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.

This heralds the cloning of several more Eldrad Ulthrans/Dadler Thrulnas/Radled Narulths/Natty Bumpos.  I'm just glad I have him painted in four craftworld colors so I can pretend I give a crap about fluff!

I don't understand how this could have passed testing. The ability to move your opponent's units around almost at will, multiple times? And only a couple of the races have any chance at defending from it? Really, how could any chaos player not look at that and just drool at the possibilities? And we probably haven't even thought of everything, combos even more broken than what's been mentioned here are coming.

I'm wondering if this is a response to zilla lists. It can totaly ruin the 'you cant shoot at my genestealers, theyre hidden' thing, and can single out the dakkafexes for easy buttstomping. So are nids going to have to start taking the otherwise useless SitW just for this? Gosh I love having to use my tyrant's only psychic power one something so crappy.

Jesus Christ, the possibilities with this are endless. Death Company got you down? Not when you can magically Fzorgle them into range of three battle cannons. It may cause a few wounds but the first target of a DP playing against Eldar or SMs would be the Farseer/Librarian. Either set up a charge or Fzorgle them in front of the gunline. Then, BLAM, let the Fzorlging begin.

Triggerbaby said it best, and in case you hadn't figured it out, Fzorgle is my vote for what to call this. Triggerbaby, I owe you like 10 bucks

Posted By Orlanth on 08/07/2007 4:21 PM

Sorry I smell defuiler target, but now Chaos gets to take out a squad or two with it.

Battle cannons have been removed from defilers.  They do have access to vindicators if I remember correctly though.

Defilers have the battlecannons...Just not the indirect

Don't ya wish you could Lash of Fzorgle Jervis and Gav 2D6 hundered miles away from the GW studio?

I can't really take credit for Fzorgle. It's a Bob the Angry Flower word.

In terms of lists, I bet we'll be seeing more Fzorgle Sorcerers than Princes. The main use of the Lash carrier is fzorging, so they're wasted in close combat. Better to hide them inside another unit, all safe from lascannons and whatnot. The rest of the list wil almost certainly include Obliterators for sniping characters with power fists and heavy weapon troops once the rest of their unit has been Fzorgled behind cover. However, Oblits will compete with Defilers, the potency of battle cannon + fzorgle being pretty obvious. As for troops, I imagine that Beserkers will be present in most lists. Fzorgling makes charges dead simple to set up, and can help selectively eliminate plasma weapons and power fists. In any case, the Chaos player's biggest decision each turn will be where to spend his two precious fzorgles.

What will be amusing, however, is seeing the ten or twelve Fzorgle lists up against each other in upcoming tournaments. Seeing, not playing. I can't imagine anything more tedious and frustrating than six turns of 4 Fzorgles.

Fzorgle prince also gets my vote.

I was looking forward to going to adepticon next year, as I am becoming very close to finishing my two new armies. But I can definatly see lash of fzorgle being a top choice and quite annoying to try and counter.Especially with my already low model/squad count.
It would test the limits of anyones sportsmanship, thats one thing you can take to the bank.

No more codex creep indeed.

I wonder if GW really thought that the lash of fzorgle would really balance such things as eldrads divination ability, or the power of nidzilla?

I dont thin many people will blame me for not using the new codex. if people were smart, we could show GW exactly how much disdain we have for their newer rules by simply not purchasing the new codex and just buying the new models. After all, thats all the new codex was good for was new model releases.

It pretty much worked for codex dark angels, because we all know how much of a blockbuster hit that was.

I also will vote for Fzorgle.

The thing about this that I love, is that it's not just Mind War, it's extra Mind War, cause Oblits come in threes. Any Marine squad with a special and heavy weapon, you just move everyone out of LOS except those two, and with three BS4 Lascannon shots, you're looking at a pretty reliable chance of knocking BOTH upgraded weapons off a squad. It's double strength Mind War, no chance to resist, plus it's got 6" more range.

I agree with Hellfury, it'd be hilarious if GW released a Codex, and the community just said "no," and refused to use it.

GW's ability to one-up my negative expectations is unreal. I was expecting the new Chaos Codex to be a dumbed down and bland version of the previous one, with general nerfing to roughly DA levels. It appears it's that. With the single most broken pyschich power (if not rule) in the entire game thrown in.

