Skull chukka rules question

[Edmund]

Hi

I wouldn't underestimate the chukka's: 6 armor-ignoring and confusion-inducing attacks are nothing to sneeze at. Aimed at a heavily armored unit (like knights) that can be decisive.

I have a question.

Rules of Skull chukka include:

- Works as a Rock lobber
- Targets confused on 4,5,6 roll (because the ammo are biting heads)

In the Siege section it says: "Undead skcull Chukkas are assumed to be able  to throw stones in the same way as an Orc Rock lobber" (page 91). This seems to assume that rocks are not the "regular" ammo type.

We always play in this way (agreed beforehand by all the players): It can be loaded with rocks (for sieges only) or with skulls (against units, allowing armor roll, confusing with 4,5,6).

The rules seem to apply both facts (no armor roll plus head biting). What the rules are exactly? I don't know the WH setting very much, does it shoot heads or great rocks?  How do you play?

Thanks!

[Carrington]

Hi

I wouldn't underestimate the chukka's: 6 armor-ignoring and confusion-inducing attacks are nothing to sneeze at. Aimed at a heavily armored unit (like knights) that can be decisive.

I have a question.

Rules of Skull chukka include:

- Works as a Rock lobber
- Targets confused on 4,5,6 roll (because the ammo are biting heads)

In the Siege section it says: "Undead skcull Chukkas are assumed to be able  to throw stones in the same way as an Orc Rock lobber" (page 91). This seems to assume that rocks are not the "regular" ammo type.

We always play in this way (agreed beforehand by all the players): It can be loaded with rocks (for sieges only) or with skulls (against units, allowing armor roll, confusing with 4,5,6).

The rules seem to apply both facts (no armor roll plus head biting). What the rules are exactly? I don't know the WH setting very much, does it shoot heads or great rocks?  How do you play?

Thanks!

I'm guessing that the siege section reference is simply saying that the SC has the same siege effect as an orc rock lobber, presumably with respect to damaging walls.

[pw]

I'd always assumed that it cancelled saves (works as stonethrower) and that it confuses (scary heads). I think that the seige bit is just a clarification to avoid players interpreting the rules based on the WH fluff in which it throws skulls not rocks (I.e that a finickity fluff fan might whine about it being 'unrealistic' to expect it to knock down walls). Just my take on it though.

[spiritusXmachina]

As far as I know the above quote just wants to point out that skull chukkas are also able to shoot rocks when it is to damaging walls as some skulls probably would not serve that purpose.

[Lex]

As far as I know the above quote just wants to point out that skull chukkas are also able to shoot rocks when it is to damaging walls as some skulls probably would not serve that purpose.

Unless you are using particularly dense skulls, like those of the majority of Warmaster players   

[Edmund]

Thanks. I keep feeling both effects should not be combined.

[spiritusXmachina]

Unless you are using particularly dense skulls, like those of the majority of Warmaster players   

And that's quite necessary too as otherwise we would have believed all those fortunetellers that foretold the death of Warmaster a hundred times (yet and still). 

Dense-skulled or particularly sloooow. 

Greetings,
Gerald

[captPiett]

Thanks. I keep feeling both effects should not be combined.

It's neat to be quoted, even 5 month later
The rules seem to clearly state that you don't count armor saves against the SC because they say it should count as a rock lobber and rock lobbers ignore armor saves... why don't you feel it should have those abilities? The undead are a shooty army with a lot of fragile units and no initiative, so it seems fair to me. Empire cannons are almost the same, except for the confusion bit...

[Edmund]

Hi

I forgot to explain myself

From the point of view of the rules is ok for me. I think also the rules assume both effects (perhaps a little bit open to interpretations, also because of the name of the unit). I agree with you that is fair in balance-game terms.

My feeling was related with pure logic-simulation. What are loading the skeletons actually in the battle? It wasn't making sense to me. But I think this could be a good explanation of the rule: several lobbers of the unit are loaded with rocks, and others with skulls. An enemy unit receiving the attack will suffer losses from rocks, and survivors reatreating will suffer the biting.

Generally speaking, I like to learn the rules and try to apply it as best I can (mistakes are part of the learning process, and fun also).

Also I like to understand the reason of the rule, because it is easier to remember to apply it during the game, and understand the game mechanics. Sometimes a rule is just a rule (not only a simulation to represent certain units or effects in the battle) and its reason is to balance the game, or to keep it fun, no problem with that.

As a friend of mine says (not speaking about games): "Remember the rule it is not more importat than the reason it was created for"  

Cheers!

[captPiett]

I completely agree... knowing the why of the rule helps in all sorts of ways. Finding out the justification for rules and reasoning out justifications can be kind of fun/interesting as well.