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.

Played a game with my MoK Kharbdis Assault Claw last night. I am still getting my head around 8th edition rules and it felt like maybe I was doing something wrong.

1) The Kharbdis deep struck and dropped off it's Hellbrute passenger.

2) The Hellbrute shot a Dreadnought with the multi-melta, causing 5 wounds.

3) The Kharbdis charged the Dreadnought, attacking with it's melta-cutters and causing another 10 wounds to destroy it.

4) The weapon hit on a 2+ at S16, meaning there was no way for the Dread to save against those hits.

5) The Kharbdis consolidated 3 inches. I was able to pivot the base so the 2 Razorbacks were within an inch.

6) The next turn, my opponent had both Razorbacks fall back from combat. My Kharbdis charged one of them and did the same thing with the melta-cutters. It eventually caught up with the other one, but could not kill it before the game ended.

This seemed like one hell of an alpha strike against light tanks, once the Kharbdis got the charge it was just eating tanks with those magma cutters. MoK allowed it to reroll one charge to stay in the battle.

My friend and I thought everything seemed legal, but we both agreed the base size for the Kharbdis is a problem. Other vehicles would not have been able to consolidate so closely to anything else, it's just that the oval shape allows the Kharbdis to get in places where others can't.

What did I do wrong here?

 techsoldaten wrote:
Played a game with my MoK Kharbdis Assault Claw last night. I am still getting my head around 8th edition rules and it felt like maybe I was doing something wrong.

What did I do wrong here?

It sounds like you did everything right and your opponent made an error... He should have held you in combat with one of the razorbacks so you couldn't get another charge in and use the melta-cutters again.

 techsoldaten wrote:


4) The weapon hit on a 2+ at S16, meaning there was no way for the Dread to save against those hits.

This is an odd statement. You mean it would get no save, because of the AP, right?

Also on your moves make sure "no part of the model" has moved more than 3". If you have an oval, move it 3" and then rotate it then you're getting extra move out of it.

Otherwise this is a lesson to deploy more carefully and read your opponents list better.

Also make sure you are only consolidating towards the nearest model. It being called consolidation keeps making me think it works like 3rd-4th.

Daedalus81 wrote:

 techsoldaten wrote:


4) The weapon hit on a 2+ at S16, meaning there was no way for the Dread to save against those hits.

This is an odd statement. You mean it would get no save, because of the AP, right?

Also on your moves make sure "no part of the model" has moved more than 3". If you have an oval, move it 3" and then rotate it then you're getting extra move out of it.

Otherwise this is a lesson to deploy more carefully and read your opponents list better.

Yes, it could have better worded. The weapon hit on a 2+, it was S 16 AP-5, which negated the Dread's 3+ save.

With regards to making sure no part of the model has moved more than 3 inches, it's tricky and part of the reason I am asking. Feels like this is related to the question of whether you measure distance for a flyer by the model or the base.

I moved the model 3 inches, measuring the from the base, and I pivoted to get into position to be close enough to both Razorbacks. There is no rule against pivoting as part of consolidation, just that you need to move towards the closest enemy model.

The Kharbdis is a big model, and it's not really that hard for it to cover a large space.

 techsoldaten wrote:
Played a game with my MoK Kharbdis Assault Claw last night. I am still getting my head around 8th edition rules and it felt like maybe I was doing something wrong.
....
MoK allowed it to reroll one charge to stay in the battle.
....
What did I do wrong here?

Only thing odd about what you described is where does the MoK give a reroll to a charge?

 Draco765 wrote:

 techsoldaten wrote:
Played a game with my MoK Kharbdis Assault Claw last night. I am still getting my head around 8th edition rules and it felt like maybe I was doing something wrong.
....
MoK allowed it to reroll one charge to stay in the battle.
....
What did I do wrong here?

Only thing odd about what you described is where does the MoK give a reroll to a charge?

Yeah, it doesn't. That's a mistake we made, it's only supposed to be for Icon of Wrath.

 techsoldaten wrote:

This seemed like one hell of an alpha strike against light tanks, once the Kharbdis got the charge it was just eating tanks with those magma cutters. MoK allowed it to reroll one charge to stay in the battle.

