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.

 Arschbombe wrote:

 mercer wrote:

If models sit beyond 12" of the warp spider's standard weapon, then wounds cannot be allocated to them even with the Exarch's weapon.

This is incorrect. Do you have a rules reference that makes you think it's not? I don't want to derail your thread with a rules dicussion, but your misunderstanding of the current state of the rules directly reflects in your evaluation of this unit and perhaps other short-ranged units as well.

In 5th edition all that mattered was range to the target unit. A warp spider sitting 12' from a conga line of 30 ork boyz could kill a model up more than 90" away (assuming full 2" cohesion spread). The ork player got to choose the model that died from anywhere in the unit.

In 6th edition wound allocation changed to require that casualities were taken from the models closest to the firing unit. This was still not dependent on range. A unit of 10 warp spiders sitting at 12" from a conga line of boyz could still potentially kill models up to 70" away assuming all shots hit and wounded, 2" coherency, and the ork player makes no saves.

The FAQ answer now prevents these long-ranged kills by bringing range into the wound allocation process. But instead of telling us to separate wounds into separate wound pools by range, they picked a weird middle path that says as long as any weapon in the firing unit has range to a model in the target unit then that model can be removed as a casualty. It doesn't matter if it's an exarch with spinneret, or tactical marine with heavy bolter. The effect is the same.

More discussion here:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/521213.page

I understand how it works. Like I said, dude, it is word twisting at the extreme. If you fire an 18" weapon and 12" weapons it doesn't magically extend the range of the 12" weapon and allow wounds to be allocated to models beyond 12".

Yes, that's exactly what it says it does, 'magical' or otherwise.

To review the review, effort put in and all that to be respected, but you're well off base with most of the analysis so it's hard to give it any credibility.

If you are to stick with the unit by unit appraisal, which isn't necessarily wrong, I would drop all the fluff/description. Is this review for people who have the codex or don't? A review of changes, or strategy?
I own the codex, so I don't need to read how "Reapers dropped by X points, they can buy a missile upgrade, you can take an exarch with blah blahpower and they now ignore jink saves, cool!"
I know all that already because I own the codex and can read unit entries.

To use a food analogy, it's like a review of tomatoes as 'tomatoes are red, they come from a vine, they have a soft outer skin, and are squishy in the middle'. We know all that and it's boring, what might be interesting is a few recipes Tomatoes can be used it, good method of preparation, and so on. Your 'reviews' have too much of the former and very little of the later.

Try to stay away from ratings out of ten. It really doesn't serve a purpose and distracts from the text of the review no matter how good it is, and shifts feedback and discussion from the entry itself to where it rates on a pointless arbitrary scale. Don't encourage that. It's a simple mistake a lot of reviewers fall into, thinking they need to 'rate' things for the 'TL;DR' crowd.

Also, Night Spinners look like ballbags - seriously?

 mercer wrote:



I understand how it works. Like I said, dude, it is word twisting at the extreme. If you fire an 18" weapon and 12" weapons it doesn't magically extend the range of the 12" weapon and allow wounds to be allocated to models beyond 12".

It does actually. Probably best you read the rules before commenting. The FAQ specifically says that it does.

Also, I saw that heavy support was posted on this "review" over a week ago. Please don't keep bumping this topic to get more hits to your blog.

Belly wrote:

 mercer wrote:



I understand how it works. Like I said, dude, it is word twisting at the extreme. If you fire an 18" weapon and 12" weapons it doesn't magically extend the range of the 12" weapon and allow wounds to be allocated to models beyond 12".

It does actually. Probably best you read the rules before commenting. The FAQ specifically says that it does.

Also, I saw that heavy support was posted on this "review" over a week ago. Please don't keep bumping this topic to get more hits to your blog.

Oh snap! lol