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.

Posted By foil7102 on 07/28/2006 7:11 PM
It is perfectly clear to anyone who can read. Might not be so clear to someone who wants their units to be all powerful.

it obviously is not that clear as several people would not have queried it.  just cos you think it makes sence does not meen it makes sence to everybody else.  it can be looked at in 2 ways.  all units make afall baCK move vs Feerless never fall back.  therefore its not so clear cut. is it/

My last word on the subject

Making a fall back move does not mean you are falling back. I do not understand how you can link the two unless you are trying to wiggle some kind of advantage vs an exceedly rare unit combination.

making a fall back move is falling back. where in the rulebook does it say that making a fall back move is not falling back?? Lets keep it simple. Forget your opinions just go by the rule book. When a unit falls back due to leadership or moral or whatever it makes a FALLBACK move. thats what the move is called. its not called tactical retreat or going backwards its called fall back move. look at the rule book. faaling back and fall back move are the same thing. And since Feerless units never fall back we are back at square one.

What advantage are you talking about?? The feerless units are not an advanttage against something that can make all infantry fall back apart from the feerless unit. And the Griffon is not that rare either as I have seen quite a few gaurd armies with them.

READ the rule book page 48 under FALL BACK

"making a fall back move is falling back. "

bull. making a fallback move so you don't get burned to death, is a hell of alot different

than fallingback because you just had your *donkey*handed to you in HtH.

"Lets keep it simple."

i agree, play by the rules.

your a joker alarmingrick you say play by the rules. have you read the rulebook?? where does it say there is a difference between
making a fallback move so you don't get burned to death, is a hell of alot different

than fallingback because you just had your *donkey*handed to you in HtH. its still falling back according to the rule book. read it i put the page up so people would see its the same thing.

therefore i was right and you are still wrong. Feerless units never fall abck. if they dont fall back they cant make that move which troops falling back make called a fall back move. try and see it differently. dont worry yout griffons not useless now.

beef, ever heard the saying "you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink"?

i really don't think there's any more point on this. you have stated your opinion, and the rules

have been quoted on what the shell does.

and before you call the Griffon "broken" ,look at what a Guard player has to go through to

use one. special rule books (about $125.00 USD for both before S/H) that may or may not be allowed

depending on the game. a tourney may not allow them, and a majority of players are unfamiliar

on there validity. then good luck trying to find the actual model. you can order the bits on GW's

site. and then there's the hit and miss of Ebay.

like foil has said, this is the last i have to say about this.

what the money factor got to do with it? just cos the book is expensive does not make it make feerless units fall back. if you cant afford the hobby dont play. i have the book in front of me and the rulebook and i can read the rules unlike some people.

"what the money factor got to do with it?"

$100.00 for IA #1

$25.00 for IA update 2005.

$??.00 for the tank itself.

when you spend that much on something, it doesn't feel broken as much as well earned.

" i can read the rules unlike some people."

yeah, but you're not quite getting the whole spelling and comprehension bit.


"like foil has said, this is the last i have to say about this."

okay i lied, this is my last bit of yelling at the wall.

like i said previously if you cant afford it dont play with it. thats neither here nor there though.

you said "when you spend that much on something, it doesn't feel broken as much as well earned".

thats crap, just cos you pay alot of money for something does not meen you can take something thats broken and make it well earned. if it cant make feerless units fall back due to the rules in the rulebook, then it cant. Just cos you paid lots of money does not make something that good. the price is not equivelent to how good something is. Its not like the more you spend on a mini the better its supposed to perform.

Also it could be considered that i am yelling at a brick wall as you dont seem to grasp the rules or are interpreting them as you see fit. i have had this out countless times with IG players at tournies and at local GW's and the day somebody can 100% say that griffons even make feerless troops fall back then i will believe it. Short of GW publishing a faq or something i wont believe it. Its mainly gaurd players that say so anyway but then they would.

alarmingrick, that logic is more than just flawed. "when you spend that much on something, it doesn't feel broken as much as well earned".

I really can't believe you just used it as a part of the arguement. I digress... so you would have no issue going against a Greater Bloodthirster in a 1500 point game or a Titan perhaps?

the arguement of whether or not it's "broken"?

sarcasm loses something when typed over the interweb....

sorry to let you down.

