Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

If a techmarine or MotF is inside a vehicle can he repair it from the inside?

No. Being inside the vehicle does mean that you are within 0'' of it, but it does not mean you are in base contact, unless you think assaulting a transport vehicle gets the unit inside into combat.

NoToTheMan wrote:If a techmarine or MotF is inside a vehicle can he repair it from the inside?

No, he cannot. Embarked is not the same as Base Contact.

Just be aware that the GW FAQs say that you can, even though the rules are so clear it hurts. Most people tend to ignore the idiotic parts of their FAQs in my experience. YMMV though.

+1 to above


however they can disembark in the movement phase and repair it(its the only type of movement allowed before a repair)

The FAQs say they can, so they can. People ignoring parts of the FAQs isn't nearly as prevalent as Gwar is leading you to believe.

The INAT FAQ (v3.3 anyway) ruled that a techmarine could fix a vehicle from the inside.

SM.71A.01 – Q: Can a Space Marine Techmarine who started the turn embarked on a vehicle attempt to repair it?
A: Yes he can [clarification].
Ref: BT.36C.02, BA.06C.01, IG.34A.02, DA.31A.02

Doesn't make too much sense, as the damage would probably be on the outside. Perhaps he just reboots the Machine Spirit.

And that was only because the GW released an FAQ said they can - prior to that the INAT said they couldn't.

Maybe because the GW FAQ makes no sense?

Agreed, but I'm not going to tell someone that a document they got directly from GW is wrong. FAQs are treated as Errata to most players, despite what that page says.

So perhaps you should try and educate people that FAQs are not Errata rather than letting people play them as though they are? Don't you have any sense of civic duty!

Games Workshop makes sense?
when has this ever happened?
like how can THE DOOM target things inside transports?

NoToTheMan wrote:Games Workshop makes sense?
when has this ever happened?
like how can THE DOOM target things inside transports?

GW hasn't ruled anything on that yet as far as I know.

HiveFleetGoliath wrote:

NoToTheMan wrote:Games Workshop makes sense?
when has this ever happened?
like how can THE DOOM target things inside transports?

GW hasn't ruled anything on that yet as far as I know.

well they should
why does calgar have to pay for being inside his land raider?

If GW said they can, they can -- though I haven't personally seen the FAQ but I'll take your word for it. There are all kinds of examples of people in Real Lifez repairing from inside. Like submarines and other ships, where it's not always handy to step outside. In the novel (yeah, it's a novel) Mechanicum, the titan pilots had on-board Enginseers who would work on the machine whilst inside. And yes, it was more touchy-feely, Machine Spirit kind of stuff. But the fact they're taking a 1000 pound battle cannon that got blown to pieces and fusing it back on perfectly within 30 seconds, whether inside or outside or sleeping underneath it, you still have to suspend your disbelief. It's machine magic anyway you slice it.

DukeRustfield wrote:If GW said they can, they can

I would agree with you here... had GW not gone and proven they don't bother writing their own FAQs anymore. As it is, the FAQs have as much chance of being the Authors "intent" as they are a bananas.

Gwar! wrote:So perhaps you should try and educate people that FAQs are not Errata rather than letting people play them as though they are?

Or you could accept that it's just a game, and move on.

Whether or not the FAQ's are errata, people will treat them as a sign of how the game is supposed to be played. Trying to convince people otherwise is like nailing jelly to a tree.

WHAT KIND OF JELLY!???!

insaniak wrote:

Gwar! wrote:So perhaps you should try and educate people that FAQs are not Errata rather than letting people play them as though they are?

Or you could accept that it's just a game, and move on.

Whether or not the FAQ's are errata, people will treat them as a sign of how the game is supposed to be played. Trying to convince people otherwise is like nailing jelly to a tree.

You knew this was bound to happen.



Edit:

For non-Photoshopped goodness:

http://www.myscienceproject.org/j-wall.html

Evil Lamp 6 wrote:

insaniak wrote:

Gwar! wrote:So perhaps you should try and educate people that FAQs are not Errata rather than letting people play them as though they are?

Or you could accept that it's just a game, and move on.

Whether or not the FAQ's are errata, people will treat them as a sign of how the game is supposed to be played. Trying to convince people otherwise is like nailing jelly to a tree.

You knew this was bound to happen.



