PDA

View Full Version : Chaos Warshrine Query



Razakel
13-02-2010, 11:04
Hi guys, in a few weeks I'm going to be playing a Nurgle WoC player (again, see my sig). In recent games I've seen him taking two Warshrines and I just have a single question that I can't find the answer to anywhere.

"The Warshrine is a strange contraption, not truly a chariot, steed or creature. In game terms the Warshrine moves and fights as a monster. Its profile combines the attacks of its Chaos Warrior handlers and also the Chaos Steeds that pull it to battle."

My question is this, and I'm 99% sure the answer is no: May a Warshrine be destroyed by high strength attacks in the same way as a Chariot as it is identified as having Chariot-like qualities?

All my other questions were answered by the WoC FAQ.

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m2350036_WarriorsofChaosFAQFeb2009.pdf

theunwantedbeing
13-02-2010, 11:27
It doesnt say its a chariot so no.

BigbyWolf
13-02-2010, 11:49
It doesnt say its a chariot so no.

On the other hand, if it fights like a monster, the Collar of Zorga can be used against it...interesting.

riotknight
13-02-2010, 19:17
On the other hand, if it fights like a monster, the Collar of Zorga can be used against it...interesting.

Fights like a monster isn't really the same as saying its a Monster.

Haravikk
13-02-2010, 21:05
That's a bit annoying; personally I would say it should count more like a chariot as it's a lot closer to one, but instead GW seem to have left it nice and open to all the advantages of each type with none of the disadvantages.

danny-d-b
13-02-2010, 21:09
bacicly it counts as nothing- it moves like a monster, and in some ways fights like cavalry, but is not a chariot e.g. no impact hits, unlike how I saw one guy try to play it!

Stumpy
13-02-2010, 22:19
Fights like a monster isn't really the same as saying its a Monster.


I completely disagree. This is where someone claims a unit is of no type and thus has no weakness. Its the same as a doomwheel; its a monster for better and worse. Doesn't matter if it makes sense, if its skipping other rules or whatever, it has to have a unit type. Even steam tanks have a unit type.

BigbyWolf
13-02-2010, 23:31
Fights like a monster isn't really the same as saying its a Monster.

Entry in WoC book reads: "In game terms the Warshrine moves and fights as a monster".

Entry in OnG book reads: "Steed, monsters and beasts pulling chariots require 6's to hit the bearer."

The way I see it is as follows:

Is the Warshrine in combat with the bearer? Yes
In combat terms is the Warshrine a monster? Yes

Therefore it would require 6's to hit.

IMO, anyway.

T10
14-02-2010, 09:31
And the new beastmen book further confuses the issue by including a weapon that is resolved at S 10 against warmachines and charoits, and they hapily include the war shrine and corpse cart as examples of the latter.

This is annoying because it invites specualtion as to what future releases also "count as chariots, even though they are not chariots".

**** you, GW.

-T10

Avian
14-02-2010, 09:46
Presumably War Shrines and Corpse Carts were included because they are NOT considered chariots or war machines. Otherwise there would be no reason to specifically mention them. What is the exact wording anyway?

T10
14-02-2010, 10:19
Don't ask me. :) I let Makaber borrow my copy of the book, so I can only paraphrase and make ill-founded speculations. I can't even accurately quote the title of the new beastmen army book. Is it "Beastmen" or "Beasts of Chaos" or something like that?

Hmm... Google!

-T10

sharky 10
14-02-2010, 11:45
In game terms the Warshrine fights and moves as a monster its profile combines the attacks of the chaos warriors handlers and also the chaos steed that pulls it to battle.

Harwammer
14-02-2010, 12:55
@ Avian: 'against war machines and chariots (including altar, shrines, tanks, carts, etc) or buildings' is pretty much it.

I imagine they are included in the examples as the weapon rules are refering to models that are chariots by nature (i.e a drawn construct), rather than rule. Its not really something to get worked up about, especially if you don't have the wording for reference.