eyescrossed Posted June 29, 2009 Share Posted June 29, 2009 My question is, do Harridans move as a Flyer? I don't think they do, since they have a Special Rule titled Flyer which lets them move 24" a turn, not being Unit Type: Flyer. The original argument started here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maligoare Posted June 29, 2009 Share Posted June 29, 2009 Quite simply, no it is not a Flyer (otherwise its unit type would be Gargantuin Flyer or something of that ilk). Besides, the Haridan is designed to be able to assault things, and that would cause an unimaginable headache with the rules for a true Flyer-type model! Edit - Not to mention the Gargyle Brood special rule implies that it is not treated as a Flyer with the mention of Blast weapons (how many of them have the AA special rule??). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyescrossed Posted June 29, 2009 Author Share Posted June 29, 2009 Quite simply, no it is not a Flyer (otherwise its unit type would be Gargantuin Flyer or something of that ilk). Besides, the Haridan is designed to be able to assault things, and that would cause an unimaginable headache with the rules for a true Flyer-type model! Edit - Not to mention the Gargyle Brood special rule implies that it is not treated as a Flyer with the mention of Blast weapons (how many of them have the AA special rule??). Thankyou. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawk Posted June 29, 2009 Share Posted June 29, 2009 According to the most updated rules (IA: Apocalypse) it is not a flyer. It is type: Gargantuan Creature. DONE. The Harridan does have the special rule to Fly twice the distance a gargantuan creature can normally move. And it does not get Fleet like the rest of the Tyranid Gargantuan creatures do... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyescrossed Posted June 30, 2009 Author Share Posted June 30, 2009 They're being a lot more difficult in the original topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accommodator Posted June 30, 2009 Share Posted June 30, 2009 I have to admit, I love Tyranids alot more than most - I run Warpshadow, afterall - and that original thread is annoying. Once again I find I am solidly in agreement with you, Eyescrossed. :huh: It is not a Type: Flyer, that is only a poorly choosen name for the special rule giving it an enhanced movement. Any and all references to IA4 are simply outdated. :devil: Don't get me wrong - I would be estatic if Tyranids got units of Type: Flier, or even some AA weapons. But we don't. Hopefully the next codex corrects this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyescrossed Posted June 30, 2009 Author Share Posted June 30, 2009 Once again I find I am solidly in agreement with you, Eyescrossed. :mellow: :eek Someone agrees with me? It is not a Type: Flyer, that is only a poorly choosen name for the special rule giving it an enhanced movement. Any and all references to IA4 are simply outdated. :PThis is exactly my argument. Don't get me wrong - I would be estatic if Tyranids got units of Type: Flier, or even some AA weapons. But we don't. Hopefully the next codex corrects this.Me too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grey Mage Posted June 30, 2009 Share Posted June 30, 2009 Yep... WFB is the only game where flyer is a special rule instead of a unit type IIRC, so eyecrossed is definitely right... IIRC :P. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyescrossed Posted June 30, 2009 Author Share Posted June 30, 2009 Okay, I cannot be bothered arguing with satanaka, who continues to think they're treated as Flyers, but if anyone else wants to, go to the thread I linked in my first post. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
satanaka Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 From the original thread: Show me where it says it's an exception, and I'll agree with you. The bolded part is fluff. It has no bearings on the rules. But if we're going to use that piece of fluff for rules, then here I go. Since it moves slower than a Thunderbolt or Hellblade, and is a lot bigger, troops don't need 6s to hit. See why nobody ever uses fluff in rules arguments? The fact that Anphelion lists that doesn't matter, as it is an inferior ruleset. Also, its Special Rule is Flyer, not its Unit Type. For something to have to be hit on 6s and have the rules for a Flyer, it needs to be Unit Type: Flyer. If it was intended to be hit on 6s, Games Workshop would have specifically stated that. QFT Honestly, Eyes has the most solid argument here. It is what i would say, if i were to tell you how silly you're being. Seeing as you seem to love using the appearence of the model as a basis for its rules, what about