Striking fear into the hearts of Walkers everywhere

[Gentlemanloser]

Errata's, wargear and Saga's. Oh my.

 

I'm holding my hands up. I've just become aware of this particular combination, that will make my opponents Walkers shudder in fear.

 

First I come across a nudge to the Errata, and the change to WTN. OK, so it's got nothing to do with the WS comparison anymore, you just hit on 3+.

 

With Melta Bombs.

 

Then creeps in the Saga of the Beastslayer.

 

Couple this with my usual TWM WL, his lack of Saga (I don't use Warrior Borne by agreement) and the only things that really tarpit him are Dreadnoughts. And the answer is obvious. :P

 

Making sure to accompany his faithful TWM, Frost Blade and Belt of Russ will now be the Saga of the Beastslayer, a WTN and a liberal amount of Meltabombs. For good measures I'm going to throw RA on him as well. ;)

 

That brings him to a whopping 240 points (and they're be some tense moments if my 3+ to hit with reroll Melta Bomb doesn't at least take the DCCW off, not having EW and only a 4++ save...), but he already strikes utter terror into my opponents. Especially with his speed.

 

Now if only his TWC companions could take WTN to suppliment thier Melta Bombs! ;)

[MagneticFreak]

I would say that this is in opposition with the fact that you may only hit walkers with grenades on 6's.

[Wispy]

I thought so too. Certainly against blood talon builds, this becomes a must.

[Wispy]

I would say that this is in opposition with the fact that you may only hit walkers with grenades on 6's.

WTN - you hit a on a 3+ versus a target with a WS characteristic. No exceptions to grenades are made. Walkers have a WS? Check? Rolling to hit with something? Check. The RAW very much allows this.

 

 

 

Not so sure what the RAI is. They did errata it to something that takes it to this direction.

[Gentlemanloser]

I would say that this is in opposition with the fact that you may only hit walkers with grenades on 6's.

 

Seemingly the only reason I can think of to jusify the Errata is to allow Grenades to hit on 3+. What other use could there be to remove the WS comparison distinction? What other attacks *don't* use a WS comparison for units with a WS?

 

Edit: And Codex trumps main book. :P

[Brother Rathul]

I'd like to see what the Dark Angels Deathwing Dreadnoughts would think about this? :P

[Requiem of the Wolf]

I'd like to see what the Dark Angels Deathwing Dreadnoughts would think about this? :P

Honestly though,if your going to have the belt anyways..I would go with Frost Blade in one hand,and Powerfist or Thunderhammer in the other.

[Freman Bloodglaive]

You lose attacks. I have a model with two power fists. :P

[Gentlemanloser]

Honestly though,if your going to have the belt anyways..I would go with Frost Blade in one hand,and Powerfist or Thunderhammer in the other.

 

Why?

 

You lose an attack, and the trade off is a weapon that's worse anti armour than a Melta bomb, which also costs more points than the M Bomb and WTN combined?

 

You lose attacks.

 

The sheer number of attacks my WL has is a never ending source of cheese cries. :P

 

5 Base, 6 for two weapons, and 7 on the charge. It's a thing of beauty!

[Requiem of the Wolf]

Honestly though,if your going to have the belt anyways..I would go with Frost Blade in one hand,and Powerfist or Thunderhammer in the other.

 

Why?

 

You lose an attack, and the trade off is a weapon that's worse anti armour than a Melta bomb, which also costs more points than the M Bomb and WTN combined?

 

You lose attacks.

 

The sheer number of attacks my WL has is a never ending source of cheese cries. ;)

 

5 Base, 6 for two weapons, and 7 on the charge. It's a thing of beauty!

You lose one attack,but you get 6 S6 I5 attacks on the charge against Infantry,and 6 S10 I1 attacks on walkers. As opposed to 1 Meltabomb attack. Only getting 1 attack on Walkers is the only downside.

 

I have been debating the Belt and Two Powerfist,vs the Shield and FB or Shield and PF. And honestly I think I prefer to keep the Lord with the Initiative 5,and have a Thunder wolf cav attached with TH and SS to Resolve the whole question lol.

[Gentlemanloser]

One I5 S8+2d6 attack. ;)

 

I'll take that versus six I1 S10.

 

As then I'd have to purchase Saga of the Bear over Beastslayer, or pray I save all the DCCW instant death hits.

[Skirax]

You want to talk about attacks? Try Ragnar after he's killed five Orks with a charge bonus of +3 ;) That's 13 attacks, enough to make any heretic go *gasp*

[Marmande]

I would say that this is in opposition with the fact that you may only hit walkers with grenades on 6's.

 

And I agree. I think the errata is misleading as the rules for attaching grenades to walkers is more specific, and is unaffected by WTN.

 

Besides, if you're going through that much effort anyway, why not just run a Chainfist-wielding Lone Wolf instead?

