I figure this will be necessary, given the simple number of rules I've picked up on that could have discrepancies.
Feel free to dispute any of these arguments:
If you'd like me to add, just make a suggestion and I'll include it.
1. Chimeras
Spoiler:
Chimeras can target 4 different units, 5 with PotMS. Lasgun Arrays are a special rule, not a weapon and so cannot be destroyed by weapon destroyed results. Lasgun arrays can be fired at cruising speed, but not at flat out because flat out forces one to forgo shooting. Because this is a special rule, Lasgun arrays do not count towards the total number of weapons fired by the tank.
2. Smoke Launchers
Spoiler:
While any tank can buy extra smoke launchers through the AM vehicle gear chart, they are only able to use them once given that the Smoke Launcher rule is specificaly "Once per game, a model armed with smoke launchers"
3. Tank Commanders as your warlord:
Spoiler:
As Tank Commanders do not have a leadership value, but may be the warlord, it can be assumed their Leadership is comparable to the other potential leader, despite the fact that the Tank Orders Special Rule would suggest that a tank commander should have LD9. They do not outrank Commissars, meaning a Commissar may be your warlord while you have a tank commander.
4. Commissar Yarrick:
Spoiler:
Despite the fact that Commissar Yarrick's rules Chain of Command and Senior Officer would ensure that yarrick can never be your warlord, (and that you would need a company command squad to indeed have a warlord), it is safe to assume this is simply an oversight and Yarrick is allowed to be a Draconian disciplinarian despite this rule discrepancy. Yarrick must be the warlord if your other HQ is also a Lord Commissar, because of the Chain of Command Special Rule.
I'm not sure how to play the Iron Will if his army has been wiped - he comes back in your next turn, which means that you have no models on the field at the beginning of your turn - you are tabled before Yarrick can come back.
5. Tactical Auto Reliquary:
Spoiler:
Although a Roll of two fives would mean a failed leadership check for most guardsmen, it is still a double. The order is failed, but every other order is inspired tactics. - incorrect, as it has been pointed out to be Double Sixes is still forces incompetent command - Inspired tactics lets the user automatically issue any order, while incompetent command disables the player from ordering whatsoever.
6. Take Aim! Order:
Spoiler:
Take Aim Gives Guard the Precision Shots "Rule". Technically a rule for characters, this seems to suggest that guardsmen get automatic precision shots because if they actually aim down the barrell, they're deadeyes. (apparently.) HIWPI rolls of 6 are precision shots.
7. Shooting then issuing an order to shoot
Spoiler:
Illegal because orders take place at the start of the turn, before any models may voluntarily shoot.
8. CCS and HWT
Spoiler:
Brassclaw wrote: How many Heavy weapons can you put in CCS? 1 or 2?
One. The entry is very clear about this.
9. Techpriests as ICs
Spoiler:
Atheos wrote: Here's a rule snippet I put in another thread you can add to the first post.
Since Enginseers are now independent characters, you can put them in squads(vets was my idea), hide them in chimeras and advance an armor group up. The 12" potms or whatever it is can be used out of the tank to help the LR's.
Yes? did this need to be asked?
Archive wrote: Does an Engineseer maintain independent character once he takes servitors. In other words, would I be allowed to take two servitors, then attach the Enginseer to my CCS and embark them all in a chimera?
Yes. The option to take servitors does not remove your right to the IC rule.
10. How many LRBT can I field?
Spoiler:
Felmid wrote: Ok my Tank Commander question that I want to throw into this mess is: As stated in the HQ section, A TC “must” take a LR and “must” take at least 1-2 other LR tanks. So if the TC and his 1-2 additional tanks are considered a HQ choice, does this mean that you could potentially field 15 LR battle tanks in your army? (Given you chose two TC as both of your HQ choices.)
Yes.
11. Storm Eagle Rockets have a minimum range
Spoiler:
carp wrote: What's the point of having a minimum range on the Manticore's Storm Eagle Rockets if it can only fire indirectly? Am I missing something?
There's no reason. Fluff.
12. Kurov's Aquila and Transports
Spoiler:
Hollismason wrote: I haven't seen this asked yet I don't think but Kurov's Aquila's ability that all friendly units with in 6" gain preferred enemy, does that still work if that model was embarked on a transport?
Yep. The unit doesn't need to be seen, just within the distance.
13. Heirlooms of Conquest and Tank Commanders
Spoiler:
VladtheVostroyan wrote: Is it possible to give the death mask of Ollanius or Kurov's aquilla to my tank commander?
No.
14. Awaken the machine and chimeras
Spoiler:
Maxurugi wrote: Can an Enginseer use Awaken the Machine out of a Chimera?
Yes.
15. AtMS and Vehicles that are not tanks in AM (Taurox, Taurox Prime, Sentinels of both kind and valkyries/vendettas)
Spoiler:
As Awaken the machine spirit refers specifically to a tank within 12", it cannot be used on a Taurox, Taurox Prime, Sentinels of both kind or valkyries/vendettas, as they do not have the tank type.
16. Commissars and Lord Commissars in the same unit.
You could potentially run into an issue where a commissar is executing Yarrick or vise versa (depending on if you roll a 1 or 2).
No you cannot. You cannot execute a commissar because of this rule, as the rule stops the players from ever executing the (any) commissar.
I'm sorry if I've missed some - It's hard to read every post to find questions. If you have a question, please put it in bold so I can collect them more readily. Thankyou.
Anything I've missed? anything anyone wants to add or dispute? Discuss!
Scipio Africanus wrote: depends on how you define the word "Models". IF Yarrick is still a model while on his side, then maybe.
My sense of object permanence, so lovingly cultivated through over two and a half decades of life, tells me than an object on its side is still the same object.
A cup on its side is still a cup. A table on its side is still a table.
Therefore, I believe it is safe to conclude that a model on its side is still a model.
As Tank Commanders do not have a leadership value, but may be the warlord, it can be assumed their Leadership is comparable to the other potential leader, despite the fact that the Tank Orders Special Rule would suggest that a tank commander should have LD9. They do not outrank Commissars, meaning a Commissar may be your warlord while you have a tank commander.
From the entry on Tank Commanders:
A Tank Commader... can be chosen as your army's Warlord.
This supersedes the "highest LD" requirement, you can just choose the Tank Commander, bypassing the normal selection process for the warlord.
rigeld2 wrote: No, it doesn't. It simply alters the rules saying vehicles can't be warlords.
It doesn't contradict the LD requirement whatsoever.
Where is the rule saying that vehicles cannot be warlords? In fact, I think that vehicles can be warlords even before the AM codex, as rolling a 6 on the "Personal Traits" chart would indicate.
rigeld2 wrote: No, it doesn't. It simply alters the rules saying vehicles can't be warlords.
It doesn't contradict the LD requirement whatsoever.
Where is the rule saying that vehicles cannot be warlords? In fact, I think that vehicles can be warlords even before the AM codex, as rolling a 6 on the "Personal Traits" chart would indicate.
Warlords must be characters.
Vehicles cannot be characters.
Warlords must have the highest LD value.
Vehicles cannot have LD values.
Bjorn was the only vehicle that could be a Warlord, per the FAQ.
We had this discussion about tank companies prior to the newest list that came out.
AM creates a specific exception giving permission for the Tank Commander to be a Warlord, but it does not say that he's exempt from the LD comparison.
Was talking to a friend and they said something about them and Commissars not being able to give order while a platoon command squad could, seemed odd to me.
For Yarrick; unless the wording has changed from the last Codex (I haven't had the chance to look through the new Codex: Meat sacks) it depends on who's side ended the game turn.
I.E Codex: Meat sacks' controller started the game, side B ends their turn after killing Yarrick, the last model. Check; does Codex: Meat Sacks still have a model alive? No? Game over, Meat Sacks were tabled.
If Codex: Meat Sacks went second, when side B ended, Meat Sacks get to see if Yarrick comes back.
Or that's how we've always played it, anyway.
I was pretty sure that's always been the correct way to play.
I don't think we are allowed to post any copyrighted material here, which I think above is.
Also you should put the Engiseer and PotMS with squadrons in here aswell. Does PoTMS allow a tank in a squadron to fire at a different target then the rest of the squadron?
Tanks can be Warlords as the tank commander is a character. also it state's that the tank commander rolls d3 not d6 on the guard warlord trait table. so he can have warlord traits meaning he can be a warlord.
brochtree wrote: Tanks can be Warlords as the tank commander is a character. also it state's that the tank commander rolls d3 not d6 on the guard warlord trait table. so he can have warlord traits meaning he can be a warlord.
The tank commander can be a warlord.
In general, tanks cannot be warlords.
I think arguing that a model with the special rule "can be chosen as a warlord" can't be a warlord is ranging pretty far from even strict RAW, into simply trying to find problems.
I think you guys are missing the point of the argument. It is not that Tank Commanders can't be the warlord, but whether or not they are restricted from doing so by having a higher LDHQ model in the army who must be the warlord.
Polonius wrote: I think arguing that a model with the special rule "can be chosen as a warlord" can't be a warlord is ranging pretty far from even strict RAW, into simply trying to find problems.
Seriously, read what I actually wrote instead of what you think I wrote.
In general, vehicles can't be warlords.
The permission in AM conflicts with this, and so AM's Tank Commander can be a warlord.
There is no permission to avoid the LD comparison, however, so if you have 2 HQs and one isn't a tank, you cannot have a Tank Commander Warlord.
Polonius wrote: I think arguing that a model with the special rule "can be chosen as a warlord" can't be a warlord is ranging pretty far from even strict RAW, into simply trying to find problems.
Seriously, read what I actually wrote instead of what you think I wrote.
In general, vehicles can't be warlords. The permission in AM conflicts with this, and so AM's Tank Commander can be a warlord.
There is no permission to avoid the LD comparison, however, so if you have 2 HQs and one isn't a tank, you cannot have a Tank Commander Warlord.
No, I read it. And the rule still says it can be chosen as a warlord. The text is pretty clear.
I think "A tank commander may be chosen as a warlord" means "A tank commander may be chosen as a warlord".
You think "A tank commander may be chosen as a warlord" means "A tank commander can join the pool of eligible option for Warlord"
I get what you're saying, and that's a good point, but the special rule short circuits the process. You can simply choose the tank to be your warlord.
Polonius wrote: I think arguing that a model with the special rule "can be chosen as a warlord" can't be a warlord is ranging pretty far from even strict RAW, into simply trying to find problems.
Seriously, read what I actually wrote instead of what you think I wrote.
In general, vehicles can't be warlords.
The permission in AM conflicts with this, and so AM's Tank Commander can be a warlord.
There is no permission to avoid the LD comparison, however, so if you have 2 HQs and one isn't a tank, you cannot have a Tank Commander Warlord.
No, I read it. And the rule still says it can be chosen as a warlord. The text is pretty clear.
I think "A tank commander may be chosen as a warlord" means "A tank commander may be chosen as a warlord".
You think "A tank commander may be chosen as a warlord" means "A tank commander can join the pool of eligible option for Warlord"
I get what you're saying, and that's a good point, but the special rule short circuits the process. You can simply choose the tank to be your warlord.
No, it doesn't. You're attempting to ignore a rule (the LD comparison) without permission to ignore it.
Polonius wrote: I think arguing that a model with the special rule "can be chosen as a warlord" can't be a warlord is ranging pretty far from even strict RAW, into simply trying to find problems.
Seriously, read what I actually wrote instead of what you think I wrote.
In general, vehicles can't be warlords. The permission in AM conflicts with this, and so AM's Tank Commander can be a warlord.
There is no permission to avoid the LD comparison, however, so if you have 2 HQs and one isn't a tank, you cannot have a Tank Commander Warlord.
No, I read it. And the rule still says it can be chosen as a warlord. The text is pretty clear.
I think "A tank commander may be chosen as a warlord" means "A tank commander may be chosen as a warlord".
You think "A tank commander may be chosen as a warlord" means "A tank commander can join the pool of eligible option for Warlord"
I get what you're saying, and that's a good point, but the special rule short circuits the process. You can simply choose the tank to be your warlord.
No, it doesn't. You're attempting to ignore a rule (the LD comparison) without permission to ignore it.
If I see a codex specific rule that allows a player to do something, I assume that it overrides all basic rules, not just one. YMMV.
Basically, you have a process for chosing warlords, but in addtion to all other potential candidates, you can chose a tank commander.
I don't have the book with me at work, but does the exact wording mention only that it allows a vehicle to be warlord, or does it simply stated that tank commanders can be chosen as a warlord? If the former, then I'd give your argument more weight. If the latter, I think it's reading more into the rule then is there to say what general rules a specific rule trumps and which it doesn't.
Polonius wrote: If I see a codex specific rule that allows a player to do something, I assume that it overrides all basic rules, not just one. YMMV.
That's not what the BRB says, however. Codex wins when there's a conflict. The only conflict is the fact that (generally) vehicles can't be warlords. The Tank Commander can be a Warlord. That doesn't exempt him from all other Warlord-y type rules, however.
Leman Russ Commander: A Tank Commander starts the game in a Leman Russ tank (pg 46), leading a Leman Russ Squadron. Note that any type of Leman Russ can be taken as the Tank Commander's vehicle, and that it can have any upgrades usually available to that type of tank. The Tank Commander's tank is a character, has Ballistic Skill 4 and can be chosen as your army's Warlord. If his tank is Wrecked or suffers an Explodes! result, the Tank Commander is killed.
A Tank Commander and his Leman Russ Squadron count as an HQ choice for the entire(I assume this is meant to be "entirety") of the battle. The Tank Commander's Leman Russ cannot leave the unit or join another unit, even if the rest of his squadron are destroyed.
The Lord Commissar rule is:
Chain of Command (Lord Commissar only): A Lord Commissar may only be your Warlord if you have no models with the Senior Officer special rule in your primary detachment.
Polonius wrote: If I see a codex specific rule that allows a player to do something, I assume that it overrides all basic rules, not just one. YMMV.
That's not what the BRB says, however.
Codex wins when there's a conflict. The only conflict is the fact that (generally) vehicles can't be warlords. The Tank Commander can be a Warlord. That doesn't exempt him from all other Warlord-y type rules, however.
'
That's why I'm asking for the specific phrase. The wording might actually matter.
Allowing a vehicle to be a warlord is different from allowing it to be chosen as a warlord. It's the difference between saying that something can be a candidate, and something can be selected for a position.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kanluwen wrote: The exact wording on the Tank Commander is this:
Leman Russ Commander: A Tank Commander starts the game in a Leman Russ tank (pg 46), leading a Leman Russ Squadron. Note that any type of Leman Russ can be taken as the Tank Commander's vehicle, and that it can have any upgrades usually available to that type of tank. The Tank Commander's tank is a character, has Ballistic Skill 4 and can be chosen as your army's Warlord. If his tank is Wrecked or suffers an Explodes! result, the Tank Commander is killed.
A Tank Commander and his Leman Russ Squadron count as an HQ choice for the entire(I assume this is meant to be "entirety") of the battle. The Tank Commander's Leman Russ cannot leave the unit or join another unit, even if the rest of his squadron are destroyed.
The Lord Commissar rule is:
Chain of Command (Lord Commissar only): A Lord Commissar may only be your Warlord if you have no models with the Senior Officer special rule in your primary detachment.
Hmm, okay, I'm gonna stick with my interpretation that the a rule that allows a model to be chosen, you know, allows it to be chosen. I don't see anything that leads me to think that would override a rule of eligibility but not a rule of precedence.
Especially since Lord Commissars are so explicit about when they can be warlords.
Polonius wrote: Hmm, okay, I'm gonna stick with my interpretation that the a rule that allows a model to be chosen, you know, allows it to be chosen. I don't see anything that leads me to think that would override a rule of eligibility but not a rule of precedence.
Can my LD9 HQ character model be chosen as Warlord in my army?
What about when I take my LD10 HQ character? No? Why not? But he's allowed to be chosen as a Warlord!
Polonius wrote: Hmm, okay, I'm gonna stick with my interpretation that the a rule that allows a model to be chosen, you know, allows it to be chosen. I don't see anything that leads me to think that would override a rule of eligibility but not a rule of precedence.
Can my LD9 HQ character model be chosen as Warlord in my army?
What about when I take my LD10 HQ character? No? Why not? But he's allowed to be chosen as a Warlord!
Except the Tank Commander does not have an explicit leadership value. Per the rule, he is only a character, has BS4, and can be chosen as the warlord. You can infer that his LD should be nine based on the rules for issuing orders to his squadron, but that is never explicitly told to us. Therefore, you are making an assumption that tank commander LD equals 9 for purposes of choosing warlord.
Without making an assumption about his leadership, all we know is that the tank commander can be chosen as the warlord. The codex therefore gives special permission to override the normal rules for choosing a warlord in the BRB.
Not really. The argument rigeld is advancing is that the tank commander may be chosen as a warlord, however he must still fulfill the requirements in the BRB (i.e. character with highest leadership).
The counter argument is that the tank commander does not actually have a leadership value (you can assume it should be 9 based on the rules for issuing orders, but nowhere are you told that he actually is LD 9 for all rules purposes). Without making an assumption about what his leadership should be, the tank commander rules give you an explicit permission to override the normal rules for selecting a warlord.
Polonius wrote: Hmm, okay, I'm gonna stick with my interpretation that the a rule that allows a model to be chosen, you know, allows it to be chosen. I don't see anything that leads me to think that would override a rule of eligibility but not a rule of precedence.
Can my LD9 HQ character model be chosen as Warlord in my army?
What about when I take my LD10 HQ character? No? Why not? But he's allowed to be chosen as a Warlord!
Except the Tank Commander does not have an explicit leadership value. Per the rule, he is only a character, has BS4, and can be chosen as the warlord. You can infer that his LD should be nine based on the rules for issuing orders to his squadron, but that is never explicitly told to us. Therefore, you are making an assumption that tank commander LD equals 9 for purposes of choosing warlord.
No, I'm not. I'm making a similar comparison in a different codex.
My point was that a LD 9 character is allowed to be chosen as warlord - the same wording as being used here. And Polonius is advocating that the wording "allowed to be chosen as Warlord" (which all HQ characters essentially have) overrides literally all other requirements.
Without making an assumption about his leadership, all we know is that the tank commander can be chosen as the warlord. The codex therefore gives special permission to override the normal rules for choosing a warlord in the BRB.
I'm making zero assumptions about his LD. I'm asserting that since he has no LD, he automatically loses any LD comparison.
Polonius wrote: Hmm, okay, I'm gonna stick with my interpretation that the a rule that allows a model to be chosen, you know, allows it to be chosen. I don't see anything that leads me to think that would override a rule of eligibility but not a rule of precedence.
Can my LD9 HQ character model be chosen as Warlord in my army?
What about when I take my LD10 HQ character? No? Why not? But he's allowed to be chosen as a Warlord!
Well, there is a normal process for choosing warlords. You take all of the HQ characters, and they are the pool of candidates. From those, you select the model with the highest LD, and if there are multiple choices, you select the one you prefer.
Most models do not have any rules relating to being chosen, they simply follow the process.
Notably, Lord Commissars need a special rule to prohibit them from being chosen. The have a rule that states a specific condition for being a warlord.
So, to use your example, the LD9 HQ could never be "chosen" to be the warlord when a LD10 model is in the army. It is eligible to be considered, but choice only occurs once you have a tie for highest LD. It's "eligible," but the LD10 model(s) are the only ones that can be "chosen."
Since choice only occurs once you have narrowed the field to the highest LDHQs, I think that a rule that specifically allows a model to be "chosen" would inset the model into that level of the process. Since you only choose at one point, that's the point that matters, and that's after determining LD values.
rigeld2 wrote: I'm making zero assumptions about his LD. I'm asserting that since he has no LD, he automatically loses any LD comparison.
Based on what rules? Please provide a citation for that assertion. Otherwise, I'll assume your just arguing RAI/HIWPI. The codex gives permission for him to be the warlord. This specific permission overrides the normal rules for selecting a warlord.
If I see a codex specific rule that allows a player to do something, I assume that it overrides all basic rules, not just one. YMMV.
But that is not how the rules work... ever.
To override a rule, you need *specific* permission. An assault vehicle says you can assault after you disembark, but you *still* can't come in from reserves, and disembark, and assault.
PotMS says you can shoot at another target, you *still* must have LoS and it must be in range.
Onslaught lets a unit Run and Shoot in the same phase. If cast on an immobile dread, doesn't let it Run.