Edit:

For non-Photoshopped goodness:

http://www.myscienceproject.org/j-wall.html

that's not jelly
that's jello

now somebody quote me
see how awesome this can get

(100th post btw)

Personally I say if the GW FAQ says a rule works a certain way, then it works a certain way. Picking and choosing what rules should and shouldnt work is just stupid. You could use that argument on MANY things. The deff rolla cannot be used against vehicles, simply because I dont want my vehicles to take a beating, is one example.
Id say that if the company, that makes this game, makes a FAQ on how the game works, then thats how it works. GWAR is a really handy person to have around on many rules, but sometimes the guy says things like the above

KingCracker wrote:Personally I say if the GW FAQ says a rule works a certain way, then it works a certain way. Picking and choosing what rules should and shouldnt work is just stupid. You could use that argument on MANY things. The deff rolla cannot be used against vehicles, simply because I dont want my vehicles to take a beating, is one example.
Id say that if the company, that makes this game, makes a FAQ on how the game works, then thats how it works. GWAR is a really handy person to have around on many rules, but sometimes the guy says things like the above

Actually on topic, if my opponent wanted to play using GW FAQ's, I'd generally have no problem with the answers provided. However I would point out that if GW did feel so inclined to make it so that Techpriests (etc.) can repair from inside a vehicle, then they should issue errata to that effect.

Grot riggers don't need to disembark. The Rhino repair rule doesn't mention the crew needing to disembark. It isn't that much of a stretch then that a tech marine can perform repairs while inside the vehicle.

Citizensmith wrote:Grot riggers don't need to disembark. The Rhino repair rule doesn't mention the crew needing to disembark. It isn't that much of a stretch then that a tech marine can perform repairs while inside the vehicle.

I cannot speak for other codices, but at least in the IG codex it specifies that the Techpriest in base contact with a damaged vehicle can attempt to repair it. Now it could very easily be one of those situations where GW says screw it and for simplicity's sake says that for the purpose of vehicle repair only, an embarked Techpriest can attempt to repair his vehicle. Unfortunately for us, GW has not come out to be that specific. And I think we can all agree it would be very B.A.D. bad to say that a unit embarked in a vehicle is in base to base with said vehicle.

Grey Templar wrote:however they can disembark in the movement phase and repair it(its the only type of movement allowed before a repair)

This is wrong; a tech marine(or Master of the Forge, or Iron Priest, or Enginseer, or Mek/Big Mek) CAN walk up to a damaged vehicle and attempt to repair it; they just cannot fall back into a vehicle and repair it, nor repair it whilst gone to ground.

BTW the FAQ likely allows models inside vehicles to repair so that the Mek/Big Mek is not substatially better at repairing vehicles than the Imperials, after all The Mek rules explicitly state that a mek "inside(or in base contact)" can attempt a repair in the shooting phase.

Ork Codex p. 34 Mek's Tools. Mekboyz excel at battlefield repairs. If a Mekboy or Big Mek is inside (or in base contact with) a vehicle at the beginning of his Shooting phase ..............


I think that's a done deal. Even a Mekboy can do it. Though can someone link the FAQ for the other repair rule? For the record, FAQ = Frequently Asked Questions. Errata(m) are actual errors in a printed work discovered after printing (according to the dictionary). Having two sections doesn't make one > than the other. They provide different uses, though sometimes I see them used the same.

If they wanted Techmarines to be the same as Meks, they would have given them the same rule.

They didn't, so they can't repair from inside the vehicle.

If you don't like it, I won't play you, as you are using House Rules to deliberately break clear RaW.

Hyperbole aside, and while I agree that "base contact" is not synonymous with "embarked", I think the most common way to play it is allowing the tech to do it.

Playing with standardized FAQs makes life easier and the game better for most of us, whether we're talking about GWs or the INAT.

Again, this is assuming it's in the FAQ. If it's not, then I would agree that it doesn't work. Though all the SM/IG codices use the same verbage so they probably just standardized it. The Ork is a bit older than most of them.

But to quote the FAQ page:

The FAQs on the other hand are very much 'soft' material. They deal with more of a grey area, where often there is no right and wrong answer - in a way, they are our own 'Studio House Rules'. They are, of course, useful when you play a pick-up game against someone you don't know, or at tournaments (i.e. when you don't have a set of common 'house rules' with the other player). However, if you disagree with some answers and prefer to change them in your games and make your own house rules with your friends, that's fine. In fact we encourage you to shape the game around your needs and your taste.

*emphasis added*
So they define FAQ as the GW house rules and tournament rules which you are free to throw out, provided you provide your OWN house rules. Or they mentioned just dicing-off. But you ignoring a FAQ and supplying your own interpretation implies it is you who is creating a house rule by ignoring the official FAQ. Though again, I'm waiting for someone to link it.

DukeRustfield wrote:But you ignoring a FAQ and supplying your own interpretation implies it is you who is creating a house rule by ignoring the official FAQ. Though again, I'm waiting for someone to link it.

Erm... No. Ignoring an FAQ and using the RaW is not using a house rule.

That's like saying Rapid Fire Weapons have 2 Shots at 12" is a House Rule or that Infantry Moving 6" in the Movement phase is a house rule.

A House rule, by DEFINITION, is something that isn't the RaW. Playing by the RaW can NEVER EVER be a house rule.

Except that what one person considers RAW is frequently in fact a matter of opinion and interpretation, less cut & dried than they imply.