Broken Griffons

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.

**Crimson Devil**

Imperial Armor 3 is about a year newer than the BBB.

I will post the actual rule when I get home tonight.

**Cygnus X1**

I believe that the Griffon is missing the line that 'the unit is not actually broken...etc' that the Inferno Cannon has, so units should actually stop at the board instead of being removed, as I don't believe having your stuff run off the board was FW's intention rules-wise.

**alarmingrick**

@beef

look at it like this. the shell puts up a wall, eliminating the choice of going forward.

i think you're getting hung up on the idea of your troops acting in a cowardly way.

we know, they're studs!

and i like the idea of allowing a unit to move other than back as well.

**Crimson Devil**

Well you have to remember Fearless = Stupid

**Crimson Devil**

Infernus Shells (cost of a meltagun)

The interior of an infernus shell is filled with a combustible substance, such as oxy-phospur gel or thermite. This instantly burns, setting the target on fire.

An infernus shell has the same effect as a high explosive shell, except aany infantry unit that is hit must make an immediate Fall Back move to avoid the fire now burning

**beef**

once again not feerless units. never versus any any unit is a general term whereas this unit Never falls back is not so general its specific to that unit.

**Frazzled**

1) checked the old hellhound rules (old codex gotta love it). I was incorrect. Fearless units were imune to it. That was specifically stated.

2) note the above rule does NOT indicate a morale or leadership test of any sort. I would posit that fearless ATSKNF etc. are irrelevant, much like entangled.

**CaptKaruthors**

I believe in the IA update 2005, the infernus shell doesn't work against fearless units. I'll check when I get home. However, I believe you make a fallback move as if you had failed a moral check. I think it does mention that Fearless units are immune.
Capt K

**Frazzled**

If thats the case CK then you've clarified that puppy completely.

Although since this is proposed I would still be ok with either area denial (ala whirlwind) or forced movement away from the position in any direction.

**foil7102**

"any infantry unit that is hit must make an immediate Fall Back move to avoid the fire now burning"

Hate to tell you this beef but it looks like your fearless units do fall back. Is your fearless unit an infantry unit? Yes? Than it falls back. Capt? Isn't IA3 newer than the IA update 2005? If so wouldn't IA3 trump it? Of course I can not remember of hand what came out first.

I agree with Strangelooper, IG have to deal with enough tricks from other armies.

**the_trooper**

Posted By beef on 07/25/2006 5:04 PM
Posted By jfrazell on 07/25/2006 10:33 AM
The difficulty si that we don't ahve the exact rule to read. I do know that old hellhounds pushed back fearless units as well.

Emphasis being on OLD hellhound.

and we should not have to suck anything up when the big rule book clearly states something. whats newer? the rulebook or the imperial armour book with the infernus shell?

Funny, we should read the doomfist posts. Since the Big rule book states that a powerfist is I1 then thats it. The Chaos Codex says the doom siren allows people to strike first regardless of weapon. Agreeing to the IA rules about the griffons is as bad if not worse than agreeing to the doomfist. I used doomfists once to illustrate a point and see how bad it could be. It was broken.
Same arguement. Which is right? Oh, yeah the idea that if something is conflicting go with sportsman ship in mind.
Fearless units are costly. They are never pinned and never fall back according to the big book. So why would fire scare them? Berserkers laugh when their champion dies. They fight to the last man against disgusting odds. They chuckle when their rhino pops and tries to pin them.

**CaptKaruthors**

@Foil. IA Update 2005 is newer than the IA3 book. Again I'll check when I get home, but I am almost 99% sure that the inferno shells don't affect fearless units.
Capt K

**Strangelooper**

If fearless units *are* immune to the Infernus shell effect, then I propose a new rule:

---------------------------------------
"Emporium" shells (20 pts).

Any Imperial Guard Basilisk or Griffon may upgrade to take Emporium shells. The shells contain a small amount of the, err.."vital essence"...of the Emperor himself. All non-vehicle units will immediately try to escape the embarrassment of being covered in such a substance, and all vehicles must stop to engage their external cleaning systems in order to remove the sticky substance.

As such, *any* enemy non-vehicle unit hit must make an immediate special move. This move is identical in direction and distance as if the unit were to Fall Back - however, this is not a fallback move and will affect all non-vehicle units regardless of special rules such as Fearless, ASTKNF, Synapse, Doomfist etc. Open-topped vehicles are automatically Stunned, and closed-top vehicles are automatically Shaken, in addition to any other effects - vehicle upgrades such as extra armour or daemonic possession do not protect against these effects.

Should the shell scatter onto a friendly unit, no casualties will be suffered by that friendly unit, as they are bolstered by the direct physical evidence of their Emperor's love for them and ignore any wound, no matter how grievous.

All Sisters of Battle units gain the Sustained Assault rules when fielded against an army that uses Emporium shells.

What do you think? Maybe limit them to one per army, just to make things fair?

**rryannn**

It seems this rule was designed to make units move away from a certain area. They aren't retreating, or "falling back", they are making a "fall back" move because no other game term describes the move being made. Fearless troops aren't running away scared, they're just getting out of the way of a huge explosion.

**Mahu**

My only change would be a restriction of 0-1 on Inferno Shells.

One is the equalizer, Three is the lame.

**Crimson Devil**

Yes because anything that works well for the guard is broken.