Stormraven says it can carry "12 models". That does not let it ignore the Bulky/VeryBulky/etc restrictions.
etc
etc
Any given situation may have multiple conditions or restrictions. Each one needs *specific* permission to be ignored or reversed.
If they wanted to ignore all of them, that would require "may *always* be chosen as warlord".
rigeld2 wrote: I'm making zero assumptions about his LD. I'm asserting that since he has no LD, he automatically loses any LD comparison.
Based on what rules? Please provide a citation for that assertion.
Which - that he has no LD? Read his profile. That a lack of LD means he automatically loses any comparison?
How else could it possibly work? Note that it's not even a 0 LD - it's a complete lack of the statistic.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Polonius wrote: Since choice only occurs once you have narrowed the field to the highest LDHQs, I think that a rule that specifically allows a model to be "chosen" would inset the model into that level of the process. Since you only choose at one point, that's the point that matters, and that's after determining LD values.
So what you're saying is that the rule is irrelevant?
Because the only requirement for a Warlord is to be an HQ character. So if a Tank Commander is your only HQ, the rule literally does nothing.
rigeld2 wrote: I'm making zero assumptions about his LD. I'm asserting that since he has no LD, he automatically loses any LD comparison.
Based on what rules? Please provide a citation for that assertion.
Which - that he has no LD? Read his profile. That a lack of LD means he automatically loses any comparison?
How else could it possibly work? Note that it's not even a 0 LD - it's a complete lack of the statistic.
except, again, the comparison occurs before you choose a warlord. It's a strictly mechanical process, with choice only factoring in when there are multiple models with the same LD.
rigeld2 wrote: I'm making zero assumptions about his LD. I'm asserting that since he has no LD, he automatically loses any LD comparison.
Based on what rules? Please provide a citation for that assertion. Otherwise, I'll assume your just arguing RAI/HIWPI. The codex gives permission for him to be the warlord. This specific permission overrides the normal rules for selecting a warlord.
There is specific permission that he can be warlord, not that he can always be warlord.
Restrictions/conditions for warlord
Be a character
Have the highest leadership
The Tank Commander rule lets you bypass the first one, but says nothing about the second one.
There is specific permission that he can be warlord, not that he can always be warlord.
Restrictions/conditions for warlord
Be a character
Have the highest leadership
The Tank Commander rule lets you bypass the first one, but says nothing about the second one.
Well, the part that makes him a character would bypass the first one. Specifically adding "may be chosen as a warlord" is then either extraneous, or would bypass the second one.
Regarding the tank commander as warlord if you have an LD 10 HQ with him, where does it list the tank commander's leadership?
Sure, it says that his orders go off on a 9 or lower, but was he listed as having a Leadership, specifically? If not, then the LD comparison fails. He doesn't have one, right?
Here's a rule snippet I put in another thread you can add to the first post.
Since Enginseers are now independent characters, you can put them in squads(vets was my idea), hide them in chimeras and advance an armor group up. The 12" potms or whatever it is can be used out of the tank to help the LR's.
No, in that it would not allow you do anything you could to before.
Please explain how a model with no leadership value (note - not 0 but a complete lack of Leadership) is eligible to be Warlord without that rule.
If the model has no LD value, how can you show which is highest ? Its not a zero value, so it does not interact in a straight forward way with the Warlord rule.
No, in that it would not allow you do anything you could to before.
Please explain how a model with no leadership value (note - not 0 but a complete lack of Leadership) is eligible to be Warlord without that rule.
Having a leadership isn't a requisite to be a warlord, as you stated. It's part of the process for selecting a warlord, but it's not an actual requirement.
There are two concepts here. What is eligible to become a warlord, and how a warlord is chosen.
Warlords, IIRC, must be HQ choices that are characters. That's all that is required to serve as Warlord.
the Selection process then cuts directly to the highest leadership, with the player chosing among those models with the highest.
Now, if they did not have the rule that you could chose them, they would never be warlords, because they would never have the highest LD.
As a theoretical aside, I'm not sure what would happen without that rule, if you simply took two Tank Commanders. Practically speaking, two models with no LD are each the highest, but not mathematically speaking.
No, in that it would not allow you do anything you could to before.
Please explain how a model with no leadership value (note - not 0 but a complete lack of Leadership) is eligible to be Warlord without that rule.
Having a leadership isn't a requisite to be a warlord, as you stated. It's part of the process for selecting a warlord, but it's not an actual requirement.
There are two concepts here. What is eligible to become a warlord, and how a warlord is chosen.
Warlords, IIRC, must be HQ choices that are characters. That's all that is required to serve as Warlord.
the Selection process then cuts directly to the highest leadership, with the player chosing among those models with the highest.
Now, if they did not have the rule that you could chose them, they would never be warlords, because they would never have the highest LD.
As a theoretical aside, I'm not sure what would happen without that rule, if you simply took two Tank Commanders. Practically speaking, two models with no LD are each the highest, but not mathematically speaking.
Just as Tyranid's can have a tervigon as their only hq and it's not a character so they would have no warlord, and Iyanden can have a Wraithknight as warlord but it is not a character and since i still have to take a hq the knight would never be able to be taken as the warlord since it doesn't bypass all the restrictions any hq model would have to be the warlord.
No, in that it would not allow you do anything you could to before.
Please explain how a model with no leadership value (note - not 0 but a complete lack of Leadership) is eligible to be Warlord without that rule.
If the model has no LD value, how can you show which is highest ? Its not a zero value, so it does not interact in a straight forward way with the Warlord rule.
When you compare an apple to an orange in a contest of who has more apples, the orange loses every time.
When you compare a model with Leadership to a model without in a contest of the highest leadership, the model without loses every time.
Polonius wrote:Having a leadership isn't a requisite to be a warlord, as you stated. It's part of the process for selecting a warlord, but it's not an actual requirement.
Only if you assume you're allowed to skip the process. You have yet to prove it - you're simply assuming that.
Warlords, IIRC, must be HQ choices that are characters. That's all that is required to serve as Warlord.
Incorrect. It must be the HQ character with the highest Leadership.
This is always the HQ choice character with the highest Leadership.
Now, if they did not have the rule that you could chose them, they would never be warlords, because they would never have the highest LD.
... Which is what I said. The rule bypasses this restriction. That's all it does. It does not bypass every restriction.
As a theoretical aside, I'm not sure what would happen without that rule, if you simply took two Tank Commanders. Practically speaking, two models with no LD are each the highest, but not mathematically speaking.
You'd compare Leadership scores. Neither is higher than the other so you can choose.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
nosferatu1001 wrote: 3) as per the unit entry he has ld-, which I thought was ld0? .
The Tank Commander profile actually has a LD value?
That'd simplify things and prove my statement correct actually.
Yep, page 92. Ld- fairly certain means same as ld0
A ld0 character will always lose against a. Ld9 character. Vehicles cannot be your warlord, per FAQ, so the specific allowance to choose him as a warlord can only override that specific restriction
A ld0 character will always lose against a. Ld9 character. Vehicles cannot be your warlord, per FAQ, so the specific allowance to choose him as a warlord can only override that specific restriction
Yes, - is the same as 0.
Meaning that if you have literally any other HQ (other than potentially a Lord Commissar - not sure on those rules so won't speak to them) the Tank Commander cannot be Warlord.
Chimeras can target 4 different units, 5 with PotMS.
Lasgun Arrays are a special rule, not a weapon and so cannot be destroyed by weapon destroyed results.
Lasgun arrays can be fired at cruising speed, but not at flat out because flat out forces one to forgo shooting.
Because this is a special rule, Lasgun arrays do not count towards the total number of weapons fired by the tank.
1) No. The Chimera can fire at 2 different targets with PotMS, the embarked troops may then fire on three targets with arrays + fire points.
2) yes, while they are a special rule that uses weapons they are not "the vehicles weapons"
3) Yes and no. They do not count, but not because they are a special rule, rather because they are fired by the passengers.
2. Smoke Launchers
Spoiler:
While any tank can buy extra smoke launchers through the AM vehicle gear chart, they are only able to use them once given that the Smoke Launcher rule is specificaly "Once per game, a model armed with smoke launchers"
I agree
3. Tank Commanders as your warlord:
Spoiler:
As Tank Commanders do not have a leadership value, but may be the warlord, it can be assumed their Leadership is comparable to the other potential leader, despite the fact that the Tank Orders Special Rule would suggest that a tank commander should have LD9. They do not outrank Commissars, meaning a Commissar may be your warlord while you have a tank commander.
It is confusing, discuss it with your opponent. Your Ld-less Character Tank(Yes Rigeld vehicles can be Characters, and the Tank commander/pask is specifically character) has the ability to become warlord. If you just have a tank commander as HQ he would already be warlord being the HQ character with the highest Ld(nonexistent), So we can assume the rule means the tank can be warlord when it is not the only HQ. Bjorn the fell handed is another Vehicle character HQ that can be warlord when there are nbo other HQs, so we have precedent for this.
4. Commissar Yarrick:
Spoiler:
Despite the fact that Commissar Yarrick's rules Chain of Command and Senior Officer would ensure that yarrick can never be your warlord, (and that you would need a company command squad to indeed have a warlord), it is safe to assume this is simply an oversight and Yarrick is allowed to be a Draconian disciplinarian despite this rule discrepancy. Yarrick must be the warlord if your other HQ is also a Lord Commissar, because of the Chain of Command Special Rule.
I'm not sure how to play the Iron Will if his army has been wiped - he comes back in your next turn, which means that you have no models on the field at the beginning of your turn - you are tabled before Yarrick can come back.
1) Chain of command is presumptive that the model with the rule will not have Senior officer at the same time. It is not that much of a leap to allow the 1 model with both and a Warlord trait to be the warlord if there is no other Senior officer HQs. Yes Yarrick and a Lord commissar would default to yarrick as your warlord.
commissar would default
2) I have no idea.
5. Tactical Auto Reliquary:
Spoiler:
Although a Roll of two fives would mean a failed leadership check for most guardsmen, it is still a double. The order is failed, but every other order is inspired tactics.
Double Sixes is still forces incompetent command - Inspired tactics lets the user automatically issue any order, while incompetent command disables the player from ordering whatsoever.
the reliquary wrote:When rolling Leadership tests for orders issued by an officer with the Tactical Auto-Reliquary, any successful Leadership test that results in a double will count as Inspired Tactics.
Double 5s and Double 6s are not inspired tactics, they are not Successful Leadership tests. Same goes for double 4s on HWS
6. Take Aim! Order:
Spoiler:
Take Aim Gives Guard the Precision Shots "Rule". Technically a rule for characters, this seems to suggest that guardsmen get automatic precision shots because if they actually aim down the barrell, they're deadeyes. (apparently.) HIWPI rolls of 6 are precision shots.
Precision Shots is both a Special rule for Characters and the effect within that Rule. This Order gives the unit the Special rule so you need to roll the 6 to hit to get the Precision Shots effect.
7. Shooting then issuing an order to shoot
Spoiler:
Illegal because orders take place at the start of the turn, before any models may voluntarily shoot.
Wholly agree, note though that you may(and in these cases have to) interrupt Orders with certain units Shooting. These are the Orders that require the unit to shoot.
Kommissar Kel wrote: It is confusing, discuss it with your opponent. Your Ld-less Character Tank(Yes Rigeld vehicles can be Characters, and the Tank commander/pask is specifically character) has the ability to become warlord. If you just have a tank commander as HQ he would already be warlord being the HQ character with the highest Ld(nonexistent), So we can assume the rule means the tank can be warlord when it is not the only HQ. Bjorn the fell handed is another Vehicle character HQ that can be warlord when there are nbo other HQs, so we have precedent for this.
Note that 0 is different from nonexistent. According to nos, he is LD - which, according to the BRB (p3) is synonymous with 0.
Ok my Tank Commander question that I want to throw into this mess is:
As stated in the HQ section, A TC “must” take a LR and “must” take at least 1-2 other LR tanks. So if the TC and his 1-2 additional tanks are considered a HQ choice, does this mean that you could potentially field 15 LR battle tanks in your army? (Given you chose two TC as both of your HQ choices.)
No, in that it would not allow you do anything you could to before.
Please explain how a model with no leadership value (note - not 0 but a complete lack of Leadership) is eligible to be Warlord without that rule.
Having a leadership isn't a requisite to be a warlord, as you stated. It's part of the process for selecting a warlord, but it's not an actual requirement.
There are two concepts here. What is eligible to become a warlord, and how a warlord is chosen.
Warlords, IIRC, must be HQ choices that are characters. That's all that is required to serve as Warlord.
the Selection process then cuts directly to the highest leadership, with the player chosing among those models with the highest.
Now, if they did not have the rule that you could chose them, they would never be warlords, because they would never have the highest LD.
As a theoretical aside, I'm not sure what would happen without that rule, if you simply took two Tank Commanders. Practically speaking, two models with no LD are each the highest, but not mathematically speaking.
There's one more requirement for a HQ, that has been ignored: If Tank Commander can be your Warlord, does that include scenarios, when he isn't part of your Primary Detachment? My Chaos Space Marines could use a tougher, Leman Russ riding Leader. The Question isn't serious, but implications of ignoring all other restrictions of being Warlord is.
Kommissar Kel wrote: It is confusing, discuss it with your opponent. Your Ld-less Character Tank(Yes Rigeld vehicles can be Characters, and the Tank commander/pask is specifically character) has the ability to become warlord. If you just have a tank commander as HQ he would already be warlord being the HQ character with the highest Ld(nonexistent), So we can assume the rule means the tank can be warlord when it is not the only HQ. Bjorn the fell handed is another Vehicle character HQ that can be warlord when there are nbo other HQs, so we have precedent for this.
Note that 0 is different from nonexistent. According to nos, he is LD - which, according to the BRB (p3) is synonymous with 0.
I would not apply a Ld- or 0 to a vehicle, they simply lack the stat.
Start applying Ld-/0 and you have to start taking vehicles off the field as destroyed the second you deploy it as it has T-/0, or W-/0.
In short Nos is wrong, not having the stat in your profile at all does not equate to -/0.
Happyjew wrote: I'm guessing that nos was referring to the statline posted for the Tank Commander/Pask (not his tank), which has a "-" for every stat except for BS.
Which is One of the Stupidest entries I have ever seen. They should have handled it Like the IA1 Armoured Company entry(just list the figgin tanks)
Kommissar Kel wrote: It is confusing, discuss it with your opponent. Your Ld-less Character Tank(Yes Rigeld vehicles can be Characters, and the Tank commander/pask is specifically character) has the ability to become warlord. If you just have a tank commander as HQ he would already be warlord being the HQ character with the highest Ld(nonexistent), So we can assume the rule means the tank can be warlord when it is not the only HQ. Bjorn the fell handed is another Vehicle character HQ that can be warlord when there are nbo other HQs, so we have precedent for this.
Note that 0 is different from nonexistent. According to nos, he is LD - which, according to the BRB (p3) is synonymous with 0.
I would not apply a Ld- or 0 to a vehicle, they simply lack the stat.
I'm not. Please quote the profile from page 92 for the Tank Commander.
You're saying the LD stat doesn't exist. He says the profile includes a LD -.
Happyjew wrote: I'm guessing that nos was referring to the statline posted for the Tank Commander/Pask (not his tank), which has a "-" for every stat except for BS.
Which is One of the Stupidest entries I have ever seen. They should have handled it Like the IA1 Armoured Company entry(just list the figgin tanks)
... so because it's stupid it shouldn't apply? That's a great argument </sarcasm>
Felmid wrote: Ok my Tank Commander question that I want to throw into this mess is:
As stated in the HQ section, A TC “must” take a LR and “must” take at least 1-2 other LR tanks. So if the TC and his 1-2 additional tanks are considered a HQ choice, does this mean that you could potentially field 15 LR battle tanks in your army? (Given you chose two TC as both of your HQ choices.)
30 if you're playing double force org and playing in an apocalypse sized game without using apoc rules...
OK then this is what happens when you take a Tank Commander: You pay 30 Points and then Pay for your Leman Russ chosen as the Tank Commanders Tank, you then Pay for a second to third Leman russ in that squadron.
You now have a Leman Russ that is chosen as the commanders tank that gets Character added to it, has BS, and can be chosen as your warlord. This is all following the rules under "Tank Commander"
The "Tank Commander" unit Entry has no model itself so you just pay the points and follow the bestiary rules and then while deploying your army you also place your "Tank Commander" Unit entry model on the field and immediately remove him.
The Tank Commander Unit Entry model, and his Profile have no bearing on the rest of the game, in fact he is neither a model nor a unit since he has no unit type.
Oh, I almost forgot to mention: There are no Tank Orders since they are on the Tank Commander, and not the Tank Commander's Tank.
Kommissar Kel wrote: The Tank Commander Unit Entry model, and his Profile have no bearing on the rest of the game, in fact he is neither a model nor a unit since he has no unit type.
Actually he does have a Unit Type - Tank, Heavy (Character)
Kommissar Kel wrote: The "Tank Commander" unit Entry has no model itself so you just pay the points and follow the bestiary rules and then while deploying your army you also place your "Tank Commander" Unit entry model on the field and immediately remove him.
The Tank Commander Unit Entry model, and his Profile have no bearing on the rest of the game, in fact he is neither a model nor a unit since he has no unit type.
Oh, I almost forgot to mention: There are no Tank Orders since they are on the Tank Commander, and not the Tank Commander's Tank.
Kommissar Kel wrote: The Tank Commander Unit Entry model, and his Profile have no bearing on the rest of the game, in fact he is neither a model nor a unit since he has no unit type.
Actually he does have a Unit Type - Tank, Heavy (Character)
Sorry Typing while dealing with Children.
So you bring 2-3 Leman Russes and 1 Extra Tank model(does not matter what it looks like there is no official model) that immediately gets removed for having T0 and W0 for every Tank Commander you bring to the field. There are no Tank Orders but your Designated Leman Russ gets all the rest of the benefits.
Kommissar Kel wrote: The Tank Commander Unit Entry model, and his Profile have no bearing on the rest of the game, in fact he is neither a model nor a unit since he has no unit type.
Actually he does have a Unit Type - Tank, Heavy (Character)
Sorry Typing while dealing with Children.
So you bring 2-3 Leman Russes and 1 Extra Tank model(does not matter what it looks like there is no official model) that immediately gets removed for having T0 and W0 for every Tank Commander you bring to the field. There are no Tank Orders but your Designated Leman Russ gets all the rest of the benefits.
So let's pretend you actually want to discuss things.
Pure RAW - yes. Just like Wraith-style units can't shoot or assault. Or, we don't have any rules to determine how to combine profiles.
Minimum-required-obvious-RAI - Wraith-style units can shoot. The models stay on the board and there are Tank orders. Please cite your basis for assuming that while the BS confers, no other stat does and that LD is still non-existent.
Kommissar Kel wrote: The "Tank Commander" unit Entry has no model itself so you just pay the points and follow the bestiary rules and then while deploying your army you also place your "Tank Commander" Unit entry model on the field and immediately remove him.
The Tank Commander Unit Entry model, and his Profile have no bearing on the rest of the game, in fact he is neither a model nor a unit since he has no unit type.
Oh, I almost forgot to mention: There are no Tank Orders since they are on the Tank Commander, and not the Tank Commander's Tank.
Sigh...
Sigh indeed. Here are the exact rules: Leman Russ Commander: A Tank Commander starts the game in a Leman Russ tank, leading a Leman Russ Squadron. Note that any type of Leman Russ can be taken as the Tank Commander’s vehicle, and that it can have any upgrades usually available to that type of tank. The Tank Commander’s tank is a character, has Ballistic Skill 4 and can be chosen as your army’s Warlord. If his tank is Wrecked or suffers an Explodes! result, the Tank Commander is killed.
A Tank Commander and his Leman Russ Squadron count as an HQ choice for the entire of the battle. The Tank Commander’s Leman Russ cannot leave the unit or join another unit, even if the rest of his squadron are destroyed.
So does the Russ have: 1) both stats and is immediately removed from play? 2) Just the vehicle stats with the special rules and we ignore the stupid non-vehicle profile and everything works just fine? 3) Bring the extra Tank Commander Tank that starts in the leman Russ and is immediately itself removed destroyed as soon as it is deployed(with the Tank orders rule being a waste of ink)?
The highlighted in the rule is why the tank has BS4 without the stupid non-vehicle profile
Kommissar Kel wrote: The "Tank Commander" unit Entry has no model itself so you just pay the points and follow the bestiary rules and then while deploying your army you also place your "Tank Commander" Unit entry model on the field and immediately remove him.
