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.

Alright so this came up yesterday and it is totally legal and quite hilarious though it sucked for me.

If you have a squadron for example: Hydra Flak Tanks for imperial guard and one is immobilized you can choose to leave it behind and at that point it becomes a separate unit for the duration of the game.

So it is 100% beneficial to keep driving your squadrons across terrain to immobilize them so you can now fire at different targets.

Yes. This is one thing that I dont like that they changed. It makes it quite capable to actually take 9 seprate units of hydras in a single game......

so much shenanigans

Thats great however as they don't have intercepter they hit all none flying units on 6s

Wildcat Carl wrote:Thats great however as they don't have intercepter they hit all none flying units on 6s

They hit skimmers the same as fliers plus

They each get 7 shots:

4 TL S7 AP 4 shots
3 S5 AP 4 shots

All for only 75 points. Which is cheaper than buying and anti air weapon.

This works with any vehicle squadron. Including such things as LRBTs, as my opponent realized....

I still think its stupid shenanigans and whoever decided to change the rule about squadrons will be flogged by my sisters of battle repeatedly.....

Vindicare-Obsession wrote:I still think its stupid shenanigans and whoever decided to change the rule about squadrons will be flogged by my sisters of battle repeatedly.....

Sadly, it doesn't work as well for Penitent Engines squadrons.. or rather it defeats their purpose.

now wouldnt that be something
Im still waiting for them to change rage for the Sisters Repentia since it isint technically "Rage"

Tomb King wrote: Alright so this came up yesterday and it is totally legal and quite hilarious though it sucked for me.

If you have a squadron for example: Hydra Flak Tanks for imperial guard and one is immobilized you can choose to leave it behind and at that point it becomes a separate unit for the duration of the game.

So it is 100% beneficial to keep driving your squadrons across terrain to immobilize them so you can now fire at different targets.

If its a separate unit, it gives up a separate VP when destroyed. There is a downside to being separate.

warboss wrote:

Tomb King wrote: Alright so this came up yesterday and it is totally legal and quite hilarious though it sucked for me.

If you have a squadron for example: Hydra Flak Tanks for imperial guard and one is immobilized you can choose to leave it behind and at that point it becomes a separate unit for the duration of the game.

So it is 100% beneficial to keep driving your squadrons across terrain to immobilize them so you can now fire at different targets.

If its a separate unit, it gives up a separate VP when destroyed. There is a downside to being separate.

That is only in missions where you get VP's for killing them, In those missions just don't get them immobilized lol.

This isnt "breaking the game". THere are significant downsides to being immobilised.

Shandara wrote:

Vindicare-Obsession wrote:I still think its stupid shenanigans and whoever decided to change the rule about squadrons will be flogged by my sisters of battle repeatedly.....

Sadly, it doesn't work as well for Penitent Engines squadrons.. or rather it defeats their purpose.

No where in the Sisters codex does it say Penitent Engines are squadrons. It simply says you may buy more penitent engines for 85 pts each. They're not defined as squadrons anywhere in their codex, like every squadron codex entry, but not stated to operate independently either. This was not fixed in the FAQ or by the new rule book. Technically Penitent Engines are broken and unplayable, unless there's a roll off between the players at the beginning of the game, or an agreement on how they should operate. That being said, I believe that they operate Independent of each other.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Vindicare-Obsession wrote: now wouldnt that be something
Im still waiting for them to change rage for the Sisters Repentia since it isint technically "Rage"

They clearly have rage as a USR in the newer codex. I have no idea what you're talking about. Unless you're referring to the old codex, which is no longer valid, and not meant to be played with the new edition.

This is a good thing. Previously Squadrons were viewed as a bad thing that was rarely taken.

Frankly it made no sense that a tank crew would blow their ammo stores just because they couldn't keep up with their squadmates anymore. They would stay there and keep shooting till they were destroyed or had won.

