Tactica: Warriors of Chaos - Page 141

basher · 17-11-2009, 17:11

well if you give him the armour of morrisleib that gives him a 3+ward aswell as his 4+ arm

Selsaral · 17-11-2009, 17:13

True, and the prospect of the razordons devoting their attention to him and leaving the rest of my army alone is quite attractive.

But upon further mulling, the dogs sound even better. Even though they get half speed in the water, their 7 move still gives them some vague chance of landing a charge. In fact, having a devoted 10-dog unit for each water feature might be able to stare down some of my opponent's advance. He might see the water features as contested, rather than as tactical orgasms ;-) I'll probably have some marauder horsemen on hand in case he scouts me with chameleons (those bastards are easier to buy in the new list). They are march-blocking masters, but usually die fast.

basher · 17-11-2009, 17:16

pluse if you can bog him down thats wear your marauders can mop up

Selsaral · 17-11-2009, 17:20

True again.

Sigvald would be great, but it's too much of an investment to deal with a swarm or some skinks.

I think I need to take advantage of the good fodder WoC have. Extra dogs and marauders devoted to these tasks is looking quite prudent.

And a spawn or too is also probably necessary. At least one unit in my entire army is going to need a 360 charge, in case terradons land behind me, or his skirmishers run around.

Ymir · 17-11-2009, 20:24

Pardon me for not having time nor energy to read this entire thread, so this might have been brought up already:

I'm thinking about the viability of running an exalted hero or even a chaos lord on foot. I do realize it's probably not a very good build, but would it have its uses? I've always found 360 degree charge range useful, for example, and have had success with tomb kings on foot running around solo. It should also be mentioned right away that people run rather infantry-heavy armies in my gaming group.

So...would you ever field a non-wizard on foot? And if so, how would you equip and use him?

(The reason I'm asking is that I've just gotten the Gamesday 2009 Exalted Hero model, and he's sooo cool with his two hand weapons. Im considering whether I should go with that, or just start butchering him into a BSB and put him on a disc of Tzeentch).

Ymir · 17-11-2009, 20:35

@Selsaral: Bloodcurling Roar is very good for skink-killing. And a hero on a disc with Armor of Morrslieb will massacre razordons and salamanders.

SkawtheFalconer · 17-11-2009, 20:37

I'd give him the Book of Secrets and take the first Shadow spell, giving him a flying move. Either that or ensure a Wizard nearby has it. As a Khemri player, I'm sure you're aware of the possibilities... :P

Khemed · 18-11-2009, 13:13

I was wondering - if I give my Tzeentch sorcerer a book of secrets and spell familiar would that allow me to pick the additional spell from the lore of fire?

basher · 18-11-2009, 13:17

the book only allows fire death and shadow. but i would have said the spell familiar would allow from the owners lore

Ophidian · 18-11-2009, 14:57

Originally Posted by Witchblade

Lord on dragon load-out depends greatly on whether you use RAW or RAI for the collar of khorne's effect. RAW a tzeentchian character with the collar grants the dragon a 5+ ward save, RAI I'd say it doesn't.

The collar is nice in either case, but by RAW it's a must-have in combination with MoT.

Sorry (both for cutting across the current discussion, and probably for being dim): but I was under the impression that no character wards extended to monstrous mounts? (unless obviously noted to the contrary, cf. the grail shield) - the specific Golden Eye corollary being due to the wording it had in the old book?

Am I wrong?

Witchblade · 18-11-2009, 16:11

Originally Posted by Ophidian

Sorry (both for cutting across the current discussion, and probably for being dim): but I was under the impression that no character wards extended to monstrous mounts? (unless obviously noted to the contrary, cf. the grail shield) - the specific Golden Eye corollary being due to the wording it had in the old book?

Am I wrong?

The FAQ says saves never transfer from mount to rider or vice versa, but there are exceptions, like 'when a rule specifies otherwise (certain magic items...)'. The question is what constitutes specifying. The collar and the MoT both mention 'model gets a X+ ward save', but they don't mention anything about mounts. Directly below on the same page the golden eye has the rule 'model gets a X+ save... This does not apply to his mount.' It could well be argued that the latter is a specification, which implies that the collar needs no specification and grants the save to the model and its mount.

Now, I think the golden eye used to affect mounts in the previous edition, so they included the extra phrase to clarify that it changed this edition. Thus, RAI, the FAQ should take precedence over the collar's wording. RAW, it's sloppy writing at the least. I'd play RAI.

**Avian** · 18-11-2009, 17:01

It's not specified unless it's specified. To imply is not to specify, quite the contrary.

Unless the Collar says something like: "The bearer and his mount gain a 6+ Ward save.", the mount doesn't get it.

