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.

Played the hobby for about 13 years, long standing ork player, first time on a GW forum though, so Lo all

Was looking through the new Codex, glad that lots of things had been improved, and this caught my eye:

Page 39: 'Meganobz', Mega armour special rule, "..A Model wearing mega-armour has the Slow and Purposeful special rule."

As has been brought up in the Mega-armoured shokk-attack gun thread, the rule is always counts as stationary for shooting, and never gets a bonus attack for charging (so much for Meganobz being rampaging and unstoppable, only the rampage bit rly)


The I saw Page 58: 'Ghazghkull', Adamantium Skull special rule, "Being headbutted by Ghazghkull is much like being hit by a mag-train, when Ghazghkull charges he gets +2A instead of the usual +1..."


Bit of a mistake on GW's part it seems, as what takes precendence?

Futhermore, if Ghazgkull can peg it along in his mega-armour if there's a chance of a scrape, do Meganobz get "..the usual +1..", (again debatable becuae of the description of +1 being normal in Thraka's rules, despite the armour description on the Nobz page).

What do you guys think? I'm guessing it will be addressed in WD, or an online FAQ/Codex fixes pdf, but in the meatime how would you play it.

Great catch.

That's a tough one. Could it be that in 5th edition S&P won't remove the charging bonus anymore? We'll have to wait and see on that one.


I think for now I'd play that Ghaz just gets a +1A when he charges and I certainly don't think that regular Meganobz suddenly get to ignore the S&P rule.

I agree that the meganobz have no reason to ignore the S&P rule for charge bonus but i would disagree with lowering Ghazkull's attack based on this. The rule does say +2 attacks and i agree it could have been addressed but i dont see any reason to play it any differently than as stated.

FearPeteySodes wrote:I agree that the meganobz have no reason to ignore the S&P rule for charge bonus but i would disagree with lowering Ghazkull's attack based on this. The rule does say +2 attacks and i agree it could have been addressed but i dont see any reason to play it any differently than as stated.

Because his rule says: ". . .instead of the usual +1."

Since he doesn't get the "usual" +1A bonus by the RAW he shouldn't get any Attack bonus at all.

Thats what i think, too.

He should get the +2 if he charges but not a single one if he doesn't.

I guess the usual +1 will make sense in 5th edition .

Edit: Argh, Yak was faster.

Its a contradiction and written poorly so i for sure see where you get your argument along with the reasonable fix. But since we can be sure which half of the offending sentence is intended and which is the up, if i played against that i would go allow the solution which needs less interpretation and to me thats to leave it how it is at +2A.

Just my opinion.

If you want to get really strict with the RAW. Ghaz should get +2A.

The part concerning chargings in SaP says:

BGB pg75 wrote:...and never receive a bonus attack when charging into close combat.

Emphasis mine. Since Ghaz is not receiving a bonus attack, but instead two bonus attacks they aren't negated by the rule.

Then there is always the spotlight posted of Ghaz on the GW website that says he gets 7 attacks on the charge.

Good thing Ghazghkull has that rule, else there might be a contradiction.