We are talking about GW here ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Geist
Printable View
We are talking about GW here ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Geist
How so? Chariots have chariot bases. Cav have cav bases. MB go on the 50x75. So on so forth, how can they not have anything to do with unit type?
1. The entry says infantry.
2. The unit size is 5+. All MI are 3+.
3. WS6, Init5, Ld 8 are also unheard of for MI.
4. At 40 ppm they would be BROKENLY underpriced as MI. Cheaper than ironguts and far superior versatility and statline.
5. As movement 4 infantry, succeptable to stomp, thunderstomp, killing blow, etc they are actually fairly competitively costed or at least close to it.
They are infantry, they are not MI. Is it something new? Sure. But it makes sense.
Don't get me wrong they are very strong but they also do have some interesting weaknesses. I am just having a hard time accepting that GW means for them to be Inf, when they are using MI bases.
They are good stat wise and rules wise they are very solid, but as I stated before they have some interesting weaknesses.
St4 is good but wont dent much and means they will have to go great weapon to hurt tough things. Which means they disuse that very good IN.
Being able to be KB and stomped is painful. 3+ Armour save is good but anything that is going to hurt them will by pass or blow right through that save. No regen, that is kinda massive. Also thanks to them having shields in the gear section means that searing doom will be a painful spell for them.
Do I think they are good, yes do I think they are broken or over powerful? No. Am I confused by the insane IN of 5 on them for anything mark of nurgle, oh hell yes.
I....I just think they look cool...
Again, compare them to ironguts. +3 ws, +1 t, +3 init, chaos armor & shield instead of just heavy armor, -1 to be hit for Nurgle mark ... and for a cheaper price. If they were MI they would be broken. As infantry they only get 1 supporting attack, need 5 for a rank, are succeptable to stomps and thunderstomps and killing blow ... in other words they are well costed as infantry. You can be stubborn and/or ignorant all you want, it is very clear that these are intended as normal infantry.Quote:
Originally Posted by Geist
It is GW nothing is ever clear with them even with FAQ's.
Really? Never? Why do people play a game made by a company they hate so much?
The reality is that GW is often clear, it's just a particular type of nerd who enjoys to obfuscate and argue clarity of intent. I'm sure all members of forums are better suited to write rules and run companies.
Oh wait. I see the sentences written out here on the Internet, I'd be surprised if half the nay-sayers could fill out a change of address form.
Just once I'd like to see Warhammer/40k players see something new and not throw their hands into the air crying about how they could do it better. Because you can't. if you can, then get to work. They're hiring.
Tyson you always make me laugh. The first rule of humans is to find a problem and complain about it. Its the comfort factor rule, the more comfortable one becomes the easier it becomes to find fault. While I enjoy hashing out the new unit and the new ideal of rules.
*tearing up*
I just wanted to talk about how they looked cool.
*Runs out of room crying*