Reecius here with a video discussing some of the issues that have popped up about the Knight Titan. Let us hear what you think on the topic!
Posted on March 3, 2014
in 40K, Editorial
Tags: 40K editorial knight titan warhammer 40K
Subscribe to our e-mail newsletter to receive updates.
Here’s the previous Stomp rule on which the current one is based:
“When attacking in close combat, a Gargantuan Creature can either fight
normally or execute a Stomp special attack. A Stomp allows a Gargantuan
Creature to make one attack against every enemy model engaged in
combat with it, instead of using its normal Attacks value (no bonus
attack for charging applies, roll to hit once separately against each model
In your example, it would attack all 60 Boyz with str 8 (or so) Ap 1 at its Initiative. That rule was absolutely devastating to infantry. Your interpretation of the current rule makes it laughably ineffective vs. hordes.
That’s the idea though, you’d have to keep it away from things that could tarpit it. Although, let’s not forget that if those Boyz don’t have a Power Klaw, they can’t charge it in the first place.
You can charge walkers. Walkers assault and are assaulted like infantry, not vehicles. Its in the walker rules.
I believe you can make the charge for the reasons listed in the video.
Under the previous rules you couldn’t even lock it in combat and it still did that. They didn’t change strength D like that. Why would they change Stomp so dramatically? I guess I’m just confused why there is so much support for an interpretation that requires you to ignore the paragraph describing Stomp, insert commas that aren’t present and requires a complete 180 in design philosophy. It’s a machine the size of a skyscraper. Why should some guys on foot keep it from moving and shooting?
Because we actually want to use these in games of normal 40K! Haha, your reading of the rule makes that impossible.
No, it is still really good against Hordes as you can stomp the crap out of loads of them, not auto-kill the entire unit, hahaha. That’s just silly.
Read it how you will, that is fine, I am not even saying that you are absolutely wrong, but I promise you one thing, your reading of the rule means we see none of these units in normal play. It is just too powerful. We should take the more conservative reading of the rule in this case.
You can always change rules to make things play how you want to see them. I don’t believe they intended a Phantom Titan to be neutralized by 30 Orks in combat. S6 Ap 4 against 5 or so models isn’t all that great against Hordes. 17% of the time you won’t even do that.
Yet even if it was intended for Titans to automatically kill everything that gets into assault with them on a 2+, only an idiot would think that would be a good game mechanic. You’d just run around and assault your way through literally any army in the game, including the 2++ stars thanks to the D. Totally balanced.
GW is not above idiotic game mechanics (2++ stars?). In any event, I was wrong as I based my interpretation on GW’s own misinformation.
You’re seriously using the poor punctuation of a sentence to argue that 30 boyz should get obliterated by a single stomp attack…
It reads, “Each model from the unit being stomped that is even partially under the blast marker…”
You’re interpretation is saying that “each model from the unit being stomped” is the full subject, I think it’s much more logical to assume that the subject is the “each mode” part and the “from the unit being stomped” is simply an adjective to describe the subject.
I can see why you’re saying that from how the sentence is structured, but apply some logic man. When has GW EVER made an effect that affects an entire unit based on one model in that unit being hit by a blast?
The Blind USR works that way, just saying.
Blind is worded very differently.
RAW for movement through cover would be 3d6 take the highest unfortunately and as far as the Stomp attack wording goes I dont see where people read this as every model in the unit gets hit. “Each model that IS even partially…” Is would be a state of being which to me would mean being under the template. Just seems like some cheesy people looking to make these things a thousand times worse than what they need to be.
Yeah, they slow to a crawl through difficult terrain.
Yeah, it’s sad, but really only wishful thinking that they can move faster than that through cover.
If it helps… Trygons still move half as fast as Raveners. Sometimes you get slower when you get bigger 😉
Lol, fair enough!
Oversight or not, there is no rule anywhere that permits heavy walkers to move through terrain greater than 6″, therefore they don’t.
The confusion over stomp is more an issue with grammar that isn’t GW’s fault per se.
The stomp rule from the glossary of the Apocalypse ebook says that any unit touched by a stomp template must roll on the stomp table.
Result 2-5 says “Each model in the target unit under the blast template takes a S6 AP4 hit.”
“Model” is the subject of the sentence. The other clauses are to provide specificity and clarification. The sentence does not refer to the unit under the template. It refers to the model in the unit under the template.
