The rule is not written ambiguously - as previously stated, there is only way to read it. Since the language is unambiguous, the intent is made clear by the requirement to always nominate an attack to receive the bonus, and common sense also points this direction (as pointed out by LizardMatt), I think everyone is simply going to need to accept that this is one ability in our book that actually functions the way it appears to function.
But it is ambiguous, as I've shown. I understand that one reading has the benefit of applying more often, but that doesn't render the other reading invalid. I don't know what else to say on it, since we are are disagreeing on such a baseline premise of the discussion. If we wanted to make a list of the top 10 fruits of the world, each according to our own opinions, we would first have to agree what is and is not a fruit. If I had tomatoes on my list and you told me my list was invalid since tomatoes are not a fruit, and yet I believed they are a fruit, we couldn't even get to the point where we debate whose list of fruits is the Real Top 10. See what I mean? My (fairly solid, though not perfect I'll admit) understanding of English sentence structure and the words used to make them tells me that the rule has two valid interpretations. Your knowledge says otherwise. Bummer for us, because it means we won't be able to move ahead with a productive discussion on the topic.
You haven't shown ambiguity - you've shown that by adding additional parentheses, you can change the meaning. I broke down the actual sentence structure shortly after you said that, and showed how it is not ambiguous. Very clearly. You can claim "3 + 2 x 4" is ambiguous, because it could be read as either "(3 + 2) x 4", or as "3 + (2 x 4)", but that doesn't make it so. The reality of the situation is that both mathematics and the English language have rules, and that under those rules the original statement is unambiguous. In the mathematics example, the value of the equation is 11, and in the English example, the attack is resolved at S10 regardless of facing. The fact that you can change the meaning by adding additional punctuation that wasn't in the original expression has no bearing on this whatever.
Ok, now I'm even further at a loss. You don't actually think I added the parenthesis as a way to change the sentence right? You do understand that on forums, where you cannot hear people speak you sometimes need to use other tool to convey what you are trying to say, right? I mean, if your whole refutation rests on me using the parenthesis as an expedient for showing how one could group the parts of the sentence, then I really have no clue how to go further. You are 100% correct that adding bits changes meaning, and that if you have to do so (as in add them to the actual sentence as opposed to using them instead of, say, colored text*) to support a position, then there is failure in understanding how written language works. I use that same concept at times with others (who actually ARE adding in words an punctuation and claiming the sentence's meaning is unchanged). * Here. Let me restate my example from way back when using colors instead. I'll even go the extra step and use the full text rather than shortcuts. You are right that there is a lack of punctuation, as I mentioned in the beginning. It is this lack of punctuation that is creating this whole problem. I am not going to try to use the actual terms that describe the parts of the sentence, since I don't want to inadvertently use an incorrect term even though I know that the terms are defining (Hey, I attended college for Film & Video and worked on studio and location shoots for years without having to know the names of various cable (BNC, RCA, XLR, etc) and yet knowing what each one was and what it did --- sort of like you don't have to know how to spell a word to know what it means). All I am saying is that whatever the term is, I know you can read the sentence each way because there is no punctuation to aid us in grouping the bits. Using color as I did in no way changes the meaning or the sentence structure. It does show that the "and" could be grouping S10 and +1 to hit for us to consider as the benefits of the rear arc attack, or the S10 bit could be its own thing and the "against" for the rear attack part could be applied to only the +1. I enjoy a good debate, I really do, which is why I'm not just shrugging my shoulders and moving on. I honestly don't mind if I'm shown to be wrong either. It's actually a good feeling to learn something new and/or to have your mind changed over the course of a discussion. The one thing that have a really hard time letting go, though, is when people (anyone in general) won't at least go "Ah, I really think you are off on this, but I do certainly see your angle and it could be correct.[/i] That makes my eye twitch (ok, not really). So, anyhoo, I'd like to think that you are not feeling frustrated over this, because that's not what I want to see happen. I'm not an internet troll (Who uses their real name if all they want to do is piss people off? That' a great way to get punched down then road someday.) or in it just to stir the pot. I genuinely like a good discussion, and isn't that what forums are for? At least I'm not trying to read it only one way for an advantage to my own army. It would be easy to do that, but that never seems right (and undermines your credibility when you do try to take a stand on something you really do feel is one way and that way happens to be in your favor). Also - not saying that's what you are doing. I'm just pointing out that I'm not trying to argue for an advantage. Go Penguins.
