PDA

View Full Version : Found a HUGE Night Goblin tactic...



Soul of Iron
25-10-2006, 15:32
Some friends showed me this yesterday...

Netter gobbo's on a roll of 2-6 reduce the Str of a unit by 1. If 3 NG units successfully net a Str 3 unit, the unit is destroyed per the 0 stat rule in the main rule book (pg 5).

This brings up some questions:

1. Is the netting rule cumulative?
2. Does GW know about this?
3. Has this been discussed and if so, should the OP be flensed?

Discuss

Festus
25-10-2006, 15:33
Hi

As the rules stand, this is possible IIIRC.

Not that it is likely, though...

Festus

ZomboCom
25-10-2006, 15:34
Been discussed, considered filthy but legal, will probably be fixed in an FAQ.

Atrahasis
25-10-2006, 15:34
This has been discussed at length both here and elsewhere.

To answer your other points:

1. Yes, it is cumulative.
2. Yes, I've personally pointed it out to Jervis.

Atrahasis
25-10-2006, 15:35
will probably be fixed in an FAQ.

Not if GW put any stock in their claims of upholding the RAW.

Soul of Iron
25-10-2006, 15:38
The Gobbo book and MRB are both really new. How could they let that slip?

Excuse my nubish-ness... "IIIRC"?

Festus
25-10-2006, 15:40
IIRC: If I Remember Correctly...

gukal
25-10-2006, 16:31
If I allow my single unit to be trapped by three night goblin units with nets; and all three units pass animosity for this miracle combined charge; and all three units avoid netting themselves ...

then ...

I will happily remove my unit from the table and assume that they have been trussed up neatly on the battlefield (presumably to serve as post-battle entertainment).

Assuming that the target unit is one worth capturing, there is a fair chance that one of the three units will fail to act appropriately and that the remaining two units will be defeated in combat. So instead of capturing a unit, you've got two or more fleeing goblin units.

- Gukal

Atrahasis
25-10-2006, 16:55
You aren't seeing the "powergamer" application of this tactic, which is to set up units 1 or 2 models wide and bunched togetehr so that only multiple charges are possible.

gukal
25-10-2006, 16:59
You're right. It never occurred to me that people would create night-goblin torpedo units. :eek:

If we're not careful, this game can become rather ridiculous. :eyebrows:

I presume the gaming community will rightly shame anyone doing this. It will sort itself in the same way as zombie congas and fanatic catapults. These made for entertaining reading, but I never once saw either done in a game.

- Gukal

Soul of Iron
25-10-2006, 17:04
Fanatic Catapults?

Fabiusbile
25-10-2006, 17:05
Oh yeah, the NG-Torpedoes of ultimate death ;). I can't find a passage that says that you can't rank them up 1 model wide.

Is this really possible? I mean getting 3 times 2+ is not so unlikely.

I'd beat my opponent physically if he tried to do something like that. I swear it...

Gorbad Ironclaw
25-10-2006, 18:07
Not if GW put any stock in their claims of upholding the RAW.


They would need to be able to write clear, consistant and well thought out rules for RAW to work. So I really hope they won't, but rather go with how the rule is suppose to work(no idea if this is intentional or not, or even thought of).

robertsjf
25-10-2006, 19:39
Could we classify this as a tactic? Really? As an O&G player I find this sort of activity despicable and will only try it once or twice on close friends so I can see the looks on their faces!

WillFightForFood
25-10-2006, 19:51
Ranking up units 1-2 wide just so you can get more netters in is just asking an opponent to charge into them and break them.

Atrahasis
25-10-2006, 19:58
Ranking up units 1-2 wide just so you can get more netters in is just asking an opponent to charge into them and break them.

If your opponent charges, he will die 99.8% of the time before he gets to attack. That's the whole point.

Fredrik
25-10-2006, 20:30
I was of the understanding that no characteristic could be lowerd to zero. This is the way it has been done in the past. But i might be wrong.

