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.
2014/04/14 05:00:22
Subject: Astra Militarum General queries Thread UPDATE: 20/4/2014
I figure this will be necessary, given the simple number of rules I've picked up on that could have discrepancies.
Feel free to dispute any of these arguments:
If you'd like me to add, just make a suggestion and I'll include it.
1. Chimeras
Spoiler:
Chimeras can target 4 different units, 5 with PotMS. Lasgun Arrays are a special rule, not a weapon and so cannot be destroyed by weapon destroyed results. Lasgun arrays can be fired at cruising speed, but not at flat out because flat out forces one to forgo shooting. Because this is a special rule, Lasgun arrays do not count towards the total number of weapons fired by the tank.
2. Smoke Launchers
Spoiler:
While any tank can buy extra smoke launchers through the AM vehicle gear chart, they are only able to use them once given that the Smoke Launcher rule is specificaly "Once per game, a model armed with smoke launchers"
3. Tank Commanders as your warlord:
Spoiler:
As Tank Commanders do not have a leadership value, but may be the warlord, it can be assumed their Leadership is comparable to the other potential leader, despite the fact that the Tank Orders Special Rule would suggest that a tank commander should have LD9. They do not outrank Commissars, meaning a Commissar may be your warlord while you have a tank commander.
4. Commissar Yarrick:
Spoiler:
Despite the fact that Commissar Yarrick's rules Chain of Command and Senior Officer would ensure that yarrick can never be your warlord, (and that you would need a company command squad to indeed have a warlord), it is safe to assume this is simply an oversight and Yarrick is allowed to be a Draconian disciplinarian despite this rule discrepancy. Yarrick must be the warlord if your other HQ is also a Lord Commissar, because of the Chain of Command Special Rule.
I'm not sure how to play the Iron Will if his army has been wiped - he comes back in your next turn, which means that you have no models on the field at the beginning of your turn - you are tabled before Yarrick can come back.
5. Tactical Auto Reliquary:
Spoiler:
Although a Roll of two fives would mean a failed leadership check for most guardsmen, it is still a double. The order is failed, but every other order is inspired tactics. - incorrect, as it has been pointed out to be Double Sixes is still forces incompetent command - Inspired tactics lets the user automatically issue any order, while incompetent command disables the player from ordering whatsoever.
6. Take Aim! Order:
Spoiler:
Take Aim Gives Guard the Precision Shots "Rule". Technically a rule for characters, this seems to suggest that guardsmen get automatic precision shots because if they actually aim down the barrell, they're deadeyes. (apparently.) HIWPI rolls of 6 are precision shots.
7. Shooting then issuing an order to shoot
Spoiler:
Illegal because orders take place at the start of the turn, before any models may voluntarily shoot.
8. CCS and HWT
Spoiler:
Brassclaw wrote: How many Heavy weapons can you put in CCS? 1 or 2?
One. The entry is very clear about this.
9. Techpriests as ICs
Spoiler:
Atheos wrote: Here's a rule snippet I put in another thread you can add to the first post.
Since Enginseers are now independent characters, you can put them in squads(vets was my idea), hide them in chimeras and advance an armor group up. The 12" potms or whatever it is can be used out of the tank to help the LR's.
Yes? did this need to be asked?
Archive wrote: Does an Engineseer maintain independent character once he takes servitors. In other words, would I be allowed to take two servitors, then attach the Enginseer to my CCS and embark them all in a chimera?
Yes. The option to take servitors does not remove your right to the IC rule.
10. How many LRBT can I field?
Spoiler:
Felmid wrote: Ok my Tank Commander question that I want to throw into this mess is: As stated in the HQ section, A TC “must” take a LR and “must” take at least 1-2 other LR tanks. So if the TC and his 1-2 additional tanks are considered a HQ choice, does this mean that you could potentially field 15 LR battle tanks in your army? (Given you chose two TC as both of your HQ choices.)
Yes.
11. Storm Eagle Rockets have a minimum range
Spoiler:
carp wrote: What's the point of having a minimum range on the Manticore's Storm Eagle Rockets if it can only fire indirectly? Am I missing something?
There's no reason. Fluff.
12. Kurov's Aquila and Transports
Spoiler:
Hollismason wrote: I haven't seen this asked yet I don't think but Kurov's Aquila's ability that all friendly units with in 6" gain preferred enemy, does that still work if that model was embarked on a transport?
Yep. The unit doesn't need to be seen, just within the distance.
13. Heirlooms of Conquest and Tank Commanders
Spoiler:
VladtheVostroyan wrote: Is it possible to give the death mask of Ollanius or Kurov's aquilla to my tank commander?
No.
14. Awaken the machine and chimeras
Spoiler:
Maxurugi wrote: Can an Enginseer use Awaken the Machine out of a Chimera?
Yes.
15. AtMS and Vehicles that are not tanks in AM (Taurox, Taurox Prime, Sentinels of both kind and valkyries/vendettas)
Spoiler:
As Awaken the machine spirit refers specifically to a tank within 12", it cannot be used on a Taurox, Taurox Prime, Sentinels of both kind or valkyries/vendettas, as they do not have the tank type.