For whatever it's worth, I... 1) Think that the rule is worded ambiguously, and. 2) Really wish this thread would get back on track with discussing how to use bastiladons. I'm getting one at the end of the month, and I hope this thread becomes productive again so I can start to add to it when I have something to say!
You are right Electric, so much off topic. My point of view on the discussion is: Spanish translation of the army book (which i have) clearly states always you do 2 attacks at Strengh 4 and 1 attack at Strengh 10, also if you aim the Thunderous bludgeon to a model in b2b with the rear of the bastiladon, you gain +1 to hit. For the bastiladon tactics: 150 monster which is one of the few good things that are not overcosted. So its worth taking. First lesson: Is not a Stegadon. You cannot use him for offensive strategies. With 3 attacks (1 on S10) striking always last and poor WS he will usually fail in combat. Its only benefit on offensive is D6 S4 Thunderstomp against infantry, because this monster is designed to deal with infantry. So where it shines is on being a rock. You can attach him in the flank side of one of your main infantry units, It will hold in BSB/generals bubble for a bunch of rounds any kind of unit with S5 or below. Leaving your main unit doing what it must do. If you are threaten by some kind of uber units, heroes or whatever, you can sacrifice him for the greater good, as it is only 150 points. Use him as redirector or meat shield if needed, it wont have so much impact on following turn if you loose it. I rather to lose the Bastie than a unit of saurus or templeguard. And maybe you have luck and the bastie keeps alive and engage for one more turn. Any version of the bastiladon brings some uses for other phases of the game, as I dont like Arkadon I would explain my thoughts on the Solardon. Nice range of bound spell, with low casting cost and random but usually awesome results. Usefull in low magic investment and high magic investment. If you have no valuable spells to throw in a phase, you can toss some solar beams to try to IF. It can poor roll but is more than nothing. It is also useful if you have a powerfull spell and enough 7 or more power dice. You cast the solar beam with one and it forces your opponent to do a hard choice. I've played 4 games with them and achieve the following results: 1st game: a 2v2 game, i destroyed in magic 4 Vampire counts fast cavalry spectres, a Orc Chariot, In combat dealt some wounds to another chariots in a multiple combat and made flee a huge unit of goblins. 2nd game: In magic were dispelled and in second turn I had to put the Bastie blocking the path of a Chaos Knight with Chaos Hero inside and set a combo charge for the next turn. Oddly the Bastie survives the fight and next turn the Knights were crushed and the Hero BSB had to fled and died too. 3rd game: against another chaos player, In magic it kills 4 WoC and used him to hold a Chaos Knight unit. Which were combo charged next turn and dropping 8 to 2. The bastie were wounded and died in a following Chaos Chariot charge. 4th game: We have no time for finishing the game but the bastie walk atop a hill and took the sniper rifle. For the two turns played (another 2v2) it dealt 3 wounds to a Chaos Chariot. Leaving them to a terradon lucky shot. I will be assembling my second bastie in few weeks and of course Ill use both. Its 300 points of swiss knife. Double the awesomess.
I find myself very tempted to add a second one to my lists, for all the reasons you mentioned Man0waR. It really is cheap, but I'm finding even those few points to be a premium cost in my lists. I'm not sure what I would get rid of to make room. I'm usually able to make cuts to allow a second carnosaur or second stegadon before a second bastiladon, even though those things cost more. They offer more to my army than the bastiladon does. I think if I went up to a 3000 point game, there would be room fore sure. It's just that even though what he does is near, it's more of a 'nice to have' as opposed to something you can really plan to use well. Know what I mean?
In my standard lists they are a part of a a roughly floating 150 points i have spare. I've been trying bastiladon, ripperdactyls, cold one riders. Bastiladon has been doing good so far. If you don't find the dice occasionally for the laser cannon hes not a great use of 150 points.