The Tank Commander Unit Entry model, and his Profile have no bearing on the rest of the game, in fact he is neither a model nor a unit since he has no unit type.
Oh, I almost forgot to mention: There are no Tank Orders since they are on the Tank Commander, and not the Tank Commander's Tank.
Sigh...
Sigh indeed. Here are the exact rules:
Leman Russ Commander: A Tank Commander starts the game in a Leman Russ tank, leading a Leman Russ Squadron. Note that any type of Leman Russ can be taken as the Tank Commander’s vehicle, and that it can have any upgrades usually available to that type of tank. The Tank Commander’s tank is a character, has Ballistic Skill 4 and can be chosen as your army’s Warlord. If his tank is Wrecked or suffers an Explodes! result, the Tank Commander is killed.
2) Just the vehicle stats with the special rules and we ignore the stupid non-vehicle profile and everything works just fine?
Why are we required to ignore the entirety of the non-vehicle profile?
Or is that another assumption you're making?
Because the profiles existence gives us 1 of 2 options:
1) Go by pure RAW, Have a Tank Commander Vehicle tank start inside of the Leman Russ Exhibit-style and get immediately removed as a casualty for having a -/0T and W, giving up Tank Orders
2) Go by the clearly intended RAI(and making the unit playable) and ignore the profile/unit entry just applying the rules(and giving the Tank commanders Tank Tank Orders in the same manner we changed some of its stats)
Already fairly expensive Pask becomes doubly expensive and worthless when you use the RAW since the other 2 benefits he brings also get removed at deployment.
Kommissar Kel wrote: 2) Go by the clearly intended RAI(and making the unit playable) and ignore the profile/unit entry just applying the rules(and giving the Tank commanders Tank Tank Orders in the same manner we changed some of its stats)
And why is it, quote, "clearly intended" that only one stat moves over when there's another stat that's very important rules-wise for a Warlord?
Already fairly expensive Pask becomes doubly expensive and worthless when you use the RAW since the other 2 benefits he brings also get removed at deployment.
Which isn't what I'm saying to do at all. Yay strawman?
Kommissar Kel wrote: Because that statline removes that model from play the moment it hits the field.
In its entirety... The BS is included, but that's the only part of it you're willing to include ... why?
Regardless, let's move past this because it's not that relevant.
Your last statement before this tangent was:
So we can assume the rule means the tank can be warlord when it is not the only HQ. Bjorn the fell handed is another Vehicle character HQ that can be warlord when there are nbo other HQs, so we have precedent for this.
Bjorn is a specific exception - and I'm not sure he can be warlord when there are other HQs around (since the FAQs are down...).
You need specific allowance to do what you're asserting, and you don't have it.
Kommissar Kel wrote: Because that statline removes that model from play the moment it hits the field. Please re-read page 3 of the BRB, Zero level Statistics.
Actually, I brought this up in another thread (and was corrected). In order to be removed those stats have to be reduced to 0. Otherwise, Artillery guns would be removed immediately.
If Yarrick is killed in the bottom of the turn, and you have no other models on the board, you would lose.
If Yarrick is killed in the top of the turn, and you have no other models on the board, you have 1 chance to keep the game going.
I don't think it has any bearing when Yarrick is killed. You are specifically told not to remove Yarrick from the table unless and until he fails his Iron Will roll. Speaking incredibly technically, this would also mean he remains locked in close combat if that was where he was killed, preventing the enemy unit from consolidating as they are still in base contact with an enemy model and in fact forcing them to make pile-in moves to his corpse if no other models are in the combat. Only when he got up would he be moved out of base contact and thus combat.
Kommissar Kel wrote: Because that statline removes that model from play the moment it hits the field. Please re-read page 3 of the BRB, Zero level Statistics.
Actually, I brought this up in another thread (and was corrected). In order to be removed those stats have to be reduced to 0. Otherwise, Artillery guns would be removed immediately.
Ld- would be reduced to 0. You would just do better to accept that the rules on page 3 are basic rules, whereas other unit can have advanced rules that pg 3 doesnt cover.
Kommissar Kel wrote: Because that statline removes that model from play the moment it hits the field. Please re-read page 3 of the BRB, Zero level Statistics.
Actually, I brought this up in another thread (and was corrected). In order to be removed those stats have to be reduced to 0. Otherwise, Artillery guns would be removed immediately.
Ld- would be reduced to 0. You would just do better to accept that the rules on page 3 are basic rules, whereas other unit can have advanced rules that pg 3 doesnt cover.
rigeld2 wrote: No, it doesn't. It simply alters the rules saying vehicles can't be warlords.
It doesn't contradict the LD requirement whatsoever.
Where is the rule saying that vehicles cannot be warlords? In fact, I think that vehicles can be warlords even before the AM codex, as rolling a 6 on the "Personal Traits" chart would indicate.
Warlords must be characters.
Vehicles cannot be characters.
Warlords must have the highest LD value.
Vehicles cannot have LD values.
Bjorn was the only vehicle that could be a Warlord, per the FAQ.
We had this discussion about tank companies prior to the newest list that came out.
AM creates a specific exception giving permission for the Tank Commander to be a Warlord, but it does not say that he's exempt from the LD comparison.
Except that tank commanders are characters, and longstrikes a character, and chronus is a character...
nosferatu1001 wrote: No, not even close. I assume you remove artillery immediately then?
And space marines cant fire because they have no "eyes".....
No, Artillery has its own set of rules which simply enough clarify how it interacts with everything else. Much like the tank commander having a stat line that pretty much just raises the BS to 4 and lets it be a warlord. You cannot mesh a infantry model profile (commander) with a tank (vehicle) so you have to accept that certain things work. Otherwise you have extremes in RAW like Kel was trying to demonstrate.
No, in that it would not allow you do anything you could to before.
Please explain how a model with no leadership value (note - not 0 but a complete lack of Leadership) is eligible to be Warlord without that rule.
Having a leadership isn't a requisite to be a warlord, as you stated. It's part of the process for selecting a warlord, but it's not an actual requirement.
There are two concepts here. What is eligible to become a warlord, and how a warlord is chosen.
Warlords, IIRC, must be HQ choices that are characters. That's all that is required to serve as Warlord.
the Selection process then cuts directly to the highest leadership, with the player chosing among those models with the highest.
Now, if they did not have the rule that you could chose them, they would never be warlords, because they would never have the highest LD.
As a theoretical aside, I'm not sure what would happen without that rule, if you simply took two Tank Commanders. Practically speaking, two models with no LD are each the highest, but not mathematically speaking.
There's one more requirement for a HQ, that has been ignored: If Tank Commander can be your Warlord, does that include scenarios, when he isn't part of your Primary Detachment? My Chaos Space Marines could use a tougher, Leman Russ riding Leader. The Question isn't serious, but implications of ignoring all other restrictions of being Warlord is.
Your warlord is always from your primary detachment, so no.
nosferatu1001 wrote: No, not even close. I assume you remove artillery immediately then?
And space marines cant fire because they have no "eyes".....
No, Artillery has its own set of rules which simply enough clarify how it interacts with everything else. Much like the tank commander having a stat line that pretty much just raises the BS to 4 and lets it be a warlord. You cannot mesh a infantry model profile (commander) with a tank (vehicle) so you have to accept that certain things work. Otherwise you have extremes in RAW like Kel was trying to demonstrate.
Again, you cut out the part of the quote proving your argument wrong.
Don't quote out of context, it's rude and a poor way to argue.
nosferatu1001 wrote: ...and there is an FAQ stating vehicles can't be the warlord. Is long strike an HQ character? Does he have specific allowance to be the warlord?
No. But Pask is specifically intended to be a warlord, given that he has a Warlord trait.
nosferatu1001 wrote: ...and there is an FAQ stating vehicles can't be the warlord. Is long strike an HQ character? Does he have specific allowance to be the warlord?
No. But Pask is specifically intended to be a warlord, given that he has a Warlord trait.
And indeed, has a specific allowance to BE a warlord, as he is a tank commander.
He does not, however, have any allowance to ignore the requirement that the warlord has the highest leadership of any eligible hq character, so cannot be a warlord if a ccs, lord commisar etc are present.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
nosferatu1001 wrote:
Fragile wrote: Your trying to make a difference where there really is none.
What happens if you enfeeble a Artillery piece then, does it got to -1
So being reduced to, and being already at, are equivalent statements?
No, not even close. I assume you remove artillery immediately then?
I bolded the section you felt was worth removing from the quote that refutes, handily, your comparison to strict raw
nosferatu1001 wrote: ...and there is an FAQ stating vehicles can't be the warlord. Is long strike an HQ character? Does he have specific allowance to be the warlord?
No. But Pask is specifically intended to be a warlord, given that he has a Warlord trait.
And indeed, has a specific allowance to BE a warlord, as he is a tank commander.
He does not, however, have any allowance to ignore the requirement that the warlord has the highest leadership of any eligible hq character, so cannot be a warlord if a ccs, lord commisar etc are present.
I obviously can't dispute this as written rules, but I believe it's not the intention, so HIWPI, (note, HIWPI, if there's no FAQ) a Tank Commander is the equivalent of a company commander in Leadership, so he can be warlord if the other HQ choice is LD9, but not 10.
nosferatu1001 wrote: ...and there is an FAQ stating vehicles can't be the warlord. Is long strike an HQ character? Does he have specific allowance to be the warlord?
This is the second time you have said this.
Which FAQ, it is in neither the BRB nor the SW.
Longstrike is a heavy Support SC so could not be a warlord anyways.
nosferatu1001 wrote: I don't think it's at all the intention : the message of sixth is that vehicles are inferior to non:- vehicles. Consistently. Why is this different?
I'm using the deduction that the Tank Commander has LD9.
nosferatu1001 wrote: I don't think it's at all the intention : the message of sixth is that vehicles are inferior to non:- vehicles. Consistently. Why is this different?
I'm using the deduction that the Tank Commander has LD9.
We'll see when the FA- nevermind.
It has no LD value.
Just like the GK's vehicles don't have a LD value... except only when they make that test to ignore stuns.
The question is: Does the Codex override that BRB's requirement that the warlord must be the one with the highest leadership...
Isn't this a case where the codex trumps the BRB simply because it's so specific?
nosferatu1001 wrote: No, not even close. I assume you remove artillery immediately then?
And space marines cant fire because they have no "eyes".....
No, Artillery has its own set of rules which simply enough clarify how it interacts with everything else. Much like the tank commander having a stat line that pretty much just raises the BS to 4 and lets it be a warlord. You cannot mesh a infantry model profile (commander) with a tank (vehicle) so you have to accept that certain things work. Otherwise you have extremes in RAW like Kel was trying to demonstrate.
Again, you cut out the part of the quote proving your argument wrong.
Don't quote out of context, it's rude and a poor way to argue.
Well since you felt like quoting me twice on this. Being reduced to or at zero does not matter. Once you are at 0, you are done. So yes, pure RAW, artillery pieces are removed from play immediately. And since you felt like bringing that up, I quoted it as a comparison to pure RAW stupidity of the "eyes" argument. It is clearly unintended and Artillery has their own specific set of rule that clearly does not need a S characteristic. Just like Vehicles use a completely different set of Characteristics and LD is not one of them. Therefore you are trying to compare a Vehicle with permission to be warlord to a HQ character, when as Rigeld says, you have apples to oranges. So therefore the simple basic rule does not apply and you have to take the codex rule into consideration. Permission to be the warlord is granted through codex rule.
The question is: Does the Codex override that BRB's requirement that the warlord must be the one with the highest leadership...
Isn't this a case where the codex trumps the BRB simply because it's so specific?
That's my take. The plain reading seems to indicate that a player can simply chose it as a warlord.
That assumes that GW meant for tank warlords, even in armies with a CCS.
Assuming you can't assumes that GW remembered the rules for choosing warlords, remembered that vehicles don't have LD, and used that backdoor rule to not allow tank Warlords when there is any other HQ in the army.
A commissar's execution rule says when a test is failed, he shoots someone and it's treated as having been passed.
So say you cause a squad to fall back, say from a close combat or shooting or the like.
If you were to shoot them again in the following turn while they're still falling back, you force another morale check which the BRB says they auto-fail (a unit falling back forced to make a check auto-fails).
With a commissar in the unit, the unit fails its morale test - but then he shoots someone and they count as having passed? It's not a reroll or something that would be trumped, it seems, by an auto-fail as it's an ability that takes place BECAUSE you have, after any rerolls and such, finally come to a result of "failure".
So shooting or charging a squad of guard that are falling back with a commissar = you make them rally?
Spellbound wrote: A commissar's execution rule says when a test is failed, he shoots someone and it's treated as having been passed.
So say you cause a squad to fall back, say from a close combat or shooting or the like.
If you were to shoot them again in the following turn while they're still falling back, you force another morale check which the BRB says they auto-fail (a unit falling back forced to make a check auto-fails).
With a commissar in the unit, the unit fails its morale test - but then he shoots someone and they count as having passed? It's not a reroll or something that would be trumped, it seems, by an auto-fail as it's an ability that takes place BECAUSE you have, after any rerolls and such, finally come to a result of "failure".
So shooting or charging a squad of guard that are falling back with a commissar = you make them rally?
They lose a man, then pass the test. Summary execution comes into effect when a morale check is failed. So, they fail the morale check, then it is passed because of the SE special rule.
To answer your question, Yes. They just lose a bloke. It doesn't matter - if they DIDN'T regroup when they failed that morale check, they'd just lose a dude next turn to do so anyway.
Here's a better one. Commissar's with 3 dudes. He Summarily executes a bloke for a pinning check, brining his squad below 25% of turn starting size. Do they take a casualties morale check?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Here's another one.
If a Priest fails his war hymn leadership check, can you execute a dude to automatically pass that leadership check?
Scipio Africanus wrote: Here's a better one. Commissar's with 3 dudes. He Summarily executes a bloke for a pinning check, brining his squad below 25% of turn starting size. Do they take a casualties morale check?
Yup, if a unit loses 25% or more in a single move or shoot phase, then they make a morale check at the end of that phase. Taking a gamble there.
Kanluwen wrote: The exact wording on the Tank Commander is this:
Leman Russ Commander: A Tank Commander starts the game in a Leman Russ tank (pg 46), leading a Leman Russ Squadron. Note that any type of Leman Russ can be taken as the Tank Commander's vehicle, and that it can have any upgrades usually available to that type of tank. The Tank Commander's tank is a character, has Ballistic Skill 4 and can be chosen as your army's Warlord. If his tank is Wrecked or suffers an Explodes! result, the Tank Commander is killed.
A Tank Commander and his Leman Russ Squadron count as an HQ choice for the entire(I assume this is meant to be "entirety") of the battle. The Tank Commander's Leman Russ cannot leave the unit or join another unit, even if the rest of his squadron are destroyed.
The Lord Commissar rule is:
Chain of Command (Lord Commissar only): A Lord Commissar may only be your Warlord if you have no models with the Senior Officer special rule in your primary detachment.
so if the tank commander can't leave the unit, does that mean if you immobilize one of the other russ's that the tank commander is stuck with it?
is he just a character or a IC? as only IC can join and leave units, it seems an odd thing to mention for a character.
sirlynchmob wrote: so if the tank commander can't leave the unit, does that mean if you immobilize one of the other russ's that the tank commander is stuck with it?
sirlynchmob wrote: so if the tank commander can't leave the unit, does that mean if you immobilize one of the other russ's that the tank commander is stuck with it?
'Abandoning Squadron-mates', page 77 of the BRB.
The Tank Commander's Leman Russ cannot leave the unit or join another unit, even if the rest of his squadron are destroyed.
or are you saying, Judge I didn't leave my wife, I abandoned her?
Ghaz wrote: Try reading the rule please. The squadron is leaving the immobilized tank behind. The Tank Commander is still in the unit.
What if the Tank Commander is the one who is immobilized?
That would be debatable because it would be the unit leaving the Tank Commander, not the Tank Commander leaving the unit. Plus, fluff-wise a bodyguard shouldn't leave their charge just because he's immobilized.
Ghaz wrote: Try reading the rule please. The squadron is leaving the immobilized tank behind. The Tank Commander is still in the unit.
A Tank Commander and his Leman Russ Squadron count as an HQ choice
So if the tank commander is your warlord with 2 russ's, then the TC and a russ leave another russ.
Then is your HQ choice now just the TC and the 1 russ or do you still need to destroy the one that gets abandoned for slay the warlord? As the TC & 1 russ would be the current TC and his leman russ squadron.
Ghaz wrote: Try reading the rule please. The squadron is leaving the immobilized tank behind. The Tank Commander is still in the unit.
A Tank Commander and his Leman Russ Squadron count as an HQ choice
So if the tank commander is your warlord with 2 russ's, then the TC and a russ leave another russ.
Then is your HQ choice now just the TC and the 1 russ or do you still need to destroy the one that gets abandoned for slay the warlord? As the TC & 1 russ would be the current TC and his leman russ squadron.
Why would you? Do you need to kill every Veteran (and Officers) in a CCS to get it? Also, once you abandon a squad mate they are different units.
BRB. pg 111 When choosing your army, you must nominate one model to be your Warlord. This is always the HQ choice character with the highest leadership.
Leman Russ Commander: A Tank Commander starts the game in a Leman Russ tank (pg 46), leading a Leman Russ Squadron. Note that any type of Leman Russ can be taken as the Tank Commander's vehicle, and that it can have any upgrades usually available to that type of tank. The Tank Commander's tank is a character, has Ballistic Skill 4 and can be chosen as your army's Warlord. If his tank is Wrecked or suffers an Explodes! result, the Tank Commander is killed.
The base rule for warlord offers no choice... it just determines the model that is the warlord (it only offers a choice in the second sentence IF there is a tie). The tank commander rules gives you the choice of making it commander. Period end of story. That seems like a pretty cut and dry case of Codex specifically conflicting with and thus taking precedence over the core rulebook.
Ghaz wrote: Try reading the rule please. The squadron is leaving the immobilized tank behind. The Tank Commander is still in the unit.
A Tank Commander and his Leman Russ Squadron count as an HQ choice
So if the tank commander is your warlord with 2 russ's, then the TC and a russ leave another russ.
Then is your HQ choice now just the TC and the 1 russ or do you still need to destroy the one that gets abandoned for slay the warlord? As the TC & 1 russ would be the current TC and his leman russ squadron.
Why would you? Do you need to kill every Veteran (and Officers) in a CCS to get it? Also, once you abandon a squad mate they are different units.
I'm just thinking out loud so far.
I find it odd they specify he can't leave his unit if he's not a IC.
but surely if it's the TC and one other russ, and the other russ gets immobilized the TC is stuck with the other russ.
The base rule for warlord offers no choice... it just determines the model that is the warlord (it only offers a choice in the second sentence IF there is a tie).
How can a model with no LD value be the HQ character with the highest Leadership?
Your interpretation leaves the rule useless if he's your only HQ.
The base rule for warlord offers no choice... it just determines the model that is the warlord (it only offers a choice in the second sentence IF there is a tie).
How can a model with no LD value be the HQ character with the highest Leadership?
Your interpretation leaves the rule useless if he's your only HQ.
Normally it can't, which is why you need a special rule, such as Tank Commander in this case (or the FAQ for Bjorn), to make a model w/o LD the warlord. My interpretation is perfectly consistent with this. You may choose the tank commander as your Warlord, despite any restrictions that would normally prevent it. Codex trumps BRB, plain and simple.
The base rule for warlord offers no choice... it just determines the model that is the warlord (it only offers a choice in the second sentence IF there is a tie).
How can a model with no LD value be the HQ character with the highest Leadership?
Your interpretation leaves the rule useless if he's your only HQ.
Normally it can't, which is why you need a special rule, such as Tank Commander in this case (or the FAQ for Bjorn), to make a model w/o LD the warlord. My interpretation is perfectly consistent with this. You may choose the tank commander as your Warlord, despite any restrictions that would normally prevent it. Codex trumps BRB, plain and simple.
The underlined is your assumption. It obviously contradicts the lack-of-leadership issue.
You have yet to prove it also conflicts with the "highest leadership" requirement.
Polonius wrote: To be fair, you're also making an assumption. It's what ever YMDC question eventually devolves to: which interpretation of a text do you follow.
You are assuming that a player must follow the normal method determining a warlord, despite a plain reading of the rule offering a choice.
It's a classic impasse.
