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.

Minor sidetrack since this was implicitly asked by the OP.

"Carnifex" is a Latin third declension noun, and is therefore pluralised as "Carnifices" (much like "index" and "codex" are declined in the same way).

Since we speak English, though, I'd say that "Carnifexes" is still acceptable.

Back to your regularly-scheduled thread.

Pretty sure it's either carnifices or carnifexes.

Also, 2 dead carnifices. Where it really gets hairy is when you have non-identical carnifices.

http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/caseusage/qt/Latin3rddecl.htm

Carnifexes would be right, if it were an actual latin word

Jidmah wrote:Carnifexes would be right, if it were an actual latin word

Carnifex is an actual latin word

See, that's why I quit it with an F on my report

What have I done? Trust me, it's "Carnifices" (for nominative plural, at least). Don't make me get out my Latin textbook

Moving on. Please. I didn't mean to derail the thread, I swear!

You take all the saves at once with like models. If the carnifexes were all equipped differently I would see your point. A weapon causes an unsaved wound, roll to see if force weapons go off, if passed ALL wounds are ID and must be allocated to whole models. Force weapons aren't fething cheese, trying to cheat a codex out of one of its main advantages is.

You cannot equip carnifex differently in a squad, so no chance of that occuring.

The end result would be the same though - you would have a hyopthetical 3 wound groups, 1 wound must go on each of 2 wound groups, and those two carnifex would die.

Durza wrote:I think the real problem is that Grey Knights are over powered, but I'd say two carniflexen are dead. I wish I could have been the first to say carniflexen.

have you read the New GK codex? Tyranids scare the crap out of me. GK are basically expensive marines when it comes to killing them. Okay you need to deep strike a little further away IF he is running strike squads and IF he got the power off in the previous turn(ld 9 still fails ). SOTW prevents most of my powers which are short range and CC from going off reliably (average a fail with 10.5 on 2d6) I think the math has you doubling my chance of a perils just guessing. With my main anti horde being psychic powers you can see why this would be scary. A trygon prime will ruin my day. Also I don't see where people have a problem with the nid codex, I always win with my warrior army(yea that's right). You just have to be willing to look outside what the internet tells you is good and bad.

But yes in this situation the GK player got lucky is all there is too it. Also how did you manage to get all his termies into BTB with your one prime? I find that to be the most impressive part to be honest.

Banners and Halberds ruin a Trygons day. Charge in and you are going to score one wound prior to the trygon even attacking, and its dead

Psykout grenades hurt nids, a lot.

What OP needs to understand is that if there is an interpretation of the rules that is beneficial for 'Nids and an interpretation of the rules that is detremental for 'Nids, the detremental one ALWAYS wins. But, I think I agree with nos's interpretation: 2 carnie's die.

So just equip each 'fex differently, like a complex nob unit then he can kill one 'fex per turn. right?

If that were possible. Which it is not.

I thought that a carnifex has weapon options. Incorrect?

agnosto wrote:I thought that a carnifex has weapon options. Incorrect?

They do, but to my knowledge all Carnifices in a brood have to carry the same equipment.

No, that is correct; however those same weapon options rules state that all Carnis within the unit must take the same options.
Tyranid Codex page 94: "Options*:"
Bottom of same page: "*All Carnifexes in the brood must have the same options"

This also lays to rest the plural tense for Carnifex when concidering the GW Tyranid Carnifex: It is Carnifexes.

All must be equipped the same.

Remember that he still has to get that wound. Which if he does not use hammer hand requires a 6. If he does use hammer hand he can't use the force weapon. He then must also pass the psychic test on 3d6 if you are a good tyranid and have synapse in range (humm might actually use the range 18 synapse from the tervigon now huuummmm)

Just my two cents

Kommissar Kel wrote:No, that is correct; however those same weapon options rules state that all Carnis within the unit must take the same options.
Tyranid Codex page 94: "Options*:"
Bottom of same page: "*All Carnifexes in the brood must have the same options"

This also lays to rest the plural tense for Carnifex when concidering the GW Tyranid Carnifex: It is Carnifexes.

Which is, incidentally, the correct plural in English.

Bummer for them then. It seems silly that one GK, in a lucky round, can take out a whole brood of MCs.

Slightly off topic but what models have Eternal Warrior these days?

As to correct spelling (GW making things up aside). It's a masculine 3rd declension noun that ends in -x so the nominative plural form should be Carnifices (as biccat rightly noted earlier).

Geez, I'm actually surprised I remembered all of that.

