• 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.

8th Ed. Lizardmen 8th Ed. FAQ

A FAQ is definitely required because of how they worded several rules. You have some groups that take RAW as meaning exactly as it is written and others who would say that the basic rules trump advanced rules. Saying "every attack" or "every enemy in range" would cancel out the basic rules for some, others need it to specifically say "this cancels X rule".

Make sure to ask at the store where you play. I tried rolling separately for the supporting rank and they looked at me like I was an idiot after I showed them the rule. I asked about burning alignment (I have yet to be able to get my stegadon close enough to actually use it) and they told me it targeted "all units in range", not just in the front arc.

Not trying to start an argument about who is right, I am just saying to ask where you play about each rule, and try not to develop a strategy based around any ambiguous rule (since your game store tournaments and official tournaments may have different ideas). Take questions from this FAQ and ask your gaming group, don't just automatically assume Lustria's FAQ is how they play.
 
Yeah predatory fighter is the big one I'm glad my gaming group ruled in my favour. Rolling the dice in two separate groups is just silly and unnecessary.
 
Can Tiktaq'to join terradon units? Usually character cannot join Flying units and there's no rule exception for him but at same time one of his items gives bonus to his unit.....
 
Eladimir said:
Yeah predatory fighter is the big one I'm glad my gaming group ruled in my favour. Rolling the dice in two separate groups is just silly and unnecessary.
Click to expand...

I know, right? I mean, when I roll for my cavalry, I just do the riders and mounts all on the same batch of dice, even though they have different effects from the rules too. I mean, come on, who has the time to let a silly things like the rules force me to spend the 3 seconds it takes to add different color dice to my pile or to make two piles? That's just a silly and unnecessary rule.


@kroq - No, he cannot. The rule that he benefits the units he does join contains no exception to the rules about what units he can join.
Massive oversight? Probably, but not definitely. I've seen rules in the past that were written to work in conjunction with other rules only to be mistakenly left in place when the other rule changed. It happens.
 
... sigh

Somebody close this thread allready.

:rage:
 
Why? Because I bothered to point out that the justification for breaking a particular rule is based in a totally flawed premise? Ohhhhkaaayyy...
 
Because we don't need the same argument restated over the next 16 pages again.
Nothing personal, I just hate seeing the same argument repeated in perpetuity.
Can't we all just agree to dissagree. :artist:
 
Wow Sleboda, in the past I have seen some well reasoned arguments from you, but after that flawed bit of sophistry there, I am wondering if I was mistaken about you.

Just because you read rules one way does not mean that everyone else is wrong. We have argued that before. Do not insult someone by saying "breaking a rule" when in many people's opinion no rule was broken. Rolling all the SAURUS ( who ALL have predatory fighter) separate from the COLD ONES who do not have that rule makes much more sense. And if they put out a faq saying that being in the supporting rank nullifies the "whenever you roll" statement I am sure no lizardmen players will rage quit because they lost a potential 0.17 bonus attack on supporting attacks and have to roll separately. Many of their opponents will ask why they are rolling supporting attacks separately and then complain that it is silly though.

To counter your completely exaggerated statement:
How would most players feel if you tried rolling every single attack with a 1d6? You CAN do it based on the rules and technically every model might be slightly different, but your opponent will be irritated by it because he is there to play a game and have fun. If all your units have the same stats (exact same stats) then YES roll them together.

Also wondering what you would do if you played in a tournament at a game store where the PF and EotG Burnination were played RAW from the lizardmen book instead of your view. Would you refuse to play? Would you play by "the right rules" and handicap yourself against other lizardmen because you are always right?
 
WHOA WHOA WHOA, we all just need to calm down and take a second or two to breath.












my popcorn hasn't quite finished popping.



Okay, got it. Continue.
 
@markhaus

This is not a case of opinion or reading it one way. This is a rare case where one side is objectivelh, factually incorrect and their argument is based on wishful thinking and the other side can actually read and apply knowledge of language.

In most cases, even the most staunch defenders of the other side are willing to admit that the rule is clear but they WISH it were different. Almost no one actually thinks the rule is unclear - they just WISH it said something else.

I have total respect for opinions based on vague wording, but this is not that. This is "I know what it says, but I just can't n be bothered to follow the rules." Call me an ass or whatever if you like, but I refuse to give equal respect to to opinions that are utterly baseless.

I can have the opinion that all people should give lick my left nut, but that does not make it fact.

It is a fact, for all the reasons talked about before, that you cannot get more than 1 Attack in support from a Special Rule. It is a fact that Pf is a special rule that somehow, some way gives more Attacks.. PF, therefor, cannot, at all, give you more Supporting Attacks. It really is that simple. Full stop. Any reason as to why you should break this rule is irrelevant, as they all require you to break the oh-so-simple rule that Special Rules (content not being a factor) cannot grant more Attacks in Support. To go any further is grasping at straws and totally unworthy of consideration.

It is not a supportable opinion to claim otherwise, and it REALLY annoys me when people try to support their wishful thinking with utterly meaningless ideas.


Bottom line: Wishful thinking is not a counter to actual rules, and any argument that suggests otherwise under the shield of "all opinions are equal" is not worth crap. Some opinions are actually wrong.

