8th Ed. Tiny Little Tip of the Day

[Sleboda]

Hey all,

As some of you know, I'm pretty new to the army, so please forgive me if I am being Captain Obvious here and you all have already thought of this about a zillion times.

I was getting ready to play (yet another) game against Dark Elves the other day and was trying out using a Chief on a Ripper to kill his wizard. When we were doing our Vanguard moves, my opponent asked if the Chief could make one. We looked it up and as it turns out he can (I had simply overlooked this - oh well).

After making my Vanguard move, I was lined up about 18 inches away from his unit that contained the wizard, so I had the charge I wanted, meaning that being forced to do so by Frenzy was not a problem. Then came the go-first roll and I remembered that if I got to go first, I would not be able to charge since using a Vanguard move prohibits this action.

We never got to see what would happen since my opponent had to leave suddenly to handle something at home, but it did get me thinking, and thus we come to the Tiny Little Tip.


If you want to make 100% sure that you are not forced to charge in turn 1 with your Chief on Ripper, simply make a Vanguard move with him. You don't even have to get out of position when doing so. Just push him one millimeter ahead. He's now used his Vanguard move and cannot charge if you go first. Sure, if you go second you may be forced into a charge, but your targets could well be closer to you if the enemy goes first, so maybe it's not such a big deal.


That's all. I just thought it was a neat little way to turn a frown upside down.



Also, I do realize that we can pull the trick where you just face the away from enemies instead, but that eliminates two turns of charging - one where you are facing away and one where you get into position. The above tip gives you a little more flexibility, I believe.

 

[n810]

I believe it's a general rule that you can't charge on the first turn anyway.

 

[bugleboy]

What rule allows your chief on a ripper to vangaurd?

I can't see any special rule for a skink chief and the ripperdactly is itself a monstrous beast, and ripperdactyl riders are monstrous cavalry, neither of which get vangaurd according to the BRB pages 83 and 85.

Is there a rule I missed in either the army book or BRB?

Also there is no mention of not charging on the first turn in the BRB (or at least on page 16 when the rules for declaring charges is written, or the following pages that I can find)

 

[hilburn]

I believe it's a general rule that you can't charge on the first turn anyway.

Nope, scout/vanguarded units cannot charge if they go first on the first turn, but they can definitely be charged on the first turn if they go 2nd

 

[Sleboda]

Correct. No first turn charges is NOT a general rule. It's what makes Meeting Engagement so exciting!

Actually, n810, does that mean you've been playing Meeting Engagement differently all this time? If so, try it again and see how freaking bloody it can be!

 

[Scalenex]

Fast Cavalry can reform for free. If you want to avoid an unwanted charge with rippers, turn your back to your enemy at the end of your move.

 

[Dog On Todd]

Skink chief on a ripper is a unit I have wanted to try!

definitely would gear him as a hero killer, or elite infantry. Unfortunately he starts to become so expensive I'm not confident he would get his points back. Rippers have pretty basic initiative, so they can easily die before you get your hits in.

 

[Sleboda]

Fast Cavalry can reform for free. If you want to avoid an unwanted charge with rippers, turn your back to your enemy at the end of your move.

=> Right. I covered that in the initial post. It means you will not be charging until turn 3 at the earliest, and darn it, I want that wizard dead no later than turn 2!

definitely would gear him as a hero killer, or elite infantry. Unfortunately he starts to become so expensive I'm not confident he would get his points back. Rippers have pretty basic initiative, so they can easily die before you get your hits in.

=> The configuration I was trying out the other night was:

Chief
-Ripper
-Spear
-Light Armor
-Shield of Ptolos
-Potion of Toughness

For less than the price of his L3/L4 Dark Elf Sorceress, I had model with T6 on the turn it charges, a 1+ save vs shooting (granted, it's a 2+ with his AP repeaters, but that's effectively the same), a 3+ vs hand to hand combat (and his mage bunkers in S3 spearmen usually), and enough decent attacks to probably take out the wizard. After that, who cares if he dies?

