Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

...that's it. I ask because I can't find it's troop type, and since it was robbed of it's awesome maneuverability, I was looking for something that made it worth all those points.

How did the Doom Wheel get robbed of it's maneuverability?

It isnt a monster, it is "unique"

Not sure how it isnt so manouverable now....

nosferatu1001 wrote:Not sure how it isnt so manouverable now....

The FAQ made it have regular random movement thus preventing it from turning during it's move – thus a compleete loss of manouverability.

Ah right, useful....I've not played enough skaven recently

The thing finally made sense to me in light of 8th edition rules. It may not be true, but if the thing was written with 8th ed random movement in mind, you can almost understand why it had so many huge holes in its 7th edition movement rules. Almost.

HoverBoy wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Not sure how it isnt so manouverable now....

The FAQ made it have regular random movement thus preventing it from turning during it's move – thus a compleete loss of manouverability.

I'm still not seeing the loss of movemenbt

The original Skaven Book rules state that the Doom Wheel moves a random 3D6 in each turn, not mention of being able to turn or direct direction.

The Random Movement rules in the BRB state that you pivot the model to face the direction you want, then roll your dice (which are still 3D6 based on the models profile).

What is the loss of manouverability?

d-usa wrote:What is the loss of manouverability?

By only mentioning that the Doomwheel moved 3d6" and not specifying that it could only move this length in a straight line, it inadvertently allowed people to play it as able to redirect itself at any given time since your final measure is still 3d6" and you did not break any rules to get there. You could have a 3d6" curved path to get where you wanted, such as around a piece of terrain or intervening block of infantry.

Kirbinator wrote:

d-usa wrote:What is the loss of manouverability?

By only mentioning that the Doomwheel moved 3d6" and not specifying that it could only move this length in a straight line, it inadvertently allowed people to play it as able to redirect itself at any given time since your final measure is still 3d6" and you did not break any rules to get there. You could have a 3d6" curved path to get where you wanted, such as around a piece of terrain or intervening block of infantry.

Ah, I see where you are going. I guess I would have never played it this way. To me "Random 3D6" would mean rolling the scatter die and 3D6 and then moving it in a straight line. Moving it and turning it in a purposeful manner would take the randomness out of it IMHO, and since the Skaven Book talks about running into difficult terrain it would seem to me that you were never supposed to be able to move it around any terrain. So the way I interpreted the rules, by being able to direct the initial direction it actually improved with the new rules.

To clarify why I would have thought that:

A movement of 3D6 would make me think that I could control direction but not distance.

A random movement of 3D6 would make me think that I could not control direction or distance.

Except the random movement rule didn't exist (or was different) back in 7th so when 8th came along noone really cared so they kept doing it the way they used to.

Edit: And just tp stay on topic – No no thunderstomp for the wheel, then again it really dosen't need it to be worth the points, and the grind attack is a minature version of it.

Even with the supposed loss of maneuverability and no true thunderstomp, that thing is as much of a steal as the Hydra. 150 points worth of distraction, war machine, or monster killing isn't difficult to get out of it.

Well, allow me to clear the air on a key point: moving the Doomwheel the way you were once allowed is by no means an abusive use, nor is it a RaW thing.

The book states that it "manoeuvres like a chariot with a few exceptions", and then it goes on to state those exceptions. Mainly, that its movement rate is 3d6.

d-usa, I think that GW used the term "random" because the rate is random (3d6). It's redundant, of course, but since when has GW been perfectly concise with their wording?

So, okay, I just wanted to make sure that "troop type: monster" wasn't written down somewhere I wasn't looking, because it has decreased drastically in ability (not to say it isn't good. Just that it's worse than before).

I was mainly looking for something that would allow the Wheel to sort of stand up to rank and file (which, the BRB says, is exactly what Thunderstomp is for), but I guess I'll have to settle for a multi-wound monster killing machine.
(And for the record, I don't think that an average of 5 S6 attacks and 7 S2 attacks competes with 10 S5. Especially not when those are coming from a regenerater). I think it's probably the weakest option for Skaven rares, now. Which isn't saying a whole lot, since it was probably the best in 7th.

I've played against a doomwheel twice in 8th edition, and both times I was able to kill it without suffering equal losses back (with monstrous infantry units, trolls in one game and chaos ogres in another).

However, it is quite a distraction. The problem is with how far troops are moving and charging in 8th edition now, it is hard to know if it can get a charge off or not. 3D6" range vs. most units' base movement of 4, 5 or even 6 + 2D6" range gives the units the edge in getting the charge on the doomwheel, which is probably its' biggest limitation now imho.

