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.

The rule mentions you can take an additional two penitent engines after buying the first one for the cost of 1 heavy support slot.

Nowhere is the squadron rule mentioned, which previously was in the codex witchhunter.

Now the squadron rule was a huge detriment to engines who gained the negative without any benefits from it since they are already immune to shaken and stunned.

What do you all think? Is this an oversight or just a way to be able to field 3 penitent engines, independent from each other, in a single heavy support slot?

I think it was as intended because of the fact that engines were crippled so greatly by the squadron rule.

Melta used to only need a 2+ to wreck a Penitent in a squadron

2+1 for melta +1 for open topped = 4 Immobilized, which is wrecked in a squadron.

Im eagerly awaiting the faq, which is going to be pretty much the only way this will get resolved, because now we have the dilemma to how many KP they count for as well.

Squadronn

Noone cares if they're easy to crack or not

How do you create that which is not there? Please give proof on why they should be considered a squadron. Just saying Squadron doesn't prove anything.

As it currently stands, you get to purchase 3 from a single FoC slot, and all 3 are seperate units in their own right, much like purchasing a dedicated transport for a squad adds a extra unit from the same FoC slot.

Or simply put, just run with it. If you are going to waste a slot on PE's, than take this small gift GW accidently left behind.

SJ

I don't have access to the new Sisters "codex", but what exactly does the unit entry in the army list say under composition?

I expect it says something like "1-3 Penitent Engines", in which case they are a unit. And units of vehicles are squadrons by definition and follow squadron rules. And so you would need explicit permission to run them as separate units ala Haemonculus' in the new Dark Eldar codex.

Chrysis wrote:I expect it says something like "1-3 Penitent Engines", in which case they are a unit.

It doesn't. The unit name is Penitent Engine and unit composition is 1 PE. Under Options it says "include an additional 2 PE at a cost of X per model", with no mention one way or the other. It could be an oversight - maybe the unit name should be PE Squadron, or maybe the option text should say the extras are free to act on their own like GW codexes have done before. I'd run them as a squadron until it's FAQd anyways - if you can't prove either you use the less generous interpretation.

Looks like a rush job in a few other ways too, this WD codex. They messed up St Celestine too, referring to her as an IC in two places and then leaving it out of the army list.

Ah, then that is more ambiguous.

At least with the Haemonculus the composition is 1 with a note on including between 1 and 3 as a single HQ choice, i.e. Independent.

Having said that, that is the exact same wording as adding more Space Marines to a Tactical Squad ("May include up to 5 additional Space Marines....") So unless a Tactical Squad is 1 unit of 4 marines and a sarge, with up to 4 additional marines as individual units, then the Penitent Engines are 1 unit.

Spetulhu wrote:The unit name is Penitent Engine and unit composition is 1 PE. Under Options it says "include an additional 2 PE at a cost of X per model", with no mention one way or the other.

If the unit starts with 1, and you 'include' other engines, then you are adding them to the unit. It would need to specifically mention them counting as separate units for them to not just be a part of the unit you are currently selecting.

IT is one unit, and therefore a squadron.

Is there a precedent or a FAQ for another army that would show that vehicles, selected from the same FOC, without the squadron rule have to be a unit?

As it stands RAI they would be a squadron. RAW the game breaks.

No, RAW they are a unit.

You have to have permission to NOT be a unit.

A SM Land Speeder Squadron does not *explicitly* state that it is a squadron like a Leman Russ Squadron does. Does that mean they are not a squadron? I don't think it is a USR. Vehicles purchased together are a squadron unless they have a rule that says they are purchased together but deployed separately like some Tyranid units used to be.

Homer

My Ork Dex states that I "buy" a unit of 10 Boyz and may get up to 20 more. It doesn't say those boyz have to part of the unit. By your line of reasoning I can get one Mob of 10 and 20 additional mobs of 1 boy each. Brutal for KP missions but great for objective missions.

Kreedos wrote:How do you create that which is not there? Please give proof on why they should be considered a squadron. Just saying Squadron doesn't prove anything.

I didn't have to create anything, they are a squadron ...

Just saying squadron proves evertything, as that's what they are considered if you are running a unit of vehicles ie;

People are giving a lot of bad examples. Here's one: If a unit takes a dedicated transport, does the transport have to follow squadron rules and stay withing 4" of the purchasing unit?

Like the PE unit entry, squadron is not mentioned, nor is there any specific example of PE's working in a squadron as of the new 'Dex. And since placing PE's in squadrons actually makes them worse, keeping them out of squadrons may be the best thing for everyone.

SJ

jeffersonian000 wrote:People are giving a lot of bad examples. Here's one: If a unit takes a dedicated transport, does the transport have to follow squadron rules and stay withing 4" of the purchasing unit?

No, because the Dedicated Transport rules specifically state that the transport counts as a separate unit.

jeffersonian000 wrote:People are giving a lot of bad examples. Here's one: If a unit takes a dedicated transport, does the transport have to follow squadron rules and stay withing 4" of the purchasing unit?

Like the PE unit entry, squadron is not mentioned, nor is there any specific example of PE's working in a squadron as of the new 'Dex. And since placing PE's in squadrons actually makes them worse, keeping them out of squadrons may be the best thing for everyone.

SJ

That is an even worse example(for your side), mainly on account of actual rules(BRB page 66 Transport Vehicle, Page 67 dedicated Transports boxout, and page 92 multiple unit choices) which all combine to specify that dedicated Transports are not part of the unit they are bought for.

Good examples for why they are a Squadron, is the Squadron rules themselves and quite possibly the wording in the purchasing options: 1-2 added or additional or "may add 1-2" would be a squadron, also a unit size of 1-3 would be a squadron. Another good example would be a lack of any additional special rules that tell us they are not a Squadron, because per every Armylist: Unit Options will dictate that all such options chose are Added to the unit.

End result is: Advantageous or not does not factor in to what the rules say, no one cares that the Penitent Engine gains nothing and becomes more easily killed by being in a Squadron, they are, in fact, a Squadron. Similarly it does not matter that the grey Knights brotherhood Champion already re-rolls any failed to-wound rolls, he can purchase Digital Weapon to allow a single failed to-wound to be rerolled(and you cannot re-roll a re-roll, so the spent points are completely wasted on a redundant ability).