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.

They are artillery as stated by their entry.

RAW you are absolutely correct.

RAI however i cannot agree with it, mostly due to the fact that in last edition he became an IC when the cannon died, and that even in the new codex a techmarine is infantry.

I think it was just an oversight in the rules to not explain what he is after the gun is killed. A single space marine, while certainly devastating is in no way or form an actual piece of artillery.

But he's not a Techmarine. He's a Techmarine Gunner.
And Artillery unit type covers crew not just guns.

And there's really not much difference between Artillery crew with no gun, and infantry.
Only Sweeping Advance is there a difference, and there's an argument that ATSKNF would still protect him.

As for gaining Independent Character, that's a clear no. Even if he became infantry there's still nothing allowing that.

 grendel083 wrote:
And there's really not much difference between Artillery crew with no gun, and infantry.
Only Sweeping Advance is there a difference, and there's an argument that ATSKNF would still protect him.

Going up levels in ruins, embarking in vehicles...

 grendel083 wrote:
But he's not a Techmarine. He's a Techmarine Gunner.
And Artillery unit type covers crew not just guns.

And there's really not much difference between Artillery crew with no gun, and infantry.
Only Sweeping Advance is there a difference, and there's an argument that ATSKNF would still protect him.

As for gaining Independent Character, that's a clear no. Even if he became infantry there's still nothing allowing that.

I don't see where there's an argument here. He's not an IC as there's no rule giving you permission. He does not become infantry because there is no rule giving him permission to do so.

If there's no permission, you can't assume it occurs. Permission needs to be granted for anything to occur in 40k. You are given permission to move your models, shoot them, assault with them etc. Those permissions are changed or taken away as a game goes on, because of rules, not a matter of course.

rigeld2 wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:
And there's really not much difference between Artillery crew with no gun, and infantry.
Only Sweeping Advance is there a difference, and there's an argument that ATSKNF would still protect him.

Going up levels in ruins, embarking in vehicles...

Ah yes, forgot about the Embarking. Still, very similar.
Going up in ruins would be up to you and your opponent
"You should agree with your opponent at the beginning of the game whether or not any other unit types can enter the upper levels of a ruin"
Can't see many people objecting for single crewman.

 grendel083 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:
And there's really not much difference between Artillery crew with no gun, and infantry.
Only Sweeping Advance is there a difference, and there's an argument that ATSKNF would still protect him.

Going up levels in ruins, embarking in vehicles...

Ah yes, forgot about the Embarking. Still, very similar.
Going up in ruins would be up to you and your opponent
"You should agree with your opponent at the beginning of the game whether or not any other unit types can enter the upper levels of a ruin"
Can't see many people objecting for single crewman.

Man, I've got this one opponent that will contest even the slightest little move, and will argue for an hour with you just to pull out a draw/minor win. I don't think this would fly with him.

 Scipio Africanus wrote:
Man, I've got this one opponent that will contest even the slightest little move, and will argue for an hour with you just to pull out a draw/minor win. I don't think this would fly with him.

Yeah, we all come across that one guy every now and then.
The only reason I can think of to not allow the Gunner up, is just to be awkward.

Meh, so because the tech marine gunner is "artillery" he cannot launch assaults?

Pyreguard wrote:
Meh, so because the tech marine gunner is "artillery" he cannot launch assaults?

Not until the gun is destroyed. After that, he can assault just fine.

Pyreguard wrote:
Meh, so because the tech marine gunner is "artillery" he cannot launch assaults?

You asked this earlier, and Happy told you the answer - BRB page 46 first sentence under Assault (hint: it's not "no")

 Abandon wrote:
Unit type is not unit based, it's model based.

"are sometimes utilized by Infantry Artillery teams" Artillery, BRB, page 46.

The gun is Artillery.
The crew is Infantry Artillery.

The only operational difference I see for a crew without a gun and regular infantry is they will automatically get Sweeping Advanced if they fall back from CC (barring intervention from other rules). The rest of the artillery rules specify 'when a gun model is present' or something to that effect that renders the rule non-applicable to a unit without at least one such model.

Lies, Lies and Slander (I am thoroughly J/K)

The Crew is not Infantry artillery, because the Crews unit type(which is listed separately from the Guns unit type) does not say that. It says "Artillery"

Currently, only Grot Crew/Runtherds are anything other than Artillery(because the BRB Reference appendix, which supersedes the codex, Simply lists Gretchin and Runtherds as Infantry without Caveat and the FAQ ignores them).

There is also No such thing as "Infantry Artillery", that bit of fluff is just explaining that these large weapons are being fielded by non-vehicle entities.