So each model that is both in the target unit AND under the blast template, takes a S6 AP4 hit.
I agree with your interpretations.
Absolutely, it drives me nuts when people go looking for poor punctuation to justify their ridiculous rules claims! GW leaves out an optional comma and suddenly stomps affect the entire unit!
The following are my feelings rather than analysis of the rules!
1) I don’t think units that can’t hurt a target should be able to lock them in combat – it just feels wrong. Why would they stick around? Tar-pitting is still valid but at least invest the points in something that can make a dent!
2) The Stomp blast is clearly intended to represent a foot stomping, so clearly only the models under the foot should be hit. I think the RAW also reflect this and can’t see how any twisting of the English makes it say otherwise.
3) The fact that a perfect roll of 6 halves your movement doesn’t seem right. Slowing these massive vehicles so much with a couple of low walls doesn’t seem logical either. I think doubling the dice roll is a decent solution as it maintains the distribution of possible distances, even if it’s not RAW.
The rules explicitly allow you to assault things you can’t hurt though, I mean, like, directly answer that question. It’s only in the case of it being a Walker and Vehicle that it gets confusing.
I agree on stomp.
And yeah, even though it is clear that that is how the rule works, it does seem wrong.
Reeceius – RE: Stomp attacks
It says in the Escalation rulebook that Super Heavy Walkers and Gargantuan Creatures may make a Stomp attack at Init. 1 in addition to their regular attacks, so you have that part perfect.
It then states that you place the Blast template and resolve d3 Stomp attacks. Any unit touched by the template is “Stomped” – an effect type, basically.
You then roll on the Stomp Table for each unit “Stomped”, where it states that:
“Each MODEL from the unit being stomped that is even partially under the blast marker suffers a Strength 6 AP4 hit.” – in the Stomp result of a 2-5
“Each MODEL from the target unit that is even partially under the blast marker is removed from play.” – from the result of a 6
So, no an entire mob of Boyz wouldn’t take damage just the models under the template. The entire unit WOULD suffer the status effect of being “Stomped” whatever that means.
Perhaps at a later date some big critter might cause additional status effects on any unit that they’ve stomped.
I hope that allays your fears a bit!
I read it exactly as you do, thanks for speaking out!
I must admit that when reading the rules, I’ve seen two different versions of the table. The two versions do change the interpretation of the preceding paragraphs.
If I click on the “Stomp” hyperlink it says:
“Each model in the unit that is partially under the template…”
If I go to the table itself and click on the individual “Kerr-unch” entry, it says:
“Each model from the unit that is stomped that is partially under the template…”
So, reading that second sentence, I see it as you do. That’s what I get for assuming the definitions would be the same within the same publication. “Stomp” has a different definition for Kerr-unch than “Kerr-unch” has for itself. Dumb.
And you didn’t even touch on the Knights having Strikedown. It’s the model that has it, so I think it would be presumable that it only applies to the stomp attacks.
Good point, I didn’t talk about that, but thanks for bringing it up here. I think most folks agree that it is only on the model, not it’s weapons.
I just read a huge argument on it recently saying that until it’s clarified that it applied to both weapons. I don’t think any of them even considered that it applied to stomp. Seems the Knight’s stomps are more of a kick if they’re knocking stuff on its butt! hahaha.
Anyone arguing that a Heavy Stubber is going to Strikedown my models is going to have me strike them down. 🙂
I know, right? Everyone’s always looking for an edge. And after some consideration of your campaigning for D weapons, I came to the conclusion you should update your handle to ‘The Tenacious D’ 🙂
Hammer of Wrath should work though.
Haha, I love it… That may be an article name sometime soon.
Oooo. Good point, Krieg. I hadn’t thought of that one. 🙂
The movement issue is not covered. Therefore using logic and a little brain power, in addition to the explicate permission given by Gw to fix broken stuff at our digression I’d say roll 3 dice take the highest two. That’s if you need to roll anything. Personally they move 12 inches no matter what, why does a tiny beast ignore movement penalties yet this giant walker slows down to a crawl. Stupid if ya ask me.
