Switch Theme:

Overlords on CCB's and joining units...  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in de
Repentia Mistress





Santuary 101

MarkCron wrote:
col_impact wrote:
Also, I am really curious how efffective a CCB Lord is when he joins a unit if you simply let the CCB invoke either the vehicle or the rider profile and followed a commonsense approach to wound allocation (one at a time resolving of any hit to the vehicle profile that could glance or pen).

Keep in mind that with the changes to the LOS rule, you can no longer LOS a character that is a vehicle. This is a huge throttling.


Thing is, as FlingItNow has pointed out, if you allow the vehicle profile to be used you end up breaking the game because the unit being shot at is not a "chariot unit". Restricting to the Rider profile doesn't break the game and is a logical follow on from the pro-joining argument.

Much, much easier just to go with RAW - you can't join the unit in the first place


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 milkboy wrote:
But the chariot can never be a separate model, as much as a sword can be a separate model. It just does not exist in this edition.

I think you have that confused. The Chariot IS the separable model according to the pro joining argument.

Anyway, this is why RAW not joining works. In the Chariot section of the rules there are references to both the Chariot model (dual profiles treated as a single model) and the Rider's model (in the everliving rule adjustment "that model's Chariot").

This whole argument comes down to the definition of the "profile" that gets treated as one. RAW, that doesn't include the special rules or wargear. RAW there is no reference to combining/joining/treating models as one. So the Chariot model and the Rider model are separate. Hence, the Chariot is in the same category as an RC Lord/Cryptek (but a different category to a warscythe ).


So you are saying I can purchase a riderless chariot and field it under heavy support? Since it is a separate model like crypteks, who can be bought without an overlord? That's why they are the same category to you?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
That would be exciting if possible. Almost like the headless horseman.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/06/06 03:04:34


DS:70+S+G+M-B--IPw40k94-D+++A++/wWD380R+T(D)DM+

Avatar scene by artist Nicholas Kay. Give credit where it's due! 
   
Made in au
Longtime Dakkanaut





Perth, Australia

Hmmm. Not sure you should raise common sense here. After all, common sense tells us that joining a vehicle to a unit was clearly not intended....so why are we having this debate?




 milkboy wrote:

So you are saying I can purchase a riderless chariot and field it under heavy support? Since it is a separate model like crypteks, who can be bought without an overlord? That's why they are the same category to you?

That would be exciting if possible. Almost like the headless horseman.


Well, you can't actually purchase a cryptek without an overlord. Also, the CCB is not a unit choice in heavy support. So, no . Also, while there are clearly riderless chariots envisaged, the CCB isn't one.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/06/06 03:19:14


   
Made in us
Grey Knight Purgator firing around corners





Oh good Lord...

So the now the argument is regarding how to Wound a Chariot that may or may not be joined to a unit? and why or why not it breaks the game...

Let me see, Vehicle (Chariot): Special unit that has two profiles. one profile for the Rider(in this case a Necron Overlord) and one for the Chariot (The CCB) but this unique vehicle is treated as one model. The CCB cannot be purchased in any way shape of form without an Overlord (Rider) while the Overlord can be purchased without the CCB. This parallels a SM IC buying a Bike/Terminator Armour/Jump Pack as part of their profile.

The Player controlling the Chariot Allocates which HIT POOLS go where, unless a Precision shot is landed then the Shouting player allocate that hit. I spelt this out earlier.

As for things like Blasts, Tamplates, and Shooting from a Side that the CCB is not on we would have to treat this the exact same way we treat making saves against a Mixed unit, but in this case we have to shoot/hit/Wound and kill all the models in the unit until the Chariot is the closest model and then resolve shooting against the Chariot as per the Chariot rules. Will this slow down the shooting Phase? yes it will. Will it be annoying for the player shooting? yes it will.

Does it break how to wound the unit? No it does not. It does complicate it, but it does not break it, if you follow simple logic.

This argument reminds me of one regarding FNP and force weapons, two years ago, and look what happened there. IT took an FAQ to resolve it, and it will take nothing less than an FAQ to resolve this.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/06/06 04:47:20


3000+
6000+
2000+
2500+
2500+
:Orks 5000+ 
   
Made in gb
Ultramarine Chaplain with Hate to Spare





text removed.