From dictionary.com

Specify: to mention or name specifically or definitely
Imply: to indicate or suggest without being explicitly stated

willowdark · 18-11-2009, 17:07

The language in the FAQ is very plain. The justification is that you can target, and therefore wound, each part separately.

Wording may be vague from time to time, but that logic will always apply.

Khemed · 19-11-2009, 20:00

Hey, I'm currently trying to expand my 1500 army towards 1750/2000, I've also included some additional concerns - would be nice if you'd check it out and reply :

http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=229006

cheers!

Havock · 19-11-2009, 23:13

Originally Posted by Avian

It's not specified unless it's specified. To imply is not to specify, quite the contrary.

Unless the Collar says something like: "The bearer and his mount gain a 6+ Ward save.", the mount doesn't get it.

From dictionary.com

Specify: to mention or name specifically or definitely
Imply: to indicate or suggest without being explicitly stated

Yet again they use "model", not bearer, whereas elsewhere bearer is specifically stated.

I don't really care either way, but it's just GW language for you

1 can never be 2, but sometimes, 2 is 1, but not for everyone.

17-11-2009, 17:11	#2801
basher Brother Sergeant Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: yorkshire,england Posts: 42 iTrader: (0)	Re: Tactica: Warriors of Chaos well if you give him the armour of morrisleib that gives him a 3+ward aswell as his 4+ arm

17-11-2009, 17:13	#2802
Selsaral Librarian Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 412 iTrader: (0)	Re: Tactica: Warriors of Chaos True, and the prospect of the razordons devoting their attention to him and leaving the rest of my army alone is quite attractive. But upon further mulling, the dogs sound even better. Even though they get half speed in the water, their 7 move still gives them some vague chance of landing a charge. In fact, having a devoted 10-dog unit for each water feature might be able to stare down some of my opponent's advance. He might see the water features as contested, rather than as tactical orgasms ;-) I'll probably have some marauder horsemen on hand in case he scouts me with chameleons (those bastards are easier to buy in the new list). They are march-blocking masters, but usually die fast.

17-11-2009, 17:16	#2803
basher Brother Sergeant Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: yorkshire,england Posts: 42 iTrader: (0)	Re: Tactica: Warriors of Chaos pluse if you can bog him down thats wear your marauders can mop up

17-11-2009, 17:20	#2804
Selsaral Librarian Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 412 iTrader: (0)	Re: Tactica: Warriors of Chaos True again. Sigvald would be great, but it's too much of an investment to deal with a swarm or some skinks. I think I need to take advantage of the good fodder WoC have. Extra dogs and marauders devoted to these tasks is looking quite prudent. And a spawn or too is also probably necessary. At least one unit in my entire army is going to need a 360 charge, in case terradons land behind me, or his skirmishers run around. Last edited by Selsaral; 17-11-2009 at 17:27.

17-11-2009, 20:24	#2805
Ymir Chaplain Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Malmö, which used to be in Denmark Posts: 174 iTrader: (0)	Re: Tactica: Warriors of Chaos Pardon me for not having time nor energy to read this entire thread, so this might have been brought up already: I'm thinking about the viability of running an exalted hero or even a chaos lord on foot. I do realize it's probably not a very good build, but would it have its uses? I've always found 360 degree charge range useful, for example, and have had success with tomb kings on foot running around solo. It should also be mentioned right away that people run rather infantry-heavy armies in my gaming group. So...would you ever field a non-wizard on foot? And if so, how would you equip and use him? (The reason I'm asking is that I've just gotten the Gamesday 2009 Exalted Hero model, and he's sooo cool with his two hand weapons. Im considering whether I should go with that, or just start butchering him into a BSB and put him on a disc of Tzeentch). Last edited by Ymir; 17-11-2009 at 20:34.

17-11-2009, 20:35	#2806
Ymir Chaplain Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Malmö, which used to be in Denmark Posts: 174 iTrader: (0)	Re: Tactica: Warriors of Chaos @Selsaral: Bloodcurling Roar is very good for skink-killing. And a hero on a disc with Armor of Morrslieb will massacre razordons and salamanders.

17-11-2009, 20:37	#2807
SkawtheFalconer Chaplain Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Reading, UK Posts: 157 iTrader: (6)	Re: Tactica: Warriors of Chaos I'd give him the Book of Secrets and take the first Shadow spell, giving him a flying move. Either that or ensure a Wizard nearby has it. As a Khemri player, I'm sure you're aware of the possibilities... :P

18-11-2009, 13:13	#2808
Khemed Marine Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Warsaw Posts: 13 iTrader: (0)	Re: Tactica: Warriors of Chaos I was wondering - if I give my Tzeentch sorcerer a book of secrets and spell familiar would that allow me to pick the additional spell from the lore of fire?

