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.

Okay, a bit confused.

Taking a carnifex with Scything Talons and Crushing Claws.

Do all the Carnifex's attacks get +1 strength from the crushing claws, or just 1?

Also if it has toxin sacs, do the attacks or attack get rerolls at S9 or, S9+1 from crushing claws?

All attacks except hammer of wrath and tail attacks get extra strength.

Reroll with toxin off of s10.

Thank you very much.

Thinking about this again, can anyone tell me where I can find the reference to this? Flipped through a couple times, can't seem to find anything.

My friends are going to challenge this and I'd like to be able to back up this claim.

dukegarda wrote:
Thinking about this again, can anyone tell me where I can find the reference to this? Flipped through a couple times, can't seem to find anything.

My friends are going to challenge this and I'd like to be able to back up this claim.

What specifically are you looking for ?

challange what exactly?

He gets +1 to strength for having crushing claws.

He gets +1 attack for having 2 close combat biomorphs.

He has AP2 because he has the smash rule.

He wounds on 4+ with rerolls because he has the poison rule and his str is higher than their toughness.

Honestly though, why would you give him poison. He's wounding most things on 2 without it?

Eihnlazer wrote:
challange what exactly?

He gets +1 to strength for having crushing claws.

He gets +1 attack for having 2 close combat biomorphs.

He has AP2 because he has the smash rule.

He wounds on 4+ with rerolls because he has the poison rule and his str is higher than their toughness.

Honestly though, why would you give him poison. He's wounding most things on 2 without it?

He only wounds T10 on a 4+. Against anything else, it'll be either 3+ or (more likely) 2+.

Toxin sacs only give you the Poisoned 4+ rule though I thought?

Reread Poison. It specifically says it wounds on a fixed number, unless a lower number is needed. 6th ed made TS awesome on TMCs.

What are the advantages of having 2 sets of scything talons? I saw where this was brought up somewhere else and think that they would look cool if nothing else. Bad part would be that even though it is allowed, it could be considered MFA because only one set comes in the box so adding another set from another would be converting it or changing it from the stock model out of the box..

The advantages of 2 sets of talons is an extra attack. That's it. Also, converting a model to actually have the weapons the rules give it is hardly modelling for advantage.

2 sets of scything talons still provides +1 attack for 2 melee biomorphs. It does nothing else though.



Also happy, if your not using the 4+ poisoned to wound, you shouldnt still get the reroll to wound from poisoned since your not using poison to wound.

Chrysis wrote:
The advantages of 2 sets of talons is an extra attack. That's it. Also, converting a model to actually have the weapons the rules give it is hardly modelling for advantage.

This has come up in other threads and there are people who are claiming that it is. Most of us disagree.
Thanks for the heads up on the claws. I have a few models and will likely magnatize to trade off. Havnt got the codex yet to know what the extra gubbins does though.

Eihnlazer wrote:
2 sets of scything talons still provides +1 attack for 2 melee biomorphs. It does nothing else though.



Also happy, if your not using the 4+ poisoned to wound, you shouldnt still get the reroll to wound from poisoned since your not using poison to wound.

Read the poison rules. They're pretty clear that you get the re-roll without using the fixed wound value. In fact you never even have the option of using the fixed wound value if your strength is higher, poison prohibits it.

Doesn't matter. Poison has two parts:
1. Wound on a fixed number, unless a lower result is needed.
2. Re-roll failed wounds if S>=T.

Voorn wrote:
What are the advantages of having 2 sets of scything talons? I saw where this was brought up somewhere else and think that they would look cool if nothing else. Bad part would be that even though it is allowed, it could be considered MFA because only one set comes in the box so adding another set from another would be converting it or changing it from the stock model out of the box..

I'm glad I have self-control, because if I didn't and someone claimed I couldn't arm my Hive Tyrant with Devourers or any of the Bio-Artefacts because the kit doesn't come with them I would punch them in the throat.

Eihnlazer wrote:Also happy, if your not using the 4+ poisoned to wound, you shouldnt still get the reroll to wound from poisoned since your not using poison to wound.

So you didn't read the Poisoned rule then? Please do.

Voorn wrote:

Chrysis wrote:
The advantages of 2 sets of talons is an extra attack. That's it. Also, converting a model to actually have the weapons the rules give it is hardly modelling for advantage.

This has come up in other threads and there are people who are claiming that it is. Most of us disagree.
Thanks for the heads up on the claws. I have a few models and will likely magnatize to trade off. Havnt got the codex yet to know what the extra gubbins does though.

No, there isn't a single person claiming that it is.
Not one in any thread I've read on this site. Ever.

This was claimed in another thread. Anything not stock out of the box is a conversion. Since adding the extra talons would be using parts that did not come out of the box (an extra set from another model) would be converting it to give it an advantage, it would by their definition be modeling for advantage.

Voorn wrote:
This was claimed in another thread. Anything not stock out of the box is a conversion. Since adding the extra talons would be using parts that did not come out of the box (an extra set from another model) would be converting it to give it an advantage, it would by their definition be modeling for advantage.

In that case, Tactical squads can't take Lascannons. And Devastators can have a max of two of a weapon. Oh, and no one is allowed to have a power spear.

I'm sorry but that "conversions" argument is just plain wrong. If anyone tries to use that, please pack up your stuff and find a new opponent. Modeling for Advantage is drastically altering the size or details of a model in order to give yourself an advantage. Using parts to give it legal gear is not modeling for advantage.