Atrahasis
25-10-2006, 20:49
I was of the understanding that no characteristic could be lowerd to zero. This is the way it has been done in the past. But i might be wrong.

Every other cumulative magical/special effect in the game that reduces statistics has always carried the "such and such characteristic is reduced by (-)1, to a minimum of 1".

Netters don't carry that caveat.

Revlid
25-10-2006, 21:53
If your opponent charges, he will die 99.8% of the time before he gets to attack. That's the whole point.

Against Ogres, however, this is a total flop, as I'll just reform to be one Ogre wide, smash into NG units one at a time and run them down. Rinse and repeat, more victory points from the nets for me...

Atrahasis
25-10-2006, 22:08
Against Ogres, however, this is a total flop, as I'll just reform to be one Ogre wide, smash into NG units one at a time and run them down. Rinse and repeat, more victory points from the nets for me...

No, because I can set up to have 4 night goblin units in contact with your one ogre. As long as I don't roll a 1, you're dead.

And even if I do roll a 1 on one dice, you're strength 1, so you need 6's to wound.

Gekiganger
25-10-2006, 22:32
If your opponent charges, he will die 99.8% of the time before he gets to attack. That's the whole point.

you mean the 5/6 chance that it works times 3 for each unit is 99.8%?

EvC
25-10-2006, 22:41
A silly event, yes, but if a Night Goblin player did that, then just ignore the damn units- they're only worth about 30 points, I'm sure you can find better targets ferchrissakes.

WillFightForFood
25-10-2006, 22:43
If your opponent charges, he will die 99.8% of the time before he gets to attack. That's the whole point.

This is assuming someone is going to charge three or four 1-2 goblin wide units at once. It's going to be highly suspicious to someone that doesn't know the netter rules and if someone sees this sort of setup and they know the netter rules then they're going to a) set up the charge to only contact 1 unit by wheeling or b) not charge.

Moreover, if the goblins are set up to be 1-2 wide then they are 10-20 deep, which makes for unwieldy units and huge flanks. The units must be maneuvered in such a way as to be able to use all three at once. If they are planning on having all three units charged at once, they will have to keep them all even and hope an opponent doesn't maneuver to just hit one of them (which will probably break that unit and cause panic tests on the other two units). If they are planning on having all three charge at once they are setting themselves up for one of the three being a failed charge, or not all three being able to reach. Not to mention that you are wrapping close to or over 400 points into this scheme (no new book).

It's a risky tactic that might pay off once or twice.

Atrahasis
25-10-2006, 23:10
you mean the 5/6 chance that it works times 3 for each unit is 99.8%?

No, the 99.8% figure is based on a 5 wide S3 unit charging into contact with 7 conga-lines of goblins.

Griefbringer
26-10-2006, 15:28
However, getting those 7 conga lines side-by-side can be a bit tricky, if you are playing on a table with the usual 12" deep deployment zone.

Since the goblins have a minimum unit size 20, such conga-line would be around 16" deep, meaning that the unit could only be placed diagonally, which would mean that the unit would need to move forward and then probably wheel. Doing that with multiple units should leave some gaps between them (more time spent maneuvering to get rid of those).

Ganymede
26-10-2006, 15:47
Additionally, you are going to have an absolutely horrible time reforming those beasties to be in a line shape to start with. You can't do it from the beginning of the game due to space constraints, and if you reform to take the appropriatte shape, you'll have a devil of a time actually getting those torpedos to end up flush with eachother. You'll need a turn to move forward, followed by a turn of reforming, which is then followed by a turn of shuffling to the side two inches.

Go ahead and add that to the fact that each of these units is worth at leasst 95 points.

Latro
26-10-2006, 16:15
I hereby bannish this dubious tactic to the deepest pit in the Realm of TheoryHammer.

*not worried at all*

Atrahasis
26-10-2006, 17:06
However, getting those 7 conga lines side-by-side can be a bit tricky, if you are playing on a table with the usual 12" deep deployment zone.