Yes, challenges are a problem, but oh well.

Also, he can use some spells to save his wizard's skin, but then my guy is doing his job of keeping that wizard off of the rest of my army still, just not for as long.


I've thought about replacing the Shield of Ptolos with an Enchanted Shield, but that only gets me down to a 2+ vs. shooting and then the -1 from Repeaters actually does matter.

 

[Stormfrog]

I often run a ripper chief in a unit of 3-4 rippers using the following build.

- Spear
- Light armor
- Enchanted shield
- Egg of quango

Coupled together with a unit of rippers, this guy is both very durable (for a skink), and with the egg and ripper attacks combined, he has the potential to absolutely rip frail infantry and lightly armored cavalry appart.

 

[Mr Phat]

I often run a ripper chief in a unit of 3-4 rippers using the following build.

yea..yea you cant.....

"Unless otherwise stated, a character cannot join a unit of monsters (too much danger of being stood on), a unit of flyers (too many ill-disciplined wings buffeting the sky), a unit of chariots (too much danger of being run over), a unit of swarms (too much chance of being eaten) or a war machine (too much danger of being obliterated)."

Nowhere in the new book does it say "hey pal, go ahead and join those flyers"
so you cant.

Tiqtaqto dosnt even the greenpass, even though he has the "boost terradons he is with" rule.

stupid? yes..
poor wording? oh yes..
your fault for taking it as given that they can? ..nope...just means your a rational being.

 

[teufelhund]

The rules of a codex supercede the rules regarding models from the BRB according to GW unless the FAQ specifically says otherwise so he should be able to join. However if he joines a unit of Terradons I expect they would have to have the ambusher upgrades for it to be allowed or would he lose his ambusher ability?

 

[Sleboda]

You are correct that Army Book rules override main rulebook rules when a conflict arises.

Unfortunately, there is no conflict here.

The main rules say you may not join flying units.

Nowhere does the Lizardmen book create a conflict with this rule by saying "characters on terradons or ripperdactyls may join units of terradons and ripperdactyls."

The closest it comes is for the one special character, and even his own entry does not create the conflict. Does it create confusion or frustration? Sure does! Is there a conflict? Nope. Main rules still apply.

 

[teufelhund]

I was referring to Tiktaq'to; it says the Mask of Heavens allows all terradons in his unit to use his weapon skill and -1 to hit w/shooting. Why would it refer to his unit? If they mean his terradon why not just make his terradon weapon skill 4? It's a named monster; or zwup has WS equal to Tiktaq'to. It's not like you can take any other gear to boost his WS since he's a prefabbed character and spell buffs would effect the unit. It does not specifically say that he can join a unit, but his inclusion allows ambushers on a single terradon unit. Presumed to be his unit to match his ambushers rule. If he can't join the unit half his wargear is pointless or do they get the buffs from the mask anyway? For 170 pts for the character the logical answer is that the buffs have to be able to be passed onto a unit. Common sense makes the game work... There is also a big disclaimer in the BRB that says the game is for FUN and use common sense!!! Anybody who would nitpick that clearly isn't looking for a fun fair game.

 

[VampTeddy]

I was referring to Tiktaq'to; it says the Mask of Heavens allows all terradons in his unit to use his weapon skill and -1 to hit w/shooting. Why would it refer to his unit? If they mean his terradon why not just make his terradon weapon skill 4? It's a named monster; or zwup has WS equal to Tiktaq'to. It's not like you can take any other gear to boost his WS since he's a prefabbed character and spell buffs would effect the unit. It does not specifically say that he can join a unit, but his inclusion allows ambushers on a single terradon unit. Presumed to be his unit to match his ambushers rule. If he can't join the unit half his wargear is pointless or do they get the buffs from the mask anyway? For 170 pts for the character the logical answer is that the buffs have to be able to be passed onto a unit. Common sense makes the game work... There is also a big disclaimer in the BRB that says the game is for FUN and use common sense!!! Anybody who would nitpick that clearly isn't looking for a fun fair game.