No, I'm following the rules. The BRB requires a Leadership value and, in the presence of 2 HQ characters, it must be the one with the higher leadership.
The TC rule obviously conflicts with the first part (and therefore "wins") but doesn't conflict with the second. I'm making no assumptions other than we're all playing out of the same rulebook.
So rigeld2, are you saying that since the Tank Commander doesn't have a leadership value, it cannot be a Warlord? Aren't you the one leaving rules useless? (the rule saying that the Tank Commander CAN be a warlord, in case it wasn't clear)
As the rules stand now, if the TC is your only HQ, then it is your warlord, despite not having a leadership score. If you add in a second HQ that does have a leadership score, does this mean the TC can't be the warlord, despite the specific words "can be chosen as your army's warlord."?
I hear people saying that the rule doesn't override some things and does override others, but it isn't specific at all, so why would you assume that it doesn't override everything?
That is ridiculous of course, I would either say it has to be the only one or counts as LD 9, but that's just HIWPI.
The base rule for warlord offers no choice... it just determines the model that is the warlord (it only offers a choice in the second sentence IF there is a tie).
How can a model with no LD value be the HQ character with the highest Leadership?
Your interpretation leaves the rule useless if he's your only HQ.
If there are no other HQ Characters, the HQ Character with no Ld value is the HQ character with the highest Ld.
No Ld Value at all is the highest value in this case, it just happens that that value is the empty set
You can have 12 HQ models with Ld 10 all you want, if not one of those models is a character then trhe character with no Ld(or a character with Ld 2, or any other value imaginable) is going to be you HQ character with the highest Ld.
Leonus wrote: So rigeld2, are you saying that since the Tank Commander doesn't have a leadership value, it cannot be a Warlord? Aren't you the one leaving rules useless? (the rule saying that the Tank Commander CAN be a warlord, in case it wasn't clear)
No, I didn't and would never say it.
Without the TC rule, he could not be your Warlord.
As the rules stand now, if the TC is your only HQ, then it is your warlord, despite not having a leadership score. If you add in a second HQ that does have a leadership score, does this mean the TC can't be the warlord, despite the specific words "can be chosen as your army's warlord."?
You can select the TC to fulfil the HQ selection requirement - which is choosing him to be your army's warlord.
I hear people saying that the rule doesn't override some things and does override others, but it isn't specific at all, so why would you assume that it doesn't override everything?
Precisely because it isn't specific is why it should be limited. You're not allowed to do things without a rule telling you.
Leonus wrote: So rigeld2, are you saying that since the Tank Commander doesn't have a leadership value, it cannot be a Warlord? Aren't you the one leaving rules useless? (the rule saying that the Tank Commander CAN be a warlord, in case it wasn't clear)
No, I didn't and would never say it.
Without the TC rule, he could not be your Warlord.
As the rules stand now, if the TC is your only HQ, then it is your warlord, despite not having a leadership score. If you add in a second HQ that does have a leadership score, does this mean the TC can't be the warlord, despite the specific words "can be chosen as your army's warlord."?
You can select the TC to fulfil the HQ selection requirement - which is choosing him to be your army's warlord.
I hear people saying that the rule doesn't override some things and does override others, but it isn't specific at all, so why would you assume that it doesn't override everything?
Precisely because it isn't specific is why it should be limited. You're not allowed to do things without a rule telling you.
I agree that it SHOULD be limited. The problem is that there are no limits placed by the rules. The rules told me that he can be my warlord, end of rule.
Leonus wrote: I agree that it SHOULD be limited. The problem is that there are no limits placed by the rules. The rules told me that he can be my warlord, end of rule.
And he can be.
He has to follow the rest of the rules to be Warlord, however.
Polonius wrote: To be fair, you're also making an assumption. It's what ever YMDC question eventually devolves to: which interpretation of a text do you follow.
You are assuming that a player must follow the normal method determining a warlord, despite a plain reading of the rule offering a choice.
It's a classic impasse.
No, I'm following the rules. The BRB requires a Leadership value and, in the presence of 2 HQ characters, it must be the one with the higher leadership.
The TC rule obviously conflicts with the first part (and therefore "wins") but doesn't conflict with the second. I'm making no assumptions other than we're all playing out of the same rulebook.
Kids, here's a protip: whenever you make a comment in a bona fide rules debate that you are "following the rules," you look either naive or inflammatory.
Guess what? English isn't FORTRAN, and few sentences have only one reading. There's a reason constitutional law is slightly more complicated than "read the rules."
Especially when you read them wrong. Being a warlord does not require a leadership value. The warlord is always the HQ character with the the highest leadership value, with the controlling player free to choose in the case of a tie. The rule simply tells you what model you have to nominate as your warlord.
Any rule that allows a model to be chosen as a warlord would ignore that, just like a rule that states that a model/unit is scoring would ignore all the multitude of rules for scoring units.
The real rub is in the interpretation of the word "chosen." Keep in mind, the rules are strict about who your warlord has to be, with choice only serving as a tie-breaker.
there are two interpretations: GW is making clear that a Tank commander can serve as a warlord, despite not having a leadership value. Or: GW is saying that a player can freely select this model to serve as the warlord, ignoring the normal process.
The problem with the former is that it is really arcane. Rules should be clearer, and Occam's razor favors plain reading of rules.
the problem with the latter is that it creates a new option out of whole cloth: that a player is not bound by the warlord determination rules.
And I think that's the biggest problem with my stance: GW could have been very slightly clearer in stating that TCs can be chosen, despite the other requirements. I still feel it's a smaller assumption then thinking that GW 1) knew their own Warlord rules, 2) expects all players to understand those rules, and 3) felt that a reminder about them would be unnecessary.
Right now the difference between you and I is that I understand why you could be correct, and I still feel that my interpretation makes more sense. You can't even see another interpretation.
I agree that it SHOULD be limited. The problem is that there are no limits placed by the rules. The rules told me that he can be my warlord, end of rule.
If the only only stated that he could be your warlord, rigeld2 would be quite correct in his interpretation. The ability to become something is necessary, but not sufficient, to become that thing.
The rule actually allows a player to "choose" a tank commander as a warlord, despite player choice being a tie-breaker in normal warlord selection.
It's the possibility that GW meant "freely chosen" or "chosen regardless of other factors" that makes this a debate.
Polonius wrote: Kids, here's a protip: whenever you make a comment in a bona fide rules debate that you are "following the rules," you look either naive or inflammatory.
Here's a protip right back at you - giving "pro tips" is inflammatory and insulting. I'm being neither naive nor inflammatory.
Guess what? English isn't FORTRAN, and few sentences have only one reading. There's a reason constitutional law is slightly more complicated than "read the rules."
Almost like Constitutional Law is more "What was intended" than "What does it say".
I'm discussing what it says, not what's intended.
Especially when you read them wrong. Being a warlord does not require a leadership value.
Really?
The warlord is always the HQ character with the the highest leadership value, with the controlling player free to choose in the case of a tie. The rule simply tells you what model you have to nominate as your warlord.
If it has to be the model with the highest Leadership value, wouldn't you have to, I dunno... have a Leadership value to know if it's the highest or not? Hard to know if you have the most Oranges if you don't have any Oranges.
Any rule that allows a model to be chosen as a warlord would ignore that, just like a rule that states that a model/unit is scoring would ignore all the multitude of rules for scoring units.
And you can choose the model for your Warlord.
The real rub is in the interpretation of the word "chosen." Keep in mind, the rules are strict about who your warlord has to be, with choice only serving as a tie-breaker.
Look at the Army List section of your codex. Which model is your Warlord? Oh - you get to pick? So ... it's a choice?
The problem with the former is that it is really arcane. Rules should be clearer, and Occam's razor favors plain reading of rules.
Arcane? Really? It's the simpler of the two readings. It conflicts with the fewest amount of rules.
the problem with the latter is that it creates a new option out of whole cloth: that a player is not bound by the warlord determination rules.
Yes - your interpretation makes things up out of whole cloth. And somehow that's the simpler interpretation?
Right now the difference between you and I is that I understand why you could be correct, and I still feel that my interpretation makes more sense. You can't even see another interpretation.
I can see how what you're saying may have been intended, but I don't care. I'm not discussing Intent, I'm discussing what they Wrote. That's the difference between you and I. You're clouding your thoughts with what you think they meant, I'm simply looking at what's there.
Your post was too wordy for my little brain to figure out your opinion, aside from that you don't think much of one or more of our opinions.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Rigeld2, the BRB does say that a 0 or a - are the same thing in a stat line. pg 3
So if we are assuming that the rule saying you can choose the TC as your warlord is still under the exception of needing to be highest leadership, then it is considered to be 0.
Automatically Appended Next Post: The only real question left is WHICH rules the "Leman Russ Commander" rule is trying to let you break.
Polonius wrote: Kids, here's a protip: whenever you make a comment in a bona fide rules debate that you are "following the rules," you look either naive or inflammatory.
Here's a protip right back at you - giving "pro tips" is inflammatory and insulting. I'm being neither naive nor inflammatory.
I wasn't giving it to you, but to the thread. But fair enough.
I think that claiming completely unassailable objective truth in any field outside of mathematics is problematic, but that's more of a philosophical view. In the specific, GW rules are written by semi-literates, and believing that you have the one true reading is, alas, kind of naive.
Almost like Constitutional Law is more "What was intended" than "What does it say".
I'm discussing what it says, not what's intended.
Well, it's a lot more complicated than that.
Especially when you read them wrong. Being a warlord does not require a leadership value.
Really?
Really. Bjorn doesn't have a Leadership value, and he can be a warlord all day long.
The warlord is always the HQ character with the the highest leadership value, with the controlling player free to choose in the case of a tie. The rule simply tells you what model you have to nominate as your warlord.
If it has to be the model with the highest Leadership value, wouldn't you have to, I dunno... have a Leadership value to know if it's the highest or not? Hard to know if you have the most Oranges if you don't have any Oranges.
Turns out when two baskets each have no oranges, both have the most oranges.
The real rub is in the interpretation of the word "chosen." Keep in mind, the rules are strict about who your warlord has to be, with choice only serving as a tie-breaker.
Look at the Army List section of your codex. Which model is your Warlord? Oh - you get to pick? So ... it's a choice?
I'm not sure what you mean by this.
The problem with the former is that it is really arcane. Rules should be clearer, and Occam's razor favors plain reading of rules.
Arcane? Really? It's the simpler of the two readings. It conflicts with the fewest amount of rules.
I'd agree with that, but it also changes the meaning of the rule from the simplest reading. That's a good point though, and one of the few good points in this thread.
the problem with the latter is that it creates a new option out of whole cloth: that a player is not bound by the warlord determination rules.
Yes - your interpretation makes things up out of whole cloth. And somehow that's the simpler interpretation?
I don't grant the premise that I"m making things up, but you'd be amazed how often creating a new option is the simplest thing.
Right now the difference between you and I is that I understand why you could be correct, and I still feel that my interpretation makes more sense. You can't even see another interpretation.
I can see how what you're saying may have been intended, but I don't care. I'm not discussing Intent, I'm discussing what they Wrote. That's the difference between you and I. You're clouding your thoughts with what you think they meant, I'm simply looking at what's there.
I think you believe that.
I know what the words "may be chosen" mean. The fact that this conversation exists is because you're assuming that phrase doesn't mean exactly what it says.
Looking at the warlord rules we have these requirements:
1) It must be a model.
2) It must be a HQ choice.
3) It must be a character.
4) It must have the highest leadership of your choices (choices being between things that meet the first 3 requirments) -not check!
So the TC is a model already, and is given these things by the "Lemon Russ Commander" rule:
2) It is an HQ choice.
3) It is a character.
4) It can be chosen as your warlord.
The only possible thing that the last part could be talking about is the leadership requirement, right?
Your post was too wordy for my little brain to figure out your opinion, aside from that you don't think much of one or more of our opinions.
I actually think most of the opinions in this thread are fine. There are bona fide arguments for both, and some interesting arguments made. I dont' think much of the insight people have in their own opinions, but that's pretty common.
I was just saying that there's a key distinction, I feel, between a model being able to be a warlord, and a model being chosen as a warlord. One allows it to be selected by a passive process, the other allows it to be selected despite the process.
Leonus wrote: Rigeld2, the BRB does say that a 0 or a - are the same thing in a stat line. pg 3
Agreed.
So if we are assuming that the rule saying you can choose the TC as your warlord is still under the exception of needing to be highest leadership, then it is considered to be 0.
I don't agree with this - there's no reason to make that assumption.
Almost like Constitutional Law is more "What was intended" than "What does it say".
I'm discussing what it says, not what's intended.
Well, it's a lot more complicated than that.
Of course it is. But I'm not the one that brought it up.
But seriously - all I'm discussing is what the rules say.
Especially when you read them wrong. Being a warlord does not require a leadership value.
Really?
Really. Bjorn doesn't have a Leadership value, and he can be a warlord all day long.
Go ahead - keep bringing up a model that has a specific exception to the Warlord rules as an example of how the rules work in general.
In general, being a Warlord requires a leadership value.
It's like me saying "Isn't it great that everyone can spawn a Troop unit?"
The warlord is always the HQ character with the the highest leadership value, with the controlling player free to choose in the case of a tie. The rule simply tells you what model you have to nominate as your warlord.
If it has to be the model with the highest Leadership value, wouldn't you have to, I dunno... have a Leadership value to know if it's the highest or not? Hard to know if you have the most Oranges if you don't have any Oranges.
Turns out when two baskets each have no oranges, both have the most oranges.
And if one basket has Oranges and the other doesn't...
The real rub is in the interpretation of the word "chosen." Keep in mind, the rules are strict about who your warlord has to be, with choice only serving as a tie-breaker.
Look at the Army List section of your codex. Which model is your Warlord? Oh - you get to pick? So ... it's a choice?
I'm not sure what you mean by this.
You can choose him to be your Warlord. Select the unit to be your HQ and poof - he's your Warlord. You're choosing to not make him your warlord by adding a second HQ character.
The problem with the former is that it is really arcane. Rules should be clearer, and Occam's razor favors plain reading of rules.
Arcane? Really? It's the simpler of the two readings. It conflicts with the fewest amount of rules.
I'd agree with that, but it also changes the meaning of the rule from the simplest reading. That's a good point though, and one of the few good points in this thread.
... It's the same point I've been saying the entire thread.
the problem with the latter is that it creates a new option out of whole cloth: that a player is not bound by the warlord determination rules.
Yes - your interpretation makes things up out of whole cloth. And somehow that's the simpler interpretation?
I don't grant the premise that I"m making things up, but you'd be amazed how often creating a new option is the simplest thing.
When it comes to what the rules say, making things up is pretty much never the right answer.
I can see how what you're saying may have been intended, but I don't care. I'm not discussing Intent, I'm discussing what they Wrote. That's the difference between you and I. You're clouding your thoughts with what you think they meant, I'm simply looking at what's there.
I think you believe that.
I know what the words "may be chosen" mean. The fact that this conversation exists is because you're assuming that phrase doesn't mean exactly what it says.
Except it does. You're choosing to believe that "may be chosen" overrides literally any possible restriction.
The choice is already there - you are never required to have a second HQ.
Of course it is. But I'm not the one that brought it up. But seriously - all I'm discussing is what the rules say.
Well, we're discussing what the rules mean, and how they interact. Reducing anything to simple line reading is, as always, a bit unsophisticated.
Go ahead - keep bringing up a model that has a specific exception to the Warlord rules as an example of how the rules work in general. In general, being a Warlord requires a leadership value. It's like me saying "Isn't it great that everyone can spawn a Troop unit?"
Well, if we were discussing how the rules work in general, than Bjorn has no place in the conversation. This is a discussion on how the rules work in the specific. In general, warlords always have a LD value. You're arguing that a leadership value is inherently required, and there is evidence that, nope, it's not. Bjorn might be a super duper exception, but I doubt it.
And if one basket has Oranges and the other doesn't...
The first one has more oranges. If I'm allowed to choose the empty basket though, I can chose the empty basket, even if I normally have to pick the fuller one.
You can choose him to be your Warlord. Select the unit to be your HQ and poof - he's your Warlord. You're choosing to not make him your warlord by adding a second HQ character.
This is the sort of loophole stuff I'm taking about when I refer to a simpler interpretation, by the by. If that's what GW meant, that's really, really dumb.
the problem with the latter is that it creates a new option out of whole cloth: that a player is not bound by the warlord determination rules.
Yes - your interpretation makes things up out of whole cloth. And somehow that's the simpler interpretation?
I don't grant the premise that I"m making things up, but you'd be amazed how often creating a new option is the simplest thing.
When it comes to what the rules say, making things up is pretty much never the right answer.
Man, you love scoring points by repeating things like "making things up," don't you? I can't tell the quest for truth is important.
Rules create new options all the time. That's what makes them rules, in a permissive universe.
Except it does. You're choosing to believe that "may be chosen" overrides literally any possible restriction. The choice is already there - you are never required to have a second HQ.
Well, I'm hard pressed to think of any real restrictions aside from highest LD it would ignore. But I suppose you're correct in that I feel that the wording does trump the BBB rules.
Automatically Appended Next Post: If anybody is interested in analyzing the phrase "may be chosen," I've got a few thoughts:
1) This is a great example of poor use of the passive voice. As written, this just means that there is some way in which the tank could end up the warlord. The active voice "A controlling player may choose the Tank Commander to be his warlord" gives more agency to the player.
Does the choice of passive voice imply that the tank commander cannot be chosen at will, but rather can only be selected through the normal process? And if so, how does that reconcile with the fact that GW had to realize they were sending players to compare a null value for leadership?
2) Are there other instances in the rules where a player has a restricted choice?
One rule error that I have kept hearing is with the Smite at Will rule and split fire. People assume that they can split the heavy weapons from a blob and fire at a different target with them, even though split fire only lets one weapon fire at a different target. Maybe add it to the original post, as I can see it being a common mistake.
nosferatu1001 wrote: No, not even close. I assume you remove artillery immediately then?
And space marines cant fire because they have no "eyes".....
No, Artillery has its own set of rules which simply enough clarify how it interacts with everything else. Much like the tank commander having a stat line that pretty much just raises the BS to 4 and lets it be a warlord. You cannot mesh a infantry model profile (commander) with a tank (vehicle) so you have to accept that certain things work. Otherwise you have extremes in RAW like Kel was trying to demonstrate.
Again, you cut out the part of the quote proving your argument wrong.
Don't quote out of context, it's rude and a poor way to argue.
Well since you felt like quoting me twice on this. Being reduced to or at zero does not matter. Once you are at 0, you are done. So yes, pure RAW, artillery pieces are removed from play immediately. And since you felt like bringing that up, I quoted it as a comparison to pure RAW stupidity of the "eyes" argument. It is clearly unintended and Artillery has their own specific set of rule that clearly does not need a S characteristic. Just like Vehicles use a completely different set of Characteristics and LD is not one of them. Therefore you are trying to compare a Vehicle with permission to be warlord to a HQ character, when as Rigeld says, you have apples to oranges. So therefore the simple basic rule does not apply and you have to take the codex rule into consideration. Permission to be the warlord is granted through codex rule.
Wrong. Seriously, how are you reading two very different sentences and thinking they are the same?
You are only removed if you are REDUCED TO zero. If you are ALREADY AT zero you have not been "reduced to" zero by definition. 1->0 is reduced to zero. 0 is not reduced to 0, it is 0.
So no, it is not a comparison to silly raw, as artillery are not removed by strict raw. Only if you misread plain English can you think that.
They are part of the unit for all Rule purposes. I just have to ask though, I have not seen the new book, if the Medic still gives Feel No Pain to the entire unit?
Leonus wrote: Rigeld2, the BRB does say that a 0 or a - are the same thing in a stat line. pg 3
Agreed.
So if we are assuming that the rule saying you can choose the TC as your warlord is still under the exception of needing to be highest leadership, then it is considered to be 0.
I don't agree with this - there's no reason to make that assumption.
I thought that was your main argument, that you are still required to pick the HQ character model with the highest leadership, and therefor cannot have the TC as warlord if you have a second HQ choice with a LD score.
@Hollismason, Yes! It's awesome. I do that all the time with my Space Marine Command Squad Apothecary and my Captain.
Leonus wrote: Rigeld2, the BRB does say that a 0 or a - are the same thing in a stat line. pg 3
Agreed.
So if we are assuming that the rule saying you can choose the TC as your warlord is still under the exception of needing to be highest leadership, then it is considered to be 0.
I don't agree with this - there's no reason to make that assumption.