We, as an entire species, need to commit to saying only "are you f-ing slowed?" to Gav Thorpe and Jervis Johnson until they actually take the time to explain themselves. If they say anything other than "I'm sorry, I'm just very bad at my job, and not really very intelligent in general" then that doesn't count as explaining themselves.

As unhappy as I am with the changes as well, understand they DO do quite a bit of playtesting with these rules and there's a lot of discussion.

 

I'm sure while we sit here and call the poor guy an idiot, etc he's thinking "aw, man, I thought these rules would be fun, I put a lot of work into them..."

 

10 to 1, we couldn't balance ALL list perfectly either.

For my own part I don't see what's wrong with a lot of rules - they're not that hard to figure out.  The old rules were fine, and not confusing at all.

-Spellbound

That's a nice sentiment, Spellbound.  I'm sure they did put more effort into this than we are giving credit for.  The bottom line is that if I proofed a group photo for the Healthcare Finance Administration Handbook and signed my approval on it, THEN several people noticed the floating penis in the old woman's ear in the third row, I would be in no small bit of trouble.  The lash of submission is the very floating penis that is upsetting everyone, I think.

Posted By Spellbound on 08/08/2007 8:13 PM

As unhappy as I am with the changes as well, understand they DO do quite a bit of playtesting with these rules and there's a lot of discussion.

I am sure there is. The games devs are a low functioning special ed class who cannot read anything book other than "Dick and Jane" any quicker than a neolithic pace.

The games Devs at GW definatly are pot heads. Not just any potheads either, but potheads who get premium ganja from Amsterdam on an hourly basis.

Because to allow such an item as the Lash of Fzorgle to pass "Playtesting" (Man, I moved this unit a few inches....yaaaah thats, like, sooo cool, dude!) and "discussion" (Dude! Wouldnt it be, like, cool if you could move, like, your dude-braj's models to royally piss them off? Yaaaaah, dude! Tooootally crucial!) you seriously have to be hiding behind a funky green grass haze and curtain of smoke in your mom's friend's cousin's basement. And they call the players immature.

Boy, I sure would like to give Ol' Jervis a blood test for drugs. It may explain why he has a 21st chromosome abundant child whom he has to cater to to make him able to grasp the basics of the game.

Posted By Spellbound on 08/08/2007 8:13 PM

I'm sure while we sit here and call the poor guy an idiot, etc he's thinking "aw, man, I thought these rules would be fun, I put a lot of work into them..."

yeah...see above.

Posted By Spellbound on 08/08/2007 8:13 PM

10 to 1, we couldn't balance ALL list perfectly either.

For my own part I don't see what's wrong with a lot of rules - they're not that hard to figure out.  The old rules were fine, and not confusing at all.

-Spellbound

The old rules werent bad, but trying to sit down for the first time and deciphering what the hell is going on in the chaos dex was not a fun journey. Good rules (for the most part) horrendous layout.

You guys seem to think you can bunch up your opponent's units or hide certain models in order to snipe heavy weapons.

Bunching up appears quite illegal to me and I won't allow it. You simply roll the dice, specify the direction, and I will move them for you thankyou very much. It says move the unit 2D6" not move each model 2D6" in any direction including different directions.

And trying to hide certain models is just as hard as trying to range snipe models. Possible but any good player can prevent it.

Stop overrating this rule. It's really good but seriously, stop overrating it.

It was playtested clearly, since you need 24" and line of sight. That's one dead prince right there. Who can't kill a T5 W4 3+/5+ in one turn? You? Your army sucks. I've killed multiple T6 W3/4 3+/5+ (never actually versed against 2+ princes, you?) princes (without S10) and I've had to start 18-24" away simply because they have speed or flight. Haven't you?

Posted By Triggerbaby on 08/08/2007 12:51 PM

In terms of lists, I bet we'll be seeing more Fzorgle Sorcerers than Princes. The main use of the Lash carrier is fzorging, so they're wasted in close combat. Better to hide them inside another unit, all safe from lascannons and whatnot.

I'd say you might as well park them with the compulsory Fearless Thousand Sons unit with 4+ inv. saves and ap3 bolters just to be on the safe side.  I wouldn't want easy targets like princes getting taken out in one round of shooting.

Posted By onlainari on 08/08/2007 10:06 PM
You guys seem to think you can bunch up your opponent's units or hide certain models in order to snipe heavy weapons.

Bunching up appears quite illegal to me and I won't allow it. You simply roll the dice, specify the direction, and I will move them for you thankyou very much. It says move the unit 2D6" not move each model 2D6" in any direction including different directions.

And trying to hide certain models is just as hard as trying to range snipe models. Possible but any good player can prevent it.

Stop overrating this rule. It's really good but seriously, stop overrating it.

It was playtested clearly, since you need 24" and line of sight. That's one dead prince right there. Who can't kill a T5 W4 3+/5+ in one turn? You? Your army sucks. I've killed multiple T6 W3/4 3+/5+ (never actually versed against 2+ princes, you?) princes (without S10) and I've had to start 18-24" away simply because they have speed or flight. Haven't you?

From what I saw of the rule, it simply say move the unit 2D6" in any direction. This seems to indicate that the unit may be moved by the chaos player 2D6" using legal movement rules in the BGB. I don't see where you get an argument for the models not being able to be bunched up.

Posted By onlainari on 08/08/2007 10:06 PM
You guys seem to think you can bunch up your opponent's units or hide certain models in order to snipe heavy weapons.

Bunching up appears quite illegal to me and I won't allow it.

Read the rules much?

The last part of page 15 and the first part of page 16 should take care of that little problem.

Here, I even went so far as to show you the rule from page 16 ...

Well it doesn't specify anywhere that it can be up to 2D6".

It doesn't even say it's subject to all the normal rules for movement. Just the normal rules for movement penalties.

Sorry but what am I meant to have read that I supposedly didn't?

Good luck moving every model 7" and getting them bunched up.

Posted By onlainari on 08/08/2007 11:38 PM
Well it doesn't specify anywhere that it can be up to 2D6".

yeah...it does.

"Most commonly this will be D6" or 2D6" of additional movement..."

as far as normal movement rules...well then perhaps the lash does break the normal movement rules thus allowing the unit to be dispersed out of coherency? (I find this doubtful, but as you pointed out, it doesnt specify normal movement rules)

Its easy to move every model that distance and bunching them up....drop a few bases on your desk there you sitting in front of and I am sure if you try, it wont be too hard.

Pretty much the same way as someone who just deepstruck in to the field can disperse his troops from being bunched up and into a less vulnerable formation to blast markers. Its the exact opposite of the previous sentence.

and it is, quite legal mate.

I am not overrating this rule by any means, I am just finding where its limitations are, and there isnt much to its limitations.

Awesome. Not only is this rule game-breakingly broken, it also appears to be able to create lots of arguments over its exact meaning. I keep thinking this gift will stop giving, and yet it keeps floating penises by grandma's head.

I need to get ahead of it for a change: Does anybody know if this rule can give you ass cancer?

Oh definatly. Its how Jervis plans to get rid of the vets so that the kiddies can play.

Hellfury I thought I might as well post this here too.

I decided to read all the rules concerning the movement.

I found no evidence of the lash of fzorgle saying you need to specify a directions.



>>> If the test is successful, the target is moved 2D6" by the Chaos player. <<<

Here are some rules that mimic some of the lash of fzorgle rules:



>>> If unengaged, the unit may make a second jump during the assault phase instead of assaulting. Nominate the direction the unit is jumping in and move it up to 2D6" in this direction. <<<

Neither of them are movement in the movement phase. However I believe that movement phase rules apply to movements outside the movement phase. It might not be clear but I have to assume this for rules to work properly (any references actually saying I use movement phase rules for all movement =>outside moving charging units, pile in, and units falling back<= would be nice).

This means both moves have to follow the rules for remaining in coherency. The fact that WJG says "up to" while the lash of fzorgle rules don't is what is concerning me.

Clearly LoS rules don't say you have to specify the direction, just move the unit 2D6". What you guys are arguing is that this 2D6" movement is just a normal movement phase movement and therefore follows the rule of "move any or all of the models in the unit up to their maximum movement distance".

Honestly I can't argue against this.

The "up to" in the WJG seems pointless if we accept this conclusion but I guess that's GW.

Another fun thing about this will be two chaos armies going at it.  The rules state that the unit is moved 2d6 inches by the Chaos player...


Rampant penis.

Posted By Hellfury on 08/08/2007 11:47 PM

Posted By onlainari on 08/08/2007 11:38 PM
Well it doesn't specify anywhere that it can be up to 2D6".

Pretty much the same way as someone who just deepstruck in to the field can disperse his troops from being bunched up and into a less vulnerable formation to blast markers. Its the exact opposite of the previous sentence.

and it is, quite legal mate.

Well, if you are moving your models "just after" deepstriking, then I must question your rules interpretations.

The lash says move them in a certain direction 2d6 inches.  At the end of that move, if the models are not in the same configuration as before the move, then you have not moved them in that direction, the distance indicated.  The rule does not say "up to" 2d6 inches, only to move them 2d6 inches.

With that said, what happens if you push a squad through another squad from the same army?  I see no restriction against that in the rule.

p.s. And your comment about Jervis' child was inexcusable - you really should edit that comment out.  There's no reason to beat up on him in an ad hominem attack.

While I can see part of your argument, Antonin, another part of it is completely made up.

Nowhere in the rule does it say, "Move them in a certain direction 2d6"." It just says "move them 2d6"."

I could move each model in the unit 2d6" in any direction I want, each model independently, and I can use that movement to curve around terrain features, other models, or whatever, as long as I'm adhering to normal movement rules.

There is nothing in the rules that says that the movement has to be in a straight line in a nominated direction. Adding the "in a certain direction" is a complete fabrication that isn't supported by any other portion of the rule.

I saw nothing in the rule that said you couldnt move them in a large circle to the spot 1 in in front of them.

Hmm, true. And, that answers my question about what happens if you hit another unit - you can move around the unit, in a wavy line.

However, with respect to changing the arrangement of the unit, you don't move each model in the unit 2d6 inches, you move the target "non-vehicle enemy unit" 2d6 inches. Thus, if you move the unit in a circle, then all models in that unit will move in a circle - there is no authorization for you to move each model in a different direction, only an authorization for you to move the entire unit en masse. As the rules are permissive, especially when it comes to doing nasty things to your opponent's units, you can not move the models all over the place, because the rules to not permit you to.

So, what do the rules say about moving units? Let's look at page 15:

"When you are moving a unit, the individual models in it can move up to their maximum distance. . . ."

Oh dear.

Of course, it does go on to say that you can't break coherency, but that doesn't affect the issue of whether bunching is allowed. By RAW, it clearly is.

I'm sorry, your post makes no sense, as it has no bearing on what I said. I was not disagreeing with you that you can move the target all over the place, perhaps even including backwards for a little ways then forward (giving the appearance of going less than 2d6, let me point out).

My point is, instead, that whatever you do to the target unit is done to the target unit as a whole, not to individual models. Therefore, at the end of the move, the unit will look the same, but be in a different location on the board (unless some of its models have died to dangerous terrain tests, as provided for by the Lash rules.)

Got any more smart alecky comments about unrelated topics, TC?

Also, where does it say that the normal movement rules, which apply in the movement phase, apply? The Lash provides that you move the target unit 2d6 inches - no deviation provided, and it does not say that you use the regular movement rules. Consider the instance of a spawn, which moves 2d6 inches - you are saying that it can move less than 2d6 inches?

Not unrelated at all, Antonin. Lash allows you to move a unit, therefore you consult the rules for moving units. Upon doing so, you will find that they state that when moving a unit, you may move each individual model up to its maxmimum distance; the only limitation is that they cannot be out of coherency at the end. Therefore, your argument is a bunk.

I apologise if the relevance wasn't immediately clear to you, but I didn't anticipate that it would need spelling out like this. All As are Bs, C is an A, therefore C is a B, QED.

That aside:



Nowhere, you're right. However, I challenge you to find another place in the rules that defines what it means to "move a unit".



And what does it mean to move a unit? How do you measure the movement of a unit? Page ref and quotation, please.



No, I'm not. According to you, though, it could, by moving backwards and forwards, were it not for the stipulation that you need to move towards the closest enemy. Fzorgled units are under no such restriction.