Reds8n

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2014/06/06 08:26:15


Take the Magic: The Gathering 'What Color Are You?' Quiz.

Yes my Colour is Black but not for the reasons stated mainly just because it's slimming... http://imperiusdominatus.blogspot.com 
   
Made in gb
[DCM]
Et In Arcadia Ego





Canterbury

If you cannot contribute to the thread without insulting other users then it's really best you don't post at all.


The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




My question is this... the chariot rules specify it is a model with a dual profile, and if the rider is a character then he cannot desembark or seperate. But where does it say that the new dual profile benefits from the special rules of the character? The only special rule that it mentions having an effect on the chariot model as a whole is one that returns the entire model to play.
   
Made in de
Repentia Mistress





Santuary 101

MarkCron wrote:

 milkboy wrote:

So you are saying I can purchase a riderless chariot and field it under heavy support? Since it is a separate model like crypteks, who can be bought without an overlord? That's why they are the same category to you?

That would be exciting if possible. Almost like the headless horseman.


Well, you can't actually purchase a cryptek without an overlord. Also, the CCB is not a unit choice in heavy support. So, no . Also, while there are clearly riderless chariots envisaged, the CCB isn't one.


Well I asked that because you stated that CBC should be in the same category as Cryptek. From what I see that are pretty different and the CBC has more in common with a war scythe. And a Cryptek can be bought with zandrekh, Imotekh as well I think? Whereas the CBC can only be bought by an overlord. With the Overlord shot dead, the Cryptek is still able to move on its own whereas the CCB is unable to. Thus I believe they are different.

Both the CCB and the war scythe are found under options for the Overlords entry in the codex. Both cannot standalone without the Overlord. I cannot understand why you would feel that the CCB needs to receive the IC rule before the mounted Overlord can join a unit, but the war scythe does not need to receive it. I cannot find a rule saying which character upgrade needs to receive IC USR and which do not.

Thus my point that neither the war scythe nor the CCB need to have the IC USR transferred, as you have said it must, on quite a few occasion, and is one of the basis for your arguments. For they are the same and what affects one in terms of joining units, should affect another.

DS:70+S+G+M-B--IPw40k94-D+++A++/wWD380R+T(D)DM+

Avatar scene by artist Nicholas Kay. Give credit where it's due! 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




War scythe does not change the unit type... CCB does. Thus they are very different.
   
Made in fi
Longtime Dakkanaut




nosferatu1001 wrote:
Naw - you failed to support your assertions with rules, again. Concession accepted


I just love these oneliners of yours that contain no substance.

As I don't have now the BRB available, citation "an IC can't join a vehicle (unit)". Look it up.

Now I advice you to back up your claim of an overlord/CCB and another IC joining together with an actual rule quote.
   
Made in de
Repentia Mistress





Santuary 101

chanceafs wrote:
War scythe does not change the unit type... CCB does. Thus they are very different.


That's interesting that you mentioned it. When you upgrade a Herald of Khorne with a Juggernaught, it becomes a cavalry type. So I guess he cannot join his Bloodcrushers? That would be a mightily lonely Herald.

DS:70+S+G+M-B--IPw40k94-D+++A++/wWD380R+T(D)DM+

Avatar scene by artist Nicholas Kay. Give credit where it's due! 
   
Made in au
Longtime Dakkanaut





Perth, Australia

@milkboy, can you please clarify what your question about the warscythe is? I'm getting a little confused.

Crypteks, Lords and CCBs are separate models. They are all listed as options for Overlords as well as phase shifters, weapons and other wargear.

Wargear, weapons and special rules attach to models (eg, overlord, cryptek or CCB).

There are clear rules associated with the transfer of special rules between models.

So, can you please quote a rule where weapons and/or wargear are considered as a model? The current situation of comparing non-models with models isn't really progressing the argument anywhere.

   
Made in de
Repentia Mistress





Santuary 101

Well Markcron, after 9 pages of this, I'm sure you are not the only confused one! Lol

I'll try to explain it simpler for you.