I thought that was your main argument, that you are still required to pick the HQ character model with the highest leadership, and therefor cannot have the TC as warlord if you have a second HQ choice with a LD score.
Yes, but there's no basis for assuming his LD is 0.
It's simply undefined.
Leonus wrote: Rigeld2, the BRB does say that a 0 or a - are the same thing in a stat line. pg 3
Agreed.
So if we are assuming that the rule saying you can choose the TC as your warlord is still under the exception of needing to be highest leadership, then it is considered to be 0.
I don't agree with this - there's no reason to make that assumption.
I thought that was your main argument, that you are still required to pick the HQ character model with the highest leadership, and therefor cannot have the TC as warlord if you have a second HQ choice with a LD score.
Yes, but there's no basis for assuming his LD is 0.
It's simply undefined.
Then how can you assume it's always the lowest leadership? 9/0 is not less or more than 9, because 9/0 does not exist. Can you truly say, honestly, that something which does not exist is lower than X? Or higher? Or has any relationship at all?
The emperors Benediction has the precision shot special rule, Does this mean that every shot from it is a precision shot regardless of the to hit roll (excluding misses of course)?
Can orders be issued by officers that have already received an order? I can't find anything that says they can't like the previous edition.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Then how can you assume it's always the lowest leadership? 9/0 is not less or more than 9, because 9/0 does not exist. Can you truly say, honestly, that something which does not exist is lower than X? Or higher? Or has any relationship at all?
Whoever has the bigger basket of oranges wins.
If you don't have a basket, let alone one full of oranges, how can you possibly win?
Skyshield landing pad says you can place a flier on it in hover mode at the start of the game. Does that mean you get to forget about other restrictions like where you are legally allowed to deploy your units or do you just get to put it anywhere on your table half and that's where the flier is.
When I saw the Skyshield discussion it seemed that most felt you must take all rules into account. I feel that the tank commander is similar in that it is given a special rule that allows it access to be the warlord but still must abide by the other requirements (much like deployment on the skyshield).
Lamo wrote: Okay guys I'm going to make a comparison
Skyshield landing pad says you can place a flier on it in hover mode at the start of the game. Does that mean you get to forget about other restrictions like where you are legally allowed to deploy your units or do you just get to put it anywhere on your table half and that's where the flier is.
When I saw the Skyshield discussion it seemed that most felt you must take all rules into account. I feel that the tank commander is similar in that it is given a special rule that allows it access to be the warlord but still must abide by the other requirements (much like deployment on the skyshield).
Lamo wrote: Okay guys I'm going to make a comparison
Skyshield landing pad says you can place a flier on it in hover mode at the start of the game. Does that mean you get to forget about other restrictions like where you are legally allowed to deploy your units or do you just get to put it anywhere on your table half and that's where the flier is.
When I saw the Skyshield discussion it seemed that most felt you must take all rules into account. I feel that the tank commander is similar in that it is given a special rule that allows it access to be the warlord but still must abide by the other requirements (much like deployment on the skyshield).
The thing is, it could already be the Warlord while it is the Only HQ unit, meeting the Warlord Requirements: It is an HQ, It is a Character, There are no HQ characters with a higher Ld than it.
So by all normal rules it can be your warlord. This is either a special rule that does nothing, or one that overrides the only variable condition: An HQ character that has a higher Ld
Unit1126PLL wrote: Then how can you assume it's always the lowest leadership? 9/0 is not less or more than 9, because 9/0 does not exist. Can you truly say, honestly, that something which does not exist is lower than X? Or higher? Or has any relationship at all?
Whoever has the bigger basket of oranges wins.
If you don't have a basket, let alone one full of oranges, how can you possibly win?
If a basket of oranges is mandatory for the competition, how could you even be in the competition?
The Tank Commander has a special rule saying he may be chosen for the warlord. I believe that this inherently overrides the leadership requirement, as he does not have the lowest leadership. He simply does not have a leadership at all.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Then how can you assume it's always the lowest leadership? 9/0 is not less or more than 9, because 9/0 does not exist. Can you truly say, honestly, that something which does not exist is lower than X? Or higher? Or has any relationship at all?
Whoever has the bigger basket of oranges wins.
If you don't have a basket, let alone one full of oranges, how can you possibly win?
By no one else showing up.
In an election whoever receive the most votes wins, but if you run unopposed no voting is necessary you win because you are the only one who meets the requirements(running)
Lamo wrote: Okay guys I'm going to make a comparison
Skyshield landing pad says you can place a flier on it in hover mode at the start of the game. Does that mean you get to forget about other restrictions like where you are legally allowed to deploy your units or do you just get to put it anywhere on your table half and that's where the flier is.
When I saw the Skyshield discussion it seemed that most felt you must take all rules into account. I feel that the tank commander is similar in that it is given a special rule that allows it access to be the warlord but still must abide by the other requirements (much like deployment on the skyshield).
The thing is, it could already be the Warlord while it is the Only HQ unit, meeting the Warlord Requirements: It is an HQ, It is a Character, There are no HQ characters with a higher Ld than it.
So by all normal rules it can be your warlord. This is either a special rule that does nothing, or one that overrides the only variable condition: An HQ character that has a higher Ld
That's incorrect. It doesn't have a LD value, meaning anything that has an LD value has a higher LD.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Then how can you assume it's always the lowest leadership? 9/0 is not less or more than 9, because 9/0 does not exist. Can you truly say, honestly, that something which does not exist is lower than X? Or higher? Or has any relationship at all?
Whoever has the bigger basket of oranges wins. If you don't have a basket, let alone one full of oranges, how can you possibly win?
By no one else showing up.
In an election whoever receive the most votes wins, but if you run unopposed no voting is necessary you win because you are the only one who meets the requirements(running)
Right, I get that the Tank Commander can be the warlord in absence of anyone else. I don't think anyone is arguing that.
What I think is that the rule is rather pointless, because 9/10 times you'll have an HQ infantry model, whether it's a Company Command Squad, Lord Commissar, Ministorum Priest, Regular Commissar, Primaris Psyker, or Techpriest Enginseer
Lamo wrote: Okay guys I'm going to make a comparison
Skyshield landing pad says you can place a flier on it in hover mode at the start of the game. Does that mean you get to forget about other restrictions like where you are legally allowed to deploy your units or do you just get to put it anywhere on your table half and that's where the flier is.
When I saw the Skyshield discussion it seemed that most felt you must take all rules into account. I feel that the tank commander is similar in that it is given a special rule that allows it access to be the warlord but still must abide by the other requirements (much like deployment on the skyshield).
The thing is, it could already be the Warlord while it is the Only HQ unit, meeting the Warlord Requirements: It is an HQ, It is a Character, There are no HQ characters with a higher Ld than it.
So by all normal rules it can be your warlord. This is either a special rule that does nothing, or one that overrides the only variable condition: An HQ character that has a higher Ld
That's incorrect. It doesn't have a LD value, meaning anything that has an LD value has a higher LD.
No, it means they're incomparable.
Ask any logic engine anywhere whether or not 9 is a higher value than <UNDEFINED> and you won't get an answer. I guarantee it.
Lamo wrote: Okay guys I'm going to make a comparison
Skyshield landing pad says you can place a flier on it in hover mode at the start of the game. Does that mean you get to forget about other restrictions like where you are legally allowed to deploy your units or do you just get to put it anywhere on your table half and that's where the flier is.
When I saw the Skyshield discussion it seemed that most felt you must take all rules into account. I feel that the tank commander is similar in that it is given a special rule that allows it access to be the warlord but still must abide by the other requirements (much like deployment on the skyshield).
The thing is, it could already be the Warlord while it is the Only HQ unit, meeting the Warlord Requirements: It is an HQ, It is a Character, There are no HQ characters with a higher Ld than it.
So by all normal rules it can be your warlord. This is either a special rule that does nothing, or one that overrides the only variable condition: An HQ character that has a higher Ld
That's incorrect. It doesn't have a LD value, meaning anything that has an LD value has a higher LD.
Did you read what I said?
I am not sure what you are saying I am incorrect about.
Let me break down my post:
If the Tank Commander is your only primary detachment HQ Character, he is your warlord by default without the rule telling you he can be your warlord. Do you disagree with this?
For the rule to have any function or purpose, it must mean that a second eligible HQ Character, that is not a tank commander, does not prevent you from selecting the Tank Commander as your warlord.
Is this what you disagree with?
Please explain to me which one you disagree with and how I am wrong in these assertions.
Kommissar Kel wrote: If the Tank Commander is your only primary detachment HQ Character, he is your warlord by default without the rule telling you he can be your warlord. Do you disagree with this?
Yes. He is an HQ character but has no Leadership value, and therefore cannot have the highest Leadership.
That's incorrect. It doesn't have a LD value, meaning anything that has an LD value has a higher LD.
No, it means they're incomparable.
Ask any logic engine anywhere whether or not 9 is a higher value than <UNDEFINED> and you won't get an answer. I guarantee it.
And yet we must have an answer. So either it's an illegal list or you're forced to compare them.
As I said before, in a contest to see who has the bigger basket of oranges, you're going to lose unless you have a basket of oranges.
And yet we must have an answer. So either it's an illegal list or you're forced to compare them.
As I said before, in a contest to see who has the bigger basket of oranges, you're going to lose unless you have a basket of oranges.
Why must we have an answer? The Tank Commander-as-Warlord cannot be illegal because he has special dispensation permitting him to become the Warlord.
And your analogy doesn't work, because the Tank Commander cannot even compete in the competition. He is logically incapable of doing so.
And your analogy doesn't work, because the Tank Commander cannot even compete in the competition. He is logically incapable of doing so.
That's the point. He's incapable of competing so cannot win. You won $5 in the lottery. I didn't play. Who won more money in the lottery?
He also cannot lose. Why does inability to compete means that he automatically loses?
As for your example, I would have won more money in the lottery. But if you have a special rule saying that you may be considered the winner, then the actual numbers are quite irrelevant - you've won.
They do, aside from an exemption in the Tank Commander's rules. Taking that exception into account, no, they don't.
The TC rule does not have an exception. It has an allowance to be chosen as a warlord, but that does not exempt him from the LD comparison.
He also cannot lose. Why does inability to compete means that he automatically loses?
Lemme ask all the people who don't compete in the Oympics about their gold medals...
As for your example, I would have won more money in the lottery. But if you have a special rule saying that you may be considered the winner, then the actual numbers are quite irrelevant - you've won.
Is that what TC says? So it's been misquoted every single time and it actually does address what happens in the LD comparison?
rigeld2 wrote: [
And yet we must have an answer. So either it's an illegal list or you're forced to compare them.
As I said before, in a contest to see who has the bigger basket of oranges, you're going to lose unless you have a basket of oranges.
Or you accept that because it is impossible to compare them, that you use the Codex rule giving him permission to be the Warlord.
rigeld2 wrote: And yet we must have an answer. So either it's an illegal list or you're forced to compare them.
As I said before, in a contest to see who has the bigger basket of oranges, you're going to lose unless you have a basket of oranges.
Or you accept that because it is impossible to compare them, that you use the Codex rule giving him permission to be the Warlord.
People are really overstating what the Codex rule gives permission to do.
They do, aside from an exemption in the Tank Commander's rules. Taking that exception into account, no, they don't.
The TC rule does not have an exception. It has an allowance to be chosen as a warlord, but that does not exempt him from the LD comparison.
Except that not having a leadership means it cannot be compared, so normally he would not be able to be the Warlord. However, he can - but that doesn't suddenly mean that the leaderships can be compared.
He also cannot lose. Why does inability to compete means that he automatically loses?
Lemme ask all the people who don't compete in the Oympics about their gold medals...
How about you look for their names in the list of people who have lost at the Olympics as well? That's just as valid as asking them to show their gold medal.
As for your example, I would have won more money in the lottery. But if you have a special rule saying that you may be considered the winner, then the actual numbers are quite irrelevant - you've won.
Is that what TC says? So it's been misquoted every single time and it actually does address what happens in the LD comparison?
No. But you cannot logically compare the leadership values. Which normally would prevent the TC from being able to be a warlord. However, he can be. This does not suddenly make 9 or 10 comparable with <UNDEFINED> in any logical system.
No the rules require the Ld to be the highest among HQ Characters, being the same grammatically as all other eligible HQ characters having a lower Ld value.
If you have no other eligible HQ characters, you have no eligible HQ characters with a higher Ld.
A null set or no value is mathematically equivalent to 0; That is exactly what the number 0 means and represents: Null value or "the empty set"; that said I would push for a reading of the rules that an HQ character drawn from the Primary detachment, that is not specifically denied from being the warlord and has a Ld value of -/0 will be considered a "higher" Ld than the tank Commander who has no Ld characteristic because having a characteristic, even the same mathematically is inherently higher than not having a characteristic. Unit1126pll this goes for you too, you are comparing a misunderstanding of wqhat 0 means to programming language in an incorrect way, Binary is Off/On, or There/not there represented by 1s as there/on, and 0s as off/not there.
Your assumption is that an HQ Character has to have a Ld Characteristic in order to have "the highest Ld", but the lack of any other HQ Characters means that a model that is an HQ Character that does not have an Ld characteristic is the highest LdHQ Character in the Army.
Can Bjorn the fellhanded be a Warlord when you are running a pure SW army with only Bjorn as an HQ? If so, Why? it is not in an FAQ. If not who/what is your armies mandatory Warlord? How?
Honestly I could not parse the rest of your post, but as for this part, Rigeld has explicitly claimed that he does not believe that TC's have a Leadership Stat of 0.
rigeld2 wrote: And yet we must have an answer. So either it's an illegal list or you're forced to compare them.
As I said before, in a contest to see who has the bigger basket of oranges, you're going to lose unless you have a basket of oranges.
Or you accept that because it is impossible to compare them, that you use the Codex rule giving him permission to be the Warlord.
People are really overstating what the Codex rule gives permission to do.
Not really. You yourself said your comparing apples to oranges. You have two entirely different things that your forcing into a comparison that you really cannot. There are no contingencies on the wording like "is eligible to be your warlord" or "can be your warlord if you do not have a Character with a LD value." Its simple plain writing that everyone is reading too much into.
Honestly I could not parse the rest of your post, but as for this part, Rigeld has explicitly claimed that he does not believe that TC's have a Leadership Stat of 0.
They really do not(I said as much in page 1 or 2 and convinced Rigeld of it); that was what the rest of that section was about, As far as Leadership values/the rules go, they have none. As far as Math and Greater than/less than goes, no value equates to 0
Honestly I could not parse the rest of your post, but as for this part, Rigeld has explicitly claimed that he does not believe that TC's have a Leadership Stat of 0.
They really do not(I said as much in page 1 or 2 and convinced Rigeld of it); that was what the rest of that section was about, As far as Leadership values/the rules go, they have none. As far as Math and Greater than/less than goes, no value equates to 0
Wait so (9/0) < 9 is a mathematically correct statement after all?
No, because you cannot divide by 0; 9/0 is the issue in the equation.
Cannot divide by zero does not give you an answer of nothing or an empty set, it gives you the "unknowable equation" you were presenting earlier. Imaginary numbers are screwy in dealing with simpler math, which is why we have higher math, and then things that just don't work.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Except that not having a leadership means it cannot be compared, so normally he would not be able to be the Warlord. However, he can - but that doesn't suddenly mean that the leaderships can be compared.
Normally he can't, rule says he can.
Find the rule allowing him to ignore all comparison.
How about you look for their names in the list of people who have lost at the Olympics as well? That's just as valid as asking them to show their gold medal.
The rule doesn't ask for losers. It asks for winners.
No. But you cannot logically compare the leadership values. Which normally would prevent the TC from being able to be a warlord. However, he can be. This does not suddenly make 9 or 10 comparable with <UNDEFINED> in any logical system.
I've shown how it works. It doesn't work in a world of 1s and 0s programatically, but it can work in plain english.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Except that not having a leadership means it cannot be compared, so normally he would not be able to be the Warlord. However, he can - but that doesn't suddenly mean that the leaderships can be compared.
Normally he can't, rule says he can..
Yes, he can.
I have shown it to you time and again.
No Ld does not matter when there is no other HQ Characters. No Ld is, by default the highest Ld(of "non-existant") when there are no other candidates and you must have a warlord.
Ld is not actually a requirement, the requirement is that no other HQ Characters have a higher Ld, No other HQ Characters means, no other HQ Characters have a higher Ld, Meaning your lack of Ld is the Highest Ld among the single HQ Character you have.
Oh, and Polonius; Thank you for correcting my misapplication of Imaginary Number I just could not remember what the term for impossible calculations is(I am fairly certain there is a specific term, I just cannot remember it).
Kommissar Kel wrote: No Ld does not matter when there is no other HQ Characters. No Ld is, by default the highest Ld(of "non-existant") when there are no other candidates and you must have a warlord.
So it can be compared when he's the solo HQ, but not when he's not?
I'm confused. You're literally saying that. He must have the highest Leadership. He does not have a Leadership value. And yet you're asserting that's enough to have the highest Leadership?
What I am Literally saying is that it is compared in both cases.
Then I am also saying that for the rule to have any effect whatsoever it must mean that in an army that contains 2 HQ Characters, one of them having a leadership, it must override the highest leadership requirement.
This is what I have maintained for the last several pages.
Kommissar Kel wrote: Then I am also saying that for the rule to have any effect whatsoever it must mean that in an army that contains 2 HQ Characters, one of them having a leadership, it must override the highest leadership requirement.
Sorry - I had you confused with Unit, who's saying you cannot compare <null>.
Please show how <null> is a Leadership value, let alone the highest one.
Kommissar Kel wrote: Then I am also saying that for the rule to have any effect whatsoever it must mean that in an army that contains 2 HQ Characters, one of them having a leadership, it must override the highest leadership requirement.
Sorry - I had you confused with Unit, who's saying you cannot compare <null>.
Please show how <null> is a Leadership value, let alone the highest one.
It isn't a Ld value. Please demonstrate that any value is higher than <null>.
Kommissar Kel wrote: Then I am also saying that for the rule to have any effect whatsoever it must mean that in an army that contains 2 HQ Characters, one of them having a leadership, it must override the highest leadership requirement.
Sorry - I had you confused with Unit, who's saying you cannot compare <null>.
Please show how <null> is a Leadership value, let alone the highest one.
I had already shown how "Highest Ld" is the same grammatically as "No-one with a higher Ld".
No Ld at all is the highest among no other applicants, something else I have shown.
But I am going to go back to your Oranges in a basket example to show it to you in your own terms:
You said: "Whoever has the bigger basket of oranges wins.
If you don't have a basket, let alone one full of oranges, how can you possibly win?"
The contest has nothing to do with the basket, it has everything to do with the number of Oranges. If no one else shows up to the contest, you and you lack of either basket or oranges still win by virtue of being the only contestant.
As soon as you add another contestant that has a basket, and any number of oranges in that basket, they have more oranges in a basket then you and therefore you then lose the contest(having neither basket, nor oranges therein).
Kommissar Kel wrote: Then I am also saying that for the rule to have any effect whatsoever it must mean that in an army that contains 2 HQ Characters, one of them having a leadership, it must override the highest leadership requirement.
Sorry - I had you confused with Unit, who's saying you cannot compare <null>.
Please show how <null> is a Leadership value, let alone the highest one.
It isn't a Ld value. Please demonstrate that any value is higher than <null>.
For his argument, it must be a LD value. Because the Warlord must have the highest LD value. If you don't have one, how can you have the highest?
Kommissar Kel wrote: Then I am also saying that for the rule to have any effect whatsoever it must mean that in an army that contains 2 HQ Characters, one of them having a leadership, it must override the highest leadership requirement.
Sorry - I had you confused with Unit, who's saying you cannot compare <null>.
Please show how <null> is a Leadership value, let alone the highest one.
It isn't a Ld value. Please demonstrate that any value is higher than <null>.
For his argument, it must be a LD value. Because the Warlord must have the highest LD value. If you don't have one, how can you have the highest?
Except that you have permission to be the Warlord, and are therefore exempt from requiring a Leadership stat.
There are three criteria for being a warlord:
1) HQ choice - the TC is this definitely
2) A character - the TC is also this, definitely
3) The highest leadership - the TC has no leadership
Which one do you think the rule specifically allowing him to be a warlord is addressing?
Kommissar Kel wrote: Then I am also saying that for the rule to have any effect whatsoever it must mean that in an army that contains 2 HQ Characters, one of them having a leadership, it must override the highest leadership requirement.
