Alright, I'm not going to debate this anymore. I can't explain it any more ways - nor is the outcome of particular importance or interest to me - the sentence can be read both ways; even a cursory glance at it will reveal that. Continually reiterating the 'no' element doesn't help because that's not even the contentious bit; we need to know what it's saying 'no' to - shooting into combat full stop, or shooting into combat in such a way that the fire zone covers friendly models.
But obviously you aren't interested in actually listening to what I'm saying or in having a closer look at the wording to see the issue.
For the record, I'm not reading it either way, merely acknowledging that, grammatically speaking, the sentence's meaning is unclear. I have no ulterior motive here (except for possibly a crusade to make Games Workshop write rules better).
Ok,, Here is how The U.S. GT Judges ruled the Blunderbuss I know that this isn't an end all be all to the discussion but its a good reasoning of the issue.
Firstly, the Fire Zone was deemed to be used EXACTLY as a Template an not as a normal shooting attack. and following those rules we have the following. If a Unit of BB stand and shoot and if any portion of that Zone/template hits a units of friendlies the shot is lost as it couldn't be fired in a situation where a friendly model is in the zone.
If However, The Zone doesn't have a Friendly Model in the zone the shots are fired as per normal. BUT, If the Zone over Laps an enemy unit which is in combat with a friendly, you take the number of models in the zone lets say for example 4 enemy models involved in the combat are in the zone. You would roll 4 dice and randomize the hits between the Enemy Unit AND the Friendly unit then roll to wound as normal.
If in the shooting phase so long as there is a VALID target to "target" the zone at you may shoot and its the same as above.. but if there isn't an unengaged enemy unit within the zone and only the unit in combat the shots are again lost.
Basically, their ruling was as follows. You can't purposely fire into your own models but may accidentally do so, Just as long as there was a valid "target" to shoot at.
Personally, and our local Area house rules define this basically,, IF there is even a 0.000000000000001 chance of you hitting a friendly unit the shots are lost. Simple and Plain. You as the Player should have been more careful to make sure you couldn't hit your own models.
I would say in ending define a house rule with your area players to something everyone agrees on and when you play at Rogue Traders, Game Tournaments & the like to make sure to get a judge's ruling before play begins.
Well regardless of tactics, I shall take my HW and shield Hobgoblins as it suits my army (undeadninjas im with you dude with the BFSP goblins for hobs
)
BTW my last battle I had 16 of these little guys kill a butcher, 4 leadbelchers and see off 8 ironguts as well!
Best 48 points ever spent I think.
Also I have a dilema as troops are march blocked if enemy units are within 8", thus making it near impossible to actually charge someone with CD units, that doesnt want to be in combat aka sneaky woodies moving 2" backwards and shooting me at close range. I know western dwarfs have relentless but this really does suck big time. How do you prevent this (without wolfriders cause they dont come in the BFSP
)
For me, I'll take the armored ones... mostly because they're easier to convert from the BFSP box, which is what I have. Also, as for unarmored hobs, every time I've used sneaky gits, their unarmoredness has caused them to die a horrible horrible death, very quickly. I had a 20 strong unit of them that charged a unit of 5 waywatchers (weird situation), and they were reduced to 5 guys by the time the combat was over, and I got maybe 1 of them. I broke, and the waywatchers proceeded to be a nuisance. I think the gits cost more too...
Thats because while one of the coolest units in the list, Sneaky Gits are one if the most useless or broken (or both) when it comed to a main fighting infantry regiment. They would be much better served as scouts.
dont forget the number 10 on fast cav can work in our favor: magic number 5. they need to kill more of us than other fast cav to stop us from killing fleeing troops and denying ranks. also need 1 more kill to make us panic than other fast cav.
Naked hobbos as archers might be worth it. Functions as meat shields. If by some miracle they actually hit something so much the better. If not, what is really being risked? Not much I'd say.
3 points is to much. What is the bow another 2? Granted for naked hobbos that would be the best for the "meatshield role".
i have just read the whole of this thread and have found it very useful, all views and advice has been really helpful understanding the concepts behind this army's tactics. Being an Orc and Goblin player i happen to agree with catbarf's idea's about units of gobbo's in my armies i usually go for several units of smaller well armed gobbo's as i find them more minuvarable and able to turn thier hand to more than one function, i also found that metro's clarification of rules on blunderbusses has help me understand their rules more as to be honest i was quite confused by them
What hasn't been helpful in anyway has been so of the rudness and aggressive manner of some of the posts. I feel reading this thread people will not post as many replies about this for fear of being shot down and considering im new to this army and its rules, i find this sad, that some people are enable to put there views across in a manner which is fitting to discuss somthing which is surposed to be FUN!
Interesting observation but the main problems with goblins is that their are special in our list. had the been assigned to Core I'd agree. While Specials is not our best section of the army there are much more compelling choices such as 30 pt bolt throwers (and being able to take 2 for 1 at that). Black Orcs also shine here as a choice to take. But Special goblins? I'm more likely to include a unit of sneaky gits before gobbos.
YMMV.
I surpose your right
them as a special units is pritty rubbish i would much prefere a unit of black orcs to fill that special slot or a death rocket. And i understand about the sneaky gits but i just can't think of a praticle convertion for them, i was think lots of scenery on bases and comedy hiding lol
If by artillery you mean boltbthrowers then yes, I'd agree.
Just to state something real quick-
I hear a lot of Gobo horde talk, why put armor on gobo's and why have super large units with nude hobo's... and Why take the 2pt amazingness out of hobo's...
HOBO's ARE NOT GOBO's -
WS 4 is the shit on 2pt models, GOBO's are w2 W2...W2 i think they are the only thing with w2...(what losers)
not fearing elves- the shit (part 2)
hobo's minimum squad=10 Gobo=20
Hobo's can upgrade with shield and or LA where as Gobo's or Ngobo's already come with one at the same pt value, giving the option not to take them for hobo's where as gobo's your stuck.
so when people are thinking of applying alot of O&G tactics remember that HOBO's OWN Gobo's (outside magic items)
Orc vrs Hobo Shooting-
they are both bs 3
they will both get owned in cc off a charge (even if they get to strike back they'll still loose combat and bolt
they both wont make they're points back
Personal quote-
"Jay, why don't you ever bring orc or hobo archers," a friend asked me once. My response was, "I don't give a blind retarded kid a gun, you got a problem with that?"
Hobo armor-
Some units do well with armor some don't, As a beastmen player I set up every heard with a role, and i build that unit to accomplish that role. If i want a hobo unit to flank why give it stuff thats not needed, If i want a unit to stand by my general and be a super anvil of cheap armored fodder why not give them extra things that can accomplish that goal for a measily 20 points.
Statement Close- All statments stated above are "IMO" and are not always the best possible solutions to every encounter.
Very Noz catbarf. however you cant take a pure hobo army states that hobos do not count towards the minimum core units sorry