Jump to content

Razorback Weapon Option


Brother Mayhem

Recommended Posts

really, all this whining

 

has no-one looked at the space marine faq?

 

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_Custom...nes_Nov2009.pdf

 

last question, answered, and i would say that according to several posts above that 95% of certain peoples gaming communities are incorrect.

 

of course it is just a faq, but hey you put so much emphasis on the other faq you have to treat this one the same.

 

Also how does the 95% of the gaming community work with sponson weapons that are bought at the same time>? both destroyed, or more logically one destroyed????

 

cheers

 

 

Thanks for sharing this. I didn't mean to start a major argument when I posted.

really, all this whining

 

has no-one looked at the space marine faq?

 

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_Custom...nes_Nov2009.pdf

 

last question, answered, and i would say that according to several posts above that 95% of certain peoples gaming communities are incorrect.

 

of course it is just a faq, but hey you put so much emphasis on the other faq you have to treat this one the same.

 

Also how does the 95% of the gaming community work with sponson weapons that are bought at the same time>? both destroyed, or more logically one destroyed????

 

cheers

 

Ale to Narf...a future Wolf Priest able to quell the anger of his wolf brothers

To all interested,

 

I read the "co-axial" comment in the new FAQ as meaning that both weapons were destroyed, because I correlated "co-axial" with the modeling of the weapons. "Co-axial" is actually a 40K RULE, I think it applies to IG. It's where one weapon acts as a ranger for (and is linked to) a secondary weapon - if the first one hits, the other one is +1 to hit, or some nonsense like that (sorry, don't play IG nor ever opened their rulebook, so I'm not positive). It's not fielded by many IG players because it's frankly not that good for the points. Long story short, co-axial in the FAQ does not apply to how a weapon is modeled but rather to a ruleset. Hope this clears up some confusion!

 

Trefenwyd

really, all this whining

 

has no-one looked at the space marine faq?

 

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_Custom...nes_Nov2009.pdf

 

last question, answered, and i would say that according to several posts above that 95% of certain peoples gaming communities are incorrect.

 

of course it is just a faq, but hey you put so much emphasis on the other faq you have to treat this one the same.

 

Also how does the 95% of the gaming community work with sponson weapons that are bought at the same time>? both destroyed, or more logically one destroyed????

 

cheers

 

 

Ale to Narf...a future Wolf Priest able to quell the anger of his wolf brothers

Seconded! Much happier now with some evidence refuting my words rather than say so.

So it appears I was mistaken, sorry for before but hypocrites tick me off (no offense GM).

 

To all interested,

 

I read the "co-axial" comment in the new FAQ as meaning that both weapons were destroyed, because I correlated "co-axial" with the modeling of the weapons. "Co-axial" is actually a 40K RULE, I think it applies to IG. It's where one weapon acts as a ranger for (and is linked to) a secondary weapon - if the first one hits, the other one is +1 to hit, or some nonsense like that (sorry, don't play IG nor ever opened their rulebook, so I'm not positive). It's not fielded by many IG players because it's frankly not that good for the points. Long story short, co-axial in the FAQ does not apply to how a weapon is modeled but rather to a ruleset. Hope this clears up some confusion!

 

Trefenwyd

Ahh, so this is where the confusion could of come from.

  • 3 weeks later...

And actually if you look at the last question in the updated Space Wolves FAQ, it answers the question directly:

 

Q: If a Razorback armed with a lascannon and twin-linked plasma gun suffers a weapon destroyed result, does it destroy both weapons or just one? (p94)

A: Only one weapon – either the lascannon or the twin- linked plasma gun.

 

From the FAQ 1_1...

not that i care either way, but that doesn't make logical sense from a fluff standpoint.

 

 

 

 

think about how rare it'd be where a situation arises that destroys the lascannon and/or it's systems and NOT also the twin-linked plasma's systems.

 

 

 

'course it CAN happen, but would it happen often enough to justify that kind of rule?

Psst. This thread is supposed to be dead.

 

Also, is there an official Las / Plas Razorback model? Is there only one way to depict a Las / Plas Razorback, legally? No. So it is perfectly legal to stick the plasma guns somewhere else on the vehicle. I'll let you figure out the rest.

 

PS - Thread is dead, issue is settled.

 

PPS - See the PS.

Psst. This thread is supposed to be dead.

 

Also, is there an official Las / Plas Razorback model? Is there only one way to depict a Las / Plas Razorback, legally? No. So it is perfectly legal to stick the plasma guns somewhere else on the vehicle. I'll let you figure out the rest.

 

PS - Thread is dead, issue is settled.

 

PPS - See the PS.

 

Sorry for reopening this thread but I am amazed no-one suggests the other great setup for Razorbacks.

The twin linked multimelta turret.....

I find them terriffic!

I am fielding 12 of them in a 1000pt spearhead game in March.

I am also fielding a further 8 in a 1500pt game with Vulcan!

During the weekend we have 2 large games where we field both armies together.

This will give me 20 TLMM razors in 2500pts.

I love razors and have a lot!

I have built seperate turrets for my razors.

I have TLLC,Las/plas,TLAC,TLHF and TLHB.

I used to only use either TLLC or Las/plas as the rest are rubbish.

With IA9 and the FW MM razor turret I checked the below IA rule ammendment.

Nearly every Badab war razor seems to have a MM turret.

 

http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Downloads/Prod...update28AUG.pdf

 

40 points for a TLMM razor, 5 points more than a Rhino!

I have now modeled TLMM razor turrets for my BA and Iron Hands, and MMturrets for my Salamanders (as you can't TL a TL weapon having TLMM turets for Sallies would be a waste of MM's)

I made a suggestion to FW that as a TLHB and a TLMM are both 40 pts we should be able to have a MM/HB turret for 40pts :) .

 

What is the thinking behind the lack of support for this razor build?

Is it just the fact you need to build your own turret (or pay about £13 for the forge world kit), or is it something else?

I always get a startled reaction when I bring out my MM razors but after showing my opponent the rule ammendment most opponents go COOL!!!, I'm going to build me a couple of those!

If he is unhappy I just switch turrets to TLHB, it puts my list at a big disadvantage but saves any hassle.

I just tell him I only do this once for each opponent.

Next time I play him he will face my TLMM's.

Sorry for reopening this thread but I am amazed no-one suggests the other great setup for Razorbacks.

The twin linked multimelta turret.....

 

You are using custom rules instead of the basic options accepted in all games/tournaments...

 

Please let this thread stay dead this time.

 

I will send my headless servitor to cleanse it with flame this time

http://www.dakkadakka.com/s/i/at/at2/2009/2/5/72617f209e4a567237d3592e6f86b06c_7243.jpg

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.