Sorry - I had you confused with Unit, who's saying you cannot compare <null>.
Please show how <null> is a Leadership value, let alone the highest one.
I had already shown how "Highest Ld" is the same grammatically as "No-one with a higher Ld".
No Ld at all is the highest among no other applicants, something else I have shown.
No, it's not. It's a lack of LD. How can you have the highest of something you don't have?
You said: "Whoever has the bigger basket of oranges wins.
If you don't have a basket, let alone one full of oranges, how can you possibly win?"
The contest has nothing to do with the basket, it has everything to do with the number of Oranges. If no one else shows up to the contest, you and you lack of either basket or oranges still win by virtue of being the only contestant.
False. The rules required a basket of Oranges. You cannot enter the contest without that basket.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Unit1126PLL wrote: Except that you have permission to be the Warlord, and are therefore exempt from requiring a Leadership stat.
There are three criteria for being a warlord:
1) HQ choice - the TC is this definitely
2) A character - the TC is also this, definitely
3) The highest leadership - the TC has no leadership
Which one do you think the rule specifically allowing him to be a warlord is addressing?
#3. But that's not Kel's argument. Kel's argument is that the rule isn't required if he's the only HQ model.
It'd be nice if you read and responded in context - there's two of you with different arguments.
The rules require a Warlord correct?
The rules require the warlord to be an HQ model correct?
The Rule Require the warlord to be a character correct?
We will get to the Ld in a second, Just answer these 3.
Kommissar Kel wrote: That is not what I am Literally saying.
Then I am also saying that for the rule to have any effect whatsoever it must mean that in an army that contains 2 HQ Characters, one of them having a leadership, it must override the highest leadership requirement.
If there is a comparison of Leadership values then the HQ without it cannot be a part of the comparison. You must satisfy both requirements, 1. Can he be a Warlord? 2. If there are other HQs present does he have the highest leadership?
NULL is never greater than 0 or any other integer.
Kommissar Kel wrote: The rules require a Warlord correct?
The rules require the warlord to be an HQ model correct?
The Rule Require the warlord to be a character correct?
We will get to the Ld in a second, Just answer these 3.
Kommissar Kel wrote: The rules require a Warlord correct?
The rules require the warlord to be an HQ model correct?
The Rule Require the warlord to be a character correct?
We will get to the Ld in a second, Just answer these 3.
Yes^3.
Ok Now are these 2 Sentences Grammatically Identical(do they say the exact same Thing):
Your Warlord is always the HQ choice character with the highest Leadership.
-and-
No HQ choice character can have a higher Leadership than your Warlord.
Kommissar Kel wrote: The rules require a Warlord correct?
The rules require the warlord to be an HQ model correct?
The Rule Require the warlord to be a character correct?
We will get to the Ld in a second, Just answer these 3.
Yes^3.
Ok Now are these 2 Sentences Grammatically Identical(do they say the exact same Thing):
Your Warlord is always the HQ choice character with the highest Leadership.
-and-
No HQ choice character can have a higher Leadership than your Warlord.
No. The first requires a Leadership value. The second does not.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Except that you have permission to be the Warlord, and are therefore exempt from requiring a Leadership stat.
There are three criteria for being a warlord:
1) HQ choice - the TC is this definitely
2) A character - the TC is also this, definitely
3) The highest leadership - the TC has no leadership
Which one do you think the rule specifically allowing him to be a warlord is addressing?
#3. But that's not Kel's argument. Kel's argument is that the rule isn't required if he's the only HQ model.
It'd be nice if you read and responded in context - there's two of you with different arguments.
Sorry, I can hold off on my argument until you work things out with Kel.
Kommissar Kel wrote: The rules require a Warlord correct?
The rules require the warlord to be an HQ model correct?
The Rule Require the warlord to be a character correct?
We will get to the Ld in a second, Just answer these 3.
Yes^3.
Ok Now are these 2 Sentences Grammatically Identical(do they say the exact same Thing):
Your Warlord is always the HQ choice character with the highest Leadership.
-and-
No HQ choice character can have a higher Leadership than your Warlord.
No. The first requires a Leadership value. The second does not.
That is incorrect, you are still comparing Ld values in the second sentence as it is discussing an HQ character with a higher Leadership
Kommissar Kel wrote: The rules require a Warlord correct?
The rules require the warlord to be an HQ model correct?
The Rule Require the warlord to be a character correct?
We will get to the Ld in a second, Just answer these 3.
Yes^3.
Ok Now are these 2 Sentences Grammatically Identical(do they say the exact same Thing):
Your Warlord is always the HQ choice character with the highest Leadership.
-and-
No HQ choice character can have a higher Leadership than your Warlord.
No. The first requires a Leadership value. The second does not.
That is incorrect, you are still comparing Ld values in the second sentence as it is discussing an HQ character with a higher Leadership
Sure - you're comparing LD values.
The first sentence requires a LD value to exist (since no HQ choice can be higher).
The second does not (since any value can be the highest).
Kommissar Kel wrote: The rules require a Warlord correct?
The rules require the warlord to be an HQ model correct?
The Rule Require the warlord to be a character correct?
We will get to the Ld in a second, Just answer these 3.
Yes^3.
Ok Now are these 2 Sentences Grammatically Identical(do they say the exact same Thing):
Your Warlord is always the HQ choice character with the highest Leadership.
-and-
No HQ choice character can have a higher Leadership than your Warlord.
No. The first requires a Leadership value. The second does not.
That is incorrect, you are still comparing Ld values in the second sentence as it is discussing an HQ character with a higher Leadership
Sure - you're comparing LD values.
The first sentence requires a LD value to exist (since no HQ choice can be higher).
The second does not (since any value can be the highest).
Since we are comparing Ld values, we are using Math(specifically less than, Greater than) correct?
The Tank Commander has Ld of '-' in the profile. P.3 of the rulebook tells us this is same as '0'. If the Tank Commander is the only HQ character present, this would make him the warlord, even if the specific rule allowing to be chosen would not exist. Therefore for that rule to have any purpose it must mean he can be chosen regardless of the result of the Ld comparison.
Crimson - that can't be a valid argument as the T and W are also - (or 0) which means bad things.
No it doesn't. They're not 'reduced to 0', the're 0.
In any case, I don't buy your entire line of reasoning that undefined stat is somehow different then zero for comparison purposes. If 'undefined' could not be compared, then the game could actually not be played if there was a HQ character with undefined LD value present. This is because we could not proceed past the Ld comparison step in the Warlord selection. "Syntax error: invalid value" *the game crashes*
Crimson - that can't be a valid argument as the T and W are also - (or 0) which means bad things.
No it doesn't. They're not 'reduced to 0', the're 0.
In any case, I don't buy your entire line of reasoning that undefined stat is somehow different then zero for comparison purposes. If 'undefined' could not be compared, then the game could actually not be played if there was a HQ character with undefined LD value present. This is because we could not proceed past the Ld comparison step in the Warlord selection. "Syntax error: invalid value" *the game crashes*
It's almost like there's a rule that allows that to not happen.
Maybe it would be called "Tank Commander" or something similar.
Note I am not saying the Ld Value is always 0, just for the math involved, I had also expressed this earlier in the thread and want to again point out that if the Other 2 requirements(HQ Character) are met said HQ Character with a Ld of -/0 should automatically be considered "Higher" than a vehicles lack of Ld.
Note I am not saying the Ld Value is always 0, just for the math involved, I had also expressed this earlier in the thread and want to again point out that if the Other 2 requirements(HQ Character) are met said HQ Character with a Ld of -/0 should automatically be considered "Higher" than a vehicles lack of Ld.
Incorrect.
Null Set is not even close to the same thing as zero. Zero (0) is Quantitative. Null is Qualitative.
In math you can have a set with no items in it (a null set) or you can have a set with a zero in it ({ 0 }) which are not the same.
Note I am not saying the Ld Value is always 0, just for the math involved, I had also expressed this earlier in the thread and want to again point out that if the Other 2 requirements(HQ Character) are met said HQ Character with a Ld of -/0 should automatically be considered "Higher" than a vehicles lack of Ld.
Incorrect.
Null Set is not even close to the same thing as zero. Zero (0) is Quantitative. Null is Qualitative.
In math you can have a set with no items in it (a null set) or you can have a set with a zero in it ({ 0 }) which are not the same.
This is correct in Math. But the BrB says that LD - is the same as 0 for the game. So doesn't that make this particular debate pointless?
In any case, I don't buy your entire line of reasoning that undefined stat is somehow different then zero for comparison purposes. If 'undefined' could not be compared, then the game could actually not be played if there was a HQ character with undefined LD value present. This is because we could not proceed past the Ld comparison step in the Warlord selection. "Syntax error: invalid value" *the game crashes*
It's almost like there's a rule that allows that to not happen.
Maybe it would be called "Tank Commander" or something similar.
No, with your interpretation that would happen. If the TC is not exempt from the Ld comparison and undefined does not equal to zero, the the game 'crashes' once you have the Tank Commander and, say, Lord Commissar as your HQs and try to compare their leaderships.
But this doesn't even matter. By the rules the TC has LD of 0, and is a HQ character; thus he can de a warlord, even without a special rule telling us that he can. So for that rule to have any purpose, it must mean something else.
Note I am not saying the Ld Value is always 0, just for the math involved, I had also expressed this earlier in the thread and want to again point out that if the Other 2 requirements(HQ Character) are met said HQ Character with a Ld of -/0 should automatically be considered "Higher" than a vehicles lack of Ld.
Incorrect.
Null Set is not even close to the same thing as zero. Zero (0) is Quantitative. Null is Qualitative.
In math you can have a set with no items in it (a null set) or you can have a set with a zero in it ({ 0 }) which are not the same.
This is correct in Math.
Which, as underlined, is what I was responding to.
But the BrB says that LD - is the same as 0 for the game. So doesn't that make this particular debate pointless?
No. It'd be great if you followed the thread instead of assuming you understand why the discussion is where it is.
In any case, I don't buy your entire line of reasoning that undefined stat is somehow different then zero for comparison purposes. If 'undefined' could not be compared, then the game could actually not be played if there was a HQ character with undefined LD value present. This is because we could not proceed past the Ld comparison step in the Warlord selection. "Syntax error: invalid value" *the game crashes*
It's almost like there's a rule that allows that to not happen.
Maybe it would be called "Tank Commander" or something similar.
No, with your interpretation that would happen. If the TC is not exempt from the Ld comparison and undefined does not equal to zero, the the game 'crashes' once you have the Tank Commander and, say, Lord Commissar as your HQs and try to compare their leaderships.
No. As explained. I'm not going to bother repeating it because you can click on filter thread and figure it out.
But this doesn't even matter. By the rules the TC has LD of 0, and is a HQ character; thus he can de a warlord, even without a special rule telling us that he can. So for that rule to have any purpose, it must mean something else.
The people arguing against me have refused to accept that the profile applies. It'd be great if you'd read the thread and follow the discussion instead of making assumptions.
Note I am not saying the Ld Value is always 0, just for the math involved, I had also expressed this earlier in the thread and want to again point out that if the Other 2 requirements(HQ Character) are met said HQ Character with a Ld of -/0 should automatically be considered "Higher" than a vehicles lack of Ld.
Incorrect.
Null Set is not even close to the same thing as zero. Zero (0) is Quantitative. Null is Qualitative.
In math you can have a set with no items in it (a null set) or you can have a set with a zero in it ({ 0 }) which are not the same.
This is correct in Math.
Which, as underlined, is what I was responding to.
But the BrB says that LD - is the same as 0 for the game. So doesn't that make this particular debate pointless?
No. It'd be great if you followed the thread instead of assuming you understand why the discussion is where it is.
Sure, you and Kell are debating over whether you can compare Ld values with multiple HQ choices if one of the HQ choices has a - for it's LD. Crimson is saying this is irrelevant because the BRB states that Ld - is the same as Ld 0 and the profile for TC as I understand it has LD -. Therefore the rule in question would serve no purpose if it did not negate the need to compare LD with other HQ choices.
I figured this is the best place to ask this, please feel free to refer me to a prior post/thread if there is one. I am at work and cant read through 7 pages of rule discussions.
I havent played guard before(played against them though), but as a read the codex something confused me about the infantry platoons.
So the minimum you can take is 1 platoon command squad and 2 infantry squads. Can you make them all join each other as 1 squad with 25 bodies? or is the 2 infantry squds able to be combined but the platoon command as to run around as a 5 man unit?
It seemed clear that COMPANY command squads could not join other squads, but i was getting confused on the troops.
Zimko wrote: Sure, you and Kell are debating over whether you can compare Ld values with multiple HQ choices if one of the HQ choices has a - for it's LD.
Note I am not saying the Ld Value is always 0, just for the math involved, I had also expressed this earlier in the thread and want to again point out that if the Other 2 requirements(HQ Character) are met said HQ Character with a Ld of -/0 should automatically be considered "Higher" than a vehicles lack of Ld.
Incorrect.
Null Set is not even close to the same thing as zero. Zero (0) is Quantitative. Null is Qualitative.
In math you can have a set with no items in it (a null set) or you can have a set with a zero in it ({ 0 }) which are not the same.
You are correct Null Set was the incorrect term.
Null Set is a measure of negligible Importance.
I meant to say the Empty Set, which is a part of the Null set; If one has No oranges they have an empty set of oranges, which is expressed as having 0 Oranges.
0 in Mathematical comparison is a lack of value, The non-existence of a thing.
Zimko wrote: Sure, you and Kell are debating over whether you can compare Ld values with multiple HQ choices if one of the HQ choices has a - for it's LD.
I'm sorry, I don't have the new book and someone earlier in the thread said the TC had a LD - on their profile. If they don't have LD on the profile then that is different since you can't compare them during the 'compare LD phase' of picking a warlord. That would be why this rule exists.
Kommissar Kel wrote: I meant to say the Empty Set, which is a part of the Null set;
Null set was once a common synonym for "empty set", but is now a technical term in measure theory.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empty_set)
Again, no. Null Set and Empty Set are two different things.
And while you're still trying to make 0 and <null> (or undefined, or lack of existence) to equate. They aren't the same.
0 in Mathematical comparison is a lack of value, The non-existence of a thing.
False. 0 is a position on a number line.
The lack of existence of a thing is a lack of a number line.
They have a profile, they have Ld '-' and they're a HQ character. This already makes them eligible to be a warlord. For the special rule to have a purpose, it must refer to skipping the Ld comparison part. To me this is the clearest and cleanest interpretation of these rules, as it doesn't require one to believe that GW included non-functional rules or profiles just to confuse the players.
(Rigeld, I've read the thread and I don't agree with Kel on the applicability of the profile. The profile is there on purpose.)
Ok... to recap, you choose a warlord from a pool of models that are HQ choices, Characters, and have the highest LD.
A model without a LD does not have the highest LD and therefore is not in the pool of possible warlords to choose from.
So if you have 2 HQ characters, 1 with LD 9 and the other with LD 10 then your pool of eligible warlords has only 1 model in it.
This special rule adds him to the eligible models to be chosen as a warlord.
So if you have a TC and another HQ character with LD 10, you can choose from either of them because the special rule makes the TC eligible for being chosen as a warlord.
Rezyn wrote: I figured this is the best place to ask this, please feel free to refer me to a prior post/thread if there is one. I am at work and cant read through 7 pages of rule discussions.
I havent played guard before(played against them though), but as a read the codex something confused me about the infantry platoons.
So the minimum you can take is 1 platoon command squad and 2 infantry squads. Can you make them all join each other as 1 squad with 25 bodies? or is the 2 infantry squds able to be combined but the platoon command as to run around as a 5 man unit?
It seemed clear that COMPANY command squads could not join other squads, but i was getting confused on the troops.
Thanks!
Since people are still arguing about Tank Commanders as Warlords, to answer your questions, only units that have the 'Combined Squads' special rule can blob up.
Crimson wrote: Whether or not lack of Ld makes one ineligible to be a warlord is a moot point, as the Tank Commander does have an Ld.
In this case it is a moot point because the rule seems to skip the LD comparison altogether. An HQ that doesn't have the highest leadership can't normally be chosen as a warlord... this rule says the TC can be chosen as a warlord so his LD doesn't matter.
Kommissar Kel wrote: I meant to say the Empty Set, which is a part of the Null set;
Null set was once a common synonym for "empty set", but is now a technical term in measure theory.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empty_set)
Again, no. Null Set and Empty Set are two different things.
And while you're still trying to make 0 and <null> (or undefined, or lack of existence) to equate. They aren't the same.
0 in Mathematical comparison is a lack of value, The non-existence of a thing.
False. 0 is a position on a number line.
The lack of existence of a thing is a lack of a number line.
Empty set is a part of Null Set, They are separate but related.
We will go back to your Basket of Oranges; If you have a Basket, and in that basket you have a small, insignificant piece of orange Peel you technically have an orange in your basket, but not enough to matter, You have a Null Set of oranges(no actual oranges, just a piece that does not count). If you lack even that tiny piece of peel you have an Empty Set, you have no oranges at all.
0 is a position on a number line and an integer between positive and negative, for calculation math. But we are not calculating anything here, we are not asked to find the difference between Ld values.
We are using Comparison math, where we simply determine who has more Ld in value; A lack of value equates to 0 for this purpose. 1 is greater than non-existence would you agree to this statement?
Crimson wrote: Whether or not lack of Ld makes one ineligible to be a warlord is a moot point, as the Tank Commander does have an Ld.
In this case it is a moot point because the rule seems to skip the LD comparison altogether. An HQ that doesn't have the highest leadership can't normally be chosen as a warlord... this rule says the TC can be chosen as a warlord so his LD doesn't matter.
Except some people do not accept that it skips the Ld comparison.
Kommissar Kel wrote: We will go back to your Basket of Oranges; If you have a Basket, and in that basket you have a small, insignificant piece of orange Peel you technically have an orange in your basket, but not enough to matter, You have a Null Set of oranges(no actual oranges, just a piece that does not count). If you lack even that tiny piece of peel you have an Empty Set, you have no oranges at all.
That's so incorrect I'm not sure where to start.
We are using Comparison math, where we simply determine who has more Ld in value; A lack of value equates to 0 for this purpose. 1 is greater than non-existence would you agree to this statement?
1 is greater than non-existence. Lack of value does not equate to 0.
Crimson wrote: Whether or not lack of Ld makes one ineligible to be a warlord is a moot point, as the Tank Commander does have an Ld.
In this case it is a moot point because the rule seems to skip the LD comparison altogether. An HQ that doesn't have the highest leadership can't normally be chosen as a warlord... this rule says the TC can be chosen as a warlord so his LD doesn't matter.
Except some people do not accept that it skips the Ld comparison.
So it seems...
Looking at this another way... without the special rule for TC if you had a CCS and a TC for your HQ choices and it came time to choose a warlord then you would need to build a pool of candidates to pick your warlord.
The TC will not be in this pool because he doesn't have the highest LD of your HQ choices. So he can't be chosen as your warlord. But the Codex has a rule that says the TC can be chosen as your warlord. The codex trumps the BRB here.
What if the TC was the only HQ choice, and since he doesn't have a LD value he may or may not be the model with the highest LD (that is still being debated). Luckily we don't have to deal with this because we have a rule in the codex that says he can be chosen as the warlord.
Zero is a number that's less than 1 and higher than negative 1.
It's not <NaN>, <null>, etc. Unless you have some proof that it is (forgive me for not accepting your say-so).
That said - if the profile applies, since I mis-remembered the FAQ about vehicles (it only restricts who can be characters, and the unit is explicitly a character so the FAQ doesn't apply), I'll concede that argument.
But trying to not apply the profile and then pretend that <null> == 0 is simply false.
So If I concede that the Profile Applies, you will Concede that Vehicles that Are HQ Characters can be the Warlord without need for additional special rules?
Kommissar Kel wrote: So If I concede that the Profile Applies, you will Concede that Vehicles that Are HQ Characters can be the Warlord without need for additional special rules?
No. HQ Characters that have a LD can be Warlord without any additional special rules.
Since the profile applies and Page 3 defines that - == 0, the model has a LD.
There are 3 rules in the BRB relevant to choosing a warlord.
When choosing your army, you must nominate one model to be your Warlord.
This is always the HQ choice character with the highest Leadership. If several characters are tied for highest Leadership, you choose among them which is your Warlord.
Furthermore, your Warlord must be chosen from your primary detachment
The AM codex has 1 rule relevent to choosing a tank commander as a warlord.