Deploy 2 wide and 10 deep. Surrender half movement to reduce front rank by one model.

I agree that this extreme use of the "tactic" is very likely to lie solely within the realms of theoryhammer.

operon
26-10-2006, 17:24
Bah.

People are much too stuffy and disapproving about tactics like this. If someone tried this on me and managed to actually pull it off without me noticing -- or even with me noticing and failing to do anything about it -- I'd applaud their sheer chutzpah and shake my head at my own foolishness.

A bit like the Fools's Mate or Scholar's Mate in chess.

Same for most powergaming tricks and 'cheesy' 'beardy' strategies.

Andrew.

Ganymede
26-10-2006, 17:48
Deploy 2 wide and 10 deep. Surrender half movement to reduce front rank by one model.

It's still tricky.. by moving up two inches from the 12" line, then sacrificing the remaining two inches to change formation, you'll still be missing two inches of necessary space. You wouldn't be able to change formation till turn three, and even then you'd need a further turn to ensure the torpedos are flushed.

This strategy also requires a bare minimum of 665 points worth of goblins.

grg3d
26-10-2006, 18:54
Hi from one who gets the rules wrong all the time I probably will get this wrong too, but I thought you had to permanently reduce a “stat” to 0 for it to kill, as being netted is only temporary condition it might not kill / have the same effect on a unit.

Atrahasis
26-10-2006, 20:13
People are much too stuffy and disapproving about tactics like this. If someone tried this on me and managed to actually pull it off without me noticing -- or even with me noticing and failing to do anything about it -- I'd applaud their sheer chutzpah and shake my head at my own foolishness.I'm the same. I firmly believe in RAW during games, except where house rules have been agreed beforehand. If you have an objection to the way a particular rule works as written, then you need to tell me before the game starts, because otherwise I'll assume you're happy with the rules as written.

If I get caught out by a rule I didn't know or understand correctly, then it isn't my opponent's fault, and I would never assume to have them pay for my failing.


Hi from one who gets the rules wrong all the time I probably will get this wrong too, but I thought you had to permanently reduce a “stat” to 0 for it to kill, as being netted is only temporary condition it might not kill / have the same effect on a unit.

No, if any of the prescribed stats is reduced to 0 at any time for any reason the model is removed.

Multifarious
26-10-2006, 20:30
Many people seem convinced that it is an oversight, but are we sure? It seems to me rather like a rather fluf....background-o-logically sound thing, a unit entirely covered by nets could very well be considered to be either "caught" or just so easy to kill the goblins do it immediately.

More importantly, how would this figure for combat res? Particularly if the unit had a hero attached, It would be hilarious to see a charactor have to take a LD test at -30 or whatever.

Atrahasis
26-10-2006, 22:50
More importantly, how would this figure for combat res? Particularly if the unit had a hero attached, It would be hilarious to see a charactor have to take a LD test at -30 or whatever.

You haven't actually dealt any wounds, so Combat Res would just be static.

As far as characters go, I'd have to check the exact wording of netters, but as far as I recall there';s nothing to suggest that the character would not be affected at the same time as the unit, so if sufficient nets are slung to reduce the character to 0 strength then he will die also.

Multifarious
27-10-2006, 09:12
Most charactors have more Str than basic rank and file, so the entire unit apart from them could theoretically die, with them reduced to 1 str or something.

devolutionary
27-10-2006, 09:26
So basically 1 unit wide, 5-6 units next to each other, and severely reduced mobility in order to apply somewhere about a -4 to -5 str penalty?


Excuse me for being a cheesy Bretonnian player, but two words - Flank charge.

Pravus
27-10-2006, 09:45
This is quite possibly the wost "tactic" I've ever read simply because it seems to rely on an the victim of said tactic being a slack-jawed, wet-lipped imbecile probably with too few grandparents in his family tree. That is of course, if you just accept the problems already outlined for getting the requisite Night Goblins into position and discount all sorts of other arguments such as what is the actual strength of a model in the unit (i.e. charging brettonian knights for instance - are they strength 3 or 5 for the purposes of net precipitated anhilation?) or a debate about whether the net effects the strength of the models attack or their actual strength characteristic.

eldrak
27-10-2006, 11:08
Silly Pravus, go read the rules for strength bonus in the weapons section, page 54.