Sleboda, I don't even understand what you are trying to argue at this point. Rather than addressing even a single one of the points that have been raised, by myself or others, you instead have chosen to try and defend your use of parentheses to create an example. You didn't even address my actual criticism of that method, which is that the groupings you're creating with the parentheses are arbitrary, and aren't supported by the sentence structure! And now, in addition to all the points that have already been raised (English sentence structure and the independence of the two clauses, the rules functionality of always nominating an attack to receive a bonus, the common sense argument that you wouldn't expect to be forced to nominate an attack to do nothing 90% of the time...), we now have additional confirmation from non-English languages...which ALSO say the exact same thing. There's just no confusion here - every possible interpretation of this rule points the same way. I think it's time to give up this crusade, and just accept that it's possible for the Lizard book to have at least one rule that functions the way it appears to on the surface.
I'll just make a suggestion: should he still not accept it, just let it go OR either continue via PM or make a different topic about the "issue". It's fine that you want to continue to discuss it, I can accept that, but it's hurting the actual topic of this thread (which have been stated by other too). You usually know what you're talking about so I'd rather you used that knowledge and contributed to this topic
I'd back up Man0waR on the use. I've found the beam a real threat for my opponent (lol nearly typed enemy) to consider. I've had mixed results with the beam - one or two games with awesome results (beastmen, ogres) another game where it was dispelled every round. As he was burning dispel dice every round, I guess it did it's job there anyway, as he was so scared of it. (Demon army) It is extremely useful to just lock down a flank next to your saurus. Mine never leaves their side.
Okay let me say I love my bastilidon model. But its main problem is its not exceptional at any task and to me it is always a 2nd or 3rd choice option in what you will charge with when you will use the bound spell etc. That being siad I have found that when paired with a temple guard block it can be devestating as it allows the TG to strike at I 3 (which goes faste than a few units.)and it provides the TG with some extra killiness.
So, a lot of you now own a Bastiladon... Now i want to get my first one and from your experiences which one should i use, one with the Ark or Solar Engine. I'm mainly having trouble against elves. I don't want do start a debate lol Just in average and in the long run which one is more beneficial and gives the morst bang for the buck! Thanks all.
In an all comer's environment, the Solar Engine will help more. It's a very powerful bound spell for a low casting cost. The passive buff will let Saurus Warriors reach Initiative parity with Dwarfs, Orcs and the like and let TG get Initiative parity with most humans. Against elves, I would say the Ark of Sotek will help more. Elves are relatively vulnerable to a slew of Strength 2 attacks and against elves the Initiative bonus is nigh worthless. I also like the Solardon better because it makes up for a lack of Slann. If you buy some magnets though, you can swap out the Ark of Sotek or Solar Engine as needed and only have to buy one model.
Thanks for all the tips this is just what i needed. But tell me what are Solardons??? Is it the Solar Engine nickname? D'OH!!! Just realized they are Solar-Engine equiped Bastiladons lol I will surely use the magnet trick All the best.
Just wanted to share some of my experiences and thoughts about the solardon with you guys. I know the thread is old, but it's linked to the tactica index so here we go! =) First off, when taking the solardon with templeguard they get buffed to I3, which is quite OK in it's own right. However, combined with taking the ASF sword on your TG Champion, it's actually quite devastating against a lot of things. I often refuse to equip the champ, because if I do, he is usually the first one to go. Either the opponent allocates hits against him with regular rank and file, a challenger takes him down in an earlier initiative step, or you flub your attacks. Even though he is a str 5, tough 4, 4+ save bad ass, he usually never gets to strike at whatever he's in a challenge with, and that stings. However, if you have ASF initiative 3, you don't just get to strike first, you get to reroll against a lot of things! So his 3 PF attacks all hit most of the time, and you got a little bit extra chance to get those juicy Predatory Fighter procs! Against things like banshees and stuff, you won't regret it. He even gets a better armour save because his shield is now usable in CC. Killing a hero in a challenge? Cash in those extra victory points! This gets even better if you have access to Melkoths mystifying miasma, Hand of glory, light or life spells, or even wyssans wildform and the likes. Just remember that the winds of magic are fickle, and the bastiladon makes this possible