Your preaching to the choir man. I'm not saying that that is MY view, just that there are a few in other threads that are putting it out there.
I kinda like the look of multiple talons on it. Would multiple crushing claws do anything more than give an extra attack? Think they would look cool. How about those extra large ones FW makes. would people have an issue using them as normal ones that just look heavy duty?

Voorn wrote:
This was claimed in another thread. Anything not stock out of the box is a conversion. Since adding the extra talons would be using parts that did not come out of the box (an extra set from another model) would be converting it to give it an advantage, it would by their definition be modeling for advantage.

No, you're exaggerating statements that were made and taking things out of context. I know because I was involved in most of the threads about things like that.

Those are your statements? So you didnt suggest that altering a model out of the box in order to allow for a different legal configuration that the "stock" model doesnt have is MFA? For example putting 4 heavy bolters on a single side of a bastion or an exact comparison in the bug codex of putting 4 scything talons on a carnifex?

Voorn wrote:
Those are your statements? So you didnt suggest that altering a model out of the box in order to allow for a different legal configuration that the "stock" model doesnt have is MFA? For example putting 4 heavy bolters on a single side of a bastion or an exact comparison in the bug codex of putting 4 scything talons on a carnifex?

I don't know if they were my statements or not. Yes, IMO putting 4 heavy bolters on the same side is modeling for advantage. No, putting 4 scything talons on a Fex is not modeling for advantage.

It is the same thing. Converting a stock model differently from the way it came in the box to represent a legal unit that the codex/rulebook allows for and intends.
You personally might agree with one and not the other. That is your personal choice. However, that in no way represents the view of Games Workshop or the gaming community at large. The majority of players have no issue with those legal conversions to represent units that GW does not have a stock model for and Games Workshop intentionally provided for those units within the rules and intended us as players to be able to convert them out of the models that they do produce.
Again, now back to the claws which is the topic of this thread.

Voorn wrote:
It is the same thing. Converting a stock model differently from the way it came in the box to represent a legal unit that the codex/rulebook allows for and intends.
You personally might agree with one and not the other. That is your personal choice.

Converting a 'stock' model to a model with legally bought options is not MFA, it is simply Modeling. In fact, until recently WYSIWYG required you to do so.

However, that in no way represents the view of Games Workshop or the gaming community at large. The majority of players have no issue with those legal conversions to represent units that GW does not have a stock model for and Games Workshop intentionally provided for those units within the rules and intended us as players to be able to convert them out of the models that they do produce.
Again, now back to the claws which is the topic of this thread.

This whole line of thought is way off base.

If you feel that is off base, fel free to contact Games Workshop and tell them they are wrong. Sometimes I too feel they are. However in cases like this, we as players have to go by the RAW which I am doing. I personally feel that RAI also applies here though.

Voorn wrote:
It is the same thing. Converting a stock model differently from the way it came in the box to represent a legal unit that the codex/rulebook allows for and intends.

It's really not the same thing. At all.

You personally might agree with one and not the other. That is your personal choice. However, that in no way represents the view of Games Workshop or the gaming community at large. The majority of players have no issue with those legal conversions to represent units that GW does not have a stock model for and Games Workshop intentionally provided for those units within the rules and intended us as players to be able to convert them out of the models that they do produce.
Again, now back to the claws which is the topic of this thread.

Please quote the rule defining modeling for advantage. I'll wait.

rigeld2 wrote:

Voorn wrote:
You personally might agree with one and not the other. That is your personal choice. However, that in no way represents the view of Games Workshop or the gaming community at large. The majority of players have no issue with those legal conversions to represent units that GW does not have a stock model for and Games Workshop intentionally provided for those units within the rules and intended us as players to be able to convert them out of the models that they do produce.
Again, now back to the claws which is the topic of this thread.

Please quote the rule defining modeling for advantage. I'll wait.

Well considering you do not have permission in the rules to assemble or even paint your models... it is a moot point.

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Voorn wrote:
You personally might agree with one and not the other. That is your personal choice. However, that in no way represents the view of Games Workshop or the gaming community at large. The majority of players have no issue with those legal conversions to represent units that GW does not have a stock model for and Games Workshop intentionally provided for those units within the rules and intended us as players to be able to convert them out of the models that they do produce.
Again, now back to the claws which is the topic of this thread.

Please quote the rule defining modeling for advantage. I'll wait.

Well considering you do not have permission in the rules to assemble or even paint your models... it is a moot point.

It's really not. I'd thank you to wait for what I'm going to say instead of attempting to drag this into a stupid off topic crapshoot.

Voorn wrote:
Those are your statements? So you didnt suggest that altering a model out of the box in order to allow for a different legal configuration that the "stock" model doesnt have is MFA? For example putting 4 heavy bolters on a single side of a bastion or an exact comparison in the bug codex of putting 4 scything talons on a carnifex?

Really not even close. WYSIWYG requires the use of 4 Talons on stock carnifex and where you mount them really has no effect on the game play, even all on the left side. A bastion requires 4 heavy bolters with the suggestion to mount one per side and where you mount them has a major effect on the game play of the bastion. Is the Carnie set up legal? Yes, does affect game play of the unit? No. Is all four heavy bolters on one side of the bastion legal? Probably, yes. Will it affect the game play of the bastion? Yes. That second yes is what moves it in to MFA territory.