It's a silly tactic that might only work with very favourable terrain, an unknowing opponent or very specific antagonists (slayers perhaps).

Pravus
27-10-2006, 11:19
Silly Pravus, go read the rules for strength bonus in the weapons section, page 54.

That's fine, but it doesn't answer the questions I raise about the effects of nets and whether they are reducing the strength statistic or the strength of the attack. Obviously a weapon strength bonus does not effect a model in terms of a characteristic test but we're not talking about one of those here are we?

Gekiganger
27-10-2006, 12:42
Many people seem convinced that it is an oversight, but are we sure? It seems to me rather like a rather fluf....background-o-logically sound thing, a unit entirely covered by nets could very well be considered to be either "caught" or just so easy to kill the goblins do it immediately.

Indeed, goblins are known for taking slaves/food/entertainment IIRC.

Still, GW must have known such a rule would be abused far too much to have this, they could have put in 'comulative until target reaches 1S' or 'Target cannot be reduced below 1S'.

Griefbringer
27-10-2006, 15:46
Still, GW must have known such a rule would be abused far too much to have this, they could have put in 'comulative until target reaches 1S' or 'Target cannot be reduced below 1S'.

Often, things that seem to be obvious to us here on the rules forum, are not so obvious to the rules authors who have spent half a year on their work - yes, it is easy to be blind to ones own mistakes.

For an example, see all the lovely debates we have had about the Bretonnian army book.

Properly applied external playtesting would help in rooting out some of these problems.

woytek
27-10-2006, 16:00
I don't see this technique used often since S3 units are often only 150 or 200 points and 3 units of night goblins are almost 300. You can field a black orc unit for that and break the S3 unit!

Ganymede
27-10-2006, 16:07
Indeed, goblins are known for taking slaves/food/entertainment IIRC.

Still, GW must have known such a rule would be abused far too much to have this, they could have put in 'comulative until target reaches 1S' or 'Target cannot be reduced below 1S'.

Every time I read the relevent rule, it seems to me that 'netted' is an exclusive condition. In other words, you are either netted or you are not netted; there are no varying degrees of doubly or triply netted.

Atrahasis
27-10-2006, 16:40
Every time I read the relevent rule, it seems to me that 'netted' is an exclusive condition. In other words, you are either netted or you are not netted; there are no varying degrees of doubly or triply netted.

I could equally read the rules on rolling to hit in that fashion : a unit is either hit or it isn't, there are no varying degrees of being hit twice or three times.

Ganymede
27-10-2006, 17:17
I could equally read the rules on rolling to hit in that fashion : a unit is either hit or it isn't, there are no varying degrees of being hit twice or three times.

No you couldn't, at least not without making an ass of yourself. Such is the fundamental difference between this position and the one I posted.

To say it another way, I respect your reading of the rules that says nets are cumulative and stackable, cause just like my position, the rules can definetly be read that way by using logical thought processes. On the other hand, this little ditty here is so far off base, that I find it laughable.

Atrahasis
27-10-2006, 17:20
There is no fundamental difference.

Saying there is does not make it so.

Griefbringer
27-10-2006, 19:15
Not having the new O&G book at hand, could someone post the exact verbiage of the relevant section (effct of the nets) so that those of us not in possession of the book could use our own judgement?

WillFightForFood
28-10-2006, 03:13
I could equally read the rules on rolling to hit in that fashion : a unit is either hit or it isn't, there are no varying degrees of being hit twice or three times.

Maybe you could, but the rulebook clearly indicates that a unit may be hit by missile fire multiple times. Reread the shooting section.

In any case, Ganymede is raising a relevant question with respect to cumulative effects. Without the exact wording of the rule in question, it's hard to say.