My friend and I thought everything seemed legal, but we both agreed the base size for the Kharbdis is a problem. Other vehicles would not have been able to consolidate so closely to anything else, it's just that the oval shape allows the Kharbdis to get in places where others can't.

What did I do wrong here?

UM WHAT? Just being Mark of Khorne does not allow you to reroll anything, you must purchase an Icon of Wrath in order to reroll stuff and vehicles cannot purchase an Icon, so your Assault Claw most likely would have failed one of those charges.

On the size: the size of the model is fine. It has no base, so I always let my opponent know ahead of time that I will be measuring from the hull. This is in line with the book's rules regarding this kind of thing.

 techsoldaten wrote:

Daedalus81 wrote:

 techsoldaten wrote:


4) The weapon hit on a 2+ at S16, meaning there was no way for the Dread to save against those hits.

This is an odd statement. You mean it would get no save, because of the AP, right?

Also on your moves make sure "no part of the model" has moved more than 3". If you have an oval, move it 3" and then rotate it then you're getting extra move out of it.

Otherwise this is a lesson to deploy more carefully and read your opponents list better.

I moved the model 3 inches, measuring the from the base, and I pivoted to get into position to be close enough to both Razorbacks. There is no rule against pivoting as part of consolidation, just that you need to move towards the closest enemy model.

As I understand it, there is no allowance in the rules for pivoting. Basically, movement range is a bubble extending from the edges of your model, and no part of your model can end up outside of that bubble.

I am pretty sure you are allowed to turn your model as part of movement. Units with the supersonic rule depend on this.

With regards to making sure no part of the model has moved over 3 inches, that's actually hard with large models unless they maintain the exact same facing they had before starting movement. For example, moving the base 3 inches then turning the base could result in the extended claws moving around the perimeter of the 3 inch bubble more than 3 inches.

Aside from the MoK rule, which we absolutely did get wrong, I am curious about the pivot part of the movement. Starting a new thread in YMDC if anyone wants to debate it there.

But thanks for all the feedback. There's something about it that seems off to me.

 techsoldaten wrote:
I am pretty sure you are allowed to turn your model as part of movement. Units with the supersonic rule depend on this.

With regards to making sure no part of the model has moved over 3 inches, that's actually hard with large models unless they maintain the exact same facing they had before starting movement. For example, moving the base 3 inches then turning the base could result in the extended claws moving around the perimeter of the 3 inch bubble more than 3 inches.

No, it isn't. Measure from where you are to where you want to go. Then have no point go past that point, no matter how you pivot. If you're sensible and simply measure everything from the base or hull, instead of trying to argue that your stretched antenna is a part of it, trying to measure shooting from it, then those parts don't matter. And if you do measure shooting from it, then don't get it further out than 3" from where the movement began. No more than 3" is only hard if you try to break it by trying to wiggle forward.

 Purifier wrote:

No, it isn't. Measure from where you are to where you want to go. Then have no point go past that point, no matter how you pivot. If you're sensible and simply measure everything from the base or hull, instead of trying to argue that your stretched antenna is a part of it, trying to measure shooting from it, then those parts don't matter. And if you do measure shooting from it, then don't get it further out than 3" from where the movement began. No more than 3" is only hard if you try to break it by trying to wiggle forward.

Let me explain why that seems weird.

As has come up in this thread, the way people have been describing the 3 inch consolidation rule is as a bubble surrounding the model. You can move up to any point within that bubble.

The KAC, mounted on a flyer base, is less like a circular bubble and more like an oval. It's about 13 inches long and about 5 inches wide.

If we are saying no part of the model can move more than 3 inches, that implies movement for a model shaped like this would have to be measured around the perimeter of the outermost part.

For this particular model, if it rotated in place, it could only rotate about 15 degrees until one of those outermost parts has moved 3 inches. OTOH, it could move in a straight line up to 3 inches.

I know I am overthinking this at some level, I am really just looking for a simple way to explain it. In the case of the Razorbacks, I did rotate the model about 70 degrees for it to catch both of them, which would have violated the rule as you explained it. At the same time, the base was certainly never moved more than 3 inches.

I'm not even sure it IS a bubble, but we should keep that kind of talk to the YMDC thread you made or we will have discussions going on in both threads.