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

If leman russ has commander upgrade he is a character, can he look out sir to other russes in his squadron? And why?

What about challenges as well?

Sure they can just decline it without any ill effect but some armies must issue challenges, accepting in that situation could be the difference between loosing one tank and all of the squad.

The problem here being there is nothing in the rules pretaining to vehicles accepting a challenge.


You could go to the default character rules since the tank does become a character (and thus would indeed get LOS's to his squadron), but since vehicles are not locked in combat it kinda throws off everything once you get any farther than the initial first round of combat.

Also, for bonus's that pretain to winning the challenge, you have issues. Since vehicles cannot be defeated in assault (with the exception of destroying them which still doesnt count as winning an assault since you dont get to consolidate).

well for LOS we get to again debate "does wounds equate to glancing & pentrating hits"

because LOS applies to wounds.

no to challenges, you have to be locked in combat to challenge, and vehicles are not locked in combat.

Eihnlazer wrote:
The problem here being there is nothing in the rules pretaining to vehicles accepting a challenge.


You could go to the default character rules since the tank does become a character (and thus would indeed get LOS's to his squadron), but since vehicles are not locked in combat it kinda throws off everything once you get any farther than the initial first round of combat.

Also, for bonus's that pretain to winning the challenge, you have issues. Since vehicles cannot be defeated in assault (with the exception of destroying them which still doesnt count as winning an assault since you dont get to consolidate).

A (non-walker) vehicle will never be able to strike blows when a challenge is issued as it has no WS, thus is never eligible to accept a Challenge.

acctually chrysis, a vehicle that has moved in its previous movement phase has a WS of 1. Although it will usually never have any attacks.

Eihnlazer wrote:
acctually chrysis, a vehicle that has moved in its previous movement phase has a WS of 1. Although it will usually never have any attacks.

True, forgot about that. Haven't had many games with the new edition. Replace WS with Attacks and we're good to go.

I dont have my brb on me now but under the rules for "firing at vehicle squadrons" it mentioned damaging vehicles as wounding them, which is why I thought since it said wounding them and LOS refers to wounds.

Im fairly sure vehicles do not suffer wounds and there for cannot re allocate them.

Chrysis is right about challenges; you have to be able to strike blows to be eligible to issue or accept a challenge. Also, you have to be locked to issue a challenge, which non-walker vehicles cannot be. I was going to suggest that Longstrike in a Hammerhead with fletchette dischargers might be able to accept a challenge, but he doesn't appear to actually be a character.

There was some debate over page 110, I think, and the 'Special Character' Rule but it isn't relevant, because of the requirement that the Model is Locked in Combat before a challenge can be issued.

Yes but my question is if this command tank takes a hit can it LOS its wound to another russ in the squadron. I dont have my brb on me but I remember on the pages that go over squadron rules under the paragraph that talks about shooting at squadrons it references hitting and damaging squadrons as "wounding" the vehicle. Because it mentions damaging russes as wounding them wouldn't the command"character" russ be able to LOS its hit to another russ. Nothing says in the brb that a vehicle cannot LOS to another.

If anyone can look up the squadron rules and read the paragraph under shooting at and damaging russes and possibly see if they could clarify anything further that would be great!

Thanks, tankboy

Any Wounds the Tank Commander's tank suffers could be LOS'd. Of course as a vehicle it cannot suffer Wounds, and the only time that Wounds = Hits is for combat resolution, it will never occur.

While it does seem pretty silly to allow a tank to look out sir we are instructed :

"As vehicle squadrons don’t have Wounds or Toughness, we have to allocate hits to them slightly differently to other, more conventional, units. To do this, allocate individual hits, rather than individual Wounds, one at a time, to the closest model in the squadron."

"Once you have determined the number of hits, these hits must be resolved, one at a time, against the model in the squadron closest to the firing unit – exactly like you would resolve Wounds on a normal unit."

So hits are equated to wounds in the first sentence and if you're resolving them EXACTLY like wounds on a normal unit that would seem to include Looking out Sir.

Page 16 of the BRB specifically calls for LOS from shooting when wounds are allocated. Vehicle squadrons call for allocation of hits, rather than wounds. RAW no LOS allowed.

Do you also believe that Ignore Cover does not work on Vehicles?
It uses the same wording; treat exactly like X would.

Personally,
I believe it was an unintended consequence of the wording they chose.

If we want to get really technical about it, you Tank commander auto dies at the start of the 1st turn. Its a 30 point unit that has a 0 for its strength, toughness , and wounds. Page 3 of the BRB says if any of those characteristics are 0 the model is removed from play as a casualty. But because its technically a tank, inside a tank and its a rule the "inner tank" has that makes the "outer tank" a character the "outer tank" reverts to a normal Leman Russ as soon as the tank commander dies (at the start of turn 1) .

That's the only RAW argument to be made involving tank commanders. RAI I don't think you are meant to look out sir shots fired at a tank.

Tank Commander is such a poorly written unit. Why would it not have worked to just make the tank commander an infantry character with a full stat line that starts inside a leman russ, cannot disembark, and dies with the leman russ? It would solve literally all the problems with tank commanders. All of them.