Kreedos wrote:
No where in the Sisters codex does it say Penitent Engines are squadrons. It simply says you may buy more penitent engines for 85 pts each. They're not defined as squadrons anywhere in their codex, like every squadron codex entry, but not stated to operate independently either. This was not fixed in the FAQ or by the new rule book. Technically Penitent Engines are broken and unplayable, unless there's a roll off between the players at the beginning of the game, or an agreement on how they should operate. That being said, I believe that they operate Independent of each other.

I don't think anyone else believes that. That would have very been broken in 5th, and in 6th it just hurts penitent Engines by denying them Hull Point shenanigans. I'm pretty sure this debate has come up several times, and it has always been decided in favor of squadrons.

Hollowman wrote:

Kreedos wrote:
No where in the Sisters codex does it say Penitent Engines are squadrons. It simply says you may buy more penitent engines for 85 pts each. They're not defined as squadrons anywhere in their codex, like every squadron codex entry, but not stated to operate independently either. This was not fixed in the FAQ or by the new rule book. Technically Penitent Engines are broken and unplayable, unless there's a roll off between the players at the beginning of the game, or an agreement on how they should operate. That being said, I believe that they operate Independent of each other.

I don't think anyone else believes that. That would have very been broken in 5th, and in 6th it just hurts penitent Engines by denying them Hull Point shenanigans. I'm pretty sure this debate has come up several times, and it has always been decided in favor of squadrons.

Please link to a relevant thread where the majority rule has favored squadrons, or rule set that would support your vague counter argument. Just because you say something because you've seen it before and claim it applies to everyone, doesn't make it true. I have talked to several people in my town and FLGS who believe that it's played as I've stated, so the fact that you've stated "I don't think anyone else believes that", isn't a valid reason, especially when it's not true. Also I've been in a few penitent engine squadron threads myself when the new Sisters codex first came out, and there was not a clear ruling either way.

Kreedos wrote:

Hollowman wrote:

Kreedos wrote:
No where in the Sisters codex does it say Penitent Engines are squadrons. It simply says you may buy more penitent engines for 85 pts each. They're not defined as squadrons anywhere in their codex, like every squadron codex entry, but not stated to operate independently either. This was not fixed in the FAQ or by the new rule book. Technically Penitent Engines are broken and unplayable, unless there's a roll off between the players at the beginning of the game, or an agreement on how they should operate. That being said, I believe that they operate Independent of each other.

I don't think anyone else believes that. That would have very been broken in 5th, and in 6th it just hurts penitent Engines by denying them Hull Point shenanigans. I'm pretty sure this debate has come up several times, and it has always been decided in favor of squadrons.

Please link to a relevant thread where the majority rule has favored squadrons, or rule set that would support your vague counter argument. Just because you say something because you've seen it before and claim it applies to everyone, doesn't make it true. I have talked to several people in my town and FLGS who believe that it's played as I've stated, so the fact that you've stated "I don't think anyone else believes that", isn't a valid reason, especially when it's not true. Also I've been in a few penitent engine squadron threads myself when the new Sisters codex first came out, and there was not a clear ruling either way.

umm there is logic, Paladins, Wraiths and host of other units have language exactly like that. You can claim they somehow are different units in one choice however every thing in 40k that uses that distinction (sniper teams) clearly mark that. I know you want some advantage with your unit, but there are examples to the contrary.

I have no problem with the new squadron rules (and right now I do not run any squads in any of my lists).

It makes a wounded animal deadly, which is fine by me.
It makes sense, also good
It gives the squadron commander some choices, fine
It doesn't matter if you kill things, and lets you pick (as a unit attacking a now separated squadron) which shots go into the immobilized singleton and which ones are thrown at the healthy tanks... great.

So please, bring the squads of Leman Russ MBTs on.

lazarian wrote:

Kreedos wrote:

Hollowman wrote:

Kreedos wrote:
No where in the Sisters codex does it say Penitent Engines are squadrons. It simply says you may buy more penitent engines for 85 pts each. They're not defined as squadrons anywhere in their codex, like every squadron codex entry, but not stated to operate independently either. This was not fixed in the FAQ or by the new rule book. Technically Penitent Engines are broken and unplayable, unless there's a roll off between the players at the beginning of the game, or an agreement on how they should operate. That being said, I believe that they operate Independent of each other.

