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.

Quick question for you all:

- Technically, there is a 5+ chance that Buzzgob crawls out of the Stompa if it's destroyed. But then there's that phrase '' If the Stompa is destroyed in a fashion that does not leave a wreck then Buzzgob may not be placed on the table and is considered destroyed.''

And according to the Catastrophic Damage rule in Brb P.94, The Stompa is removed when it looses its last hull point. So Technically, The is no chance of Buzzgob ever crawling out eh? (It would be kinda convenient since I don't own the model lol )

Thanks

Vermine wrote:
Quick question for you all:

- Technically, there is a 5+ chance that Buzzgob crawls out of the Stompa if it's destroyed. But then there's that phrase '' If the Stompa is destroyed in a fashion that does not leave a wreck then Buzzgob may not be placed on the table and is considered destroyed.''

And according to the Catastrophic Damage rule in Brb P.94, The Stompa is removed when it looses its last hull point. So Technically, The is no chance of Buzzgob ever crawling out eh? (It would be kinda convenient since I don't own the model lol )

Thanks

Yep. Forgeworld seems to have given up on updating their IA rules outside of republishing them in new books. So Buzzgob's rules were never updated for 7th edition, and as such there is no chance for a dying Stompa to leave a wreck anymore.

The fact that the ITC decided to allow the discounted Stompa, despite this discount being clearly based on a typo, IMHO is a terrible precedent for this exact reason, because it suddenly leaves people trying to play 'RAW' with old IA rules that frankly do not stand up to close inspection in many cases.

Welp!
I guess it saves me from buying Bozzgob lol,
Thanks Yak.

Yeah you're out of luck on this ruling. However I disagree with the fact that people keep saying the 300 point stompa is a typo. I think that it was a typo, however FW did update the dread mob list (not for 7th) but still left it the same which means that they found some basis to leave it that way or they were just lazy. Either way enjoy the rules as best you can since not everything will work 100%

Yakface, I refuse to use it, but do you not think the reason they allowed it is so Ork players can have a real game against the stupidity that is these codices lately?

FratHammer wrote:
Yakface, I refuse to use it, but do you not think the reason they allowed it is so Ork players can have a real game against the stupidity that is these codices lately?

I think that IS likely the reason, but mirroring what Yakface said, this is a dangerous precedent. The ITC "FAQ" isn't clarifying rules anymore, it's making arbitrary changes to match what a (relatively) few people consider to be fair. My fear is that this will become widespread and that one day I'll walk into a store, play a rule correctly and be told that I've done something wrong with the ITC "FAQ" as evidence.

 Kriswall wrote:

FratHammer wrote:
Yakface, I refuse to use it, but do you not think the reason they allowed it is so Ork players can have a real game against the stupidity that is these codices lately?

I think that IS likely the reason, but mirroring what Yakface said, this is a dangerous precedent. The ITC "FAQ" isn't clarifying rules anymore, it's making arbitrary changes to match what a (relatively) few people consider to be fair. My fear is that this will become widespread and that one day I'll walk into a store, play a rule correctly and be told that I've done something wrong with the ITC "FAQ" as evidence.

Like fire a blast/template that clips a FMC and then resolve the damage as the rules allow you to do, then be told you can't because ITC has faqed the non-question by now saying that FMC cannot be hit by markers and templates?

ITC has already house ruled things, that are not ambiguous. The above is just one example.

The ork thing is obviously a typo, which I am not sure puts that ruling in a different level of house rule. IE lets go with RAW even though its a typo versus, lets ignore RAW because this speeds up the game / makes this army better / gives person FMC more safety because person involved in making rules plays them.

mhalko1 wrote:
Yeah you're out of luck on this ruling. However I disagree with the fact that people keep saying the 300 point stompa is a typo. I think that it was a typo, however FW did update the dread mob list (not for 7th) but still left it the same which means that they found some basis to leave it that way or they were just lazy. Either way enjoy the rules as best you can since not everything will work 100%

It's the update that has the typo (stompa at less than half price) - the original army list let him buy a stompa with no discount.

Beware IA8 is no longer for sale and It + the update is no longer supported by FW.

mhalko1 wrote:Yeah you're out of luck on this ruling. However I disagree with the fact that people keep saying the 300 point stompa is a typo. I think that it was a typo, however FW did update the dread mob list (not for 7th) but still left it the same which means that they found some basis to leave it that way or they were just lazy. Either way enjoy the rules as best you can since not everything will work 100%

What people seem to forget is that FW updated the Dred Mob twice since IA8 was published. In IA8, Buzzgob is allowed to take a 'Kustom Stompa' for no points break. The first time, FW updated the army list, they changed this to a 50 point break. (so, pay 300 points to take a Kustom Stompa before adding on extras). This discount made sense because you'd pay 100 points for Buzzgob, and you basically didn't get anything for that extra 100 points if he was in the Stompa (besides being able to pop-out if the Stompa was destroyed).

Then after 6th edition hit and the new Apocalypse book came out, they updated the army list again, this time changing the 'Kustom Stompa' over to the 'Big Mek Stompa' that was in the Apocalypse book, but did not update the points cost along with that update, leaving it at the ridiculous 300 point level.

This meant that even with the 100 points Buzzgob costs, you're still getting the Big Mek Stompa for a 430 point discount. There is simply no world where it makes sense for you to get a 430 point discount on something for no real penalty (besides using up a HQ slot).

It is an absolute fact that FW stopped updating stuff they had already put out at a certain point. It coincided with the same period that GW stopped really putting out FAQs, so there was clearly some sort of change of direction in the entire company.

It was unequivocally a typo, and one of the things a tournament FAQ is supposed to be able to do is to take a stand when something is blatantly a typo and say 'that is not right', regardless of how ridiculously over or underpowered the thing the typo results in is.

FratHammer wrote:Yakface, I refuse to use it, but do you not think the reason they allowed it is so Ork players can have a real game against the stupidity that is these codices lately?

Well yeah. They opened it up to player voting and people voted it that way because Stompas in general are ridiculously over-costed.

But again, it is a terrible precedent to take a typo and use that as a basis to try to make something viable. If they think Stompas are over-costed, then they should vote to lower their points cost across the board.

But just allowing this one typo to remain in effect when it is obviously a typo encourages players to try to find RAW loopholes in old Forgeworld rules and try to exploit them, and that IMHO is a terrible thing to encourage.

oldzoggy wrote:Beware IA8 is no longer for sale and It + the update is no longer supported by FW.

That is very good point, and yet another reason why that ruling should not be allowed in ITC tournaments IMHO.

I think the argument that an FAQ shouldn't change how the game works would only make sense if 40k had a much tighter more balanced ruleset.

I don't see a problem with an attempt to rebalance the rules in a way that lets more factions have a chance, especially when the decision to make changes is made democratically.

All Stompas should be around 400pts in a game with Wraithknights and Stormsurges.

 King Pyrrhus wrote:
I think the argument that an FAQ shouldn't change how the game works would only make sense if 40k had a much tighter more balanced ruleset.

I don't see a problem with an attempt to rebalance the rules in a way that lets more factions have a chance, especially when the decision to make changes is made democratically.

All Stompas should be around 400pts in a game with Wraithknights and Stormsurges.

I agree on all points. I'm fine with a tournament FAQ choosing to rebalance units if they want to.

But it should be done with eyes wide open and to all Stompas across the board, not based on one particular typo.

^This.
Agreeing to the most dubious interpretation of the rules in order to fix balance issues lowers the general value of their FAQ.