Actualy only the -1 item requires him to join a unit of terradons.

He gives one unit of terradons in the army (not nessecarily one he joins) the ambush special rule.

I agree, and i think we all do, that he SHOULD have been able to join a unit - have being the word here, because he is not, and he actually receives bonus from the item on Zwup as well as being a harder target himself - the wording is precise and as such if he could join a unit of terradons it would be a neat unit however Sleboda isn't rules mongering because he wants to be in the way here, see the rules are against his army too, but because the rules rather clearly state that Tik'taq'toe can't join a unit of terradons since nothing states he can in our army book thus you will always need your opponents permission to use him as was obviously intended because the rules say so.

 

[Sleboda]

I was referring to Tiktaq'to;

=> I know. That's why I said

The closest it comes is for the one special character

it says the Mask of Heavens allows all terradons in his unit to use his weapon skill and -1 to hit w/shooting. Why would it refer to his unit? ... It does not specifically say that he can join a unit...

=> You've answered it yourself. It does not allow it.

but his inclusion allows ambushers on a single terradon unit. Presumed to be his unit to match his ambushers rule.

=> Don't presume. Also, see Vamp's post above.

If he can't join the unit half his wargear is pointless or do they get the buffs from the mask anyway? For 170 pts for the character the logical answer is that the buffs have to be able to be passed onto a unit. Common sense makes the game work... There is also a big disclaimer in the BRB that says the game is for FUN and use common sense!!! Anybody who would nitpick that clearly isn't looking for a fun fair game.

=> Bull. I'm sorry if this comes across as aggressive, but so be it - Please, don't ever imply that I am nitpicking and not looking for a fun game. You don't know me and it's highly rude of you to make that assumption.

I think it's more accurate to say that players who feel that's it's ok to EXPECT their opponents to ignore the rules so that they can play the game how they want to play it are the ones not interested in fun - at least not their opponent's fun anyway!

As to common sense, as I've said before, there really is no such thing. Culture, upbringing, experiences...all sorts of factors inform one's localized and personal idea of what is common sense. For example, for me it's "common sense" that when two players come together to play a game, they agree ahead of time, without needing to say so, that they will play by the rules.


EDIT: I'll add something further from personal experience.

How do we know that the reference in the special character was not left in by mistake? People, including yourself, may assume that the part that was left out was some explicit persmission for him to join units. Well, it's just as likely that in the editing process someone neglected to remove the reference to joining as it is that someone neglected to add the permission to join.

When I was a playtester we were given rules to try out all the time. Sometimes they stuck, sometimes they didn't. There were one or two examples of ones that were supposed to be dropped that made it into print. Oops!

Why is it that the person who is following the damn rules is the nitpicker who doesn't like fun? Why isn't the person who wants to break the rules the sneaky git looking to steal an advantage he shouldn't have?


Gosh, come to think of it, it's just "common sense" that they obviously left in a playtest rule that they meant to remove but forgot to. I mean, really, even within this book we see a watermark for an art placeholder that someone forgot to remove. Based on that evidince, it's clearly more likely that they forgot to remove the character's rule problem. It's common sense, after all.

 

[teufelhund]

I'm not trying to imply anything. You say more than I ever could about youself just by the way you respond so do not cast any blame of peoples opinions of you on anyone but yourself and your actions.
It's called accountability, so feel free to not apologize before making remarks about whatever opinion I have on the matter.

It also does not specifically state he can't join a unit and makes two references to his involvement within a unit. I would believe that once perhaps could be overlooked, but twice seems unreasonable.

And common sense for the bulk of english speaking countries; where the bulk of the consumers and 100% of the developers exist; logic states that he is greatly overpriced if that is his intended function. Why would they spend capital as a company for profit developing material to never be in use or purchased by a consumer.

