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

Hello,

i wanna know in the rulebook there is something like : "a warmachine's wounds are always considered to be equal to the number of remaining crew models"

A member of our club is playing dark elfs...with the reaper boltthrower there are just 2 crewmembers and 3 wounds in the characterestics of the warmachine...what rule do i use ?

thx,

christophe

The rule in the BRB, whcih supercedes the codex. You will note that there is a line about "wounds being included for completeness" - i.e. they are not the real wound stat; the real, 8th ed wound "stat" is the number of remaining crew members.

RBTs have 2 wounds now.

Nosferatu, does the BRB take precedence over the codex because the latter is incomplete in light of 8th (i.e.: the quote you have up there is from the codex)? Just wondering.

Also, sad trombone music for the repeater/reaper bolt throwers.

The BRB is more specific than the armybook in this instance - it even tells you that the Wound stat you see isnt the "real" wound stat. It isnt really taking precedence over the armybook, but redefining the "wound" stat to mean something other than "wounds"

Ah, so: Yes.

I stick with my previous comments on this that GW really needs to FAQ this.

Even the new BRB states that the RBT for both HE and DE have 3 wounds each. So I think that they either need to Errata the number of wounds, or the number of crew, so that both agree.

They don't need to errata it, as the rule IS clear - the number of crew == number of actual wounds.

Nosferatu's right. When you add a dwarf engineer to the crew of a machine, you don't change the wounds statistic of the war machine, but it does require four wounds inflicted in order to eliminate the thing. It's the same question, only in reverse.

It's not even a case of the BRB conflicting with an old Army Book. It's a case of the BRB conflicting with itself.

GW themselves state in the BRB that RBT's have 3 wounds, even though the actual rules state otherwise.

So either GW did not realize when writing the current edition of the BRB that the model that they assigned 3 wounds to only comes with 2 crew, or GW just copied and pasted the old stats when it should clearly have 2 wounds.

So the solution is simple: Either Errata the HE book and change the number of crew to 3, or Errata the HE book and the BRB and change the number of wounds down to 2. There is not a single good reason why you should have two published stats for the same model that conflict with each other.

They dont conflict with eachother, as you are told the wound stat is, effectively, meaningless.

Red_Zeke wrote:Nosferatu's right. When you add a dwarf engineer to the crew of a machine, you don't change the wounds statistic of the war machine, but it does require four wounds inflicted in order to eliminate the thing. It's the same question, only in reverse.

I thought there was an FAQ or some such stating that an Engineer didn't add a wound. I may be thinking of something else, though...

As an aside, I think you should be happy he spent 200 points on RBT's and not saved 25 points by getting a Hydra which will do far more.

@Nosferatu: I think the main complaint here is that it is meaningless, but it's still there and it hasn't been removed. It's like GW said "This seems relevant (but it's not, so ignore it)".

@Kirbinator: The Engineer "Extra Crewman" rule got ex'd. Maybe that's what you're thinking of?

@Ronin: ...yes. Hydras are better. Than most anything. We know.

It may be relevant in the future, when they change / update army books. They have not done so, imo, as to change the BRB and NOT change the army books, or worse errata units when it is NOT needed as the rules cover it perfectly fine, just adds to the size of the already lengthy FAQs.

I...think I understand. And if I do, I suppose I can agree with that. But d-usa has a valid complaint in that it is misleading.

And I'm NOT sure if one more addition would have hurt the FAQs, especially since both books will NOT be changed / updated for a long while now.

The BRB doesnt need updating on a regular basis - like it says, the Bestiary is overridden if the armybook contradicts the BRB (to allow for stats updates without having to errata the BRB!)

It is a hideously simply rule: the number of wounds you have is equal to the number of crew. That's it really!

Yes, yes Nosferatu. We know that. All I'm saying in d-usa's defense is that it's misleading. You read "wounds=number of crew", and then you read "wounds=3".
What you said about future books is a good point. Sure.

I'm just stepping in here to avoid another case where someone says "but even though you're right, I think I kinda' have a point...", and you say "No. You do NOT. Because you are WRONG."

I mean, a simple tip o' the hat, a "Yeah, that could be a problem. I think they did it because of ___", and you've said the same thing (I'm sure you can make it the same number of words. Or letters, if it matters), but now the conversation's over, instead of two parties stating two irrelevant points over and over again.

And that's that.