The stomp rule is simple read it slow. Some have quoted the the right wording which makes it clear that only the models touched by the templates can take damage, not the entire unit. Unless you roll a one there is killing. Potential to kill a lot since the combat consolidation clumps every thing up real nice and easy for ya to place d3 blast templates. In addition to combat results possibly making them flee.
As for charging since they are treated as infantry in the brb you can charge them though you cannot hurt them. But if Reecius and his man boy partner did it right that combat would have probably lasted only 2 rounds, one full game turn. It really his fault for not shooting them with the str 8 ap3 blast a few times so they couldn’t tie it up.
Cold blooded people out here busting his chops on the bat rep with them. They will get it right next time and it will be a different outcome.
I liked the bat rep and it made me go read the escalation book one more time to shore up the rules for myself. GW just needs to clarify the movement part. I imagine them cutting a swath of destruction where ever they would want to go, just crunch it down as it where.
Well, walking through a 10 story burning building or a deep swamp is probably going to slow down anything.
I plan on playing Knights and I think it’s not an awful mechanic, at least it gives my opponents some hope of out maneuvering me.
There are some nasty tricks for consolidation. Unlike charging, which requires that you get the most models in b2b as possible, consolidation just requires that they move into b2b if possible. Some canny players have pointed out that you consolidate one model at a time, just like any other movement, and thus, you can place them in b2b with 0.9″ between them, making other models not able to get into b2b, so you only have to move them within 2″… That actually lets you spread them out quite a bit more and you’ll only get 3-4 under a blast instead of 10.
there are two stages, if you are out of 2 inches of a guy in bases to base, you need to move till you are… so you can stay a long way out, if you are within 2 inches you must move as far as you can to an enemy base.. at least that’s hat I rmember without my books:)
Has anyone presented the case for the 12″ movement superceding restrictions of being slowed by terrain?
Super heavy walkers move like regular walkers but what if this only applies to taking dangerous terrain tests – which would be auto passed by Move Through Cover USR – and is trumped by the exception that they can always move 12″ in the movement phase?
Perhaps a case of specific trumping portions of the BRB because it doesn’t make sense that a knight or especially a Stompa be slowed to 1d6″ in difficult terrain.
Just some musings from someone who doesn’t want to work while at work
That is an interesting reading of the rule but I don’t think there is any support for it in the rules, honestly.
Reece, here are my thoughts;
1) Yes you can charge them based on the Walker assault rules. They are treated like Unit type: infantry for purposes of assault and being assaulted. That means you can assault them. In answer to the question of why a unit would stick around and fight something they can’t hurt, the answer is… They won’t unless they are fearless. They will likely lose a bunch of models to stomps on the first turn and run off. Only a fearless unit will be able to reliably tarpit them. Fluffy as well as legal 🙂
2) The stomp wording is wonky, but GW did this same wording before. Remember their beam rules for the Necron Doom Scythe when it first came out? “Every unit underneath the line suffers anumber of hits equal to the number of models in the unit underneath the line.” Even more poorly (but similarly) worded than the stomp chart and had people trying to say that if you just clipped the unit every model in it took a Str10 hit. GW fixed that to show their true intent. Your interpretation is correct.
3) One you didn’t address is Stomp-Walking. This is done by placing he first stomp (blast marker) in base contact with the walker and then placing each subsequent one so that they are at least within 3″ of the previously placed one, even if not at least paritally over the unit locked in combat. Players are using this to place the final blast marker so that you can stomp on models not involved in the combat up to 15″ (3″ blast + 3″ + 3″ blast +3″ + 3″ blast) away from the superheavy locked in combat. Stomping on land raiders, MCs, artillery, etc in the backfield. Basically you are assigning “hits” in the form of blasts to units not involved in the combat, but nothing says you can’t other than the apparent RAI that you are stomping on the models that are fighting you. Do you have to have at least one model from the unit you are in combat with under the blast marker? Is this a form of melee attack which can only damage the unit locked in combat? What are your thoughts on this because this is a big one?
4) Move through cover. RAW gimps them to 3d6 take the highest. This affects Garc Creatures also. Playing a MtC army, that is usually going to be 5 or 6″ anyways. I don’t see this as that big a drawback and is a fair tradeoff for their great mobility.
Yep, it’s best to make sure you don’t have too many threats that are within 15″ of one of these when they’re in combat! I’d be curious to see if it was FAQ’d otherwise, because if so, you could use it to control where your opponent gets to place the blast… I’m not sure which is the worse scenario.