I don't think anyone else believes that. That would have very been broken in 5th, and in 6th it just hurts penitent Engines by denying them Hull Point shenanigans. I'm pretty sure this debate has come up several times, and it has always been decided in favor of squadrons.

Please link to a relevant thread where the majority rule has favored squadrons, or rule set that would support your vague counter argument. Just because you say something because you've seen it before and claim it applies to everyone, doesn't make it true. I have talked to several people in my town and FLGS who believe that it's played as I've stated, so the fact that you've stated "I don't think anyone else believes that", isn't a valid reason, especially when it's not true. Also I've been in a few penitent engine squadron threads myself when the new Sisters codex first came out, and there was not a clear ruling either way.

umm there is logic, Paladins, Wraiths and host of other units have language exactly like that. You can claim they somehow are different units in one choice however every thing in 40k that uses that distinction (sniper teams) clearly mark that. I know you want some advantage with your unit, but there are examples to the contrary.

Paladins and Wraiths are specified as units, no where would it suggest they're independent in any way. You're comparing Apples to Oranges, that's not logic it's more your opinion of RAI. It's not me wanting advantage, I even said they may be considered as squadrons, or as independent of each other but it's something that must be determined before the game is played. Squadron rules dictate that the unit is defined as a squadron, and it's not written, or FAQed as such that they are considered a squadron in fact, the Sisters of Battle codex has no mention of squadron any where in either WD or in either of their entries (via points cost or in unit description). Every other book using squadrons specifically states that the unit, when purchased in multiples is designated as a squadron. RAW would say that if the unit is not designated as a squadron, the rules of squadrons would not apply to it, just like a Skimmer, that's not listed as a flyer isn't allowed to use the flyer rules, or an MC with a Jump Pack or listed as jump infantry, Isn't considered a Winged MC. RAW takes the rules, and applies them to the rule book in order to take effect, just because you believe, or have an opinion on the RAI, does not make the unit suddenly have the text "Squadron" in it's description.

Vindicare-Obsession wrote:Yes. This is one thing that I dont like that they changed. It makes it quite capable to actually take 9 seprate units of hydras in a single game......

so much shenanigans

Do this only with LRBT and a techpriests to repair the immobilized result...

Kreedos wrote:
Paladins and Wraiths are specified as units, no where would it suggest they're independent in any way. You're comparing Apples to Oranges, that's not logic it's more your opinion of RAI. It's not me wanting advantage, I even said they may be considered as squadrons, or as independent of each other but it's something that must be determined before the game is played. Squadron rules dictate that the unit is defined as a squadron, and it's not written, or FAQed as such that they are considered a squadron in fact, the Sisters of Battle codex has no mention of squadron any where in either WD or in either of their entries (via points cost or in unit description). Every other book using squadrons specifically states that the unit, when purchased in multiples is designated as a squadron. RAW would say that if the unit is not designated as a squadron, the rules of squadrons would not apply to it, just like a Skimmer, that's not listed as a flyer isn't allowed to use the flyer rules, or an MC with a Jump Pack or listed as jump infantry, Isn't considered a Winged MC. RAW takes the rules, and applies them to the rule book in order to take effect, just because you believe, or have an opinion on the RAI, does not make the unit suddenly have the text "Squadron" in it's description.

However since there is no unit listing in 40k that behaves in the way your arguing then there is the confusion. All units which come from one choice say they can split, very specifically. I have given two other units whom behave in the way you seem to disagree on. After the GK book this is the writing format for these units, hadn't you noticed? Every unit that can increase its ranks since the GK book has been written in this style (it lists the minimum and then you add from there). Penitents are the only squadron of the three armies released since this new nomenclature (GK, Sisters, Necrons). You have to meet it halfway since no other understanding is reasonable, certainly not to add the rather big assumption that not only is it a multi-part vehicle squad, but suddenly it can now operate independently, especially since it says you add to the other. Every other instance in the three new rule writings imply, rather strongly its a unit.