Khorne's Daemon Lord? Should he be able to fly around 24" and be treated as a flyer because he has wings? I know he doesn't have unit type flyer (just like in this argument) but hell, he's got wings why don't we use an army of 1 incorrectly because it has wings too? Basically, Flyer may be the name of a unit type, but with this case, its a special rule and therefore grants none of the bonuses for having the unit type the special rule is derived from. Then I'll make sure to tell every GW/FW employee that has stated that it IS a flyer that they are wrong on this. All 35 of them, including GW regional managers and people that have worked for FW. I've had this argument a few times before. More over, the Khorne daemon Anggrath's rules state his wings are specifically treated as a jump pack. Bad example. The Harridan says nothing of the sort, thus the Harridan IS treated to the same rules enjoyed by Tbolts and Hellblades. How was that a bad example? The way i see it, if you're going to falsely give rules to one thing with wings, why not another? Oh.. that's right, because you can't. I was pointing out that if you're misusing one thing on the basis that "it has wngs not jets" then why not another? It may not have the unit type flyer, but neither does the Harridan. Also, that was sarcasm. Again, NO, the word "flyer" only lets it act like a falyer if it is the creature's UNIT TYPE. However, here it's a SPECIAL RULE badly named or not, its still a special rule. You can go on about how its a flyer until you die, and use it as one, but us people with common sense (and, obviously more knowledge of the difference between unit type and special rules then you,) will use it as a Gargantuan creature with a 24" move. I bolded why it is a bad example. I also explained the discrepancy: Edit: Actually, I found the answer in an article by Jervis Johnson himself in Chapter Approved 2007, the same year as IA:Apoc came out. Fliers can be hit with blast weapons if they are OVER where the blast marker lands, but you lose the ability to hit ground targets with the blast as you targeted a flier with it. This applies to Blast, Ordnance, and BARRAGE weapons. However, the weapon has to be on a AA mount to be able to do so. Now with the changes made in 5th edition, you would now IGNORE the part about the blast templates. This also explains why the harridan does not have the flyer type listed, yet is still a flyer The orginal IA:Apoc was written for 4th edition rules, pre - Apocalypse. In other words, early to mid 2007. GW's Apoc didn't come out until Late 2007, hence the changes in the appearence and rules of the Harridan from IA:4, which came out in 2006 and IA:Apoc 5th didn't hit until 2008, hence why the screwup on rules, which is because the Harridan's rules are based on an OLD RULESET that doesn't apply anymore. As another little factoid to confuse the matter even more, Take a look at both the Drop Pod and the Deathwind Drop Pod. Both are listed as FLYERS! So does that mean in an Apoc game I can shoot down drop pods before they land? Because according to the rules, I can shoot down flyers...... Now do you see the problem with IA:Apoc units? IA: Apoc is ALSO from an inferior ruleset, in fact the same ruleset that IA:4 is from, which is 4th edition !!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bran Scalphunter Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 So going by your logic, as a 'Nid player, if I created a data-fax for a TMC and gave its unit type as Monstrous Creature but gave it a special rule called Gargantuan Creature and said, for example, it can never gain Cover saves from other TMCs, would that make it a Gargantuan Creature and subject to those rules as found in Apocalypse? No it wouldn't, it would just be a TMC with a special rule that happens to share the same name as a Unit Type. The same goes for the Harridan. It has Gargantuan Creature as unit type, not Flyer. Until you become in charge of GW and can rewrite the rules as you see fit, you are wrong. Just accept that, it's al ot easier for everyone who's responded to this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