The Tank Commander's tank is a character, has Ballistic Skill 4 and can be chosen as your army's Warlord.
The AM rule does not conflict with the 1st BRB rule. You must still nominate a model to be your warlord.
The AM rule DOES conflict with the 2nd BRB rule. Because you have permission to nominate the tank commander's tank as your warlord your nominee is not always the HQ choice character with the highest leadership. since these 3 requirements, HQ choice , character, and highest leadership, are all lumped together in a single statement they all must be followed or none must be followed. Because there is a conflict with the AM codex none must be followed.
The AM rule DOES conflict with the 3rd BRB rule. Because the permission to nominate the tank commander's tank as your warlord is not dependent on said tank being in your primary detachment you may have a warlord that is not chosen from your primary detachment.
The emperors Benediction has the precision shot special rule, Does this mean that every shot from it is a precision shot regardless of the to hit roll (excluding misses of course)?
Can orders be issued by officers that have already received an order? I can't find anything that says they can't like the previous edition.
DJGietzen wrote: There are 3 rules in the BRB relevant to choosing a warlord.
When choosing your army, you must nominate one model to be your Warlord.
This is always the HQ choice character with the highest Leadership. If several characters are tied for highest Leadership, you choose among them which is your Warlord.
Furthermore, your Warlord must be chosen from your primary detachment
The AM codex has 1 rule relevent to choosing a tank commander as a warlord.
The Tank Commander's tank is a character, has Ballistic Skill 4 and can be chosen as your army's Warlord.
The AM rule does not conflict with the 1st BRB rule. You must still nominate a model to be your warlord.
The AM rule DOES conflict with the 2nd BRB rule. Because you have permission to nominate the tank commander's tank as your warlord your nominee is not always the HQ choice character with the highest leadership. since these 3 requirements, HQ choice , character, and highest leadership, are all lumped together in a single statement they all must be followed or none must be followed. Because there is a conflict with the AM codex none must be followed.
The AM rule DOES conflict with the 3rd BRB rule. Because the permission to nominate the tank commander's tank as your warlord is not dependent on said tank being in your primary detachment you may have a warlord that is not chosen from your primary detachment.
That's a good break down... let me emphasize something to0...
The codex actually gives you permission whether or not to select the TC as your warlord.
I will say that I do see both side of the arguments... given that this is a new codex (creepage!), we'll need GQ to FAQ this for clarification.
The emperors Benediction has the precision shot special rule, Does this mean that every shot from it is a precision shot regardless of the to hit roll (excluding misses of course)?
Can orders be issued by officers that have already received an order? I can't find anything that says they can't like the previous edition.
I tried asking this back on page 5.
1) That all depends on what the precision shot special rule is. A precision shot may be allocated to any model in the target unit. Some players argue that the precision shots rule means a model that scored a 6+ to hit has made a precision shot, while other claim the rule means all shots from that model are precision shots. I personally am of the opinion the former is the right answer but the rules are a bit ambiguous.
2) As long as they don't issue an order to units that already recieved an order this phase, embarked in a transport or building, that are locked in combat, are falling back, or have gone to ground. So an officer who has received an order may issue an order to a different unit but not his own.
The emperors Benediction has the precision shot special rule, Does this mean that every shot from it is a precision shot regardless of the to hit roll (excluding misses of course)?
1) That all depends on what the precision shot special rule is. A precision shot may be allocated to any model in the target unit. Some players argue that the precision shots rule means a model that scored a 6+ to hit has made a precision shot, while other claim the rule means all shots from that model are precision shots. I personally am of the opinion the former is the right answer but the rules are a bit ambiguous.
While it seems absurd, the Former is pretty much the only way the rules can be read, as far as I'm concerned. Emperor's finest conscript snipers aside.
Look at the Precision shots entry. "If any of your characters' shots roll a 6 to hit, these are precision shots"- etc. The precision shot is an allocated shot- and anything that gives precision shots allows an allocated shot. If the order specified 'The unit may make precision shots as a character' it would be different. Alas, it does not.
Further enforced by the sniper rule entry. "If a weapon has the Sniper special rule, or is fired by a model with the sniper special rule, each To Hit roll of a 6 results in a precision shot". If Precision Shot was any roll of a 6 was allocated, that entire entry would be a needless entry.
And again, look at the Emperor's Benediction. It can ONLY go on characters. What good would precision shot be as a rule on a character only bolt pistol if it only activated on a roll of a 6, as it did for being a character?
I can't see any way you could ever read it a different way. Just wishful thinking of people who don't want Lascannon teams getting magic aiming ability (which is an understandable notion)
re: Yarrick having chain of command, he also has the senior officer special rule. So he can be the warlord & cannot be the warlord at the same time.
Oh yarrick. Youre dead, youre not dead, youre the warlord, youre not the warlord... just cant make up his damn mind.
also in regards to the precision shot argument, RAW all guardsmen automatically hit who they want, its the same kind of wording as eldar pathfinders who pay through the nose to get it. RAI, its obviously a mistake, as 40 guardsmen and 5 lascannons all hitting a chapter master in his terminator retinue is clearly way too good. If not rather hilarious
also in regards to the precision shot argument, RAW all guardsmen automatically hit who they want, its the same kind of wording as eldar pathfinders who pay through the nose to get it. RAI, its obviously a mistake, as 40 guardsmen and 5 lascannons all hitting a chapter master in his terminator retinue is clearly way too good. If not rather hilarious
The wording is quite different than what Eldar Pathfinders have. And of course the there's this:
The problem is that 'Precision Shot' refers to two different things, the rule that characters have that allows them to generate allocatable hits, and those hits themselves.
also in regards to the precision shot argument, RAW all guardsmen automatically hit who they want, its the same kind of wording as eldar pathfinders who pay through the nose to get it. RAI, its obviously a mistake, as 40 guardsmen and 5 lascannons all hitting a chapter master in his terminator retinue is clearly way too good. If not rather hilarious
The wording is quite different than what Eldar Pathfinders have. And of course the there's this:
The problem is that 'Precision Shot' refers to two different things, the rule that characters have that allows them to generate allocatable hits, and those hits themselves.
Interesting.
Worth noting that it's not done the same way in the BRB, not even close. Are ebook publications considered overruling the BRB, as they're more new? Because if they do- The Emperor's Benediction is, indeed, given a 100% pointless special rule.
Disregard, I misread that cutout quote for a moment. Yeah, that's the same as in the BRB.
So as before, it's listed for characters getting precision shots under a precision shot subheading.
Bobug wrote: also in regards to the precision shot argument, RAW all guardsmen automatically hit who they want, its the same kind of wording as eldar pathfinders who pay through the nose to get it. RAI, its obviously a mistake, as 40 guardsmen and 5 lascannons all hitting a chapter master in his terminator retinue is clearly way too good. If not rather hilarious
The sharp shot rule is very different. It states that all shots made by a model with that rule are precision shots. The order does not state that the shots fired by the target unit are precision shots.
Bobug wrote: also in regards to the precision shot argument, RAW all guardsmen automatically hit who they want, its the same kind of wording as eldar pathfinders who pay through the nose to get it. RAI, its obviously a mistake, as 40 guardsmen and 5 lascannons all hitting a chapter master in his terminator retinue is clearly way too good. If not rather hilarious
The sharp shot rule is very different. It states that all shots made by a model with that rule are precision shots. The order does not state that the shots fired by the target unit are precision shots.
The problem is that the Precision shot special rule IS an allocated hit. Characters get to make precision shots on 6's. Snipers get to make precision shots on 6's. Neither of them have the precision shot special rule.
The subheading with the details for precision shot isn't in a rule listing- it's just a subheading in the character section of the BRB. The only things ever actually called precision shots are allocated hits, the roll of a 6 generating it is part of being infantry (character) or the Sniper special rule.
Bobug wrote: also in regards to the precision shot argument, RAW all guardsmen automatically hit who they want, its the same kind of wording as eldar pathfinders who pay through the nose to get it. RAI, its obviously a mistake, as 40 guardsmen and 5 lascannons all hitting a chapter master in his terminator retinue is clearly way too good. If not rather hilarious
The sharp shot rule is very different. It states that all shots made by a model with that rule are precision shots. The order does not state that the shots fired by the target unit are precision shots.
The problem is that the Precision shot special rule IS an allocated hit. Characters get to make precision shots on 6's. Snipers get to make precision shots on 6's. Neither of them have the precision shot special rule.
The subheading with the details for precision shot isn't in a rule listing- it's just a subheading in the character section of the BRB. The only things ever actually called precision shots are allocated hits, the roll of a 6 generating it is part of being infantry (character) or the Sniper special rule.
No. Either the precision shots special rule is the subheading under character. Indicating it is a special rule possessed by all characters, or it does not exist. Since the order refers to the rule we must assume it does exist. Either the order gives every model in the target unit the subheading, or it does nothing at all.
Bobug wrote: also in regards to the precision shot argument, RAW all guardsmen automatically hit who they want, its the same kind of wording as eldar pathfinders who pay through the nose to get it. RAI, its obviously a mistake, as 40 guardsmen and 5 lascannons all hitting a chapter master in his terminator retinue is clearly way too good. If not rather hilarious
The sharp shot rule is very different. It states that all shots made by a model with that rule are precision shots. The order does not state that the shots fired by the target unit are precision shots.
The problem is that the Precision shot special rule IS an allocated hit. Characters get to make precision shots on 6's. Snipers get to make precision shots on 6's. Neither of them have the precision shot special rule.
The subheading with the details for precision shot isn't in a rule listing- it's just a subheading in the character section of the BRB. The only things ever actually called precision shots are allocated hits, the roll of a 6 generating it is part of being infantry (character) or the Sniper special rule.
No. Either the precision shots special rule is the subheading under character. Indicating it is a special rule possessed by all characters, or it does not exist. Since the order refers to the rule we must assume it does exist. Either the order gives every model in the target unit the subheading, or it does nothing at all.
Subheadings in other areas of the book are not special rule. It's just a thing. If it's not in the special rule section of the BRB, it isn't. Of course, Special rules not in the BRB are listed in the codex they come in, unless GW messes up and uses precision shot as a rule that's never listed. So there's a description of how characters and snipers make them, but no special rule for them in either codex despite now being used as a special rule.
It depends on what you want to infer from that. Precision Shot is not a thing characters get or snipers get and it is not rolling 6's to hit to allocate, ever. The BRB is explicit about it. When you allocate a hit, that's a precision shot. Characters and snipers make them on 6's. If you want RAI based on an error in RAW, it's the full squad gets to plant hits, and the Benediction gets the same effect.
RAW do give us a special rule that currently does not exist, per se, though. True.
Precision shot is a shot that allows the firer to allocate and has an on/off switch normally based on rolling a 6. This order ignores switch and says it is always on.
RAI: On a 6 guardsmen get to lascanon snipe.
RAW: we suffer thru guardsmen sniping until it gets faq'd.
I haven't seen this asked yet I don't think but Kurov's Aquila's ability that all friendly units with in 6" gain preferred enemy, does that still work if that model was embarked on a transport?
Although a Roll of two fives would mean a failed leadership check for most guardsmen, it is still a double. The order is failed, but every other order is inspired tactics. Double Sixes is still forces incompetent command - Inspired tactics lets the user automatically issue any order, while incompetent command disables the player from ordering whatsoever.
6. Take Aim! Order:
Spoiler:
Take Aim Gives Guard the Precision Shots "Rule". Technically a rule for characters, this seems to suggest that guardsmen get automatic precision shots because if they actually aim down the barrell, they're deadeyes. (apparently.) HIWPI rolls of 6 are precision shots.
Tactical Auto-Reliquary: “When rolling Leadership tests for orders issued by an officer with the Tactical Auto-Reliquary, any successful Leadership test that results in a double will count as Inspired Tactics” it must be a successful test.
Take Aim!: “The ordered unit must make a shooting attack. When resolving this shooting attack, all models in the ordered unit have the Precision Shot special rule.”
This isn't ambiguous to me at all. The squad gains the precision shots rule, only rolls of a 6 to hit are precision shots.
Unfortunately the Smite at Will! command is similarly worded, suggesting that the successful order grants the splitfire special rule (meaning the squad must pass a second ld test to successful splitfire.
Additional question:
- Can CCS advisors (astropath, master of ordnance, OOTF) be equipped with camo gear or carapace armor like the veterans in the squad?
Hollismason wrote: I haven't seen this asked yet I don't think but Kurov's Aquila's ability that all friendly units with in 6" gain preferred enemy, does that still work if that model was embarked on a transport?
Yes.
You are called upon to Measure distance to the unit embarked on the tranport; Page 73 is clear on this matter.
So the ability can be used when:
a) the model with the aquilla is embarked.
b) The unit benefiting is embarked
c) Both units are embarked.
Take Aim!: “The ordered unit must make a shooting attack. When resolving this shooting attack, all models in the ordered unit have the Precision Shot special rule.”
This isn't ambiguous to me at all. The squad gains the precision shots rule, only rolls of a 6 to hit are precision shots.
Unfortunately the Smite at Will! command is similarly worded, suggesting that the successful order grants the splitfire special rule (meaning the squad must pass a second ld test to successful splitfire.
Additional question:
- Can CCS advisors (astropath, master of ordnance, OOTF) be equipped with camo gear or carapace armor like the veterans in the squad?
The reason Take Aim! is ambiguous is more obvious if you take a look at the Precision Shot entry of the BRB. First of all, it isn't a special rule (not even in the special rule chapter of the book). Second, read the entry for Precision Shot closely. It says that when a character rolls a 6, it becomes a Precision Shot. This means that when a model is given a "Precision Shot", it doesn't have to roll a 6 to get the shot, it is simply given it. I agree with Scipio on HIWPI, btw.
I was actually just wondering about Smite at Will! today.
The advisers cannot take those items, as they do not have access to special issue wargear and are not given special permission to take them (unlike the commander and veterans, respectively).
Also, I'm mad that Stormtroopers can't outflank in a Chimera anymore.
Hollismason wrote: Interesting so it creates a larger "footprint" for the Aquila?
I am not sure on the size of the Chimera but that extends it's range vastly.
Yes, all abilities that measure range to a model can be extended by being embarked on a vehicle. It makes actual sense which Voice of Command on a chimera; many other abilities, not as much(Technically you can Blessings of the omnissiah a vehicle from inside a chimera that moves into contact with it; I would not suggest making use of this chicanery)
Does an Engineseer maintain independent character once he takes servitors. In other words, would I be allowed to take two servitors, then attach the Enginseer to my CCS and embark them all in a chimera?
Tactical Auto-Reliquary: “When rolling Leadership tests for orders issued by an officer with the Tactical Auto-Reliquary, any successful Leadership test that results in a double will count as Inspired Tactics” it must be a successful test.
Take Aim!: “The ordered unit must make a shooting attack. When resolving this shooting attack, all models in the ordered unit have the Precision Shot special rule.”
This isn't ambiguous to me at all. The squad gains the precision shots rule, only rolls of a 6 to hit are precision shots.
Unfortunately the Smite at Will! command is similarly worded, suggesting that the successful order grants the splitfire special rule (meaning the squad must pass a second ld test to successful splitfire.
Additional question:
- Can CCS advisors (astropath, master of ordnance, OOTF) be equipped with camo gear or carapace armor like the veterans in the squad?
Copying from the other thread on this issue:
The mistake being made here is that the first sentence under Precision Shots in the BRB begins by defining how characters gain the Precision Shot rule. No characters, generally, have the precision shot rule. When they roll a 6 they gain the precision shot rule which allows them to allocate wounds. There are other sources as well that can grant the Precision shot rule. Rolling a 6 is not a requirement for precision shots, it is simply a mechanic by which all characters can temporally gain the precision shot rule. The rule doesn't limit it to characters or limit it only to rolling a 6. It provides the most common scenario and a universal rule for characters. Other rules can, and do, exist in codexes and on weapons that grant Precision Shots beyond the example listed under the Precision Shots rule in the BRB.
The logic works as follows:
Character rolls 6.
Character gains Precision Shots rule for that attack.
Squad receives the Take Aim order.
Squad gains the Precision Shots rule for their attacks.
In either case the BRB defines Precision Shots as allowing you to allocate wounds. It does not require rolling a 6. A character rolling a 6 is merely the most common mechanic for a precision shot to come up in the game because that situation specifically grants a Character the Precision Shots rule for that attack.
Archive wrote: Does an Engineseer maintain independent character once he takes servitors. In other words, would I be allowed to take two servitors, then attach the Enginseer to my CCS and embark them all in a chimera?
The Servitors are a unit unto themselves. Sort of like SM Command Squads.
1. Do platoons still have the ability to come from Reserves with a single roll? Or are all units in a Platoon (including Storm Trooper Platoons) rolled for separately?
2. Can Ogryns ride around in the Valkyrie/Vendetta?
I believe that is all for now - thanks to those for providing solid answers.
mr_bruno wrote: 1. Do platoons still have the ability to come from Reserves with a single roll? Or are all units in a Platoon (including Storm Trooper Platoons) rolled for separately?
Atm there is nothing that allows an entire platoon to come in on a single roll.
2. Can Ogryns ride around in the Valkyrie/Vendetta?
Is there a restriction in the Valkyrie/Vendetta rules?
Apologies if this has been answered already, but is there a firing arc for the lasgun arrays? My friend who plays Guard says that in the codex it only says about firing from different sides.
There isn't a listed arc, so it would be as normal for a weapon on a vehicle, I would imagine. to be specific, if you can point the gun at it, it can shoot it. As these guns are kind of mounted ridiculously, I would prolly play it as a 45 degree angle, as per hull-mounted guns (assuming my opponent was fine with that).
There really is no hard rule and we are not sure if it is a vehicle weapon or not(for weapon destroyed results).
The best way to play it I have found is to treat it exactly like a vehicles weapons(One that just happens to be fired by embarked troops), because it uses the vehicles BS(veterans hit less often). Therefore it can fire in any arc the ball turrets can point to(about 165*+ or so on each side). But that is Purely HIWPI, not RAW(which is completely undefined).
So Just under straight forward on each flank to just under straight back(the way I play it).
Ok, thanks for the responses - I think we'll play it as it can hit what the ball turret can actually be turned to see. I guess it's a bit like the ball turrets on the Fire Raptor.
I'd probably play it similar to the FAQ for the Necron Gauss Flayer Array:
Q: What is the arc of fire for a gauss flayer array? (p53)
A: As it is mounted on the hull it will have a 45 degree arc of fire. However it is slightly unusual in that it has multiple gun barrels. As long as you can draw line of sight along one of them, you can target the unit.
Ghaz wrote: I'd probably play it similar to the FAQ for the Necron Gauss Flayer Array:
Q: What is the arc of fire for a gauss flayer array? (p53)
A: As it is mounted on the hull it will have a 45 degree arc of fire. However it is slightly unusual in that it has multiple gun barrels. As long as you can draw line of sight along one of them, you can target the unit.
Forgive me if I am wrong, But aren't the guass flayer arrays in what would be considered a hull mount?
As in, can they(or do they look like the could) freely move or are they in a static position on the model?
Either way I would use that FAQ as precedent(even though the flayers operate differently):
If the Flayers are static, then they are hull mounted and thus a 45* arc. And the non-static Lasguns also follow the vehicles weapons rules Per the FAQ.
If the Flayers mobile, then Both Flayer and Lasguns are 45* arc per the FAQ.
Yes, they are static mounts. The main precedent that I was looking at was if one 'gun' in the array had line of sight then they all would. That is assuming they're all considered one 'weapon' on each side of the Chimera, as I don't have the codex.
Archive wrote: Does an Engineseer maintain independent character once he takes servitors. In other words, would I be allowed to take two servitors, then attach the Enginseer to my CCS and embark them all in a chimera?
Ghaz wrote: Yes, they are static mounts. The main precedent that I was looking at was if one 'gun' in the array had line of sight then they all would. That is assuming they're all considered one 'weapon' on each side of the Chimera, as I don't have the codex.
They are pretty different; The lasguns require 1 passenger per gun fired; So I could see each Lasgun needing LOS on its own.
On the other hand they are all 3/side as 1 array(it is a really complex rule, that is mostly simple but the questions not answered by the rule just about spiral out of control.)
Ghaz wrote: Yes, they are static mounts. The main precedent that I was looking at was if one 'gun' in the array had line of sight then they all would. That is assuming they're all considered one 'weapon' on each side of the Chimera, as I don't have the codex.
They are pretty different; The lasguns require 1 passenger per gun fired; So I could see each Lasgun needing LOS on its own.
