Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The Chamber of the Everchosen. We hope you enjoy your visit!


Here at COTEC we are all about the Warriors of Chaos in Warhammer Fantasy Battle.

Tactics to help you slaughter your opponent on the tabletop, through to galleries on how to build your next Warshrine. Its all covered... and growing!

We are a forum for gamers and hobbyist alike and again would like to welcome you to a fun, friendly, warm place and hope to see you again!


Join our legion! Takes less than a minute and gives you access to everything!


If you're already a member please log in to your account by entering the correct runes and words of power:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Khorne lord on juggy; is he viable???
Topic Started: Jul 27 2010, 08:47 PM (1,985 Views)
ukko
Member Avatar
Exalted Guardian
In response to original question:

You probably don't need a level 4 but it's just so damn useful. It's almost like having an extra dispel dice for every spell. Not to mention our own lores' big spells suddenly look extremely modestly priced when you factor in the +4/+5 to cast.

If you were going to go combat lord, then the guy on jugger is a bit meh. The extra armour is worth nothing now that it's capped at 1+, so compared to a horsey you're basically paying 34 points (off the top of my head) for the extra attack and pip of strength (and you may be stopping a knight from attacking if he's in a unit because of the added width).

Edit: as an afterthought, perhaps there's an interesting possibility if jugger characters are classed as war beasts - lord, BSB and choppy hero, all on juggers, in a unit of 18 dogs. The three heroes form a pretty solid front rank, tha dogs just form a meat shield. Maybe the blasted standard to keep some dogs alive to maintain the unit. Could be fun.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theorox
Member Avatar
Clanlord
@ ukko: The Juggernaut is a Monstrous Beast, not a Warbeast! :P Way to confuse your customers, GW!

Theo
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ukko
Member Avatar
Exalted Guardian
Yeah, you're spot on. I was going to say 'I thought it was a war beast, like the disc' but it turns out a warbeast becomes cav when a character rides it.

Sigh.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theorox
Member Avatar
Clanlord
ukko
Jul 29 2010, 01:42 AM
Yeah, you're spot on. I was going to say 'I thought it was a war beast, like the disc' but it turns out a warbeast becomes cav when a character rides it.

Sigh.

Yeah, it would be cool... ^_^

Theo
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kormak
Member Avatar
High Executioner of Khorne
Godless-Mimicry
Jul 28 2010, 11:59 AM
Right so simple question; why does the RBRB say the Juggernaut is a Monstrous Beast???

Why does the BRB also say AB overrides BRB? as for you question, they simply compy pasted them from the DoC section and forgot to edit them, i mean to say the errata is wrong would imply you are saying they forgot the edit the FAQ for the WoC.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Godless-Mimicry
Member Avatar
No' 9

Kormak
Jul 28 2010, 10:42 PM
Why does the BRB also say AB overrides BRB?

That's the thing, it doesn't. In fact the proper form is that unless otherwise stated, the most recent publication takes precedence, which is the RBRB. I'm going to ask my mate in GW HQ to check it out for me, but I'm quite certain it is MC. It couldn't just be a copy from DoC, 'cause their Juggernaut was previously cavalry too I believe, so it would be all-round pointless.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lungboy
Warrior of the Chamber
Godless-Mimicry
Jul 29 2010, 06:52 AM
Kormak
Jul 28 2010, 10:42 PM
Why does the BRB also say AB overrides BRB?

That's the thing, it doesn't. In fact the proper form is that unless otherwise stated, the most recent publication takes precedence, which is the RBRB.

P11 of the BRB says that if there is a conflict between Armybook and Rulebook, Armybook rules "always take precedence".
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kormak
Member Avatar
High Executioner of Khorne
Godless-Mimicry
Jul 28 2010, 10:52 PM
Kormak
Jul 28 2010, 10:42 PM
Why does the BRB also say AB overrides BRB?

That's the thing, it doesn't. In fact the proper form is that unless otherwise stated, the most recent publication takes precedence, which is the RBRB. I'm going to ask my mate in GW HQ to check it out for me, but I'm quite certain it is MC. It couldn't just be a copy from DoC, 'cause their Juggernaut was previously cavalry too I believe, so it would be all-round pointless.


Not according to the BRB or FAQ, why could it not just be a copy paste, it has the same stats, the wrote the DoC ones first and went copy paste and done. It comes down to what you think is more likely, GW want WoC juggers to be cannon fodder and never used making the DoC ones better (as they can hide in bloodcrushers). The other idea is you think its big, its scary and the AB is wrong, surely it must go stomp stomp (good luck with that BTW with no LoS).
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Godless-Mimicry
Member Avatar
No' 9

By that logic surely they wouldn't have made Archaon cannon fodder with no look-out-sir because that would make him useless too. And they didn't copy-paste him from anywhere. Making an assumption that something was copy-pasted isn't going to win over any arguments with an opponent to be fair. I can accept the Ab vs RBRB argument though, but I still don't agree on the matter and willwait for my buddy to get back to me with a clear answer from Mr. Ward. And remember, it is GW; assuming they are aware of what is the best choice in an army is a bad assumption.