Posted By alarmingrick on 08/01/2006 5:04 PM
the arguement of whether or not it's "broken"?

sarcasm loses something when typed over the interweb....

sorry to let you down.

No, it doesn't.  It was a comment about how the IG have to do some crazy searching and spending money to make the broken unit. As if the spending of money suddenly validates a misinterpreted rule that is otherwise unclear.  IG are not Orks or Thousand Sons.  IG's strength is in its shooting.  They dont need some stupid break all rule. 

[sarcasm]All that ordinance / tanks / million man army is just crap!  An army that can get awesome tanks, are becapable of being anti anything and have some of the cheapest infantry units in the game surely needs to be beefed up with unclear rules that are obviously unfair.  But hey, the IG have obviously been neglected and if mommy shells out the cash for the FG bits, junior should obviously be allowed to take advantage of the rules. [/sarcasm]

Sarcasm tags go a long way.

FEERLESS. YAAARRGGGHHHHH

The way I understand the Griffon is that you must get approval before the game to use it as it is not in the current IG codex and is considered a special unit like any of the units in the Imperial Armour Vol 1.

Warrior 50

You are INCORRECT SIR!

Warrior 50 please see one of HBMC's countless rants on the IA subject

Griffons are perfectly permissible and need no opponent permission. The only thing that could stop you from fielding it is a tournament organizer that doesn't allow IA. Other than that, have at it!

Capt K

PS: Just for the record the griffon is not broken.

Besides everything is "opponent permission." If your opponent doesn't like it they don't have to play you.

Jfrazell you are right on that one. No one is compelled unless it is in a Tournament.

i will agree to that aswell. although some stupid gw stores dont let you play with that stuff. I bought a titan and my local store was being a bit crappy about letting me play with it in store.

Posted By beef on 08/03/2006 10:31 AM
i will agree to that aswell. although some stupid gw stores dont let you play with that stuff. I bought a titan and my local store was being a bit crappy about letting me play with it in store.

Thats just prima facae stupid.  I've never seen anything gather a crowd in a GW store like someone putting a warhound on the table. I've also never seen anyone turn down a game against one, just to say they did it.

How lame. Someone brought s gargant to a megabattle. Everyone was excited. The local store even let the guy leave the gargant there for storage.

The last mega battle I saw at least 2 titans on the field...

I've used a baneblade in a campaign at our local store. Thing was dead turn 3. Now if it had had those broken inferno shells...

yeah well i bought it agin the following week and spoke to the manager and said seeing as i paid for it and it out of shop hours (ie vets night) i can and will play with it. Ended up having a 10000 point battle. 5000 pnts each. i had a titan, 3 landraiders etc my opponent had a baneblade and 2 land raiders and some preds plus troops etc. Its just some of the staff can try and be idiots about it as they are used to dealing with children and feel they can bully them. But an adult telling them something usually shuts them up.

See, I would have gone with a Shadowsword against a Titan. Kill the shield and shoot it once with the volcano cannon. Mmmm fried titan.

Finally! I got a response from Warwick Kinrade at ForgeWorld. I asked him what the ruling on the Inferno Shell was, since he created the rules for it. This is his response from the email I received from him this morning:

Hi
Apologies for the later response, but due to other commitments I have been unable to answer the IA inbox for some time.
This is classic unstoppable force meets immoveable object problem. In this case I'd refer to the main rulebook, and as Fearless is into the main 40K rulebook, and Griffon inferno shells aren't, then the Fearless rule stands.
Fearless troops will not fall back from inferno shells. They're too mad to run off!

Hope that helps

Warwick Kinrade Imperial Armour Editor

Give it a week, and ask him the same question again

SEE I WAS RIGHT/ FEERLESS FEERLESS FEERLESS not scared of a bit of fire. what did I say?
although if Kinrade changes his mind next week i will ignore hima nd set fire to his wig.

Yes, Beef your toy soldier's manlyness is no longer in doubt. [ ]

"FEERLESS FEERLESS FEERLESS "

fearless

MY boys manlyness was never in question in my mind. Some people out there doubted but only cos they dont have such manly units in their armies.