PDA

View Full Version : What are razorgors (unit type)?



Harwammer
10-02-2010, 13:08
I've been wondering for a while... What the hell unit type is razorgor?

They are large, 50mm base multi wound models that can be ran individually... a monster.

They also come in units; I don't think monsters can do this. There is nothing to indicate they are cav either, that leaves infantry... but their bases are too large!

Are they just to be treated as infantry or a unit of monsters?

Bac5665
10-02-2010, 13:11
Infantry would be my vote. However, its units like this that make it so clear that GW needs to write in the unit type in the unit entry LIKE THEY DO FOR 40K!!!!!

How in the hell can GW be so incompetent as to do something incredibly important in 40k and ignore it despite 2 whole editions of players begging for it in fantasy?

Gah, just drives me nuts.

theunwantedbeing
10-02-2010, 13:14
They're a unit of monsters.

Bac5665
10-02-2010, 13:15
They're a unit of monsters.

Tell me how that moves, and I might agree.

Griefbringer
10-02-2010, 13:18
How in the hell can GW be so incompetent as to do something incredibly important in 40k and ignore it despite 2 whole editions of players begging for it in fantasy?

Isn't this something that they introduced quite recently to 40K lists?

Still, I definitely agree that the unit type and base size should be specified in the army books - it wouldn't take much effort or space, either.

Necromancy Black
10-02-2010, 13:23
They're a unit of monsters.

Their rules say they're not monsters.

At best they are infantry. This fits the best as they are skirmishers and remain skirmishers even if the handlers die.

Raellos
10-02-2010, 13:32
They are ****** hideous.

Leth Shyish'phak
10-02-2010, 13:38
This fits the best as they are skirmishers and remain skirmishers even if the handlers die.

Gors, not dons. ;)

Bac5665
10-02-2010, 13:39
Their rules say they're not monsters.

At best they are infantry. This fits the best as they are skirmishers and remain skirmishers even if the handlers die.

RazorGORS not razorDONS

Griefbringer
10-02-2010, 13:45
Perhaps it would have been better if they had been officially named as pumbagors - less room for confusion...

Raellos
10-02-2010, 14:23
So if there is no unit composed of monsters, then what the hell are minotaurs and ogres and things. They look pretty monstrous!

Though it's been a while since I've played with monsters, so I'm not really sure how the rules would affect a monstrous unit.

The Razorgors look like they've been sticking their eyes in a vacuum cleaner.

Avian
10-02-2010, 14:28
So if there is no unit composed of monsters, then what the hell are minotaurs and ogres and things. They look pretty monstrous!
Well, if you read the rulebook you will see that they are explicitly defined as infantry.

Lord Malorne
10-02-2010, 14:37
Just as mino's I would assume.

The SkaerKrow
10-02-2010, 14:44
Well, if you read the rulebook you will see that they are explicitly defined as infantry.What is this..."rule book" that you speak of? Is it on the website? ;)

Razorgors are Infantry by process of elimination. The rules preclude them from being Cavalry, Chariots, Monsters or characters. "Normally, infantry models are mounted on a 20mm, 25mm or 40mm wide square base." "Normally" doesn't preclude infantry from existing on a larger base (just indicates that such exceptions are unusual), which means Razorgors are WHFB's first ever unit of 50mm infantry.

Bac5665
10-02-2010, 15:05
What is this..."rule book" that you speak of? Is it on the website? ;)

Razorgors are Infantry by process of elimination. The rules preclude them from being Cavalry, Chariots, Monsters or characters. "Normally, infantry models are mounted on a 20mm, 25mm or 40mm wide square base." "Normally" doesn't preclude infantry from existing on a larger base (just indicates that such exceptions are unusual), which means Razorgors are WHFB's first ever unit of 50mm infantry.

I think that's correct, but you can make a nearly as cogent argument that they are WHFB's very first unit of monsters instead. I think infantry hurts my head less, but both are understandable views, though I think monsters is an unworkable one.

Ozorik
10-02-2010, 15:08
They aren't the first, Bull centaurs have 2 wounds :)

Ultimate Life Form
10-02-2010, 15:17
If they are infantry that leaves us with the ever so annoying question of Unit Strength, unless that is defined in the book.

Bac5665
10-02-2010, 15:19
They aren't the first, Bull centaurs have 2 wounds :)

BC's are explicitly cav, and have been for some time.♠

medevilmike
10-02-2010, 15:55
they are US 4...as per the rulebook cause of there base. moster base means starting wounds. I think that is the only reason they are on the 50mm base. If they put em on 40mm bases they would be US 3 and would also be pointless to take as US 4 and M7 are the only reasons I can see for fielding them.

Avian
10-02-2010, 15:59
Except that:
1) they have 3 Wounds
2) big infantry have US3, regardless of wounds, so even if they did have 4 W, they would be US3


Anyways, Ogre Hunters are big infantry and have been on 50 mm bases for ages.

Ultimate Life Form
10-02-2010, 18:20
Very well, issue resolved. Now all we gotta do is find out how much money we must pay GW for them to finally include such things in the statline. It's really not that hard.

sulla
10-02-2010, 19:34
I think the idea was that the model is so ugly no-one would ever field them... so the rules didn't need to be watertight.

(Now I just gotta come up with an explanation for the porous rules for things that do get fielded...)

Makaber
10-02-2010, 22:37
Anyways, Ogre Hunters are big infantry and have been on 50 mm bases for ages.

What do you mean, "big infantry"? Ogres, Minotaurs and the similar are on 40mm bases, not 50mm.

The only 50mm base non-monsters I can think of are the aforementioned Ogre Hunter (based on a 50mm rather than a 40mm for the explicit reason of being able to rank up with the Sabretusks) and (unless I'm mistaken) the Bloodcrushers.

I agree it's difficult to establish what they really are. I'd say the closest thing to them are "non-cavalry" units like Warhounds. What are Warhounds, anyway? And is it possible for a unit to not actually be a defined type of model?

angelusmortis1384
10-02-2010, 22:52
well i had a quick read through the book, and well as i was only skim reading, i must have missed them being infantry... but IMO i think they are cavalry, as they are movement 7 (yes i know that isnt reason enough but...) and gain +1S on the charge. also beastmen strap them to chariots... and i cant honestly see them strapping 'infantry' to a chariot...

Necromancy Black
11-02-2010, 00:11
RazorGORS not razorDONS

hahahahaha, that's what I get for posting at 1am