18-11-2009, 13:17	#2809
basher Brother Sergeant Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: yorkshire,england Posts: 42 iTrader: (0)	Re: Tactica: Warriors of Chaos the book only allows fire death and shadow. but i would have said the spell familiar would allow from the owners lore

18-11-2009, 14:57	#2810
Ophidian Chaplain Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 216 iTrader: (0)	Re: Tactica: Warriors of Chaos Originally Posted by Witchblade Lord on dragon load-out depends greatly on whether you use RAW or RAI for the collar of khorne's effect. RAW a tzeentchian character with the collar grants the dragon a 5+ ward save, RAI I'd say it doesn't. The collar is nice in either case, but by RAW it's a must-have in combination with MoT. Sorry (both for cutting across the current discussion, and probably for being dim): but I was under the impression that no character wards extended to monstrous mounts? (unless obviously noted to the contrary, cf. the grail shield) - the specific Golden Eye corollary being due to the wording it had in the old book? Am I wrong? __________________ "Hey, deadhead. Take a bite at peach."

18-11-2009, 16:11	#2811
Witchblade Commander Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Netherlands Posts: 582 iTrader: (0)	Re: Tactica: Warriors of Chaos Originally Posted by Ophidian Sorry (both for cutting across the current discussion, and probably for being dim): but I was under the impression that no character wards extended to monstrous mounts? (unless obviously noted to the contrary, cf. the grail shield) - the specific Golden Eye corollary being due to the wording it had in the old book? Am I wrong? The FAQ says saves never transfer from mount to rider or vice versa, but there are exceptions, like 'when a rule specifies otherwise (certain magic items...)'. The question is what constitutes specifying. The collar and the MoT both mention 'model gets a X+ ward save', but they don't mention anything about mounts. Directly below on the same page the golden eye has the rule 'model gets a X+ save... This does not apply to his mount.' It could well be argued that the latter is a specification, which implies that the collar needs no specification and grants the save to the model and its mount. Now, I think the golden eye used to affect mounts in the previous edition, so they included the extra phrase to clarify that it changed this edition. Thus, RAI, the FAQ should take precedence over the collar's wording. RAW, it's sloppy writing at the least. I'd play RAI.

18-11-2009, 17:01	#2812
Avian Solitaire Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Porsgrunn, Norway Posts: 6,368 iTrader: (0)	Re: Tactica: Warriors of Chaos It's not specified unless it's specified. To imply is not to specify, quite the contrary. Unless the Collar says something like: "The bearer and his mount gain a 6+ Ward save.", the mount doesn't get it. From dictionary.com Specify: to mention or name specifically or definitely Imply: to indicate or suggest without being explicitly stated __________________ Rumour Roundup - FB Army book release schedule Unit Combat Calculator Orcs & Goblins Tactics page - Ogre Kingdoms Tactics page Painting diary

18-11-2009, 17:07	#2813
willowdark Commander Join Date: May 2009 Location: Got an 8:30 rez at Dorsia... great sea urchin ceviche. Posts: 682 iTrader: (0)	Re: Tactica: Warriors of Chaos The language in the FAQ is very plain. The justification is that you can target, and therefore wound, each part separately. Wording may be vague from time to time, but that logic will always apply. __________________ Representing The Battle Glade, whether they like it or not. In the winter, The long and hallow eaves of the willow Dance like the shadows of Loec.

19-11-2009, 20:00	#2814
Khemed Marine Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Warsaw Posts: 13 iTrader: (0)	Re: Tactica: Warriors of Chaos Hey, I'm currently trying to expand my 1500 army towards 1750/2000, I've also included some additional concerns - would be nice if you'd check it out and reply : http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=229006 cheers!

19-11-2009, 23:13	#2815
Havock Chapter Master Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 1,847 iTrader: (0)	Re: Tactica: Warriors of Chaos Originally Posted by Avian It's not specified unless it's specified. To imply is not to specify, quite the contrary. Unless the Collar says something like: "The bearer and his mount gain a 6+ Ward save.", the mount doesn't get it. From dictionary.com Specify: to mention or name specifically or definitely Imply: to indicate or suggest without being explicitly stated Yet again they use "model", not bearer, whereas elsewhere bearer is specifically stated. I don't really care either way, but it's just GW language for you 1 can never be 2, but sometimes, 2 is 1, but not for everyone.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 2 (0 members and 2 guests)

Page generated in 0.31848097 seconds (100.00% PHP - 0% MySQL) with 48 queries
	Contact Us - WarSeer - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top