GW doesn't always use proper English (much less Latin). They often refer to a single die as a "dice", for example, even though dice is the plural.

gpfunk wrote:You take all the saves at once with like models. If the carnifexes were all equipped differently I would see your point. A weapon causes an unsaved wound, roll to see if force weapons go off, if passed ALL wounds are ID and must be allocated to whole models. Force weapons aren't fething cheese, trying to cheat a codex out of one of its main advantages is.

Please correct me if i am wrong but, when the first model is wounded (of the 2 wounds) the test needs to be taken then. It passed. 1 Carnifex is dead. Wound #2 is then placed on carnifex #2. Because of the first activation, he is now dead too. The codex states when the FIRST wound is taken. So before the first carnifex takes both wounds the test has to be made.

SM special Characters are the main source of Eternal Warrior

Someone above had a good idea of using a Halberd to keep on guy at the higher initiave. If this is not an expensive upgrade (as I don't actually know much about the Grey Knights) it would make for a smoother game as there's no abiguity for the later attacks at least.

It's useful to be able in a game to keep a good pace. I've been in the position where I've run out of time to finish a game, that I could have done, because there was some discussion over a rule or two for a fair while.

If something is a bit cheesy or grey area, I'll often not include it (certainly for friendlies) just because I want a good fast paced game without much rules-lawerism otherwise I feel like I'm still at work!

Ugh!

Leth - which is why the Banner is, imho, a MUST upgrade. Being able to get an extra attack per squad member, AND getting the FW power off automatically, is golden.

Pied_Piper11 wrote:Please correct me if i am wrong but, when the first model is wounded (of the 2 wounds) the test needs to be taken then. It passed. 1 Carnifex is dead. Wound #2 is then placed on carnifex #2. Because of the first activation, he is now dead too. The codex states when the FIRST wound is taken. So before the first carnifex takes both wounds the test has to be made.

Right result, wrong process.

"Wounds" don't become "unsaved wounds" until after wound allocation, so no NFW until after wounds have been allocated (since no one has actually been wounded yet).

biccat wrote:

Pied_Piper11 wrote:Please correct me if i am wrong but, when the first model is wounded (of the 2 wounds) the test needs to be taken then. It passed. 1 Carnifex is dead. Wound #2 is then placed on carnifex #2. Because of the first activation, he is now dead too. The codex states when the FIRST wound is taken. So before the first carnifex takes both wounds the test has to be made.

Right result, wrong process.

"Wounds" don't become "unsaved wounds" until after wound allocation, so no NFW until after wounds have been allocated (since no one has actually been wounded yet).

Which doesn't matter one iota at all. As the NFW is activated before you start removing wounds/models, all wounds are turned into ID wounds, requiring the removal of unwounded models within the wound allocation group when possible.

biccat - erm, no. You allocate wounds, group into groups of like models, make saves, then remove casualties (or wounds, if multiwound)

Youve already allocated wounds.

biccat basically said the same, the problem is GW using "telling wounds" and "profile wounds" interchangeably as "wounds".

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

biccat wrote:

Pied_Piper11 wrote:Please correct me if i am wrong but, when the first model is wounded (of the 2 wounds) the test needs to be taken then. It passed. 1 Carnifex is dead. Wound #2 is then placed on carnifex #2. Because of the first activation, he is now dead too. The codex states when the FIRST wound is taken. So before the first carnifex takes both wounds the test has to be made.

Right result, wrong process.

"Wounds" don't become "unsaved wounds" until after wound allocation, so no NFW until after wounds have been allocated (since no one has actually been wounded yet).

Which doesn't matter one iota at all. As the NFW is activated before you start removing wounds/models, all wounds are turned into ID wounds, requiring the removal of unwounded models within the wound allocation group when possible.

I agree, it doesn't matter at all, at least not in this case. I'm sure someone could construct a scenario where this would matter.

Maybe a force weapon with normal attacks against a group of nobs. Er...no, that wouldn't work, since (AFAIK) grey knights don't get non-FW attacks.

nosferatu1001 wrote:biccat - erm, no. You allocate wounds, group into groups of like models, make saves, then remove casualties (or wounds, if multiwound)

Youve already allocated wounds.

The poster I quoted implied that FW wounds could become instant-death wounds before or during wound allocation. I pointed out that NFW cannot activate until after wound allocation.

Are you disputing this? If so, please provide a rules argument (and citations or quotes) to support your position that Nemesis Force Weapon wounds are activated before wound allocation. Note that no mention has been made of multiple initiative weapons.

I seriously don't want to play a game against a real lawyer.