I think the main problem here is that this is an argument that cannot effectively happen on a Chaos forum due to bias. Khorne players will argue the Juggernaut is cavalry, Nurgle players will argue it's not because that also means their Palanquin is cavalry and thus useless, etc.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lungboy
Warrior of the Chamber
The Palanquin is Cavalry, even if you ignore the Armybook text. P104 of the BRB states the defining characteristic of a Cavalry mount is it has one wound, and that a one wound mount is a Cavalry mount. This was clarified in the FAQ to exclude one wound Monstrous Beasts, as they should become Monstrous Cav. However, no such clarification was made for Infantry mounts, and so the Palanquin must become a Cavalry mount. I hate it as i intended to run a Palanquin in a Marauder block.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Godless-Mimicry
Member Avatar
No' 9

Lungboy
Jul 29 2010, 01:39 PM
The Palanquin is Cavalry, even if you ignore the Armybook text. P104 of the BRB states the defining characteristic of a Cavalry mount is it has one wound, and that a one wound mount is a Cavalry mount. This was clarified in the FAQ to exclude one wound Monstrous Beasts, as they should become Monstrous Cav. However, no such clarification was made for Infantry mounts, and so the Palanquin must become a Cavalry mount. I hate it as i intended to run a Palanquin in a Marauder block.

The RBRB reference also explicitely states the Palanquin as infantry.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Urdokadin
The bringer of pestilent rages.
The palanquin is very plainly stated as being infantry. Moreover it very specifically states in the FAQ that you check off the rulebook for troops types from older books because simply put the older books don't have any relevant classifications anymore.

Referencing a paragraph applying to 7th edition rules is an uphill battle, our book was NOT written with 8th edition rules printed in it, the reference to Juggies being cavalry was a large change away from 6th where they could be shot and killed out from beneath your heroes and lords; hence the buff to bring them as being cavalry rather than monstrous mounts.

Obviously GW felt that certain mounts in the new edition with new rules classifying things needed some shaking up.
Personally I concur, I think it's a bad ruling from GW. Thankfully there's the most important rule.

I have a feeling 8th is going to be tricky for a bit with tournament organizers due to some of the ambiguity of older books and rules applying into the newer setting. We've got army books from 3 different sets of rules (6th, 7th and 8th if you include beastmen and skaven)
not everything is going to fit.

Of course not all of us run from tournament to tournament trying to beat up strangers with our toy soldiers. Because warhammer is serious business some of us just chillax and have a nice evening of beating up our friend's toy soldiers. :P

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lungboy
Warrior of the Chamber
Godless-Mimicry
Jul 30 2010, 12:41 AM
Lungboy
Jul 29 2010, 01:39 PM
The Palanquin is Cavalry, even if you ignore the Armybook text. P104 of the BRB states the defining characteristic of a Cavalry mount is it has one wound, and that a one wound mount is a Cavalry mount. This was clarified in the FAQ to exclude one wound Monstrous Beasts, as they should become Monstrous Cav. However, no such clarification was made for Infantry mounts, and so the Palanquin must become a Cavalry mount. I hate it as i intended to run a Palanquin in a Marauder block.

The RBRB reference also explicitely states the Palanquin as infantry.

Yes, the Palanquin is Infantry, in the same way that the Jugger is Monstrous Beast. As soon as it becomes a mount, the Jugger becomes Monstrous Cavalry, and the Palanquin becomes Cavalry. This is going purely on the new BRB rules, and has nothing to do with the Armybook.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Godless-Mimicry
Member Avatar
No' 9

Where in the rulebook does it say infantry riding infantry becomes cavalry?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kormak
Member Avatar
High Executioner of Khorne
Urdokadin
Jul 29 2010, 11:39 PM
Referencing a paragraph applying to 7th edition rules is an uphill battle, our book was NOT written with 8th edition rules printed in it, the reference to Juggies being cavalry was a large change away from 6th where they could be shot and killed out from beneath your heroes and lords; hence the buff to bring them as being cavalry rather than monstrous mounts.


sadly this argument didnt hold true for the HoC book, the MoK and out steeds getting frenzy, i believe it said "remember steeds do not get frenzy" seeing as the armybook was written in 6th and indeed during 6th steeds did not get frenzy it was clear that was not the intent. When the FAQ comes along it is ruled that khorne mounts did not get frenzy. Seems like a very similar situation to me.

Quote:
 
The palanquin is very plainly stated as being infantry. Moreover it very specifically states in the FAQ that you check off the rulebook for troops types from older books because simply put the older books don't have any relevant classifications anymore.


For a starts it stats the unit type for the mount, jugger riders are not monstrous beasts, the FAQ actually stats you use the BRB if you AB does not state the type. It is clearly stated in the AB, we can all sit here all day going round and round like a washing machine, the sad fact of the matter is neither side has anything to offer that will convince them of the others point. The simple answer here is to wait for the FAQ to be updated then which side is right will have it very clearly printed in black and white and im sure we can find something else to argue about.

*edit* please check page 104 of the BRB about 1 wound mounts becoming cavalry
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Tactics · Next Topic »
Add Reply