16. Commissars and Lord Commissars in the same unit.
You could potentially run into an issue where a commissar is executing Yarrick or vise versa (depending on if you roll a 1 or 2).
No you cannot. You cannot execute a commissar because of this rule, as the rule stops the players from ever executing the (any) commissar.
I'm sorry if I've missed some - It's hard to read every post to find questions. If you have a question, please put it in bold so I can collect them more readily. Thankyou.
Anything I've missed? anything anyone wants to add or dispute? Discuss!
This message was edited 8 times. Last update was at 2014/04/22 15:05:07
Scipio Africanus wrote: depends on how you define the word "Models". IF Yarrick is still a model while on his side, then maybe.
My sense of object permanence, so lovingly cultivated through over two and a half decades of life, tells me than an object on its side is still the same object.
A cup on its side is still a cup. A table on its side is still a table.
Therefore, I believe it is safe to conclude that a model on its side is still a model.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/04/14 10:54:11
As Tank Commanders do not have a leadership value, but may be the warlord, it can be assumed their Leadership is comparable to the other potential leader, despite the fact that the Tank Orders Special Rule would suggest that a tank commander should have LD9. They do not outrank Commissars, meaning a Commissar may be your warlord while you have a tank commander.
From the entry on Tank Commanders:
A Tank Commader... can be chosen as your army's Warlord.
This supersedes the "highest LD" requirement, you can just choose the Tank Commander, bypassing the normal selection process for the warlord.
rigeld2 wrote: No, it doesn't. It simply alters the rules saying vehicles can't be warlords.
It doesn't contradict the LD requirement whatsoever.
Where is the rule saying that vehicles cannot be warlords? In fact, I think that vehicles can be warlords even before the AM codex, as rolling a 6 on the "Personal Traits" chart would indicate.
rigeld2 wrote: No, it doesn't. It simply alters the rules saying vehicles can't be warlords.
It doesn't contradict the LD requirement whatsoever.
Where is the rule saying that vehicles cannot be warlords? In fact, I think that vehicles can be warlords even before the AM codex, as rolling a 6 on the "Personal Traits" chart would indicate.
Warlords must be characters.
Vehicles cannot be characters.
Warlords must have the highest LD value.
Vehicles cannot have LD values.
Bjorn was the only vehicle that could be a Warlord, per the FAQ.
We had this discussion about tank companies prior to the newest list that came out.
AM creates a specific exception giving permission for the Tank Commander to be a Warlord, but it does not say that he's exempt from the LD comparison.
My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals.
Was talking to a friend and they said something about them and Commissars not being able to give order while a platoon command squad could, seemed odd to me.
2014/04/14 13:02:58
Subject: Re:Astra Militarum General queries Thread
For Yarrick; unless the wording has changed from the last Codex (I haven't had the chance to look through the new Codex: Meat sacks) it depends on who's side ended the game turn.
I.E Codex: Meat sacks' controller started the game, side B ends their turn after killing Yarrick, the last model. Check; does Codex: Meat Sacks still have a model alive? No? Game over, Meat Sacks were tabled.
If Codex: Meat Sacks went second, when side B ended, Meat Sacks get to see if Yarrick comes back.
Or that's how we've always played it, anyway.
I was pretty sure that's always been the correct way to play.
If I sound like I'm being a condescending butthole, I'm not. Read my reply as neutrally as possible, please and thank you.
2014/04/14 13:16:32
Subject: Re:Astra Militarum General queries Thread
I don't think we are allowed to post any copyrighted material here, which I think above is.
Also you should put the Engiseer and PotMS with squadrons in here aswell. Does PoTMS allow a tank in a squadron to fire at a different target then the rest of the squadron?
Tanks can be Warlords as the tank commander is a character. also it state's that the tank commander rolls d3 not d6 on the guard warlord trait table. so he can have warlord traits meaning he can be a warlord.
Only the Insane have strength enough to prosper, Only those who prosper may truly judge what is sane.
brochtree wrote: Tanks can be Warlords as the tank commander is a character. also it state's that the tank commander rolls d3 not d6 on the guard warlord trait table. so he can have warlord traits meaning he can be a warlord.
The tank commander can be a warlord.
In general, tanks cannot be warlords.
My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals.
I think arguing that a model with the special rule "can be chosen as a warlord" can't be a warlord is ranging pretty far from even strict RAW, into simply trying to find problems.
I think you guys are missing the point of the argument. It is not that Tank Commanders can't be the warlord, but whether or not they are restricted from doing so by having a higher LDHQ model in the army who must be the warlord.
Polonius wrote: I think arguing that a model with the special rule "can be chosen as a warlord" can't be a warlord is ranging pretty far from even strict RAW, into simply trying to find problems.
Seriously, read what I actually wrote instead of what you think I wrote.
In general, vehicles can't be warlords.
The permission in AM conflicts with this, and so AM's Tank Commander can be a warlord.
There is no permission to avoid the LD comparison, however, so if you have 2 HQs and one isn't a tank, you cannot have a Tank Commander Warlord.
My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals.
Polonius wrote: I think arguing that a model with the special rule "can be chosen as a warlord" can't be a warlord is ranging pretty far from even strict RAW, into simply trying to find problems.