You mentioned that crypteks and CCB are in the same category sp deserve the same treatment when it comes to overlord joining units.

However, crypteks are not listed as options under the Overlord's entry. I'm not sure if you have the Necron codex. Perhaps that is what is causing you confusion.

Only the warscythe and the CCB (after the FAQ hit) are found under the Overlords entry. So I asked why you treated the warscythe and CCB differently, even though both of them are found under the Overlord's entry as options.

DS:70+S+G+M-B--IPw40k94-D+++A++/wWD380R+T(D)DM+

Avatar scene by artist Nicholas Kay. Give credit where it's due! 
   
Made in gb
Ultramarine Chaplain with Hate to Spare





BLADERIKER why are you posting that inapplicable rule again. You know why that rule can't be used unless you are claiming that you can cherry pick which rules to use when? Could I for instance start shooting in the middle of your psychic phase? Is that what you are claiming?

Take the Magic: The Gathering 'What Color Are You?' Quiz.

Yes my Colour is Black but not for the reasons stated mainly just because it's slimming... http://imperiusdominatus.blogspot.com 
   
Made in us
Discriminating Deathmark Assassin




Johnson City, NewYork

If you are claiming that there are two models that must be treated differently in all aspects are you treating the chariot as a single model? I look at the chariot model and it tells me there is a rider and the chariot which are one model. All equipment and USR's have to be part of the chariot else they cannot be used at all. If that wasn't true then when the vehicle moves more than 6" the rider would force it to stop as he can only move infantry speed, the same would apply to skimmer rules.

Re-animation Protocols had to be mentioned due to only adding wounds and would have brought the rider back only to have the rider die again because the chariot rules state without hull points the chariot part is removed taking away the rider.

ADD causes my posts to ramble from time to time. Please bear with me.

You're not a Time Lord stick with linear time.
Specific Vs General 
   
Made in gb
Ultramarine Chaplain with Hate to Spare





Gravmyr wrote:
If you are claiming that there are two models that must be treated differently in all aspects are you treating the chariot as a single model? I look at the chariot model and it tells me there is a rider and the chariot which are one model. All equipment and USR's have to be part of the chariot else they cannot be used at all. If that wasn't true then when the vehicle moves more than 6" the rider would force it to stop as he can only move infantry speed, the same would apply to skimmer rules.

Re-animation Protocols had to be mentioned due to only adding wounds and would have brought the rider back only to have the rider die again because the chariot rules state without hull points the chariot part is removed taking away the rider.


And how do you resolve shooting at that unit?

Take the Magic: The Gathering 'What Color Are You?' Quiz.

Yes my Colour is Black but not for the reasons stated mainly just because it's slimming... http://imperiusdominatus.blogspot.com 
   
Made in us
Discriminating Deathmark Assassin




Johnson City, NewYork

The same way we did for the mawloc when 5th first came out.... We have no concrete evidence either way.... Simplest is just as has been put fourth with the toughness of the rider being used.

ADD causes my posts to ramble from time to time. Please bear with me.

You're not a Time Lord stick with linear time.
Specific Vs General 
   
Made in us
Judgemental Grey Knight Justicar





New Orleans

Our problem is that they didn't define what a dual profile is or what does or doesn't affect it, so I would say your treat it as you would a single model and one can only not use something the other has if specifically denies him from using it since it is one model. It does say his Lord profile can't shot the gun b/c it gives us that specific exception.

Like I said if a Hive Tyrant can join a unit of guard exactly like it was an IC and that hasn't been FAQ ed I would have to assume a single model IC that is a Vehicle or MC can join a unit. It is just forbidden to join a unit of vehicles or MCs.

01001000 01101001 00100000 01110100 01101000 01100101 01110010 01100101 00101110  
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




Naw wrote:
nosferatu1001 wrote:
Naw - you failed to support your assertions with rules, again. Concession accepted


I just love these oneliners of yours that contain no substance.

As I don't have now the BRB available, citation "an IC can't join a vehicle (unit)". Look it up.

Now I advice you to back up your claim of an overlord/CCB and another IC joining together with an actual rule quote.