satanaka Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 Let me throw a hypothetical question at you. Do you REALLY WANT a 6 wound, S 10, T 8, 5 A on the charge, that can move effectively 36" a turn (24" move, 12" charge) hitting your SM's like a ton of bricks on 4+, most other armies on a 3+ , in addition to sandwiching your units between it and couple of Carnifexes, or would rather let your opponent use it as a flier, and deal with it's BS3 and not let it assault your troops, but I can shoot it while it flies on 6's? I'll take the BS 3 for the win, Alex. ;) Simply letting your opponent use it as a flier makes it not as nasty as it can TRULY be if you ground it. I use mine as a flier and I've never heard anyone complain once about me doing it, after they look at it's stats and think of that scenario I just described. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bran Scalphunter Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 As a Nid player, sure I'd like one, makes killing enemies so much easier. As a Marine player, it'd be nasty, but I can kill it. So you have no actual rules stance as to why it is a Flyer, other than the fact that it has a badly chosen name for a special rule and the fact that you want it to be a Flyer. Besides, even GW isn't stupid enough to write out an entire stat-line for CC if it's never supposed to get in CC. Until you get some actual rules to help your case, I think its safe to say that no, the Harridan is NOT a Flyer unit, it is a normal Gargantuan Creature with a badly chosen name for a special rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyescrossed Posted July 3, 2009 Author Share Posted July 3, 2009 You put it better than I ever could, Mr. Scalphunter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cypher 102 Posted July 3, 2009 Share Posted July 3, 2009 Besides, even GW isn't stupid enough to write out an entire stat-line for CC if it's never supposed to get in CC. Have you looked at this thread? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nighthawks Posted July 3, 2009 Share Posted July 3, 2009 There are only so many words available to the games developers that are readily understood and convey the required idea. "Move," "fly," etc... are unfortunately used more often than they need be when a useful synonym, such as "reposition" or "soar," could be used to reduce obfuscation. As has been said, a special rule that shares a name with a unit type does not make the specific unit or model with the special rule whatever that unit type is if it is categorized differently in the text. similar problems existed in the space marine 4th ed codex, where "scouts" did not have the "scouts" special rule. this was apparently NOT an oversight (though it is changed now) but people still either missed the distinction (used the scouts rule) or presumed that they were supposed to have it, such as the case here with the "flyer" special rule. We should not consider the lack of "flyer" unit type to be an oversight, nor should we presume that a similarly named special rule (which, it should be noted, describes movement that is distinctly different from that of a unit type: flyer) indicates the unit type is to be modified to match. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accommodator Posted July 3, 2009 Share Posted July 3, 2009 The orginal IA:Apoc was written for 4th edition rules, pre - Apocalypse. In other words, early to mid 2007. GW's Apoc didn't come out until Late 2007, hence the changes in the appearence and rules of the Harridan from IA:4, which came out in 2006 and IA:Apoc 5th didn't hit until 2008, hence why the screwup on rules, which is because the Harridan's rules are based on an OLD RULESET that doesn't apply anymore. As another little factoid to confuse the matter even more, Take a look at both the Drop Pod and the Deathwind Drop Pod. Both are listed as FLYERS! So does that mean in an Apoc game I can shoot down drop pods before they land? Because according to the rules, I can shoot down flyers...... Now do you see the problem with IA:Apoc units? IA: Apoc is ALSO from an inferior ruleset, in fact the same ruleset that IA:4 is from, which is 4th edition !!! Your timeline is incorrect. Apoc expansion came out in Oct 2007, with pre-order of IA:Apoc in Dec of 2007. As FW's IA:A dropped mention of Masspoints, which were all the rage in IA update2006, they are based off the same rules as Apoc (indeed, several IA:A vehicles have D class weapons, an Apoc creation, so rules were shared prior to the writing of IA:A. That also explains the lack of an overlap in legendary unit datafaxes between the two books). FW even published an FAQ almost immediately after the book came out, to clarify the Trygon Deepstrike rules, among other things. Drop pods are OT, but I'll answer anyways. The IA:A rules DID allow you to shoot them down like other Flyers, see their old special rule "Drop Pod Landing". Luckily, GW has subsequently published updated rules for the Drop Pod with the "Drop Pod Assault" special rule in the latest C:SM. None of this changes the fact that Harridans are Type: Gargantuan Creature and not Type: Flier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