[Grimtooth]

I would say that this is in opposition with the fact that you may only hit walkers with grenades on 6's.

 

And I agree. I think the errata is misleading as the rules for attaching grenades to walkers is more specific, and is unaffected by WTN.

 

Besides, if you're going through that much effort anyway, why not just run a Chainfist-wielding Lone Wolf instead?

 

Or maybe the errata is exactly as intended as a change to the wording of the rules. Target has a WS value, target gets hit on a 3+.

[Gentlemanloser]

Exactly. As I said above, why errate it if not to let it work with grenades? What other change could the errata possibly be aimed at?

 

As for a LW. They don't get the speed of a TWM.

 

You want to talk about attacks? Try Ragnar after he's killed five Orks with a charge bonus of +3 That's 13 attacks, enough to make any heretic go *gasp*

 

Ragnar seems tame compared to a TWM Lord with Warrior Borne. :D

 

It's the reason I have agreed not to use Warrior Borne on my TWM WL.

[Grimtooth]

Chainfist WL is a one trick pony. He gets the extra armor pen, but is at I1. Thunderhammer is by far the more useful. You only need 4+ to hurt AV14, are able to crew shake it, and against anything else (specifically MC or other characters) you are blasting their initiative down.

[Beef]

What happens when you blast their I down, do they strike at the same time as the TH in the next round then?

[Marmande]

Or maybe the errata is exactly as intended as a change to the wording of the rules. Target has a WS value, target gets hit on a 3+.

 

Or, uh, maybe it's not? Since, y'know, nobody else in the game can do such a thing, including Swooping Hawks? Didn't the 3rd Edition FAQ say it didn't work against walkers this way?

 

Chainfist WL is a one trick pony. He gets the extra armor pen, but is at I1. Thunderhammer is by far the more useful. You only need 4+ to hurt AV14, are able to crew shake it, and against anything else (specifically MC or other characters) you are blasting their initiative down.

 

But Thunder Hammers are also at I1? :D If you're riding a Thunder Wolf, then by all means go for the Thunder Hammer, but if it's vehicles we're talking about you have a greater chance to get more penetrations and thus a better chance to wreck it.

[Vlk]

Deleted, double post.

[Vlk]

Or maybe the errata is exactly as intended as a change to the wording of the rules. Target has a WS value, target gets hit on a 3+.

 

Or, uh, maybe it's not? Since, y'know, nobody else in the game can do such a thing, including Swooping Hawks? Didn't the 3rd Edition FAQ say it didn't work against walkers this way?

 

First, does anybody else in the game have OBEL scouts? Does anybody else have a dread with saves like our Bjorn? Does anyone else put their Terminator squads in Drop Pods like we do? The argument "nobody else can do it, so you can't do it either" is worthless. Every Codex is in some way unique.

 

Second, this is the 5th Edition. No offense, but I thought that would be quite obvious .)

[Marmande]

I don't know about how you interpret Space Wolves fluff, but that's a pretty poor justification for the OP's claim.

[TiguriusX]

I don't know about how you interpret Space Wolves fluff, but that's a pretty poor justification for the OP's claim.

 

We had this discussion in detail not too long ago. Do we need to rehash it again or should we let new opinions flow for a bit?

[Requiem of the Wolf]

I don't know about how you interpret Space Wolves fluff, but that's a pretty poor justification for the OP's claim.

Has nothing to do with Fluff. Has everything to do with the Codex and the Errata. So by your rational,since no one else gets to do it,you don't get to move your rhinos,razorbacks,vindicators,Land raiders and other vehicles Fast then?

 

It is simple Marmande. This piece of wargear was changed to allow the exact use we are talking about. No one else gets to do it,but that doesn't matter.

[Marmande]

Fair enough, but there's not a lot of new here.

 

The good news is this thread reminded me to call GW about the ruling tomorrow when I get the chance. :P

 

EDIT:

 

Has nothing to do with Fluff. Has everything to do with the Codex and the Errata. So by your rational,since no one else gets to do it,you don't get to move your rhinos,razorbacks,vindicators,Land raiders and other vehicles Fast then?

 

What are you even saying here?

 

It is simple Marmande. This piece of wargear was changed to allow the exact use we are talking about. No one else gets to do it,but that doesn't matter.

 

The wargear's errata doesn't mention the OP's interpretation of the rule at all, it's a grey area. If you want to follow RAW to the letter then be my guest, but be prepared to accept the consequences.

[Requiem of the Wolf]

Fair enough, but there's not a lot of new here.

 

The good news is this thread reminded me to call GW about the ruling tomorrow when I get the chance. :P

By all means. And when you do,make sure to have them post it in a amendment to the Errata. Or more likely,add it into the FAQ that yes,it does work this way. Preferably with a quote similar to what they did for the Vindicare being able to break the normal rules. "How cool is that!"