without rolling any dice. Second, that model is guuud! Thirdly, I've run a death slann + heavens skink + scar-vet carnousaur build that emphasizes terror charging stuff off the board when combined with Doom and darkness, Iceshard blizzard and good luck. Running death means that you don't actually have any decent magic missiles or direct damage that aren't snipes or invitations to drop your slann down a hole (I'm looking at you purple sun), so having access to the solardon spell is surprisingly good. As mentioned before, the Bastiladon is a terrible sight to behold, so he causes terror! So now you have a bastiladon, a carnosaur, and preferably a stegadon aswell, who all threaten to make the enemies flee (Though if an enemy unit passes terror once, they are safe for the rest of the phase, so spread the love). If the enemy knows what you are trying to do, he will stop doom and darkness. Great! MORE DEATH SPELLS PLEASE. If not? You better have faith in your dice. Watching the enemy army break from observing a M4, tiny legged, slow ass monster charge them from 16 inches away is... amusing. And then you redirect! And speaking of death, +1 initiative vs purple sun, either your own or your opponents, is nice. Fourth, it's a dinosaur that shoots a massive sun beam out of a giant, otherworldly crystal made by unfathomable gods that is fixed upon its back by small lizards. Religions have been started with less. He (or she) is a cheap, mediocre monster with a good armor save. There are uses for him in all purpose builds. I haven't actually tried the arc of sotek yet, but I guess this is the one thing that both do well. He doesn't fit into all armies, so it's not an auto include, and there are valid concerns being brought up in this thread. Just take him for what he is: A badass dinosaur that allows certain builds to work, fit well into some builds, is OK in others, and maybe doesn't have a place in all of them. If you have anything to add or contradict, please share!
I haven't used my bastiladon yet (still on the assembly table), but my most frustrating game of the last year was against one (with my orcs). My opponents Bastiladon was covering the flank of the Temple guard (+ life Slann). Deployment put both my Savage orc big uns and Trolls (8) oposite the temple guard and bastiladon. The Temple guards other flank was guarded by a saurus block. My plan was to put my trolls and Savage orcs vs the temple guard and delay the Saurus with Night Goblins. The bastiladon was supposed to be dispatched off by artillery. However, my arty was highly inaccurate, and was also needed to stop an oldblood cowboy. Anyway i failed to kill the bastiladon with the arty and decided to charge it with my trolls, expecting the Troll's armor ignoring S5 puke attack to quickly kill or break it, But....did i mention the life Slann? He got Flesh to stone off, so it was S5 puke attacks against T7....so i would avarage a mere 1.2 wounds per turn (instead of 4). And did i mention the life Slann.... He just healed up every wound i got in. So my trolls were stuck for 2 full turns, while his stuborn Temple guard hold on, the Saurus grinded through the Night gobs and charged the flank of the Savage orcs,.....and game over for the orcs.
I have had mixed results with my Bastille in. I've had the poor guy get utterly murdered by artillery more than once. On the other hand, he single handedly took Durthu off the table with one solar ray casting. I find I'll sometimes fall into army building ruts, and I might get him back out there more to mix it up.
The Bastiladon is a wonderful toy at low point games. Unfortunately it's only S4, making it the weakest monster in the game. I find the inititative buff to be misplaced. Buffing I1 saurus warriors doesn't really matter, kroxigors don't care neither do our characters. Templeguards are the only unit that just mildly benefit from it and even then it's mediocre. I think it should've been D3 initative each turn. But I suppose i5 guards would've suddenly been decent and that cannot be. It's not like warrior of chaos or white lions laugh at us anyway. With low magic capabilites such as in low point games it's quite handy due to the bound spell. But I'm afraid that's about it.
Use a Bastiladon in almost all my lists. What isn't being mentioned here are the intangibles. 1. Solar Engine sucks dispel dice from the opponent. Cast it first thing, and the opponent is pressured into dispelling it. If he ignores it the first turn and you dish out 2d6 S6, he will dispel each time after that. 2. Since it's big, and it's a monster, opponents tend to target it with their war machines early on. It's only 150 points, and your CO bus is over 300. I don't cry if my Bastiladon dies turn 1 or 2. However I weep if my CO bus gets blown up. 3. Initiative not meaningful? Are you kidding? What planet are you from? Next time purple sun or pit of shades wipes out 20 of your 24 saurus warriors you might think twice. Dwarfs are initiative 2, ogres are initiative 2, orcs are initiative 2, skellies are initiative 2, chimeras are initiative 2. Now your saurus warriors go simo, or your TG strike first (not to mention how most units in warhammer are initiative 3).