Murderfang

[Haakon_Stormbrow]

nope, makes no sense that way

[Kastor Krieg]

nope, makes no sense that way

Because you say so, because of your wishful thinking or do you actually have an argument? It's a situation where Furious Charge actually applies. It's not like there aren't any, like people claimed above, building on this that FC has to add onto the S7 of claws. Doesn't. And yes, it's likely that RAI was that it does, but RAW now, it doesn't do more than raise the "without weapons" User Strength.

[Rune Priest Jbickb]

Interestingly enough (despite the fact that I agree that as written it is strength 7) the unit analysis published in a gw product does indicate a Str 8 charge value fir murderfang. So either the editors don't pay attention or gw did truly intend for 8 instead of 7. Might be enough justification for your opponent if not roll for or use them as Str 7 (still wounds meqs on 2 just no Instant Death)

[Valerian]

Interestingly enough (despite the fact that I agree that as written it is strength 7) the unit analysis published in a gw product does indicate a Str 8 charge value fir murderfang. So either the editors don't pay attention or gw did truly intend for 8 instead of 7. Might be enough justification for your opponent if not roll for or use them as Str 7 (still wounds meqs on 2 just no Instant Death)

 

Unfortunately, it isn't uncommon for those folks to get important details wrong.  Do you remember the White Dwarf that came out in conjunction with our 5e codex?  There was an article or battle report, in which one of the guys was talking about putting the Mark of the Wulfen option on a model with a Thunderhammer, to get the d6+1 Thunderhammer attacks.  Of course, whoever was providing that tactical recommendation apparently wasn't aware of the very clear prohibition against combining the MotW attacks with attacks from a SCCW.

 

It isn't the first time guys in WD get something wrong, and it won't be the last.

 

V

[Wispy]

 

nope, makes no sense that way

 

Because you say so, because of your wishful thinking or do you actually have an argument? It's a situation where Furious Charge actually applies. It's not like there aren't any, like people claimed above, building on this that FC has to add onto the S7 of claws. Doesn't. And yes, it's likely that RAI was that it does, but RAW now, it doesn't do more than raise the "without weapons" User Strength.

Because of wishful thinking? No, because of critical thinking. It's an insult to our intelligence to suggest they intended anything else, especially when the book that published these rules also explains how they're supposed to work.

 

I hate this idea we're just supposed to willfully crash on something that's broken like a bad video game rather than adjust course on our own. I'd prefer to use my big boy words and talk about it with my opponent.

[Rune Priest Jbickb]

 

 

Interestingly enough (despite the fact that I agree that as written it is strength 7) the unit analysis published in a gw product does indicate a Str 8 charge value fir murderfang. So either the editors don't pay attention or gw did truly intend for 8 instead of 7. Might be enough justification for your opponent if not roll for or use them as Str 7 (still wounds meqs on 2 just no Instant Death)

Unfortunately, it isn't uncommon for those folks to get important details wrong. Do you remember the White Dwarf that came out in conjunction with our 5e codex? There was an article or battle report, in which one of the guys was talking about putting the Mark of the Wulfen option on a model with a Thunderhammer, to get the d6+1 Thunderhammer attacks. Of course, whoever was providing that tactical recommendation apparently wasn't aware of the very clear prohibition against combining the MotW attacks with attacks from a SCCW.

 

It isn't the first time guys in WD get something wrong, and it won't be the last.

 

V

Wasn't around for that but fair enpugh. Man those guys should get checked out before writing stuff though.

[Hellrender]

When the looted wagons were published in the white dwarf, the WD team talked about the Killkannon as a S8 blast. Its still very clearly a S7 blast.

When the WD published rules for Knights.. It was availble to everybody... Do i need say more? :)

Altough RAI is obvious here, without clear confirmation from the codex and or FAQ, RAW is and will remain S7, and no benefit from FC.

[Leif Bearclaw]

Interestingly enough (despite the fact that I agree that as written it is strength 7) the unit analysis published in a gw product does indicate a Str 8 charge value fir murderfang. So either the editors don't pay attention or gw did truly intend for 8 instead of 7. Might be enough justification for your opponent if not roll for or use them as Str 7 (still wounds meqs on 2 just no Instant Death)

Unfortunately, it isn't uncommon for those folks to get important details wrong. Do you remember the White Dwarf that came out in conjunction with our 5e codex? There was an article or battle report, in which one of the guys was talking about putting the Mark of the Wulfen option on a model with a Thunderhammer, to get the d6+1 Thunderhammer attacks. Of course, whoever was providing that tactical recommendation apparently wasn't aware of the very clear prohibition against combining the MotW attacks with attacks from a SCCW.

It isn't the first time guys in WD get something wrong, and it won't be the last.

V

Wasn't around for that but fair enpugh. Man those guys should get checked out before writing stuff though.

GW editing has always been awful I'm afraid, we're more likely to see price drops that that to change at this point.

[skeletoro]

Nobody is arguing that RAW is that it is 8. But inference to the best explanation clearly favours the hypothesis that RAI is 8 (and that both the designers and the WD guys forgot FC and a set str value wouldn't stack). It's implausible (but not impossible) that GW intended FC merely as a backup in case of a double weapon destroyed result (an uncommon occurrence as murderfang would usually die to hull point loss beforehand) and that the authors not only misunderstood the mechanics, but also the intent of the designers.

[Sigvard]

Valerian suggested we all drop a polite email to GW to get them to drop an FAQ ASAP, I would agreee wholeheartedly this is the case

[Aradiel]

this situation remindes me of the nephilin jetfighter and its "missile lock" rule. lets give the fighter a rule that allows rerolls to blast templates. a shame that it has no such weapons

[Leif Bearclaw]

this situation remindes me of the nephilin jetfighter and its "missile lock" rule. lets give the fighter a rule that allows rerolls to blast templates. a shame that it has no such weapons

At least 7th fixed that iirc, with missile lock now giving twin linke to one shot weapons.

[Skyrar's Finest]

I dunno, I talked to my local group where I'm the only SW player and they all agree with me.  The claws are str 7, furious charge gives +1 str so on the charge its str 8.  Course we're all casual players that only play in local, friendly tourney, so that probably means the world a difference.

[Wispy]

I dunno, I talked to my local group where I'm the only SW player and they all agree with me.  The claws are str 7, furious charge gives +1 str so on the charge its str 8.  Course we're all casual players that only play in local, friendly tourney, so that probably means the world a difference.

good on you for talking about it with your mates and coming to an agreement rather than bowing to the whims to a gameplay bug. ;)

[Aradiel]

 

this situation remindes me of the nephilin jetfighter and its "missile lock" rule. lets give the fighter a rule that allows rerolls to blast templates. a shame that it has no such weapons

At least 7th fixed that iirc, with missile lock now giving twin linke to one shot weapons.

 

 

yes, but our latest faq stil states "remove missile lock from nephilin rules", so yeah.

if only they at least removed the points cost for the rule as well...

[Kassill]

If it isn't as RAI that it should be 8 on the charge, then that's just stupid imo. It means that if the Murderclaws are in fact two weapons, and he has two underslung weapons, you'd have to suffer two Weapon Destroyed results (out of 4 possibilities) and still have HP's to ever utilize FC. Aka, a waste of ink in every codex IMO.