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.

Playing Orks vs CSM last night, my opponent used his WAAAGH to get into CC with my berserkers. Fine and dandy, but we weren't sure whether or not this rule might be applicable to Kanz as well. I know the rule states infantry, but since walkers can runin the shooting phase if this could be construed as an exception?

In the same turn his Nobs who assaulted my berserkers were given a good shoeing and failed their morale test, so proceeded to try and have it away on their toes. We rolled to see if they could fall back or if they'd be chewed up and spat out (I forget the term for this and don't have the rullebook to hand)... Since Orks have Furious Charge (+1 S & I for that turn) does that apply to this roll as well? We played that it did but not 100% sure...

As usual your help is much appreciated

Are Kanz infantry? That pretty much answers the Waagh question; And no, Furious Charge does not get included for resolving Sweeping Adavance. Sweeping advances are covered on pg. 40 of the BRB. It's pretty clear.

Point taken re Kanz. I did read the Sweeping Advance section thoroughly, and it didn't mention anything re modifiers, so I thought it a reasonable conclusion to draw... But thanks for the response...

It states use unmodified initiative.

Means the MoS CSM only run on I4, not I5.

Dammit, could have sworn I read it properly!

Archroy wrote:Point taken re Kanz. I did read the Sweeping Advance section thoroughly, and it didn't mention anything re modifiers, so I thought it a reasonable conclusion to draw... But thanks for the response...

Why do you need to use Re:, is in regards to or refering to too difficult to say?
Thats used for letterheads, and you'd get in trouble in a paper for useing it.

Walkers are a specific type of troop.

look at their unit type.

Kans specifically say WALKER.
Boyz specifically say INFANTRY.

Simmilarily, Our friend chronus [space marine codex] can only be offered to
Rhinoes, Razorbacks, land raiders, predators, whirlwinds and vindicators, as his entry says 'can be given to tanks.'

While dreadnoughts, land speeders etc. qualify as vehicles they don't qualify as tank.

As a general rule of thumb, models who are considered infantry might not be mounted on bigger bases then the 30mm ones terminators get.

and, in turn, walkers usually on the larger 60 mmm bases given to dreadnoughts and carnifexes and other MC.

The unit also has to have the Waaagh! rule in it's profile. Any unit with the rule in the profile will benefit from Waaagh!

Captain Solon wrote:

Archroy wrote:Point taken re Kanz. I did read the Sweeping Advance section thoroughly, and it didn't mention anything re modifiers, so I thought it a reasonable conclusion to draw... But thanks for the response...

Why do you need to use Re:, is in regards to or refering to too difficult to say?
Thats used for letterheads, and you'd get in trouble in a paper for useing it.

Hardly germaine to the issue is it? While I accept criticism/answers in relation to the questions I asked, I don't think it was necessary to criticise my use of a recognised abbreviation, which you clearly understood. Quite why you should take umbrage I'm not sure, but you have been hoist with your own petard since in the same post you misspelt "using" and "similarly"...

As I say, I'm prepared to accept and take on board criticsm pertaining to my understanding (or lack of it) of the rules of WH40K, but to nitpick at points of grammar isn't necessary. I don't normally like to be such a pedant, but I was quite riled by this...

What Brock said - it HAS to have WAAGH in the profile - it doesn't just work as RAI "this gets it".

Also, check the FAQ. A few things (such as Deffkoptas and Stormboyz) do not actually have waaagh, as it was an error in the codex.

Magnalon wrote:What Brock said - it HAS to have WAAGH in the profile - it doesn't just work as RAI "this gets it".

Also, check the FAQ. A few things (such as Deffkoptas and Stormboyz) do not actually have waaagh, as it was an error in the codex.

To be fair, neither Deffkoptaz nor Stormboyz had it to begin with. Or, more accurately, they had it, but it didn't do anything, seeing as Deffkoptaz are Jetbikes and Stormboyz are Jump Infantry. Same for Wazdakka, who is a Bike.