Contained as much substance as your prior post, where you "conveniently" didn't quote the rebuttals which showed your irrelevant arguments to be just that, and destroyed your "argument" ( in quotes, as at no point did you cite a relevant rule) as having any basis.

Page 166 only references the IC joining another unit. At no point does it state the unit has joined the IC. I know this may come as a shock, but going by what is actually written, joining is one directional, and restrictions on joining only apply to the IC joining the unit.
as such, page 166 is my citation. Try again finding YOUR argument where an IC vehicle cannot join a unit.

You have handwaved away this requirement for a few pages now, so a rules quote would be useful. Until you find one, your concessions remains accepted.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/06/06 17:31:18


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




With regards to the change in LOS to not be able to be taken by Vehicle characters, do we know for sure if there is anything that this impacts besides possibly the CCB Overlord?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/06/06 18:50:22


 
   
Made in us
The Hive Mind





col_impact wrote:
With regards to the change in LOS to not be able to be taken by Vehicle characters, do we know for sure if there is anything that this impacts besides possibly the CCB Overlord?

Pask.

My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals.
 
   
Made in gt
Regular Dakkanaut






rigeld2 wrote:
col_impact wrote:
With regards to the change in LOS to not be able to be taken by Vehicle characters, do we know for sure if there is anything that this impacts besides possibly the CCB Overlord?

Pask.


not pask since wounds are not allocated to vehicles and he doesn't have wounds, nor the vehicles in his squadron.

Only CCB overlord so far.
   
Made in us
The Hive Mind





 ashikenshin wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:
col_impact wrote:
With regards to the change in LOS to not be able to be taken by Vehicle characters, do we know for sure if there is anything that this impacts besides possibly the CCB Overlord?

Pask.


not pask since wounds are not allocated to vehicles and he doesn't have wounds, nor the vehicles in his squadron.

Only CCB overlord so far.

Without the rule, there'd be a question as to how LOS works in that situation.
There's a rule. There's no question.

My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals.
 
   
Made in gt
Regular Dakkanaut






rigeld2 wrote:

Without the rule, there'd be a question as to how LOS works in that situation.
There's a rule. There's no question.


yup, so LoS doesn't work with CCB's joined by a unit with wounds instead of hull points.


   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




rigeld2 wrote:
 ashikenshin wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:
col_impact wrote:
With regards to the change in LOS to not be able to be taken by Vehicle characters, do we know for sure if there is anything that this impacts besides possibly the CCB Overlord?

Pask.


not pask since wounds are not allocated to vehicles and he doesn't have wounds, nor the vehicles in his squadron.

Only CCB overlord so far.

Without the rule, there'd be a question as to how LOS works in that situation.
There's a rule. There's no question.


But, LOS never worked with Pask and in the 7th edition it still doesn't work, with or without the wording change, since it only works with wounds, correct? So the change didn't impact him since LOS never applied to him, right? Am I missing something? Or are you saying that GW just wanted everything to be extra, extra and gratuitously clear in the case of Pask?

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2014/06/06 20:49:41


 
   
Made in us
The Hive Mind





col_impact wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:
 ashikenshin wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:
col_impact wrote:
With regards to the change in LOS to not be able to be taken by Vehicle characters, do we know for sure if there is anything that this impacts besides possibly the CCB Overlord?

Pask.


not pask since wounds are not allocated to vehicles and he doesn't have wounds, nor the vehicles in his squadron.

Only CCB overlord so far.

Without the rule, there'd be a question as to how LOS works in that situation.
There's a rule. There's no question.


But, LOS never worked with Pask and in the 7th edition it still doesn't work, with or without the wording change. So the change didn't impact him, right? Am I missing something? Or are you saying that GW just wanted everything to be extra, extra clear in the case of Pask?

Yes. Without that rule there'd be confusion. Just like with invul saves for vehicles in 6th, and invul and cover saves for vehicles in 5th, and Hive Guard's ignoring vehicle cover in the 5th ed codex, and Ignores Cover in 6th...
With the current rule there's no confusion, no question.

My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals.
 
   
Made in au
Longtime Dakkanaut





Perth, Australia

milkboy wrote:
Only the warscythe and the CCB (after the FAQ hit) are found under the Overlords entry. So I asked why you treated the warscythe and CCB differently, even though both of them are found under the Overlord's entry as options.