StormCrow
28-10-2006, 04:08
I'd say it's a valid tactic but there is a large chance of it backfiring for the goblin player and it's a fairly hefty points investment for a one trick pony

10th clancannach rangers
28-10-2006, 23:30
If a steed is reduced to s0, is the rider killed also eg, chosen chaos knights, boar boyz, grail knights

eldrak
28-10-2006, 23:46
There must be some reason for them to add S or T = 0 >> death (It's been in previous editions too right?). Is there any other items/spells/special rules that negatively modifies those stats?

woytek
29-10-2006, 14:28
And one more question: Can you say that if a strenght 3 model with great weapon has strenght 5, or do you have to take the base strenght?

eldrak
29-10-2006, 15:15
Silly woytek, go read the rules for strength bonus in the weapons section, page 54.

Or read the whole thread.

woytek
29-10-2006, 17:06
Or read the whole thread.

I read it, and understand it now, but there is absolutely no reason for you to say it like that. I'm sorry for not knowing the whole damn book by heart ok? :rolleyes:

Sandals
30-10-2006, 19:49
You're right. It never occurred to me that people would create night-goblin torpedo units. :eek:

If we're not careful, this game can become rather ridiculous. :eyebrows:



that, sir, is the single most amusing thing i have read today! have a cookie!

it may well appear in a sig soon...:D

xmbk
30-10-2006, 20:51
People trying stuff like this in tournaments is what leads to easy first round massacres. ;)

Warwolt the skaven
24-12-2006, 21:14
the new FAQ, has killed this tactic.

Mephistofeles
24-12-2006, 21:31
You could do that yes. And if you do, I'd charge the unit on the far edge of the "Torpedo Line" and break it, and then come sweeping up your flank.

If that doesn't work, then I will just laugh my ass off firing a canon into that formation...

And if they still do that to me, I will gladly remove my line, since the player have to be extremely skilled not to get that formation butchered...

Mephistofeles
24-12-2006, 21:33
the new FAQ, has killed this tactic.

How is that?

ZomboCom
24-12-2006, 22:29
How is that?

The new O&G FAQ says that netting is not cumulative, you can only apply a single -1 S modifier no matter how many units are netting a single target.

Atrahasis
25-12-2006, 15:34
The new O&G FAQ says that netting is not cumulative, you can only apply a single -1 S modifier no matter how many units are netting a single target.

Just one of several answers in the latest round of FAQs which completely abandons the stated RAW policy.

We didn't expect it to last long, and it didn't.

intellectawe
25-12-2006, 16:45
Just one of several answers in the latest round of FAQs which completely abandons the stated RAW policy.

We didn't expect it to last long, and it didn't.

RAW has always been a joke. It is an abomination that has helped to ruin the spirit of having fun in a non-competitive hobby.

Warhammer/40k wasn't like Magic The Gathering is now you know.

ZomboCom
25-12-2006, 17:37
I'm glad they haven't stuck to RAW for the FAQs.

Sometimes rules mistakes slip into the books thanks to poor phrasing of rules. Using RAW for FAQs would just more deeply entrench them.

Negativemoney
25-12-2006, 18:01
the reason for many FAQ is because the RAW makes little sense at all and they need to clarify certain points.

Atrahasis
25-12-2006, 19:18
RAW would work perfectly well, if when such mistakes became apparent, they were fixed rather than waving FAQs at them.

Now we're left with the text of the rule and a FAQ that contradicts it. Which is exactly where we were in 6th edition, and exactly what GW promised they were going to avoid.

If, instead of saying "Oh we didn't mean the rules to say that" they simply changed the rule there'd be no problem at all.

The fact remains that GW explicitly stated that unless a rule was unclear then that would be the rule. All they had to do was not do anything, now they've done just enough to screw things up.

The mind boggles as to how they discriminate between those things they choose to fix properly (errata) and those they decide to obfuscate with contradictory FAQs that are often less clear than the rule they aim to clarify.

