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.

Tzeentchling9 wrote:Q: Can you Stomp or Thunderstomp a unit of Skinks that
contains Kroxigor? (p94)
A: No, a mixed unit has the troop type of Unique.

So, no Look Out, Sir! to characters(on foot) joining Skrox units since they are not the same unit type now?

Storm of Magic - huge supplement involving monsters.

Facing monsters? Stick Kroxigors in your skinks. Watch opponent rage as thunderstomp does nothing.

Dracos wrote:

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.

Panic...

I find this completely ridiculous.

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.

I think the negligence is a strategy.

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.


Edit: You're sig is amazing war.

Steak wrote:

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.

Oh there will always be room for arguments. Always.

Why do you think we have lawyers?

DarknessEternal wrote:

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

Wazdakka i might consider, as he has some serious punch.

I would take a regular tooled up boss over Ghazzy in this tactic, and use the kommandos to soak wounds.

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...

insaniak wrote:

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

EDIT: Never mind, i forgot the unit has it. DUH!

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.

Grimgob wrote:

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.

Mr Mystery wrote:Oh there will always be room for arguments. Always.

Why do you think we have lawyers?

Because there has to be somebody up against the wall first when the revolution comes?

I thought that was the marketing division of the Sirius Cybernetics corporation

Ascalam wrote:I thought that was the marketing division of the Sirius Cybernetics corporation

*sings*
"Go stick your head in a pig!"

Corrode wrote:

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

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.

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