An agreement beforehand eliminates the need for any conflict. I wouldn't take it to a tournament because of situations like this, but isn't the point of playing casual games for fun?

If you feel that righteously about it feel free to petition GW to update the FAQ.

 

[Sleboda]

I don't know if you've read other posts by me here, but pretty much always when I have a differing opinion with others I take care to make sure the people know it's nothing personal or that I'm trying to simply present an alternate view.

You touched a hotbutton by saying my view is nitpicking and indicates I am not playing for fun. That was uncalled for given that you and I have never (to be best of my knowledge) interacted at all.

Look, I don't know what you expect the reaction to be when you open up both barrels on someone who is simply advocating playing by the rules of the game. If it's common sense to ignore the rules, then I suppose we should assume that skink skirmishers are "supposed" to have the option to have a musician as well, and it was un-fun of me to politely correct oldplayer recently over his advice to include a musician in those units. Clearly I just don't have the right sense of what magically was "meant" to be in the books. Silly me.


I've provided you with an alternate way to look at it so show how is indeed possible to see where the error could be made in such a way that advocating playing by what isn't present may actually be the poorer choice.

If you feel that entitles you to further dig and display such a hostile and personally insulting tone to someone you've never met, then I'm not sure what to say to you - but you can expect most people to repay you in kind. I know some people are not interested in exploring rationally stated alternate views, but it always take me by surprise when I run into such narrow-mindedness (masquerading, as usual, as "just for fun" type of play) in the wild. Stunning, really. "Hey man, I want to go 70mph with the headlights off, because it will be fun! Yeah, I know it's against the law, but those laws shouldn't really apply on these back country roads where nobody is around. It's just common sense that the law is meant for crowded areas."

 

[Stormfrog]

I should perhaps have mentiond that we here in Sweden play under a special Swedish ruling called the "SweFAQ", which currently enables us to have characters on rippers/terradons join units of rippers and terradons respectivly. They perform special rulings sometimes for rules they find are rather obviously intended in one way, but due to a loop hole are prohibited (much like this one), or perform rulings on contriversal rules which GW have yet released a FAQ on, so as to make tournaments more streamlined and without arguments concerning rule intepretation.

 

[Mr Phat]

Im with Sleboda on this one...miles in his direction actually.
He is rationally structuring his arguments to make a valid logical point, and I am actually frustrated on his behalf for being met with this:

It also does not specifically state he can't join a unit and makes two references to his involvement within a unit.

by that logic a skink can kill everything on the table by snapping his fingers before the game starts. Why? it dosnt specifically say he cant.
While we can agree that the example in question is more down to earth it still isnt more valid. Rules are rules, and just excusing by saying "it didnt say I couldnt do that" is FAR to close to the old stories of the American lady that sued a microwave-company and won because it didnt say she couldnt dry her cat in it.

logic states that he is greatly overpriced if that is his intended function. Why would they spend capital as a company for profit developing material to never be in use or purchased by a consumer.

First: logic? no, personal opinion. There are no logical rules for pts costs, only the writers attempt to balance things. You cant apply observative-logic to that and state that you figured out a clear pattern.

Second: You make overpriced special characters sound like a new extraordinary thing. Im dont agree.


The look is not long for reasons of making that model:
- For collectors who want all special characters
- For conversions
- for a skink cheif (im getting one for this)
- for a unit champ


Sorry if I sound condescending, but your arguments just doesn't make "sense" to me.

 

[Mr Phat]

I should perhaps have mentiond that we here in Sweden play under a special Swedish ruling called the "SweFAQ", which currently enables us to have characters on rippers/terradons join units of rippers and terradons respectivly. They perform special rulings sometimes for rules they find are rather obviously intended in one way, but due to a loop hole are prohibited (much like this one), or perform rulings on contriversal rules which GW have yet released a FAQ on, so as to make tournaments more streamlined and without arguments concerning rule intepretation.

lucky bastard arent you the guys who get supporting attacks for PF, free upgrades for carnosaur and D6 roars from trog too? ^^