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.

First off I don't have my own copy of the Codex yet, which is why I'm asking for opinions.

It occurred to me today that people talk about Counter-Assault as if it was automatic, rather than the result of a successful Leadership test. Now, if I have this right a Tervigon is a Synapse creature and can give Termagants around it Counter-Assault somehow or other. That means that they're Fearless, but Fearless only lets you automatically pass Morale and Pinning tests, rather than all Leadership tests, and at least in the last codex Termagants had grot-level Leadership. What's their Leadership in the new codex?

So far I've asked Augustus to check the rules and see if the conclusion that Counter-Assault is iffy for Termagants is correct, and he seems to agree. What say the rest of you?

The tervigons also allow the gaunts within 6" to use their leadership 10 so it's not really an issue. Actually until you wrote this I was thinking how pointless that was

Yep, they get Ld10 and CA and FC....

I was wondering about that. So only 8% likelihood of failure if they're within 6" of a Tervigon eh?

It's a good thing Furious Charge only works when the Unit actually assaults, otherwise it could be quite broken

I didn't recall the shared LD feature. Thanks for the update.

Yes it's the perfect set up:

..make sure they have some great advantages of being inside a certain range of a Terviwhatever,

then....

put in another rule where they all die when the Tbeast gets killed.

Brilliant.

I kept thinking about the possible combos in the dex and just wasn't seeing the overall advantages shining through in many of them.

Gwar!:

Please don't troll in this thread.

Nurglitch wrote:Gwar!:

Please don't troll in this thread.

I was not trolling? I was making an observation. Were Termigaunts able to get Furious Charge When assaulted, it would be a very overpowered combination in my humble opinion. Still, the really nice thing is the fact that you can take a Tervigon as Troops for every Termagaunt Squad you have.

Yes, Nidzilla now needs even LESS non-MCs

Tenet #2

2. The only official sources of information are the current rulebooks and the Games Workshop FAQs. Emails from Askyourquestion@games-workshop.com are technically official, but they are easily spoofed and should not be relied on.

Since the GW FAQs have ruled that Furious charge and Counter Charge work in conjunction, you are incorrect in saying they do not work together.

Gwar!:

I'm pretty sure that the Space Wolf FAQ has pointed out that Counter-Assault activates Furious Charge. So how about we not discuss that argument here and instead restrict ourselves to discussing how Counter-Assault works between Tervigoni and Termaganti.

Another thought occurred to me: Does the rule conferring the Tervigon's Ld10 confer Ld10, or could Death-Leaper be used to reduce it?

Dracos wrote:Since the GW FAQs have ruled that Furious charge and Counter Charge work in conjunction, you are incorrect in saying they do not work together.

Incorrect. The SPACE WOLVES FAQ has rules that they work together. This applies to SPACE WOLVES only. Unless of course you agree I can start bringing in the Skaven FAQ for when we discuss rules?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Nurglitch wrote:Another thought occurred to me: Does the rule conferring the Tervigon's Ld10 confer Ld10, or could Death-Leaper be used to reduce it?

"All units of Termagants, spawned or otherwise, within 6" of a Tervigon can use the Tervigon's Leadership for any tests they are required to make."

So if an opponets Death Leaper reduced the Tervigons Ld, then the Gaunts would use the reduced leadership.

Again Gwar, no one cares how you play. Everyone else is going to use GW faqs. Stop Trolling.

Dracos wrote:Again Gwar, no one cares how you play. Everyone else is going to use GW faqs. Stop Trolling.

Modquisition on. Everyone stop trolling or this thread will be closed. Argue the points, not the poster. If you can't come to agreement then move on, YMTC is not a competition.

Once again I would remind posters of the Tenets of YMDC.

If you don't agree with a particular rule, feel free to not use it in your own games. But the GW FAQ's stand as-is.

Gwar! wrote:Incorrect. The SPACE WOLVES FAQ has rules that they work together. This applies to SPACE WOLVES only. Unless of course you agree I can start bringing in the Skaven FAQ for when we discuss rules?

Since this has been explained to you several times now, this sort of post does start to look like trolling. I would recommend not going any further down that road, Gwar.

insaniak wrote:Since this has been explained to you several times now, this sort of post does start to look like trolling. I would recommend not going any further down that road, Gwar.

I have yet to have a single person explain to me why it is acceptable to use Army A's FAQ for Army B.

But, as it is clear I am not wanted here, I shall take my leave of this thread.

Have to agree with Gwar on this one. Army A's FAQ shouldn't really have anything to do with Army B.

Should wait for the Tyranid FAQ where I am sure it will be cleared up.

Except when they clarify how Universal Special Rules work - by definition they MUST apply to all armies otherwise they are not Universal.

Not sure...

Just something in my heart says if I turn up to a battle with my Tau and my Tau FAQ's, he brings 'Nids, I don't expect him to produce a Space Wolves FAQ to support his 'Nid army...Typical GW as usual!

Keyasa & nosferatu1001:

That's great, there's a thread for that argument.

Mods:

Looks like this one has filled its purpose. Best to lock it.

Keyasa wrote:Have to agree with Gwar on this one. Army A's FAQ shouldn't really have anything to do with Army B.

Should wait for the Tyranid FAQ where I am sure it will be cleared up.

Look at it this way, when Gwar!'s Skaven FAQ starts addressing Warrhammer 40k USRs, then we can reference it. Until then he's talking nonsense and I'd follow insaniak's advice.

Keyasa wrote:Have to agree with Gwar on this one. Army A's FAQ shouldn't really have anything to do with Army B.

They shouldn't, but that's just how GW write FAQ's. In an ideal world, issues that affect multiple armies would be in the rulebook FAQ, or duplicated in each relevant army FAQ.

As is explained pretty much every time an issue like this comes up, GW have a habit of including rules issues in the 'current' army's FAQ, or the FAQ for whichever army is most affected by that particular issue. That doesn't mean it should be ignored for everyone else, since it sets a clear precedent as to how GW think that issue should be resolved.

If you have an issue with your army that isn't resolved in your army's FAQ or the rulebook FAQ, then another FAQ that addresses the exact same issue is the best resource you have.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Nurglitch wrote:Mods:

Looks like this one has filled its purpose. Best to lock it.

Indeed.