Damn, I hate our PC world. Give me another beer.
 
Sleboda said:
Give me another beer.
Click to expand...


Wish I could, but rangers lost so it's been a rough night and I'm all out.
 
I hear ya. Wanted the Rangers to win. Crap.
 
Sleboda: We have several other posts arguing this, obviously I understand that you think you are right and that you disrespect anyone who disagrees with you. However the wording is ambiguous to multiple people and disrespecting them does not make you more right. If you are still confused go back and read the thread about PF, where several people explain why you might be wrong about the wording.

This is not a case of a few isolated fools believing something that is wrong, like "north is up", which can be observed to be wrong. This is an argument over semantics and wording and which rules overrule which rules based on that wording. Your disrespecting people who disagree with you makes you come off as a troll trying to get a response, which is unfortunate because you had some good arguments and people generally just ignore a troll.

You have ad hominem attacks, attacking the person's intelligence because they disagree with you does not make you right. You keep stating a fact is true because no one else understands what is going on (about wording with a company who is notorious for bad wording) while also saying that they probably meant it the other way. To use your wording, wishing something is true does not make it so.

You have to make up outlandish circumstances that are unrelated and overinflated to try and win your arguments. You also say "wish fulfillment", as if the other side is so devoted to getting 0.17 extra attacks with a WS that means half of them miss. Take away PF completely and I doubt most people would complain that much (many would be happy they don't have the disadvantage).

People don't come to this forum to get their way, we come to have a good debate, and you are using bad arguments to support a good position. Which will result in others not accepting your good arguments!
 
I feel Slebodas frustration with the PF debates.

I just dont understand why PF would work from supporting ranks. Ive read the threads. As ive typed earlier I think it very simple. There is nothing more to bring to the table but there doesnt seem to be an agreement. Thats why Ive mostly stopped following that discussion.

heres my 2 cents.
 
rantapanda said:
I feel Slebodas frustration with the PF debates.

I just dont understand why PF would work from supporting ranks. Ive read the threads. As ive typed earlier I think it very simple. There is nothing more to bring to the table but there doesnt seem to be an agreement. Thats why Ive mostly stopped following that discussion.

heres my 2 cents.
Click to expand...

My local non-lizardmen players (who ruled that PF can be used in all ranks), said that, from a balance AND convinience perspecctive, it just makes far more sense to allow PF from all attacks. They believe that is the RAI, though they agree that, currently, RAW seems to be that you have to split the dice pool, and only get PF from the first rank.

It just seems silly and arbitrary, because it means PF is not only a rather weak USR, but even a DETRIMENTAL one, as it forces pursues without a nearby skink character. I cannot name even 1 other USR that causes more harm than good. Even the local VC player, who often complains about crumbling, agrees that the undead STILL gain far more benefits from their rules, unlike Saurus, who for some reason need a USR that causes pretty much as much harm as good.

Seriously, ask yourself - considering the statline and gear, with the current cost - Are Saurus well balanced? Considering that most competetive lists use skink spam, I would say, no, no they are not. Full PF would at least remedy that SOMEWHAT. As it is, Saurus, aside from the characters, are horribly overpriced, as if they were intended to be stronger and more dangerous than they actually are.

EDIT: Just a disclaimer, I am primrily comparing tjeir costs to armies like High Elves, who, for the same (Or even LESS) cost get higher initiative, higher strength OR ASF (and by extension, pretty much always rerolls to hit), more ranks pere standard, etc. Lizardmen USR just seem awfully weak compared to pretty much all other armies in the game currntly.
 
rather than continuing on with this topic for another dozen posts, and arguing about it until the cows come home, lets just say that badly written rules are bad and leave it at that. However I hope that the poorly written PF rule is a precursor to the rule being changed in 9th edition, that you can have any number of supporting attacks; spear saurus will rule the battlefield then.
 
Lord Kroxti said:
rather than continuing on with this topic for another dozen posts, and arguing about it until the cows come home, lets just say that badly written rules are bad and leave it at that. However I hope that the poorly written PF rule is a precursor to the rule being changed in 9th edition, that you can have any number of supporting attacks; spear saurus will rule the battlefield then.
Click to expand...

Hell yes the would, becase 40 spears in a horde formation would be 80 attacks. I'd almost say it would turn the current situation on its head, and mean skinks clouds would become near-redundant.

I'd much rather see a point cost reduction for the Saurus anyway. They are way too expensive for how weak they are, especially the TG.
 
Actually, TG are quite point-cost competitive with other armies, and even match up well against other elites (at least mathematically). Put them in a horde, give them a razor banner or flaming banner (depending on matchup), and they can go to toe-to-toe with almost anything and win. In practice, however, people tend to make the mistake of putting a Slann in the block, which is basically the worst thing you can do: it makes the TG worse in combat, the Slann worse at magic, and the whole unit bloated when it comes to points.

Still, you're right on the money when it comes to Saurus. They just have too many exploitable weaknesses to make up for their statlines and point costs. They become good when those weaknesses can be compensated for with Magic, but then again so does everything else.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top