Tail weapons question

[Col. Duke LaCrosse]

So quick question about the tail weapons.

Are wounds inflicted by tail weapons on monstrous creatures AP2? I ask since the rule says they are "...not affected by other Melee weapons, biomorphs, upgrades, or special rules..."

Also I love Old One Eye and I'm trying figure out if there is any benefit to his thresher scythe tail that is not already granted by him simply being a monstrous creature. Personally I would've given him a bone mace tail but that would've vaulted him into Riptide levels of OP-ness.

[halos]

Monstrous Creatures have AP2 attacks by virtue of the Smash special rule.
As Tail Weapons are not affected by the wielding models Special Rules then they are stuck using their own AP.

[Inquisitor Stingray]

I noticed the Bonemace has the Unwieldy special rule, which does not affect Monsters. Only Monsters have access to the Bonemace. Wat?

[halos]

Hmm, I'd guess the idea is that the Mace strikes at I1 like the old 4th ed Mace Tail biomorph.
But seen as MCs ignoring Unwieldy is an aspect of their unit type, not a special rule, I guess yeah, you get to use the Mace at Initiative.

[Inquisitor Stingray]

Jan 18, 2014 14:39:26 GMT halos said:

Hmm, I'd guess the idea is that the Mace strikes at I1 like the old 4th ed Mace Tail biomorph.
But seen as MCs ignoring Unwieldy is an aspect of their unit type, not a special rule, I guess yeah, you get to use the Mace at Initiative.

But why have the Unwieldy rule there in the first place? It may seem like nitpicking but stuff like that drives me crazy. Like fixed Scything Talons on Monsters.

[halos]

I can only assume that the writers intended the 'ignores wielder special rules/biomorphs/weapons etc.' clause to also negate MCs ignoring Unwieldy, without actually checking to see how the rules actually interacted.

Scy Tals on MCs I've got no excuse for, that's just bizarre.

[WestRider]

I'm fairly certain they forgot entirely that Unwieldy has no effect on MCs, and CCs were intended to reduce MCs to I1 as well. It's exactly the same kind of sloppiness that got us the Toxin Sacs idiocy back in 5th.

[coredump]

From and anal standpoint, I like it. A weapon should be described separately from who may/maynot use it. If it is Unweildy, then it is Unweildy, regardless of who can or can't use them.

[pom611]

Crushing claws can be used on non MC's tho (tyrant guard) so it may be that unwieldy was intended for them in the case of crushing claws...

[scorpio]

Hold up guys, sorry to slightly hijack this thread (though I agree with the points above that treat as separate attacks). Is it true that unwieldy doesn't affect MCs? I don't have a rulebook but that seems too good to be true. Thanks.

[coredump]

So, half a dozen people have already posted, and over half explicity said it doesn't effect MCs. Why would you believe one more person?

[scorpio]

I'll take your word for it coredump. Just wanted to have a more definite answer. Cheers.

[revx]

Jan 18, 2014 19:38:18 GMT coredump said:

From and anal standpoint, I like it. A weapon should be described separately from who may/maynot use it. If it is Unweildy, then it is Unweildy, regardless of who can or can't use them.

exactly. plus lets say they release a codex supplement or dataslate and now ravenors can take mace tails. they can just write in the supplement "may take tail biomorphs" instead of then having to also explain how some tails do this and some do that.

[Inquisitor Stingray]

Jan 18, 2014 22:07:07 GMT revx said:

Jan 18, 2014 19:38:18 GMT coredump said:

From and anal standpoint, I like it. A weapon should be described separately from who may/maynot use it. If it is Unweildy, then it is Unweildy, regardless of who can or can't use them.

exactly. plus lets say they release a codex supplement or dataslate and now ravenors can take mace tails. they can just write in the supplement "may take tail biomorphs" instead of then having to also explain how some tails do this and some do that.

But is that realistic, though? I don't buy it, seems to be a product of sloppiness more so than convenience.

coredump: from an equally anal (erh) point, it bothers me. I know that Special Rules are supposed to reflect fluff, in this case a bonemace is a massive weapon who is not used with great precision. Nothing prevents them from describing this in the fluff appetizer. But the redundancy causes more confusion than it sets the tone of the weapon in question, as is evident by how many people believe Unwieldy to affect Monsters. Anyway, this obviously just nitpicking.

[coredump]

eh... its just differences in approach. I want each entry to stand independently. If a Hammer is so big as to be Unwieldy, then I think it should be labeled as such. To me it is a characteristic of the item.
It may turn out that only MCs can use that hammer... but the hammer is still unwieldy even if the MCs don't care.

I can see the point of 'streamlining' what rules are presented, and not presenting rules that don't 'do' anything; but I think that can easily lead to issues later on.