For example - Comet of Cassandora. Rather than simply add the line "The spell then ends." to the description after the process for dealing damage, they create a FAQ that tells us the same thing. So rather than fix the rule, they tell us its broken but that they're not going to fix it. :confused:

Negativemoney
25-12-2006, 19:28
With the GW design team they often look at the rules and say "hmm I understand these rules and I know what I should do if this situation comes up." But they never "Beta Test" the rules for a lack of a better word. If they would just take some extra time to send the unfinished rules to a select few people to piece apart the rules and find any issues that might arrise in the future and correcte them before the book goes into print there would be alot less problems with new rules once people start using them in every day gamining.

Atrahasis
25-12-2006, 19:46
GW do playtest, but it is now all in-house as far as I understand, and it has always focused more on getting rules that work at a glance rather than rules that make perfect sense.

What puzzles me is that the latter takes less work (balance is a lot harder than conciseness) - in an afternoon a good proof reader with a knowledge of the game mechanics could fix the majority of the mistakes that are in the latest errata (I spotted most of them on my first reading of the book).

Negativemoney
25-12-2006, 20:12
I agree. Though the proof reader needs to be out of house. Because many times, and this is not just GW, when a person reads his/her work they will read it much in the way they intended it. This also applies to people who are used to things being one way and when a slight change occurs they still think its unchanged.

Gorbad Ironclaw
26-12-2006, 11:38
GW do playtest, but it is now all in-house as far as I understand, and it has always focused more on getting rules that work at a glance rather than rules that make perfect sense.



Not correct. The playtesting isn't all in-house, although it's apparently different from the structure it had before(Don't ask, I really don't know).

And I don't think you have the focus right either(although that might be the result).

SkaGoblin
26-12-2006, 13:03
The mind boggles as to how they discriminate between those things they choose to fix properly (errata) and those they decide to obfuscate with contradictory FAQs that are often less clear than the rule they aim to clarify.



Could it not be that they don't discriminate, that they consider an FAQ answer is just as "canonical" as an errata? What makes an errata better/easier/more sound than an FAQ answer? You still have to carry around an extra sheet of paper or cut and paste into your existing rulebook.

I personally didn't think any of the FAQ answers confused the issues at hand. Seems to me there is more than a bit of prejudice being flung about here. Does GW copywriting policy need to be improved? Absolutely, but it does seem they are getting better at it.

I think a way around the constant errataing (is that a word?) is do a subscription-style "Living Rulebook".

Atrahasis
26-12-2006, 13:30
Could it not be that they don't discriminate, that they consider an FAQ answer is just as "canonical" as an errata? What makes an errata better/easier/more sound than an FAQ answer? You still have to carry around an extra sheet of paper or cut and paste into your existing rulebook.

"Discriminate" doesn't mean "consider inferior" it means "treat differently". They obviously do discriminate between the different cases because they apply different solutions.

The problem that FAQs cause is that they are often a lot more loosely worded than an erratum would be. Also, an erratum changes the rule directly, so we're left with one rule that is correct (or closer to being ideal than it was previously). With Q&A, we're left with two contradictory pieces of evidence.

I don't think it takes much thought to decide which is preferable.

As an example, we'll take "Remains in Play" in 6th edition. In 6th Edition, RiP meant

1) The spell remained in play
2) it could be dispelled in subsequent turns.

GW then changed the definition of RiP in a Q&A (or at least answered every Q&A as if the definition was different). This led to various Q&As being issued to clarify various RiP spells. If they had simply fixed the one spell that the original question dealt with with an erratum rather than making a blanket statement that had a knock on effect on all other RiP spells, all of that would have been avoided.

Yuo will probably say that that was 6th and things are different now, and a month ago I might have agreed with you, but the latest FAQs show an unnerving return to the classic GW bodge jobs.

SkaGoblin
26-12-2006, 14:14
You're right, I could have picked a better word.

