Tutorial Carnosour Tactica (including dual Carno Tactica)

I love this!

I bought a Carnosaur before i got my Slann, and luckily before it grew in size and got itself a bit more ugly (though still okay by my standards), and i still decided to buy 2 of the new kits to make a dual carno list, and get a troglodon model.

I can't wait to test just a single Carno (gotta start somewhere), and take it from there!

Great tactica

 

I tend to prefer Monster Mash lists, so this is right up my alley. Definitley going to try dual Carnos next time I play.

 

Great tactica. I just started lizard men few months ago and this model was part of the reason great to see it has its uses and can tailor an army around it.

 

If you play a Dual carno list, after every battle they should look this bloody!

 

Just. Plain. Awesome.

 

Great read. I really like the new carnosaur model.

You mention that you take the charmed shield to protect you from the first cannon ball but doesn't that only effect the rider and therefore the mount can still be killed?

 

Krox, that is correct.

I played dual Carno twice today. 1-1.

Lost to another Lizard list that was Swedish Comp rating 6. Holy crap! Almost entirely Skink Skirmishers. That many poison shots is just ridiculous. One round of shooting. Bye, bye Carno. Next turn, other Carno gone. Yikes!

Second game vs. Skaven, both Carnos into flank of Rat Ogre unit! Nom, nom, nom. Won that combat by 12 before thunderstomps.

 

one important thing to remember about the sheild it is can also protect you Vs spells!

at the tournament yesterday a stupid nergle deamon prince of death and overpowerdness ate a Amber spear to the face and the arbitrator agreed that the sheild "ignores the first impact" and almost all direct damage spells cause "impacts"

On a good note tho I WON BEST ARMY! xD walked away with a Warrios of Battalion Box

 

The shield doesn't negate the first "impact," it negates the first hit. The amber spear only causes 1 hit, so the shield will negate the spell entirely on a 2+.

Something like the Flock of Doom, however, does more than 1 hit (in this case, 2D6). The shield can only stop 1 of them.

 

Multi wound does work for overkill purposes

 

including the +3 S +3 attakes, which effects the mount and rider.

Could you show me where it says these spells affect mounts plz as I would assume not and if it does then I will defo take beasts more often as the +3 T would help a lot

 

The T3 only effects the rider but the F3 effects the mount to, it has somthing to do with "model" vs "target" i forget the wording exactly.

 

The T3 only effects the rider but the F3 effects the mount to, it has somthing to do with "model" vs "target" i forget the wording exactly.[/quote]

Well both spells are worded exactly the same and only affect characters nothing about mounts so unless you can show otherwise I'd say you have been bending the rules to suit your means there

 

Only the Character will get the +Attacks and +3 Strength from Savage Beast. Boy do I wish it affect the Carno as well. Either way having the Old Blood with +3 Str and Great Weapon with +3 Attacks can put the hurt on an enemy.

I may have to adjust my list, it may be fun to try Savage Beast on an Old Blood with Steg Helm.

 

Well both spells are worded exactly the same and only affect characters nothing about mounts so unless you can show otherwise I'd say you have been bending the rules to suit your means there[/quote]


that was a bit rude and unnecessary...

they are not worded the same at all. they are worded similar but there is a clear differentiation.

in Savage beast it says "may be cast on a character and the model gains"

in Pann's it says "may be cast on a character and the Target gains"


So with Pann's it is unquestionable that it is clearly only the target who is the character.

where as with Savage beast it says the model and there are many references to "rider and monster counted as one model" and also there is references against that in cases such as Close combat attacks.

I'm not saying i know what every single rule is intended to mean but thats how everyone in my team red the differentiation in the rules wording.

I very well may be wrong I'm going to actually email GW and ask them, and I'm the first to admit i am but i do not appreciate being accused of bending rules to suit myself...

 

The BRB makes it very clear that buffs affecting a character riding a monstrous mount don't affect the monster.

 

Alright, it's been ages since I played WHFB, and I haven't played 8th ed yet, so I might be wrong here... Pray tell, where in the BRB do we find such a rule?

First line in the column of page 104.

Top of the following page.

Now this last rule pertains to Special Rules (Frenzy, Stupidity, etc), not other buffs and the likes. So of course an Old Blood with the Biting Blade would not grant his Carnosaur Armour Piercing, and the carnosaur would not grant Multiple Wounds (D3) to the Old Blood.

While a spell may target only the rider and thus grant a boost only to the character and not his mount, any spell which affect the whole unit or model would therefore affect both; The Savage Beast of Horros targets a character, whereas Wyssan's Wildform target a whole unit, so there is a very distinct difference between the two.


And in case you think 'unit or model' does not refer to both rider and mount, what then happens if you cast 'Walk Between Worlds' on a mounted character or unit? The rider becomes etheral and can move but not the mount? Or if a WoC/DoC player casts Acquiescence (LoSlaanesh) on a mounted character/unit? Would the spell only affect the rider and not the mount (thus not impeding movement at all) ?

 

We have reached a level of rules lawyering which is far above my knowledge xD

 

But if you're going to put stuff out there as a tactica it should be all usable stuff without assumptions and conjecture. I might have been a tad heavy handed in my approach but it is because people add their own spin on grey areas in the rules that there is a need for faqs and forum discussions.

 

I agree completely that's why i did not include it in the Tactica it was just my personal response.