satanaka Posted July 13, 2009 Share Posted July 13, 2009 Besides, even GW isn't stupid enough to write out an entire stat-line for CC if it's never supposed to get in CC. Have you looked at this thread? Thank you for making that perfect example. :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
satanaka Posted July 13, 2009 Share Posted July 13, 2009 The orginal IA:Apoc was written for 4th edition rules, pre - Apocalypse. In other words, early to mid 2007. GW's Apoc didn't come out until Late 2007, hence the changes in the appearence and rules of the Harridan from IA:4, which came out in 2006 and IA:Apoc 5th didn't hit until 2008, hence why the screwup on rules, which is because the Harridan's rules are based on an OLD RULESET that doesn't apply anymore. As another little factoid to confuse the matter even more, Take a look at both the Drop Pod and the Deathwind Drop Pod. Both are listed as FLYERS! So does that mean in an Apoc game I can shoot down drop pods before they land? Because according to the rules, I can shoot down flyers...... Now do you see the problem with IA:Apoc units? IA: Apoc is ALSO from an inferior ruleset, in fact the same ruleset that IA:4 is from, which is 4th edition !!! Your timeline is incorrect. Apoc expansion came out in Oct 2007, with pre-order of IA:Apoc in Dec of 2007. As FW's IA:A dropped mention of Masspoints, which were all the rage in IA update2006, they are based off the same rules as Apoc (indeed, several IA:A vehicles have D class weapons, an Apoc creation, so rules were shared prior to the writing of IA:A. That also explains the lack of an overlap in legendary unit datafaxes between the two books). FW even published an FAQ almost immediately after the book came out, to clarify the Trygon Deepstrike rules, among other things. Drop pods are OT, but I'll answer anyways. The IA:A rules DID allow you to shoot them down like other Flyers, see their old special rule "Drop Pod Landing". Luckily, GW has subsequently published updated rules for the Drop Pod with the "Drop Pod Assault" special rule in the latest C:SM. None of this changes the fact that Harridans are Type: Gargantuan Creature and not Type: Flier. Read the thread Cypher linked to, Accomodater. It shows a perfect example of a screw up, just like the Harridan, but is more recent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyescrossed Posted July 13, 2009 Author Share Posted July 13, 2009 The Harridan obviously isn't a mistake. Even its fluff says it rakes tanks with its talons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rat of vengence Posted July 13, 2009 Share Posted July 13, 2009 It seems pretty straight forward; it is a gargantuan creature that happens to be able to fly too. That does not make it a flier, any more than a Valkyrie is a flyer in the IG codex. RoV Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ideaus Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 there are to seperate rule sets for the harridan, 1st - Apocalsypes - in apocalsypse the harrdian just move at 24"so is a fast gaguatuan creature 2nd - WH40K - Where you would use the IA-Vol 4 rules where it is a flyer and uses the flyer rule in that book the IA books are designed so that you can use these beast in normaly games, Apocalsypse rule are a simplyfied version to make the more complicaes game easier. that my opinoin anyway Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyescrossed Posted July 17, 2009 Author Share Posted July 17, 2009 there are to seperate rule sets for the harridan, 1st - Apocalsypes - in apocalsypse the harrdian just move at 24"so is a fast gaguatuan creature 2nd - WH40K - Where you would use the IA-Vol 4 rules where it is a flyer and uses the flyer rule in that book the IA books are designed so that you can use these beast in normaly games, Apocalsypse rule are a simplyfied version to make the more complicaes game easier. that my opinoin anyway Argh, the typos! The pain, the pain of it all! Why would you use the Flyer rules in a normal game of 40k? The board probably wouldn't even be big enough for a Thunderbolt to move around on. Also, if you're going to post an opinion, please back it up with actual rules, not just what you think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cypher 102 Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 That's because the flier rules from Imperial Armour for addition to normal 40K games are entirely different to the Apocalypse rules. If I remember correctly you basically fly on during your opponent's shooting phase, shoot at his stuff, his stuff shoots at you and you fly back off of the board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawk Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 Yea, the forgeworld flyer rules are different from the Apocalypse rules, basically how Cypher got it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.