Agreed about the movement, slowing to 6″ in terrain doesn’t bug me too much, they prefer open hunting grounds!
Well: “Each model from the unit that is stomped that is partially under the template…”
Only models in CC can be stomped, straight up. It’s a close combat attack and therefore would follow all the rules of said attacks.
I believe the reason people are so fucked up about the rules as it stands was GW’s intent to clarify that “Each model from THE UNIT (as in the one being stomped) that is being stomped” was to make it so that only the Unit(s) in Combat can be targeted.
Hope that was clear as sewage…
I tend to agree that the stomp should only work in the CC the walker is in, not on units a foot away.
I agree with the last 2 points. but #1 is odd. I alays read the walker rules meaning they they move like infantry, assault like them and is locked by them. But because it says you cannot charge a vehicle you cannot hurt, Walkers are a vehicle, that No you cannot charge them.
Watch the entire video, bud, there is more to it than that.
I did, and I do understand, your idea makes perfect sense. And from my interpretation that it is treated like a vehicle when it is being assaulted. but when it is assaulting, it assaults just like infantry.
It is also assaulted like infantry, too.
You are right, I missed that part.
Rules themselves aside, I dig the rules breakdown video. You guys should do these on a regular basis; especially with all the crazy rules stuff happening right now.
Yeah, not a bad idea, actually.
Thanks for the video, Reece.
I wanted to say I think you are spot on!
You pretty eloquently highlighted some compelling arguments for your interpretation.
I didn’t want to say though, that I think GW should rework the cover mechanics. Instead of allowing big walkers to not be slowed, I think they shouldn’t be slowed by terrain lower than 25% of the walker. Let the knight walk through trees unslowed, but if it’s big terrain, then it should slow them, as they try to navigate it safely. If there’s fortifications, the knight shouldn’t be able to just walk over them.
Thanks, TinBane! And welcome to FLG.
That would be a cool cinematic rule, as you could picture the big guys just smashing through stuff!
@BigPig: Regarding #3, Color me stupid as I was under the impression that ALL of the blast markers had to be placed ‘under'(?) the model or in contact with its base. Unless we’re imagining some sweet, sweet ‘earth tremor’ stuff…?
Regarding #1, it seems like the ‘Super Heavy’ applies in the most beneficial way (no armor degrading effects) for the owning player but then the ‘Walker’ applies in the least beneficial way for the owning player. Personally, I’m holding out for a complete description of this new, hybrid, class/type of model. It seems absurd that it can’t walk away from little (cyber) bugs that can’t hurt it. Or, it seems absurd that it can’t just fire its ranged weapons at whatever it wants and then do a bit of River Dance. It also seems a little weird (just a little) that it can’t ‘tank shock’.
As for the Stomp–might it be that the “Each unit that has at least one model…” portion of the rule clarifies who/what is affected by the Strikedown rule? Or is Strikedown model-by-model? I think that it applies Strikedown to every model in the ‘stomped’ unit.
Haha… you should do one of these on random assault moves through cover. When they updated the BRB it became the most hilariously worded rule in the game… as you have to know how far every model in your unit is going to move to be able to know how many dice to roll for the random move distance. Yay GW!
40k: you can’t just know the rules… you have to know the future too!
No joke, that is one of the worst rules in the game right now. We talked about that for like, 3 phone sessions on the IGTC FAQ.
Another question: if the intended rule is that only specific models under the template in the stomped unit are hit, then these probably have to be considered like precision shots since it references specific models being hit, and not the unit taking a hit for each models under the template.
“Each model from the unit being stomped that is even partially under the blast marker suffers a Strength 6 AP4 hit.”
“Each model from the target unit that is even partially under the blast marker is removed from play.”
This differs from the wording of the blast rules:
“The unit suffers one hit for each model with its base fully or partially under the blast marker.”
And is more similar to the wording of precision shots:
“Wounds from Precision Shots are allocated against a model (or models) of your choice in the target unit”
This would be important if there is only one melta bomb or power fist wielding character that can harm the knight in a unit if fearless models, for example. If you can force him to take wounds (after a look out sir it would seem), then you can kill off the only model capable of hurting you back and siphoning off hull points in a protracted fight. I also see no wording that states that you can’t place all the templates in exactly the same place, overlapping on the same models. It minimizes the number of models that would take a hit, but maximizes the number of wounds these models take.