Also, Runtherds had it, but it didn't do anything for them either, since they basically gained fleet and then immediately lost it when their Grots didn't have it.

Captain Solon wrote:you'd get in trouble in a paper for useing it.

He's not writing a paper, and the point was communicated sufficiently.
You misspelled 'using,' and act that would also get you "in trouble in a paper."

look at their unit type.

Improper capitalization. Tsk tsk.

Simmilarily,

Another spelling error.

chronus

Another capitalization error.

Rhinoes

More spelling issues.


A) Make sure you aren't committing more numerous errors than the post you are correcting.
B) Don't worry about being pedantic about rules of grammar in general. If you think my post came off as preachy/whiny... I'd suggest a reread of your own.

--------------------

To OP:

Be sure to check out the GW FAQ for some more info re: WAAAGH!!! special rule- some of the unit entries in the Ork codex are mislabeled as being able to benefit from it (Stormboyz, Gretchin, and Bikes, I think).

***EDIT***
...and that's why reading Dakka on my mobile is disadvantageous- I missed the posts that covered both of my points. So... yeah.

Captain Solon wrote:

Archroy wrote:Point taken re Kanz. I did read the Sweeping Advance section thoroughly, and it didn't mention anything re modifiers, so I thought it a reasonable conclusion to draw... But thanks for the response...

Why do you need to use Re:, [re.] is in regards to or refering to too difficult to say?
Thats [That's] used for letterheads, [no comma] and you'd get in trouble in a paper for useing [using] it. [get in trouble for using it in a paper]

Walkers are a specific type of troop. [type of unit]

look [Look] at their unit type.

Kans specifically say WALKER.
Boyz specifically say INFANTRY.

Simmilarily, [Similarly] Our [our] friend chronus [Chronus] can only be offered to Rhinoes, [Rhinos] Razorbacks, land raiders, [Land Raiders] predators, [Predators] whirlwinds [Whirlwinds] [,] and vindicators, [Vindicators] [comma is incorrect] as his entry says 'can be given to tanks.' [don't put quotes if it isn't actually a quote]

While dreadnoughts, [Dreadnoughts] land speeders [Land Speeders] [,] etc. [etcetera] qualify as vehicles they don't qualify as tank. [tanks]

As a general rule of thumb, models who are considered infantry might [may] not be mounted on bigger bases then the 30mm [40mm] ones terminators get.

and, [never start a sentence with and] in [In] turn, walkers [are] usually on the larger 60 mmm bases given to dreadnoughts and carnifexes and other MC.

Firstly, you critice for using a perfectly common abreviation and then use one yourself (etc.).
Secondly, your post was riddled with spelling, grammar, punctuation and factual errors. Not a good way to make that point.
Thirdly, he knew that the Kans were Walkers and not infantry so your point was pretty redundant. Furthermore, there is no reason that infantry could not be any size of base.

Scott.

Dreadnoughts.*

Seriously, why does everyone and their mother get that wrong?

Well spotted!

I might get in trouble in a paper if I used it.

Not sure how you get in trouble in a paper, but anyway...

SaintHazard wrote:Scott.

Dreadnoughts.*

Seriously, why does everyone and their mother get that wrong?

Because both spellings are usable in normal writing. That is to say, they mean the same thing, and are both acceptable spellings. To refer to the specific unit in the Space Marine codex however, "Dreadnought" is the proper spelling (in this particular context - normally the two are interchangeable).

http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=dreadnought

Xca|iber wrote:

SaintHazard wrote:Scott.

Dreadnoughts.*

Seriously, why does everyone and their mother get that wrong?

Because both spellings are usable in normal writing. That is to say, they mean the same thing, and are both acceptable spellings. To refer to the specific unit in the Space Marine codex however, "Dreadnought" is the proper spelling (in this particular context - normally the two are interchangeable).

http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=dreadnought

That's my point.

Yes, "Dreadnaught" is an acceptable spelling of the word under normal circumstances. But is the unit in the Space Marine codex a "Dreadnaught?"

So yeah.