 DJGietzen wrote:
If we want to get really technical about it, you Tank commander auto dies at the start of the 1st turn. Its a 30 point unit that has a 0 for its strength, toughness , and wounds. Page 3 of the BRB says if any of those characteristics are 0 the model is removed from play as a casualty. But because its technically a tank, inside a tank and its a rule the "inner tank" has that makes the "outer tank" a character the "outer tank" reverts to a normal Leman Russ as soon as the tank commander dies (at the start of turn 1) .

The underlined is incorrect. Page 3 says if any of them are reduced to 0 the model is removed.

In this case shouldn't we look at other examples of "treated as" or "treated exactly as"?

IE Some people feel an Allied IC , who are battlebrothers, can join an allied squad and be deployed in the allied DT. They feel since in the BRB it sates "treat as" or "treated exactly as" the same unit it overrides the DIRECT sentence saying "even Battle brother cannot use allies DT"

In other words its a failed logical leap to most and perfectly reasonable rule to some.

When does it stop though? I say when you actually play. If someone wanted to try and LOS a tank I would kindly ask where he believes this rule to exist, then I would kindly disagree and ask for a roll off. If he wins , good for him roll your LOS, if he loses the tank takes the hit either way the game moves on.

 Happyjew wrote:
Any Wounds the Tank Commander's tank suffers could be LOS'd. Of course as a vehicle it cannot suffer Wounds, and the only time that Wounds = Hits is for combat resolution, it will never occur.

Unless a vehicle is in cover, then it treats AP hits as wounds. -> basis of ignore cover working/not working against vehicles


Automatically Appended Next Post:

JinxDragon wrote:
There was some debate over page 110, I think, and the 'Special Character' Rule but it isn't relevant, because of the requirement that the Model is Locked in Combat before a challenge can be issued.

what about against an immobilized vehicle? if your units are within base to base from the first round to the second round of combat they are considered locked. so you could issue a challenge on the second turn...

OsirisX69,
I have to disagree because we can do the exact opposite 'thought experiment' and encounter a huge list of problems as well, as any argument that is going to use other situations as a core element will have to be universally applicable to all situations. If we are going to go forth with the concept that the original Restrictions are still valid, especially in cases where the count as would otherwise prevent the restriction, then what purpose is there to a Rule telling us to count X as Y? Therefore I can not simply accept that 'count as' does not over-write the preexisting information just because a few rules enter Gray Zones when they do, not without something reasoning which would prevents an even bigger list of problems from occurring.

In the situation you put forth where an Independent Character is boarding an Allies transport, as with the situation here, is caused not by a single Rule but the interaction between certain Rules. This latest interaction came with the creation of a new type of beast, a Vehicle (Character), and even that wouldn't cause a problem if it wasn't for the inclusion of the Squad Rules on top of that. There is no less then three different rule sets, each addressing something completely unrelated, that now has been stitched together thanks to a very poor decision on Game Workshops part. It is more feasible to put forth that the Authors did not intend for these circumstances because they where not envisioning the way these Rules would create unusual situations on the Table Top, as that is very likely what occurred.

JinxDragon wrote:
OsirisX69,
I have to disagree because we can do the exact opposite 'thought experiment' and encounter a huge list of problems as well, therefore I can not simply accept that 'count as' does not over-write the preexisting information just because a few rules enter Gray Zones when they do. Any argument that is going to use other situations as a core element will have to be universally applicable to all situations, not just a hand picked few. If we are going to go forth with the concept that Restrictions found in certain rules are still valid even in 'count as' situations, then count as Rules serve no purpose as they exist to allow a way around certain limitations or to create additional Restrictions.

In the situation you put forth, as with the situation here, it is not a single Rule that causes the problem but the interaction between certain Rules. This latest interaction came with the creation of a new type of beast, a Vehicle based (Character), and even that wouldn't cause a problem if it wasn't for the inclusion of the Squad Rules on top of that. There is no less then three different rule sets, each addressing something completely unrelated, that now has been stitched together thanks to a very poor decision on Game Workshops part.

It is more feasible to put forth that the Authors did not intend for these circumstances because they where not envisioning the way these Rules would create unusual situations on the Table Top, as that is very likely what occurred.

I am just a little confused. Do you disagree with my whole statement in general or just something in particular that I posted? Do you disagree that we should look at other examples as precedence or that we should have a roll off?

Help me help you my friend

OsirusX69,
I, personally, like precedent cases when it comes to debates over which interpretation is correct because they force us to confirm if the logic behind one interpretation can be applied to all situations. However, one of the things you have to watch for when using them is to make sure your logic can not be used against your original argument as well. Should you begin to pull out precedent cases to try and 'fix' something, others will pull out cases which your 'fix' now cause to become broken. Once that occurs there is only one option, to accept that your interpretation is incorrect and then rant for a hour about how poorly skilled at writing Rules Game Workshop actually is.

Look Out Sir on a vehicle is just bad Rule interaction, as is Brother Brothers and Independent Characters, that an Editor really should of caught... but trying to fix it by removing 'count as' from the equation is going to break a lot of other Rules that rely on 'Count as' to function.