Yes Zombies can go to 35, stupid being stupid people!

[Denzark]

I don't normally indulge in 'I told you so' but...

I love everyone!!!

[DF3CT]

They'll defend that they were right, because the entry was changed and not FAQ'd, but I believe it was changed so stupid simply isn't possible with it ever again.

But I mean, with so many seeing it as 35 squads, knowing that's what the author was trying to communicate, what they saw as RAW is their only flotation device.

[Mr Mystery]

That would be a hilarious army list.

My Necrons aren't at all scared. Whack out the Tesla, and watch the plague zombies drop like flies. In 2,000 I can comfortably fit in no less than 5 Tesla Destructors. All that, plus my general firepower and I'll chew through quickly enough. Plus, whilst thematically cool, those Zombies can't do anything to my vehicles!

But yeah, could be fun to play against!

[eldargal]

I'm with Denzark, it was blatantly obvious that 'no options' referred to Wargear, not the ability to increase unit size. The wording was, however, ambiguous and now it is fixed.

[DF3CT]

Play this when marching your hordes across the field to their victims.

[Kirsten]

evidently nothing was 'blatantly obvious' at all. It is good to see it ruled on and I look forward to seeing zombie hoards on tables, but it is quite astonishing how rude certain people are being about a perfectly debatable point as though they are somehow vindicated in all things.
Look at the errata for the terminators, the entry said may choose one of the following three options, now it says any of the following three options. there was no ambiguity, now it has been changed, we all anticipated thirty five man zombie units, that doesn't mean the wording was in favour of it.

[eldargal]

Well the wording was ambiguous, hence the need for the errata which GW were commendably prompt about delivering. But as far as I can recall it would have been the first time a unit upgrade overrode the choice to increase unit size, given that and the ambiguity of wording it seemed very unlikely it was the intent of the rule. The errata shows that this was correct. I

I think people should have just stuck with rolling for it, I don't like when people start using ambiguous wording to try and outright deny people choices. That's why the 'roll on it' rule is there.

Blatant was probably too strong a word.

[Phototoxin]

...too soon?

[eldargal]

Too soon, I doubt they have all the models painted yet.

[bfmusashi]

The wording certainly didn't seem ambiguous, just stupid. And this day, this glorious day, the stupid was defeated and, in a 2030 point game I can fight against 420 zombies. This is probably the best spamilicious thing to happen to 40k ever. So, if anyone around Knoxville Tennessee has this I want to play you. I will provide snacks.