• The forum software have been upgraded to the latest version.

    If you notice anything that looks off, or does not work, please let us know.

    For more information, click here.

7th Ed. BS 5 Stegadon

I argue though that given that it can penetrate ranks just like a bolt thrower, that it is a bolt thrower just a slightly smaller version it is ST5 instead of St6, it has a slightly shorter range, but it still does D3 per hit. The following quote is from the lizardman FAQ from GW:

"Q.. What is the range of the Stegadon’s giant bow? Do
you get armour saves against the giant bow, or is it
treated like a Bolt Thrower (and so no armour saves
would be allowed)?
A. The giant bow is a bolt thrower in all respects, except
it can move and fire, and has a different Strength. Use all
the rules from the Bolt Thrower section of the
Warhammer rulebook (p. 124-125)."

I think that answers the question as to whether it is a bolt thrower or not. So to all of this I would say that the BS would be of the character and the giant bow is a bolt thrower.
 
So when we get charged all the skink crew now jump out and in front and defend it? Its not a bolt thrower in any way man. It just does damage like one.
 
Well man not according to the GW FAQ I qouted above it is...
 
Where did you get that FAQ? From the GW website? It is still the FAQ for the last edition book, not this one. ie. the second question refers to blessed spawnings, which no longer exist.

So the FAQ is outdated and not usable anymore, you have to look at the current army book. It merely says it penetrates ranks like a bolt thrower, not that it is a bolt thrower. If it were a bolt thrower, it would have 360 degree LoS since warmachines can turn on the spot without penalty.

Fair to say last edition was a bolt thrower from that FAQ, and it is possible GW wanted to keep it as such, but from the current army book it definitely isn't one.
 
This argument I find to be an exercise in "hope over experience".
 
Ok you win, I thought I was trying to help, have a great day...
 
RazorOne223 said:
Ok you win, I thought I was trying to help, have a great day...
Click to expand...

It's not about winning or losing. About discussing. With stuff like this no-one really knows for sure unless gw do a faq, which I guess they'll do soon.
 
I'd prefer they spend an extra month or two doing some quality assurance testing on their wording and new rules.

Here is a novel idea, release a beta version on the web and let players play test the army for a month or two and then make the errata changes and any last minute balancing tweaks for the actual book. At least that way we dont have to carry around a rulebook that we are constantly having to put down in favor of referring to a printed out paper article errata faq sheet!

Is it really that hard?
 
Oh no, but then people would just use the beta rather than buying the book and they wouldn't get 'shock' sales where people buy the book and models before they really know what they're like.

Hands up who would still buy the hard copy book for the addition picture section, fluff and full unit descriptions even if they already knew the basic rules? *Raises hand* And essentially, it is a model company, they make the money off the models not the books anyway. So basically, you are absolutely right they should let people playtest it and read it before it goes to press. Even if they just had a select few external playtesters, sure some stuff will get leaked but jeez its just rules not the models and people will still want the book.
 
actually leeking rules makes a book even more attractive, since people want rumours confirmed and such.
 
Put the beta rules in a White Dwarf then? People who dont buy the magazine may start. Dont add pictures and fluffy just the rules. Dont add points costs if you just want the rules proof read or add them if you want beta play balance testing.
 
hellbreaker said:
actually leeking rules makes a book even more attractive, since people want rumours confirmed and such.
Click to expand...

Some leaking makes the book more attractive, and increases excitement. I am sure that almost all of the 'leaking' that occurs is intentional by GW, really employees under contract aren't going to slip up and say things they shouldn't. We see what GW want us to see before a release.

That is a good idea to post beta rules in WD with no points values. People could still try them out, the testing would be more for ease of use and understandability not balance, GW would be silly to listen to everyone in regards to balance. All who collect the army will think it is underpowered, all who fight it will think its overpowered. Or they could throw in a couple of sample legal lists with no individual points values.
 
but not including costs will make it harder to play the beta rules with any new units that doesn't exist already.
 
No I think you missed my point a bit, it will be harder to play a fair game but that isn't what the beta bit is for, the idea is to see how the wording flows and check for any exploitable bits. Hell you could have 10k of lizzies vs 2k of something else and you would still be able to playtest how the rules go, just not balance or how fair it is. You would still be able to quickly ask the questions that are desperately in need of an answer all over the forum, even just making combos and putting together units will raise valid questions that could be ironed out.
 
I see, well play-testing stuff is always worth it and GW should know that they can't just trust on there paid employees to test it in every thinkable situation. :P
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top