Maybe it is me, but I always took FAQ answers as canonical as errata. The problem with errata for me is if you simply change a rule, I am not going to necessarily grasp all the ramifications of the change. An FAQ answer allows a bit of "writer's commentary" that can help me along with modifying my play. Unless it is a drastic change, there is a good chance I am going to continue playing the same way I did when it was "combat phase" and not "combat". Perhaps a combination, say an errata then a comment from the writer would be in order.

I think if they keep FAQ's rule changes to the website and out of WD, which is what they seem to be doing, that would go a long way to eliminating confusion with FAQ's.

GW is never going to be able to write logical, error-proof rules for the same reason Windows will never be bug free. It is too big and there are too many intelligent, clear-minded people like yourself dedicated to exposing holes in the rules

intellectawe
26-12-2006, 14:23
You're right, I could have picked a better word.

Maybe it is me, but I always took FAQ answers as canonical as errata. The problem with errata for me is if you simply change a rule, I am not going to necessarily grasp all the ramifications of the change. An FAQ answer allows a bit of "writer's commentary" that can help me along with modifying my play. Unless it is a drastic change, there is a good chance I am going to continue playing the same way I did when it was "combat phase" and not "combat". Perhaps a combination, say an errata then a comment from the writer would be in order.

I think if they keep FAQ's rule changes to the website and out of WD, which is what they seem to be doing, that would go a long way to eliminating confusion with FAQ's.

GW is never going to be able to write logical, error-proof rules for the same reason Windows will never be bug free. It is too big and there are too many intelligent, clear-minded people like yourself dedicated to exposing holes in the rules

You nailed the current situation concerning our hobby right on the head. People forget this is a fun hobby that has men playing with toys, and treat the game as some sort of rules deity where tournament style thinking and manners are the norm. But what can you expect when this sort of destructive thinking is forced on us by GW itself to make money?

Years ago you and some friends could play a game that lasted all day. A game where you had fun for 8 hours and just relaxed.

Now, you have 2 hour pick up games where rulings and judiciary style attitudes dictate how the game should be played, instead of just playing for playing's sake.

The internet only makes this situation worse. Someone comes online and asks a question, and gets bombarded with 5 different answers. What that person should have done is just call GW, and be done with it. People act like the online world should dictate every gaming move they make. The only aspects that should have any pull on a player are 1) what their opponents think in friendly games and 2) what the judges think in non-friendly tournament games. Who really cares what Zibobob234, living half a world away, thinks.

Night Goblin Netters had no reason NOT to stack. The FAQ now says they can't. And we have HOW many pages on what I just cleared up in one sentence? You could thank the internet and the screen warriors for that one. And so what if you read Night Goblin Netters as NOT stacking. Then play it that way if your friends and tournament judges agree with you.

Its like Bull Centaurs. I have some idiot online trying to tell me how to play them. When in reality my friends ( and gamer strangers ) have no issue with me playing them another way. When I went to a GW sanctioned tourney last month in Orlando, not one person nor judge had an issue with how I played Bull Centaurs. Not one.

The bottom line is, try to resolve any issues you have with your gaming community that you interact with in REAL LIFE before allowing internet warriors tell you how you should play your game. If a question comes up that you aren't sure of, there is no harm in asking of course, but don't treat JOEBOB875 word as law.

As inconsistent GW's phone service is, guess what, they have more "authority" over the game than JOEBOB875, regardless of JOEBOB865 thinking that his word is above GWs. If I am going to get an inconsistent answer, it mine as well come from one "official" source rather than 20 strangers on the internet with 20 answers to an ambiguous question.

Warnhammer
28-12-2006, 21:09
I also considered reforming when someone flies around the Night Gobbo or tries to run around them. On the reform you go 1 row deep and 30 or so goblins will stretch out quite a way, when you are within 8 inches release fanatics and you have a dead unit. As another poster had said, I would only do this amongst friends, and then just to see their faces.

EvC
28-12-2006, 21:37
I beleive you're restricted to moving models in the unit no more than their standard march move in that tactic, so it's not likely to be that effective...