I've already explained that. The CCB is a separate model, the warscythe isn't.

Gravmyr wrote:If you are claiming that there are two models that must be treated differently in all aspects are you treating the chariot as a single model? I look at the chariot model and it tells me there is a rider and the chariot which are one model.

Mythra wrote:Our problem is that they didn't define what a dual profile is or what does or doesn't affect it, so I would say your treat it as you would a single model and one can only not use something the other has if specifically denies him from using it since it is one model. It does say his Lord profile can't shot the gun b/c it gives us that specific exception.





Seriously, after 9 pages where the actual, full, paragraph containing the words "treated as a single model" has been reproduced numerous times it's hard to understand why people think the Rider model doesn't exist (especially as it is specifically referred to later on in the rules ). As to definition of profiles, I'd draw picture to illustrate, but GW already did that, so not sure how else to explain a characteristic profile.

For the pro joining crew that persist in taking partial rules out of context, I've found some more benefits of the CCB for you. I'm looking forward to the YMDC thread on these ones!

Tesla weapons roll +2 on the damage table : ERB pg 490 "scores a penetrating hit add a +2 modifier to the roll on the vehicle damage table"
CCB can thunderblitz : ERB pg 527, first para "vehicles may tank shock or ram. When they do so, roll once on the Thunderblitz table"

For the readers with the popcorn the summary of the RAW arguments is in the spoiler below. I hid it in a spoiler because the pro-joining crew don't read it anyway. On with the show!

One more thing, @nosferatu, can you please provide a rulebook reference showing the Chariot is an IC?

Spoiler:
RAW - ANTI JOINING

RAW : Treat 2 characteristic profiles as one model

RAW - ERB Pg 510, first para under "Chariots" = "A Chariot is an unusual unit with a dual profile - a non vehicle profile for the rider of the Chariot (see below), and a vehicle profile for the Chariot itself. However a Chariot is always treated as a single model." For reference the "see below" is to a diagram showing CHARACTERISTIC profiles, with no reference at all to either wargear or special rules. It also does not say "model" anywhere in the example.


RAW : The Rider and Chariot have separate USR which cannot be used by each other

ERB pg 510 under heading "Characters Riding Chariots" = "If the rider has a special rule that returns it to play after it has been removed as a casualty, such as Necron's Ever-living special rule, that model's Chariot is also returned to play with a single Hull Point."

ERB pg 512 "Challenges" = "A Rider who is a character can issue and accept challenges as normal, but cannot perform a glorious intervention".

ERB pg 513 "Special Rules" = "A Chariot has the hammer of wrath special rule ...." and also "A Rider has the Fearless and Relentless special rules. A rider can fire Overwatch if its Chariot is charged, but cannot shoot any of the weapons mounted on the Chariot itself"

Anti Joining RAW Summary

To avoid confusion here are defined terms applicable to the Chariot rules in the ruleboo.:

"Profile" - a representation of CHARACTERISTICS excluding wargear and special rules as shown in the example profile under the Chariot rules in the ERB.

"Model" - a term defined to mean one or more profiles, together with wargear/USR and or other special rules. Note that USR can only be assigned to a model and must be explicity assigned.

"CCB" - a model which is the result of applying the Chariot rules per the ERB. It consists of a Chariot and a Rider.

"Chariot" - The Chariot characteristic profile plus the following wargear and special rules as assigned in the rulebook/Codex: Tesla Cannon/Gauss Cannon, Relentless, Open Topped, Skimmer, Living Metal, Symbiotic Repair, Quantum shielding

"Rider" - The Rider model consisting of the Rider characteristic profile and wargear and special rules as assigned in the rulebook/Codex : Wargear as selected on the Overlord, Independent Character, Ever-Living, Ability to issue and accept challenges, ability to overwatch, Relentless, Fearless, ability to Sweep attack

In summary: RAW - the combination of Characteristic profiles into the CCB does not combine "models". USR and special rules available to the Rider or the Chariot CANNOT be used by the other. The Chariot for example cannot overwatch, nor can it use it's weapon to perform sweep attacks, nor can it accept challenges. The Rider cannot use symbiotic repair or the weapon on the Chariot.