The first sentence of the vehicle squadron rules reads as follows: "Most vehicles fight as individual units and are represented by a single model. HOwever, some vehicles, such as Ork Warbuggies and Eldar Vypers, operate together in what are known as squadrons." It doesn't mention that it will be made apparent in the list, what classifies as one (even as a nugget in the back of the book). Simply put the implication in 6th very much so is any selection of vehicles that have more than one is a squadron. Again look at how its written in the sisters entry, every entry in the sisters for that matter, It gives a squad min and then how much you can ADD to it.

it then counts as another kill point?

Yes, in the one mission where FA are worth a Victory Point.

Kill Points don't exist anymore. Its all objective based with secondary objectives avaliable, and one mission has FA worth VPs.

Kreedos wrote:Paladins and Wraiths are specified as units, no where would it suggest they're independent in any way. You're comparing Apples to Oranges, that's not logic it's more your opinion of RAI. It's not me wanting advantage, I even said they may be considered as squadrons, or as independent of each other but it's something that must be determined before the game is played. Squadron rules dictate that the unit is defined as a squadron, and it's not written, or FAQed as such that they are considered a squadron in fact, the Sisters of Battle codex has no mention of squadron any where in either WD or in either of their entries (via points cost or in unit description). Every other book using squadrons specifically states that the unit, when purchased in multiples is designated as a squadron. RAW would say that if the unit is not designated as a squadron, the rules of squadrons would not apply to it, just like a Skimmer, that's not listed as a flyer isn't allowed to use the flyer rules, or an MC with a Jump Pack or listed as jump infantry, Isn't considered a Winged MC. RAW takes the rules, and applies them to the rule book in order to take effect, just because you believe, or have an opinion on the RAI, does not make the unit suddenly have the text "Squadron" in it's description.

It is a logical fallacy to assume that because every other squadron mentions the word squadron that all vehicle squadrons have to be specified as such. The simple fact is that each codex entry allows you to field a single unit except where it specifies otherwise. So anytime you're able to add models to a single unit, you're adding more models to that unit. If a vehicle unit has more than one model, it is a squadron, pure and simple. The codex entry doesn't have to specify that the unit is a squadron because it just is, based on the rules the game operates on.

Read page 109 of the rulebook and you'll see:

"Sometimes as single choice on the Force Organization chart will allow you to select more than one unit. This will always be explained in the appropriate codex, so be sure to read it carefully."


As it says there, when a single force org choice allows you to select more than one unit it will always be explained in the appropriate codex. We can see evidence of single force org choices equalling multiple units in many, many cases and they always, always say precisely that (that each model operates as an independent unit, or some such verbiage).

There are no such rules for Penitent Engines and therefore each Force Org choice = a single unit which means if you take more than one model in the unit they are a vehicle squadron.

Seems they are really considered squadrons then. I stand corrected. Both counter arguements are completely valid.

So what if you repair an immobilized vehicle that was left behind? Does it have to rejoin? Stay independent?

Grey Templar wrote:Yes, in the one mission where FA are worth a Victory Point.

Kill Points don't exist anymore. Its all objective based with secondary objectives avaliable, and one mission has FA worth VPs.

I believe in purge the alien each unit killed yields a VP?


Also, whats wrong with this exactly? tbh it makes more sense than 5th eds "oh I cant drive so we'll just blow up this costly and difficult to produce tank"

Shandara wrote:So what if you repair an immobilized vehicle that was left behind? Does it have to rejoin? Stay independent?

It would still be a separate unit for all intents and purposes.

Tomb King wrote:

Shandara wrote:So what if you repair an immobilized vehicle that was left behind? Does it have to rejoin? Stay independent?

It would still be a separate unit for all intents and purposes.

Fixed that for you. (sorry, pet peeve)

They fixed this now if immobolized you lose a hull point. Vehicles are getting even harder to keep alive.

 Tomb King wrote:
They fixed this now if immobolized you lose a hull point. Vehicles are getting even harder to keep alive.

Que Engineseer.
"And with they Holiest of Oils, wrench and lubricatant, you shall drive forth, without thy friends, into battle."

So turn 1, my executioners will stutter start until immobilized, then in the shooting phase get fixed.

-Matt