i ahve played games against companies like that and eventually my marines have made it to the other side and power fisted or melta bombed the tanks.

Yes that is their weakness and why they are not nearly as strong as players think. There's always some errant punk marine who just won't die. Thats why a good armored company list will include a good amount of direct fire or flamer items and maybe some speed bump troops. I prefer a hellhound and some ST squads.

nobody can dampen my mood, my boys are feerless. ha ha ha