Yes, the RIDER has IC. However, the CCB DOES NOT have it. IC cannot be transferred to any other unit, or model under any circumstances. IF the rider could disembark, then they would be able to join another unit.

Remember, you have to have EXPRESS permission to do something in this rule set.

RAW - PRO JOINING

RAW - ERB Pg 510, EXTRACT from first paragraph "Chariots" = "However a Chariot is always treated as a single model."

Pro Joining RAW Summary
The sentence says the Chariot is a single model. Hence all USR for the Rider and Chariot are available to the CCB. This means:

A) The CCB (not the Rider) can issue and accept challenges (in contravention of the BRB)
b) The CCB (not the Rider) can fire overwatch with the Chariot Weapon (in contravention of the BRB)
c) The CCB (Not the Rider) can sweep attack with the Chariot Weapon (Contravening the FAQ and Codex)
d) All references to the "Rider" in the ERB are incorrect as it should say "Chariot" because all special rules need to be assigned to a model, ie the CCB. Therefore the Rider is NOT Fearless and the CCB can be swept in combat. Further the CCB is unable to issue or accept challenges as this authority was granted to a Rider, which doesn't exist.
e) The everliving rule does not apply to the CCB because the ERB clearly states "that model's chariot ...". As there is no Rider Model, this can never happen.
f) The CCB is an independent character and can join units.

   
Made in de
Decrepit Dakkanaut





MarkCron wrote:


One more thing, @nosferatu, can you please provide a rulebook reference showing the Chariot is an IC?


Necron codex, p. 30 / 89. The Chariot isn't a IC, it's a Chariot. It has the IC USR.

Tesla weapons roll +2 on the damage table : ERB pg 490 "scores a penetrating hit add a +2 modifier to the roll on the vehicle damage table"
CCB can thunderblitz : ERB pg 527, first para "vehicles may tank shock or ram. When they do so, roll once on the Thunderblitz table"


This simply proves that you severely lack a very basic understanding of rules. Read the BRB first and ask questions on parts you don't understand before trying to argue, especially from a RAW perspective.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/06/06 21:53:41


   
Made in au
Longtime Dakkanaut





Perth, Australia

 Sigvatr wrote:
MarkCron wrote:


One more thing, @nosferatu, can you please provide a rulebook reference showing the Chariot is an IC?


Necron codex, p. 30 / 89. The Chariot isn't a IC, it's a Chariot. It has the IC USR.

Actually, that shows the OVERLORD has IC. Please show that the CHARIOT has IC.

 Sigvatr wrote:

Tesla weapons roll +2 on the damage table : ERB pg 490 "scores a penetrating hit add a +2 modifier to the roll on the vehicle damage table"
CCB can thunderblitz : ERB pg 527, first para "vehicles may tank shock or ram. When they do so, roll once on the Thunderblitz table"


This simply proves that you severely lack a very basic understanding of rules. Read the BRB first and ask questions on parts you don't understand before trying to argue, especially from a RAW perspective.

Apparently you think it is silly when people take only partial statements and use them out of context?

I assume that you are in the anti-joining camp then.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/06/06 22:01:10


   
Made in gt
Regular Dakkanaut






MarkCron wrote:

I've already explained that. The CCB is a separate model, the warscythe isn't.


not according to the rules.
   
Made in de
Repentia Mistress





Santuary 101

MarkCron wrote:
milkboy wrote:
Only the warscythe and the CCB (after the FAQ hit) are found under the Overlords entry. So I asked why you treated the warscythe and CCB differently, even though both of them are found under the Overlord's entry as options.

I've already explained that. The CCB is a separate model, the warscythe isn't.


Pray tell, where is the rule that says the chariot is a separate model? Perhaps you have mentioned it but 9 pages is rather long. Could you quote it again?

And this rule that you quote, does it also mention if the Juggernaut of Khorne is also a separate model?

DS:70+S+G+M-B--IPw40k94-D+++A++/wWD380R+T(D)DM+

Avatar scene by artist Nicholas Kay. Give credit where it's due! 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K You Make Da Call
Go to: