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.

Not sure if this has been brought up already but there is a typo in one of the pyrovore's rules that if taken seriously is just hilarious. The rule is as follows:

"volatile: If a Pyrovore is slain by a Wound that inflicted Instant Death, every unit suffers a Strength 3 AP- hit for each model (excluding Pyrovores) within D6" of the slain Pyrovore (resolve damge before removing the Pyrovore as a casualty"

Right so here's where the issue is it says that all units take a hit for every model within 6". Not units within 6" but all units So if your playing a casual game or are getting your ass kicked by taudar(or any other competitive army) just use this to troll your opponent, at least until it's FAQ'd

This is another proof of poor proofchecking on GW's part, and is clearly not intended. Another fun one is the 2++ that terminator armour grants in the French translation , which luckily was corrected on the day of release.

Damn those frenchies are tough.

Judging by the number of rule disputes with nids particularly I'd have to agree with you about GW not proof-reading.

 ferret61 wrote:
Not sure if this has been brought up already but there is a typo in one of the pyrovore's rules that if taken seriously is just hilarious. The rule is as follows:

"volatile: If a Pyrovore is slain by a Wound that inflicted Instant Death, every unit suffers a Strength 3 AP- hit for each model (excluding Pyrovores) within D6" of the slain Pyrovore (resolve damge before removing the Pyrovore as a casualty"

Right so here's where the issue is it says that all units take a hit for every model within 6". Not units within 6" but all units So if your playing a casual game or are getting your ass kicked by taudar(or any other competitive army) just use this to troll your opponent, at least until it's FAQ'd

I must be missing your point.

it clearly says: every unit suffers a S3 hit within D6".....so this includes your non pyrovore units within the rolled D6 worth of "

I don't see how your translating that into every unit on the board....

It clearly is intended to mean that each unit within 6" takes a number of hits equal to the number of models within 6", however, nutty, the logic flaw ferret is pointing out is this:

Which units does it say take hits? ALL UNITS
How many hits do they take? equal to the number of non-pyrovore models within 6"

by that literal reading every unit on the board takes hits

so every unit not within (d?)6" take 0 hits

I don't see the issue....

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
so every unit not within (d?)6" take 0 hits

I don't see the issue....

Say the Pyrovore gets IDed by a marine power fist. I roll my d6 and discover 4 Space marines and 3 Hormagaunts are within range. That is 7 models within the d6" so every unit on the board takes 7 hits. It doesn't say you take a number of hits equal to the number of models from your unit that are in range.

Ah, now I see the issue

definitely not RAI, but I'd love to see someone do this

Does suddenly make them sorta worth the points though

Still not worth the points unfortunately. Orchestrating an instant death while surrounded by models is nearly impossible.

Even if you pulled that off, it is unlikely nids will ever face an enemy more vulnerable to s 3 ap -.

A fantastic way to kill all the models on the board except your opponent's vehicles.

So leaping off a relatively tall building into a brood of 30 gaunts may kill everything, besides tanks, on the board? Let's see how long GW takes to FAQ that one, but then again we're still waiting on a decent Daemon one.

tallguynsc wrote:
So leaping off a relatively tall building into a brood of 30 gaunts may kill everything, besides tanks, on the board? Let's see how long GW takes to FAQ that one, but then again we're still waiting on a decent Daemon one.

that have to be instant deathed by a S8+ hit

How does jumping off a building cause Instant Death?

 grendel083 wrote:
How does jumping off a building cause Instant Death?

Depends how far up you jump from iirc..

theres a detailed description on impact tests somewhere...

I actually cant find anything to validate that.. Must be some weird Rule from a previous edition...

From what I remember though, it was something along the lines of every 3 inches adds +1 str to a hit you must take from jumping down off of terrain/battlements/godzilla... But I can see that is no longer the case for 6th (Might have been a house rule)

It does not state "Every unit on the table..." It clearly states "Every unit takes a S3 ap - hit for each model within D6" of the slain pyrovore."

So it's either you have a lack of reading comprehension skills, or you just want to misread something for an advantage.

It would be like a teacher saying "Every class gets a cookie for each student with an A average." The only classes that are getting cookies are those with a student with an A average, and then only as many cookies as there are A averages in that class.

Wagguy80 wrote:
It does not state "Every unit on the table..." It clearly states "Every unit takes a S3 ap - hit for each model within D6" of the slain pyrovore."

So it's either you have a lack of reading comprehension skills, or you just want to misread something for an advantage.

It would be like a teacher saying "Every class gets a cookie for each student with an A average." The only classes that are getting cookies are those with a student with an A average, and then only as many cookies as there are A averages in that class.

You, sir, lack the reading comprehension. The rule say, "Volatile - If a Pyrovore is slain by a Wound that inflicted Instant Death, every unit suffers a Strength 3 Ap- hit [u]for each model (excluding Pyrovore) within D6" of the slain Pyrovore."

It does not say, as was obviously intended, that every unit within D6" of the slain Pyrovore suffers a Str 3 AP- hit for each model in the unit within that D6". As it written, for each model within D6" of the slain Pyrovore, EVERY UNIT (there is no range limit on how far away the unit has to be to be affected by the hits) takes that many hits. 20 models within the 4 inches you rolled. Every unit on the table just took 20 S3 AP - hits.

Looking at the page the problem was they were trying to squeeze that text in and so worded it badly.

Normally I would not be this harsh but the problem with the rule wording was explained at least twice before your post.

Wagguy80 wrote:
It does not state "Every unit on the table..." It clearly states "Every unit takes a S3 ap - hit for each model within D6" of the slain pyrovore."

So it's either you have a lack of reading comprehension skills, or you just want to misread something for an advantage.

It would be like a teacher saying "Every class gets a cookie for each student with an A average." The only classes that are getting cookies are those with a student with an A average, and then only as many cookies as there are A averages in that class.

No, see - that's not how English works.
Your example is similarly worded, and has the same problem.

Corrected.

Stormbreed wrote:
We place a large ruin or something like a ruin which is 8" high, (I think that is a STR 8 hit) and as many Pyrovores as possible on top of it.

This isn't a rule. It doesn't work like this. Stop propagating it.

I wonder how fast this will be FAQed. It reminds me of all the missile drones you could take with tau before the FAQ.

rigeld2 wrote:

This isn't a rule. It doesn't work like this. Stop propagating it.

Thanks for actually correcting the mistake Rigeld2!

Don't know why so many people think its based on height for STR, and not just the negative modifier to the terrain test.

rigeld2 wrote:

Stormbreed wrote:
We place a large ruin or something like a ruin which is 8" high, (I think that is a STR 8 hit) and as many Pyrovores as possible on top of it.

This isn't a rule. It doesn't work like this. Stop propagating it.

Why do we all seem to think it exists... I'm actually curious where this was started... It can't be local as I live in Ottawa Canada... Was this a previous Edition Rule? =/
I know most people play like this whenever it shows up (if ever) ESPECIALLY with last edition Tau people running their Etherals off buildings for Preferred Enemy.... I understand it's not legit... But where would it have started?

Someone, somewhere started it and everyone else said "LOLTHATSDUMB" instead of looking up the rules involved.

rigeld2 wrote:
Someone, somewhere started it and everyone else said "LOLTHATSDUMB" instead of looking up the rules involved.

Well, I might agree that someone might have started it.. But for it to be adopted so openly and known through so many people, I don't think being so bitter about it showing up makes it so "dumb" =/

I'm not bitter about it - I meant that people are reacting that way to "how it works" instead of researching how it would actually work.

rigeld2 wrote:
I'm not bitter about it - I meant that people are reacting that way to "how it works" instead of researching how it would actually work.

My apologies, It just read out kind of bitterly XD
But I agree with you.

Wagguy80 wrote:
It does not state "Every unit on the table..." It clearly states "Every unit takes a S3 ap - hit for each model within D6" of the slain pyrovore."

So it's either you have a lack of reading comprehension skills, or you just want to misread something for an advantage.

It would be like a teacher saying "Every class gets a cookie for each student with an A average." The only classes that are getting cookies are those with a student with an A average, and then only as many cookies as there are A averages in that class.

I hope this teacher doesn't teach English, they have terrible grammar if the think what they said means that.

It's pretty funny really. I mean sure, that's not what they meant but it is what they wrote. No one's ever going to play it that way, but it's funny nonetheless.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
I hope this teacher doesn't track English, they have terrible grammar if the think what they said means that.

It's not terrible grammar at all, it's just assuming that the people you're talking to aren't stupid. Everyone hearing that statement knows that there's an implied "in that class" attached to the end, so in casual conversation it's fine to say the shorter version. This is just a case of nitpicking RAW for the sake of having a YMDC thread.