That is a really good point, actually. I would say you take the wounds like a blast marker, but it certainly doesn’t seem to indicate that at all.
And as part of that, can you Look Out, Sir? It would seem the RAW is you could for the S6 , but not the Remove from Play. But are Stomps like D’s? Do they bypass the normal wound allocation rules? Doesn’t seem like they would, but the Stomp rules allocate hits to models instead of units. Even precision shots govern wound allocation, not hits. Also, because the hits are allocated to specific models, does it still go by majority Toughness? The GK SR rules have set a precedent for specific models suffering the effects without the ability to LoS.
I guess I don’t understand everyone is worried about “introducing something too disruptive into the tournament scene”. D weapons, super heavies…you would just be replacing one auto build set of armies with another. It might even make it more enjoyable. God forbid you break up the taudar “lock” on the game or the unstoppable, nigh-invulnerable deathstar units. It’s ok for units that can’t be killed to be included in the tournament scene but its not ok to introduce units that can kill those unkillable units? So confused. It seems like funny scene dominated by a few voices. Let it ride gentlemen and see where the game goes!
This has been my point for a long time. Nothing in Escalation, nor are these Knights, without counter, but we can’t allow them in to break up the current armies without counter? That’s absurd.
Thanks Adam. In fact the game is going in an obvious direction. People complain about GW not caring about game balance. I think that they are now releasing these things as “codexes” to trump the argument that they are not official (dataslate, FW, etc..) shows that they “know” what you all are thinking. You can fight the fight for so long…but in the end it is inevitable. My prediction…expect more of the same from GW. The current trend will continue and the tournament organizers will be stuck in the same place, excluding a large chunk of official rules so that the same lists continue to win tournaments because of pressure from peers.
“It’s like trying to drink whiskey from a bottle of wine”
Change is good and always leads someplace different!
It has absolutely nothing at all to do with TOs wanting to see the same lists win, lol, that is pure speculation and way, way, way off the mark. Like, WAAAAAAAAYYY off the mark. It’s about not creating a system in which some armies are so absurdly out of whack, like the Revenant, that it breaks the game. That is the point. TOs want to see variety at their events, and a level playing field.
Let me rephrase that into a better sentence to avoid any confusion. I didn’t mean to imply that TO’s wanted the same lists to continue to win.
“The current trend will continue and the tournament organizers will be stuck in the same place, excluding a large chunk of official rules because of pressure from peers, CAUSING the same lists to continue to win tournaments.”
That is infinitely more palatable, haha, the other wording sounded like some kind of collusion or plot!
Taudar is no longer the “lock” on the game, actually. Those days are gone, it is Deldar, now =)
But it is easy to say let’s let in everything when you aren’t risking anything of your own. TO’s have to be conservative because they risk huge sums of money to run tournaments. It makes a big difference in your perspective.
I totally get that tournaments are a business that can and does impact your bottom line. Not just in the running and cost of the tournament but also in the culture you have created which drives people to your website and syndicates data to other websites. I personally think you guys are more reasonable with your approach to tournaments by creating the BOA format guidelines. Maybe I live in a bubble, but I cant think of a LGS that has had as wide an impact on tournaments as you guys have and I totally appreciate that.. Thanks.
So coming from the view that I don’t run your business and would like to play in a tournament in which I can actually destroy specific units in the game, I would love to see a wider range of official rules allowed in the tournaments…including data slates. I think we are all in the same place in thinking it would be really cool to use these knights and all their rules or for Tyranid to have more options.
I agree with you. We want to include stuff, it sucks to say no to things and all it does is piss people off.
We do try and keep an open mind which is why we open the forum for discussion as we do here. We will be allowing Data Slates going forward and Formations too, probably only skipping the Tau formation as it is stupid.
We want a fun, fair, inclusive style of event. That is our goal, but as you noted, we have to at least break even on our events or they will cease to exist. We won’t lose money to get yelled at all the time! lol
But thanks for the kind words, much appreciated.
Check the gw digital Facebook page. The responded that you can’t charge a walker that you can’t hurt. Not a FAQ for sure, but maybe an insight to RAI?
That is no bueno, if true.
Mail (will not be published) (Required)