On the other hand they are all 3/side as 1 array(it is a really complex rule, that is mostly simple but the questions not answered by the rule just about spiral out of control.)
Each weapon needs to be able to see separately is how I see it. It's not like a twin-linked weapon where you're really only shooting once, you get to shoot three times so you should need to see three times.
Is the laser array a single weapon or three? Is the profile listed for the whole array or for each individual gun in the array? If the profile is only for the whole array, is there anything in the rules that would allow you to 'split' the array?
Ghaz wrote: Is the laser array a single weapon or three? Is the profile listed for the whole array or for each individual gun in the array? If the profile is only for the whole array, is there anything in the rules that would allow you to 'split' the array?
It's kind of like a Hurricane bolter in that it's a single weapon that consists of multiple weapons.
Then I stand by my statement that the FAQ for the Necron Gauss Flayer Array sets the precedent that only one 'weapon' in the Laser Array needs line of sight in order to fire.
Ghaz wrote: Is the laser array a single weapon or three? Is the profile listed for the whole array or for each individual gun in the array? If the profile is only for the whole array, is there anything in the rules that would allow you to 'split' the array?
It's kind of like a Hurricane bolter in that it's a single weapon that consists of multiple weapons.
No, it isn't. One Centurion can man a Hurricane bolter. One Centurion could not man 3 lasgun arrays, even with decimator protocols. The two weapons are not similar enough to compare.
Ghaz wrote: Is the laser array a single weapon or three? Is the profile listed for the whole array or for each individual gun in the array? If the profile is only for the whole array, is there anything in the rules that would allow you to 'split' the array?
It's kind of like a Hurricane bolter in that it's a single weapon that consists of multiple weapons.
No, it isn't. One Centurion can man a Hurricane bolter. One Centurion could not man 3 lasgun arrays, even with decimator protocols. The two weapons are not similar enough to compare.
I was thinking about on a vehicle, not in a Space Marine's arm pits. But fair enough.
Looking at the model and looking at the rule again, more closely, I can't imagine too many times that 3 lasguns spaced that closely together (they're like what, an inch, inch and half across for all three?) can't see the same target, but if that some how happened I'd say it'd still probably be treated as a single weapon as the three lasguns are treated as a single lasgun array collectively. Mostly because the Line of Sight arguments over if one of the guns can/can't see something would get a bit ridiculious in most cases.
I was thinking about on a vehicle, not in a Space Marine's arm pits. But fair enough.
Looking at the model and looking at the rule again, more closely, I can't imagine too many times that 3 lasguns spaced that closely together (they're like what, an inch, inch and half across for all three?) can't see the same target, but if that some how happened I'd say it'd still probably be treated as a single weapon as the three lasguns are treated as a single lasgun array collectively. Mostly because the Line of Sight arguments over if one of the guns can/can't see something would get a bit ridiculious in most cases.
Usually it won't be an issue, and most people won't care that much about 6 S3 shots. But, uh, let's pretend it'll matter.
The issue here is that you guys are looking at the Lasgun array as if it were a weapon on the tank. the fact is, it is not a weapon. It is actually a special rule. The Special rule allows you to fire 3 weapons - three lasgun so long as you have 3 infantry in transit to fire them individually. You only fire two lasgun arrays if you don't have 3 guys who are not already firing (for example, a CCS squad of 5 shooting both arrays may only fire 5/6).
As an aside, do we treat six dudes firing 6 lasguns as two sets of three lasguns? We don't, so we don't do that here.
Just because the Laser Array requires three embarked models in order to fire does not invalidate the precedent set by the Gauss Flayer Array. Needing models in order to fire the weapon doesn't change how or where that weapon can fire.
Ghaz wrote: Just because the Laser Array requires three embarked models in order to fire does not invalidate the precedent set by the Gauss Flayer Array. Needing models in order to fire the weapon doesn't change how or where that weapon can fire.
Except that the two are not similiar and thus the gauss flayer array cannot be used as a precedent.
One is a weapon, the other is a special rule. The gauss flayer array has NO bearing here.
Ghaz wrote: Just because the Laser Array requires three embarked models in order to fire does not invalidate the precedent set by the Gauss Flayer Array. Needing models in order to fire the weapon doesn't change how or where that weapon can fire.
Except that the two are not similiar and thus the gauss flayer array cannot be used as a precedent.
One is a weapon, the other is a special rule. The gauss flayer array has NO bearing here.
How aren't they similar? Aside from being reclassified as a Special Rule instead of a Weapon, and aside from requiring embarked passengers, they're practically identical.
Speaking of the Array some more, I had a thought: is it eligible to use for Overwatch? It's being fired by models embarked in a transport which is the only way (without special wargear/options) that a vehicle can Overwatch.
ClockworkZion wrote: Speaking of the Array some more, I had a thought: is it eligible to use for Overwatch? It's being fired by models embarked in a transport which is the only way (without special wargear/options) that a vehicle can Overwatch.
Just one of those "huh" moments is all.
Probably not. It is still a vehicle weapon, it just requires embarked models to be fired. Of course the FAQ will probably allow it.
ClockworkZion wrote: Speaking of the Array some more, I had a thought: is it eligible to use for Overwatch? It's being fired by models embarked in a transport which is the only way (without special wargear/options) that a vehicle can Overwatch.
Just one of those "huh" moments is all.
Probably not. It is still a vehicle weapon, it just requires embarked models to be fired. Of course the FAQ will probably allow it.
Probably right on both counts, assuming FAQs are coming. I sent it into the FAQ email just for fun anyways.
Be kind of impressive if they could. It'd partially justify the points bump (well that and the fact that Chimeras now look like moving rave parties with the lasers going everywhere and the heavy bass sounds of the heavy bolter )
ClockworkZion wrote: Be kind of impressive if they could. It'd partially justify the points bump (well that and the fact that Chimeras now look like moving rave parties with the lasers going everywhere and the heavy bass sounds of the heavy bolter )
Now that is an image I cannot get out of my head. Laser of different colours shooting every direction.
ClockworkZion wrote: Be kind of impressive if they could. It'd partially justify the points bump (well that and the fact that Chimeras now look like moving rave parties with the lasers going everywhere and the heavy bass sounds of the heavy bolter )
Now that is an image I cannot get out of my head. Laser of different colours shooting every direction.
Ghaz wrote: Just because the Laser Array requires three embarked models in order to fire does not invalidate the precedent set by the Gauss Flayer Array. Needing models in order to fire the weapon doesn't change how or where that weapon can fire.
It isn't that it requires 3 guardsmen to fire, it is that each guardsman can fire a single lasgun from the array.
Like I said it is a pretty complex rule and I would definitely agree with LOS being required from each gun(firing) since they do fire separately.
Gauss Flayer Array: Single weapon Firing as several Gauss Flayers where the LOS is drawn from any barrel(It is exactly like a hurricane Bolter).
Lasgun Array: 2 sets of 3 lasguns that can be fired individually by the passengers
ClockworkZion wrote: Be kind of impressive if they could. It'd partially justify the points bump (well that and the fact that Chimeras now look like moving rave parties with the lasers going everywhere and the heavy bass sounds of the heavy bolter )
Now that is an image I cannot get out of my head. Laser of different colours shooting every direction.
Can you see the Chimeras in the back?
When you're basing your rules interpretations on Jean Michelle Jarre concerts you know you're in trouble
Ghaz wrote: Just because the Laser Array requires three embarked models in order to fire does not invalidate the precedent set by the Gauss Flayer Array. Needing models in order to fire the weapon doesn't change how or where that weapon can fire.
Except that the two are not similiar and thus the gauss flayer array cannot be used as a precedent.
One is a weapon, the other is a special rule. The gauss flayer array has NO bearing here.
How aren't they similar? Aside from being reclassified as a Special Rule instead of a Weapon, and aside from requiring embarked passengers, they're practically identical.
Aside from two key elements of the weapons, they're entirely similar.
No, the only similarity is that they fire multiple small arms. The Gauss Flayer is like the Hurricane bolter, but it is not like the lasgun array.
As for overwatching them, they're a special rule that allows passengers to fire a lasgun. Is one allowed to overwatch with a special rule? If so, then yes.
It may be a special rule governing how the array is fired but they are clearly weapons being fired. It's definitely a shooting attack from the vehicle by the passengers.
The question really comes down to how GW wants to split the hair between it being the passengers shooting (as per the overwatching from transports rules), and it being the vehicle's weapon (as per the overwatch rules concerning vehicles). It can easily go either way honestly.
Now I don't see it being too overpowered, but I don't really have an answer for how this will all work. I sent it into GW to try and make the FAQ at least.
ClockworkZion wrote: It may be a special rule governing how the array is fired but they are clearly weapons being fired. It's definitely a shooting attack from the vehicle by the passengers.
The question really comes down to how GW wants to split the hair between it being the passengers shooting (as per the overwatching from transports rules), and it being the vehicle's weapon (as per the overwatch rules concerning vehicles). It can easily go either way honestly.
Now I don't see it being too overpowered, but I don't really have an answer for how this will all work. I sent it into GW to try and make the FAQ at least.
Hmm. Here's another thing. Assuming one CAN use the weapons on overwatch, could one theoretically overwatch three different times? IF you get charged in one flank, you use that side's lasgun arrays, then you use the other sides, then you overwatch the third out the top hatch?
I'm iffy about that. It stinks of tau target locks.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Thread's been updated to include as many questions as have been presented. I'm not prepared to include the warlord tank problem because we do not have a clear cut answer there.
ClockworkZion wrote: It may be a special rule governing how the array is fired but they are clearly weapons being fired. It's definitely a shooting attack from the vehicle by the passengers.
The question really comes down to how GW wants to split the hair between it being the passengers shooting (as per the overwatching from transports rules), and it being the vehicle's weapon (as per the overwatch rules concerning vehicles). It can easily go either way honestly.
Now I don't see it being too overpowered, but I don't really have an answer for how this will all work. I sent it into GW to try and make the FAQ at least.
Hmm. Here's another thing. Assuming one CAN use the weapons on overwatch, could one theoretically overwatch three different times? IF you get charged in one flank, you use that side's lasgun arrays, then you use the other sides, then you overwatch the third out the top hatch?
I'm iffy about that. It stinks of tau target locks.
I have a feeling everything would have to overwatch at the same target at the same time
ClockworkZion wrote: It may be a special rule governing how the array is fired but they are clearly weapons being fired. It's definitely a shooting attack from the vehicle by the passengers.
The question really comes down to how GW wants to split the hair between it being the passengers shooting (as per the overwatching from transports rules), and it being the vehicle's weapon (as per the overwatch rules concerning vehicles). It can easily go either way honestly.
Now I don't see it being too overpowered, but I don't really have an answer for how this will all work. I sent it into GW to try and make the FAQ at least.
Hmm. Here's another thing. Assuming one CAN use the weapons on overwatch, could one theoretically overwatch three different times? IF you get charged in one flank, you use that side's lasgun arrays, then you use the other sides, then you overwatch the third out the top hatch?
I'm iffy about that. It stinks of tau target locks.
I have a feeling everything would have to overwatch at the same target at the same time
The thing I was thinking about is that it's three different iterations of shooting, so the unit is not overwatching once, it's overwatching three times, coupled with the fact that a tank is never locked in combat.
Better question for lasgun arrays: Who do they fire with, Chimera, or embarked unit? It is the embarked unit that fires them, but then we are specifically told the arrays may fire at different targets from the other Chimeras weapons(But not told they can fire at a separate target from the embarked unit using fire points).
So since all firing from a single unit is simultaneous, and you have a Rhino on either side of the chimera with 2 plasma guns you want to fire on one, and the multilaser on the other; which ones contents can you shoot the arrays at? Choices are: a) Arrays are Chimera-slaved, you shoot the units plasma guns and pop the rhino first, then poop the other rhino with the mulilaser and shoot the marines in the plasma-popped rhino with the arrays b) Arrays are unit-slaved, you shoot the multilaser and pop the rhino, then pop the other rhino with the plasmas while shooting the multi-laser popped marines with the Array c) They can shoot at neither Rhinos contents because because they are in some grey "both units" shooting d) They can shoot at either rhinos contents because they have a separate shooting all on their own.
Kommissar Kel wrote: Better question for lasgun arrays: Who do they fire with, Chimera, or embarked unit? It is the embarked unit that fires them, but then we are specifically told the arrays may fire at different targets from the other Chimeras weapons(But not told they can fire at a separate target from the embarked unit using fire points).
So since all firing from a single unit is simultaneous, and you have a Rhino on either side of the chimera with 2 plasma guns you want to fire on one, and the multilaser on the other; which ones contents can you shoot the arrays at? Choices are: a) Arrays are Chimera-slaved, you shoot the units plasma guns and pop the rhino first, then poop the other rhino with the mulilaser and shoot the marines in the plasma-popped rhino with the arrays b) Arrays are unit-slaved, you shoot the multilaser and pop the rhino, then pop the other rhino with the plasmas while shooting the multi-laser popped marines with the Array c) They can shoot at neither Rhinos contents because because they are in some grey "both units" shooting d) They can shoot at either rhinos contents because they have a separate shooting all on their own.
I would resolve it simultaneously with the unit's shooting, like a Tau unit with target locks. Makes things easier.
I would resolve it simultaneously with the carried infantry unit's shooting, as the guns are fired by models in the carried infantry units, even if they use the Chimera's BS.
The question is, can each array target a different target, as implied by the last sentence of the rule?
I presented the Question knowing which way I would go with, and you guys did not disappoint why it belongs in this thread.
Now, personally I would go with it being a Chimera-unit weapon; this viewpoint allows it to use all of its rules without having to make logical leaps between what is written and what makes it playable.
1)The rules for separate Targeting Between the Arrays and anything else is entirely off of the Chimera weapons.
2)It fires as if it were a Chimera weapon(Vets lose a point of BS when "firing" the arrays), with special rules.
3)And the rules are written to preclude models that fire the array or are going to fire the array from firing out of the top hatch(if it would fire with the unit this would be unnecessary).
Kommissar Kel wrote: I presented the Question knowing which way I would go with, and you guys did not disappoint why it belongs in this thread.
Now, personally I would go with it being a Chimera-unit weapon; this viewpoint allows it to use all of its rules without having to make logical leaps between what is written and what makes it playable.
1)The rules for separate Targeting Between the Arrays and anything else is entirely off of the Chimera weapons.
2)It fires as if it were a Chimera weapon(Vets lose a point of BS when "firing" the arrays), with special rules.
3)And the rules are written to preclude models that fire the array or are going to fire the array from firing out of the top hatch(if it would fire with the unit this would be unnecessary).
OTOH, it specifically says "Up to six models from the embarked unit ... may fire one lasgun each..."
The Chimera does not fire the guns, even if it does use the Chimera's ballistic skill. This means that if you had five models in the back of the chimera, you could only fire five of the lasguns even if no one at all is using the fireports.
Kommissar Kel wrote: I presented the Question knowing which way I would go with, and you guys did not disappoint why it belongs in this thread.
Now, personally I would go with it being a Chimera-unit weapon; this viewpoint allows it to use all of its rules without having to make logical leaps between what is written and what makes it playable.
1)The rules for separate Targeting Between the Arrays and anything else is entirely off of the Chimera weapons.
2)It fires as if it were a Chimera weapon(Vets lose a point of BS when "firing" the arrays), with special rules.
3)And the rules are written to preclude models that fire the array or are going to fire the array from firing out of the top hatch(if it would fire with the unit this would be unnecessary).
OTOH, it specifically says "Up to six models from the embarked unit ... may fire one lasgun each..."
The Chimera does not fire the guns, even if it does use the Chimera's ballistic skill. This means that if you had five models in the back of the chimera, you could only fire five of the lasguns even if no one at all is using the fireports.
Problem with that is that then there is no allowance to fire at any targets other than what the unit fires at. You are only allowed to target a unit different from the chimeras other weaponry.
Kommissar Kel wrote: I presented the Question knowing which way I would go with, and you guys did not disappoint why it belongs in this thread.
Now, personally I would go with it being a Chimera-unit weapon; this viewpoint allows it to use all of its rules without having to make logical leaps between what is written and what makes it playable.
1)The rules for separate Targeting Between the Arrays and anything else is entirely off of the Chimera weapons.
2)It fires as if it were a Chimera weapon(Vets lose a point of BS when "firing" the arrays), with special rules.
3)And the rules are written to preclude models that fire the array or are going to fire the array from firing out of the top hatch(if it would fire with the unit this would be unnecessary).
OTOH, it specifically says "Up to six models from the embarked unit ... may fire one lasgun each..."
The Chimera does not fire the guns, even if it does use the Chimera's ballistic skill. This means that if you had five models in the back of the chimera, you could only fire five of the lasguns even if no one at all is using the fireports.
Problem with that is that then there is no allowance to fire at any targets other than what the unit fires at. You are only allowed to target a unit different from the chimeras other weaponry.
Yes, there is no allowance to fire at any targets other than that which your Embarked unit Fires on, So you cannot fire both the arrays at 2 separate targets, And we fall back to 2 Targets from the Chimera(if awakened by a tech priest) and 1 target from the Unit(including the arrays at that target)
Instead of firing out the fire points, a model may fire one of the lasguns on one of the lasgun arrays along the flanks of the chimera. In this way, up to 6 embarked models may fire a lasgun because of these arrays. Each of the two arrays (consisting of three lasguns each) may fire at a separate target to one another, as well as the Chimera's shooting and the shooting of the squad inside the Chimera. Note that, this shooting is always resolved at BS3 (regardless of the actual BS of the firer, although the tank still snap shoots when the passengers would be forced to make snap shots) and may be fired, even if the Chimera moved farther than 6" that turn.
I would then personally add the addendum "The lasgun arrays may be fired on overwatch, as they are manned by embarked passengers.", but I didn't add that because I know it's up for contention.
That re-write still makes it unit fired. This is mine:
Lasgun Arrays: A Chimera has two separate arrays of three lasguns – one array located above each side of its hull. The Chimera may fire one or more lasgun from each from these lasgun arrays, provided up to 6 models from the embarked unit are not using the Chimera’s Fire Points this turn. To represent the unusual nature of these weapons, use the Chimera’s Ballistic Skill for these shots – the lasgun arrays can shoot at this Ballistic Skill regardless of how far the Chimera has moved. If the Chimera has suffered a Crew Stunned or Crew Shaken result, the lasgun arrays can only make Snap Shots. Lastly, each array may shoot at a different target to the Chimera’s other weaponry, though all lasguns in the same array must shoot at the same target.
It is only a slight rearrangement of the lasgun array firing rule that clarifies the chimera is firing, not the unit.
One slight modification to your clarification. Change "... provided up to 6 models from the embarked unit are not using the Chimera’s Fire Points this turn..." to "... one lasgun for each model in the embarked unit that are not using the Chimera's Fire Points this turn..."
So this came up over in Natfka's comment section in a recent article and I want to explain why it's wrong and doesn't work just to get it out there.
The idea was using Power of the Machine Spirit on a Leman Russ in a unit with a Tank Commander then using the "Gunners, Kill on Sight" order the TC has to fire at three targets.
Firstly it doesn't work because of a sequence of events issue comes up: namely (as per the first paragraph on page 28) Orders are issued and completely resolved "at the start of the Shooting Phase", the Engineseer meanwhile has to forgo a Shooting Attack to use his ability to Awaken the Machine Spirit, which means he goes at a later point during the same phase.
Secondly there is the issue of of how shooting attacks are resolved, namely (as per page 12 of the core rulebook) you must complete the sequence of nominating a unit to shoot, choosing a target, rolling to hit, wound and then allocating wounds and removing casualties before any other unit can do anything. So you can't shoot the commander's tank then use Awaken the Machine Spirit then shoot the other two tanks.
So basically, if your Tank Commander is issuing Orders the Engineseer can't Awaken Machine Spirit on the unit (well he CAN but it does nothing, they've already completed their shooting attack, so just have him restore a hull point instead) and the fact that I had to point out both of these facts to more than one person made me feel it was worth addressing in full here just in case.
The fact that I had to explain the orders thing THEN explain the shooting rules THEN explain BOTH was why I felt it needed to be addressed because it seemed like people just weren't getting how it all works.
I don't have time tonight to read that, Kel if you're happy that you've reached a concensus and you can garner a bit of support, give me a short answer and I'll include it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Maxurugi wrote: Can an Enginseer use Awaken the Machine out of a Chimera?
)