Fearless troops aren't running away scared, they're just getting out of the way of a huge explosion.

Maybe Beef would accept the following description.

Any unit hit by the infernus shells tactically retreats to better cover in a impressively manly fashion.

**beef**

no i wont except that call falling back what you want , ie tactical retreat, moving out the way etc but its still falling back and feerless unit never fall back. as the trooper said "They are never pinned and never fall back according to the big book. So why would fire scare them? Berserkers laugh when their champion dies. They fight to the last man against disgusting odds." in game terms fallback move is made directly back to your table edge. thats retreating. you guys can argue and say you wish you could do the fallback move in a different direction like left or right but thats not what i am argueing. i am argueing that feerless units will not fall back full stop

**the_trooper**

Posted By Strangelooper on 07/26/2006 3:05 PM
If fearless units *are* immune to the Infernus shell effect, then I propose a new rule:

---------------------------------------
"Emporium" shells (20 pts).

Any Imperial Guard Basilisk or Griffon may upgrade to take Emporium shells. The shells contain a small amount of the, err.."vital essence"...of the Emperor himself. All non-vehicle units will immediately try to escape the embarrassment of being covered in such a substance, and all vehicles must stop to engage their external cleaning systems in order to remove the sticky substance.

As such, *any* enemy non-vehicle unit hit must make an immediate special move. This move is identical in direction and distance as if the unit were to Fall Back - however, this is not a fallback move and will affect all non-vehicle units regardless of special rules such as Fearless, ASTKNF, Synapse, Doomfist etc. Open-topped vehicles are automatically Stunned, and closed-top vehicles are automatically Shaken, in addition to any other effects - vehicle upgrades such as extra armour or daemonic possession do not protect against these effects.

Should the shell scatter onto a friendly unit, no casualties will be suffered by that friendly unit, as they are bolstered by the direct physical evidence of their Emperor's love for them and ignore any wound, no matter how grievous.

All Sisters of Battle units gain the Sustained Assault rules when fielded against an army that uses Emporium shells.

What do you think? Maybe limit them to one per army, just to make things fair?

The only addition is that I would allow for Sisters of Battle to be able to use it while they are locked in combat with another force. So when an SoB is locked in combat with an enemy it will invigorate them to the point of gaining feel no pain and fearless.

**Crimson Devil**

pst beef. its was a joke.

If we accept your view then a cul-du-sac is the ultimate defense against fearless units. (again joking).

**CaptKaruthors**

I checked the IA 2005 no mention of Fearless units ignoring the fallback. However, I am with beef on this one. Fearless ignore any fall back move...the only guy that can make them run is the Deceiver. I emailed Warwick over at Forgeworld for a clarification. Hopefully he'll respond soon.

Capt K

**beef**

the big rule book overrides everything else. unless something in a codex says different. if a codex says this power affects all units including feerless than it includes feerless. so if the griffon said it makes all ubits fall back including feerless than thats cool.

**beef**

by the wat this has been covered before
http://www.dakkadakka.com/Default.aspx?tabid=93&forumid=15&tpage=1&view=Topic&postid=72055

**foil7102**

I am going to have to go against beef, they models are not falling back, they do not have to rally they do not have to worry if an enemy unit is with in 6 inches ect. They are simply making a fall back move. ie they are moving toward their board edge 2d6. Look at the rule, effects any infantry unit. Is death company an infantry unit? Therefore if they get hit, they fall back 2d6.

**alarmingrick**

the rule says" any infantry unit", not any infantry unit except for beef's "feerless" Marines.

i'd say it does affect fearless units as well.

**the_trooper**

The rule states that the infantry makes a "fall back" move, right? If thats the wording then they meant a fall back move, not a regular move. Its not like when you summon daemons and the scatter on your squad how they have to move to the nearest open space.

Since the wording is fall back I dont see how units that cannot fall back be forced to do so.

**foil7102**

Fearless units do not fall back.

Infurnus shells cause a unit to "make a fall back move"

THIS is different from falling back

A fall back move is something that a unit that is falling back does. It is also a descritption of the move that is required (2d6 to 3d6) toward the nearest board edge.

A unit that is falling back makes fall back moves until it reaches the board edge and is removed, or it regroups.

After an enemy unit makes a fall back move from an infurnus shell it does not have to regroup, it does not have to test, it does not have to be further than 6 inches from an enemy unit. It simply moves 2d6 or 3d6 toward its own board edge.

**beef**

After an enemy unit makes a fall back move from an infurnus shell it does not have to regroup, it does not have to test, it does not have to be further than 6 inches from an enemy unit. It simply moves 2d6 or 3d6 toward its own board edge.

and then what?? it keeps going untill its off the board?? falling back is the same as a fall back move. i will not bother arguing this point. feerless units will not make a fall back move or fall back. argue this till the end of time.

A fall back move is something that a unit that is falling back does. It is also a descritption of the move that is required (2d6 to 3d6) toward the nearest board edge.

its the same thing? so no feerless units will not fall back they will ignore that and just keep going whichever way i want them to go.

**alarmingrick**

then you'd be breaking the rules.

**beef**

not really i wouldnt. some think feerless dont fall back some do. who right? none off us wrote the rules so untill gw clarify we get to play them whitchever way we want.

**foil7102**

It is perfectly clear to anyone who can read. Might not be so clear to someone who wants their units to be all powerful.