Demigryph Knights - Stomp attack

[Daniel36]

Do we need to include the Parry special rule for every model equipped with a shield in the game (well, every infantry model, anyways)?

Yes, that would, to me, make perfect sense. If the model is automatically equipped with a shield, then I would expect the book to state the following under the unit entry
Special Rules:
* Detachment
* Regimental Unit
* Parry

instead of what it reads now, without the * Parry included.
Why? Because that is their special rule. They don't have to tell me what parry DOES, just that they HAVE it. That's what I want!

And if we talk about not wanting to be redundant, then they do not have to include under the options the following:
Detachments:
* May take up to two Detachments

because it is already stated under the Army Special Rules that you can never take more than two, so if they do not want to help me out with remembering the fact that they can use parry, why the heck would they want to help me out by helping me remember the fact that they can take up to two detachments.

So they are being redundant where it's not really needed (in my mind) but they are NOT helpful when it comes to important rules that come into play during the game, such as parry, or as in my original point, Stomp.

But that's just me.

[theunwantedbeing]

If the model has a spear, then stating they have the parry special rule is just confusing and unhelpful.

There's no point stating equipment special rules, simply stating that they have the equipment is enough.
The only special rules that need to be stated are those that aren't covered by the stats, equipment or unit type.

[yabbadabba]

But that's just me.

Yup, it is.

[Chicago Slim]

Yeah, seriously-- if you have the BRB, and have read it, it's really not that hard to suss out.

[sulla]

I sympathise with Daniel. I bought a can of baked beans that didn't have a warning on the label 'Requires can opener!'. It literally took me days of research at the library to find out what tools I needed to open the can and instructions to use them. And don't even get me started on toilet paper! How the hell are you supposed to figure out which end to eat?!?

[Dakkapantz]

I sympathise with Daniel. I bought a can of baked beans that didn't have a warning on the label 'Requires can opener!'. It literally took me days of research at the library to find out what tools I needed to open the can and instructions to use them. And don't even get me started on toilet paper! How the hell are you supposed to figure out which end to eat?!?

So much this!

[GodlessM]

Yes, that would, to me, make perfect sense.

Well at least I know I can now partly blame you for the global recession.

I sympathise with Daniel. I bought a can of baked beans that didn't have a warning on the label 'Requires can opener!'. It literally took me days of research at the library to find out what tools I needed to open the can and instructions to use them. And don't even get me started on toilet paper! How the hell are you supposed to figure out which end to eat?!?

You are my new hero.

[Askari]

Do as I do - when a new rulebook (Core or Army) comes out. Before you go to sleep/during your lunch break/whatever. Read it. Over and over until you feel you know all the basic stuff.

Sorted. Games Workshop now doesn't need to cater to those who can't be bothered to check a book.

[ihavetoomuchminis]

I sympathise with Daniel. I bought a can of baked beans that didn't have a warning on the label 'Requires can opener!'. It literally took me days of research at the library to find out what tools I needed to open the can and instructions to use them. And don't even get me started on toilet paper! How the hell are you supposed to figure out which end to eat?!?

Oh god...i can't stop laughing......you're evil....haha

[yabbadabba]

You can so tell this thread is heading for the Modhammer

[Daniel36]

Whatever. They can mod it, they can leave it.
I am not bothered by sone of the comments... I find them a little childish, but that's okay. To each his own.

My question has been answered, so this thread can be closed or whatever... But if people feel the need to be clever, by all means, go ahead.

[RTGamer]

Daniel you are saying they need to tell you a unit that automatically comes with a shield needs to tell you they have the rule parry.

Do they not tell you it has a shield? By doing that they tell you if it's on foot it has parry.

[Daniel36]

Daniel you are saying they need to tell you a unit that automatically comes with a shield needs to tell you they have the rule parry.

Do they not tell you it has a shield? By doing that they tell you if it's on foot it has parry.

Well yeah, sure. But the fact is, there are so many different rules needed to be taken into account, I personally would find it VERY helpful if they would just put a footnote under the special rules section telling me that it has parry, on account of having a shield, instead of me having to look up what it means for them to have a shield.

On the other hand I can understand what Artiee mentions when he say it makes it easier for them to take away a rule, so if all a shield would do in a next edition is confer a +1 save and no longer parry, then it wouldn't be present in the army books. I can sympathize with that. But then again, things like Militia having an additional attack for having two hand weapons, I still feel that they should just put that in the stats instead of having me look up what that means in the rule book first. I also don't see the use of a Demigryph having a Toughness value when it does absolutely nothing for the game (as far as I can tell). But it's not me being lazy (as some suggest), it's mostly me being not much of a book keeper and feeling that this means for needless looking up of rules.

I really only just started getting into the game. I played a handful of 7th ed games, and didn't really like it. I always liked the modeling and painting side more. Only since 8th ed came out did I try to get into the gaming side of it more, and some design choices annoy and confuse me.

[Mike3791]

No, you use the highess *Wounds*, you still use the rider T.

The Toughness of the beast is used only for characteristics tests, like against the skavens plague spells and effects

So I'm hitting the rider but wounding the monster? Makes no sense..

[oldWitheredCorpse]

So I'm hitting the rider but wounding the monster? Makes no sense..

It's a compromise.

[Minsc]

You also get the armoursave of the rider.

I sure prefer 1+ AS T3 to 5+ AS T4.

[theunwantedbeing]

So I'm hitting the rider but wounding the monster? Makes no sense..

It's no different to the way chariots have worked for ages.

[T10]

Not quite the same. The chariot profile only includes a single line with Toughness and Wounds values, on the line for the chariot part of the model. Monstrous Cavalry have different Toughness and Wounds values for the rider and the mount.

-T10