But then....why take doomwheels when you can take HPA's!!!

85 - 110 points cheaper? 3 lightning bolt shooting attacks?

A limit of two identical rares?

A save that's not completely negated by a 10 point banner?

HoverBoy wrote:A limit of two identical rares?

An example of entirely slowed 7th ed comping that I had hoped would be removed in 8th ....

You mean the duplycate/triplecate limit for rare/special?
I really think that the % thing alone just wasn't enough to stop spam. I know i'd field a lot more stegs if the 3 specials limit wasn't there

Yes, i hate the no duplicate rare idea. But then i hate "hard" comp, i;.e. comp that says "you cant bring whats in your army book" as it entirely puts me off playing.

It also doesnt work, as you just end up breaking the comp system, normally worse than the uncomped system was ever broken.

(jump back to the comments about the Doomwheel and the A-Bomb) The 'Bomb can certainly kill a lot more stuff in close combat, even considering that it costs almost double a Doomwheel. Both are unreliable. The Wheel is just more so.

(jump back to current topic)- the duplicate thing is silly. I think, though, that the % comp. system left too many armies a bunch of horrible options when it comes to special. As in, a 2000pt Dwarf list with 3 cannons and 3 Grudge Throwers. Or, even worse, Orcs and Goblins with 14 Rock Lobbers (and 6 Doom Divers).

I'm not sure how good these lists would be, but they are certainly attempting to be the best.

I think the duplicate rule is in place because GW knows that they've made a lot of mistakes, and they want to prevent people from capitalizing on the units they've made too awesome, and maybe force some people to use some different ones. It doesn't really work all that well, but I suspect that's their reason.

And while I'll agree that you can certainly break this particular comp. system, I can't see how it'll break worse than the game could be without it.

Thank you Warpsolution, for saying what i meant to.

I don't really mind the no-more-than-two rule. I'm not sure how fun four hydras in a 2500 list would be to face. Or 6 Warp Lightning Cannons. Or <insert multiple of other low-priced, awesome Rare unit>.

I was under the impression that Nosfer's complaint was not about the basic restrictions in the game, but with the "hard" comp guidelines that frequently prohibit the selection of even two of one kind of rare...

That was my issue - "hard comp" where you are not allowed double-rare or triple-specials, ie NO double HPA.

It's that kind of comp, where your army book and the rules say you can take it but random-TO says you cant, that I find distasteful.

Oooooh... sorry, I misunderstood. Yeah, I'd certainly agree with that. If my Skaven opponent wants to spent 500 points on two HPAs I'm all for it. Insert flaming crossbows here.

As long as whiners persist on appearing at tournaments, hard comp will live on.

HoverBoy wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Not sure how it isnt so manouverable now....

The FAQ made it have regular random movement thus preventing it from turning during it's move – thus a compleete loss of manouverability.

Is the FAQ on the GW site? My friend seems to think that it can turn around in numerous circles during it's movement, and I wasn't aware that there was an errata/change made for it.

Edit: After reading through everyone's comments (again), is there a conclusive point on what the Doom Wheel's maneuverability is?

The FAQ on the GW website says it uses the Random Movement rules in the BRB: point it in a direction, roll 3D6, go in a straight line....

I feel there should at least be a token voice for the other side of the Great Comp Debate, and I'm happy to oblige.

HoverBoy & Everybody Above wrote:As long as whiners persist on appearing at tournaments, hard comp will live on.

There are some of us who believe tournaments (and warhammer fantasy in general) are not just about taking the hardest crap possible and kicking in teeth, and that list building should be an involved process seeking balance and theme as well as tactical flexibility and indeed raw power - as opposed to cutting and pasting gutter runners with poisoned slings, chameleon skinks or hydras for the win. Hard comp makes people make more choices than no comp (and admit it, soft comp = no comp to many gamers), and having to make choices leads to different lists and (hopefully!) interesting, more balanced games. Which is something, given how unbalanced and even dull 8th edition can be when everybody tools for filth. You want to punch people in the balls, there's always 'Ard Boyz or War Machine

As to double doomwheels or hellpits, I actually find neither too much of a problem. Like RT, I find that wheels can be pretty ineffective and easily taken down, though they are certainly a distraction and their shooting attak is gorgeous vs naked multi-wound things. And as Kirbinator notes, hellpits are stupidly easy to take down vs ranged flaming attaks ... Though against an opponent without flaming even one hellpit can absolutely ruin everything itself, so I can't imagine what two would do.

- Salvage