Seriously, read what I actually wrote instead of what you think I wrote.
In general, vehicles can't be warlords. The permission in AM conflicts with this, and so AM's Tank Commander can be a warlord.
There is no permission to avoid the LD comparison, however, so if you have 2 HQs and one isn't a tank, you cannot have a Tank Commander Warlord.
No, I read it. And the rule still says it can be chosen as a warlord. The text is pretty clear.
I think "A tank commander may be chosen as a warlord" means "A tank commander may be chosen as a warlord".
You think "A tank commander may be chosen as a warlord" means "A tank commander can join the pool of eligible option for Warlord"
I get what you're saying, and that's a good point, but the special rule short circuits the process. You can simply choose the tank to be your warlord.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/04/14 13:48:37
Polonius wrote: I think arguing that a model with the special rule "can be chosen as a warlord" can't be a warlord is ranging pretty far from even strict RAW, into simply trying to find problems.
Seriously, read what I actually wrote instead of what you think I wrote.
In general, vehicles can't be warlords.
The permission in AM conflicts with this, and so AM's Tank Commander can be a warlord.
There is no permission to avoid the LD comparison, however, so if you have 2 HQs and one isn't a tank, you cannot have a Tank Commander Warlord.
No, I read it. And the rule still says it can be chosen as a warlord. The text is pretty clear.
I think "A tank commander may be chosen as a warlord" means "A tank commander may be chosen as a warlord".
You think "A tank commander may be chosen as a warlord" means "A tank commander can join the pool of eligible option for Warlord"
I get what you're saying, and that's a good point, but the special rule short circuits the process. You can simply choose the tank to be your warlord.
No, it doesn't. You're attempting to ignore a rule (the LD comparison) without permission to ignore it.
My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals.
Polonius wrote: I think arguing that a model with the special rule "can be chosen as a warlord" can't be a warlord is ranging pretty far from even strict RAW, into simply trying to find problems.
Seriously, read what I actually wrote instead of what you think I wrote.
In general, vehicles can't be warlords. The permission in AM conflicts with this, and so AM's Tank Commander can be a warlord.
There is no permission to avoid the LD comparison, however, so if you have 2 HQs and one isn't a tank, you cannot have a Tank Commander Warlord.
No, I read it. And the rule still says it can be chosen as a warlord. The text is pretty clear.
I think "A tank commander may be chosen as a warlord" means "A tank commander may be chosen as a warlord".
You think "A tank commander may be chosen as a warlord" means "A tank commander can join the pool of eligible option for Warlord"
I get what you're saying, and that's a good point, but the special rule short circuits the process. You can simply choose the tank to be your warlord.
No, it doesn't. You're attempting to ignore a rule (the LD comparison) without permission to ignore it.
If I see a codex specific rule that allows a player to do something, I assume that it overrides all basic rules, not just one. YMMV.
Basically, you have a process for chosing warlords, but in addtion to all other potential candidates, you can chose a tank commander.
I don't have the book with me at work, but does the exact wording mention only that it allows a vehicle to be warlord, or does it simply stated that tank commanders can be chosen as a warlord? If the former, then I'd give your argument more weight. If the latter, I think it's reading more into the rule then is there to say what general rules a specific rule trumps and which it doesn't.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/04/14 14:01:58
Polonius wrote: If I see a codex specific rule that allows a player to do something, I assume that it overrides all basic rules, not just one. YMMV.
That's not what the BRB says, however. Codex wins when there's a conflict. The only conflict is the fact that (generally) vehicles can't be warlords. The Tank Commander can be a Warlord. That doesn't exempt him from all other Warlord-y type rules, however.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/04/14 14:13:19
My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals.
Leman Russ Commander: A Tank Commander starts the game in a Leman Russ tank (pg 46), leading a Leman Russ Squadron. Note that any type of Leman Russ can be taken as the Tank Commander's vehicle, and that it can have any upgrades usually available to that type of tank. The Tank Commander's tank is a character, has Ballistic Skill 4 and can be chosen as your army's Warlord. If his tank is Wrecked or suffers an Explodes! result, the Tank Commander is killed.
A Tank Commander and his Leman Russ Squadron count as an HQ choice for the entire(I assume this is meant to be "entirety") of the battle. The Tank Commander's Leman Russ cannot leave the unit or join another unit, even if the rest of his squadron are destroyed.
The Lord Commissar rule is:
Chain of Command (Lord Commissar only): A Lord Commissar may only be your Warlord if you have no models with the Senior Officer special rule in your primary detachment.
Polonius wrote: If I see a codex specific rule that allows a player to do something, I assume that it overrides all basic rules, not just one. YMMV.
That's not what the BRB says, however.
Codex wins when there's a conflict. The only conflict is the fact that (generally) vehicles can't be warlords. The Tank Commander can be a Warlord. That doesn't exempt him from all other Warlord-y type rules, however.
'
That's why I'm asking for the specific phrase. The wording might actually matter.
Allowing a vehicle to be a warlord is different from allowing it to be chosen as a warlord. It's the difference between saying that something can be a candidate, and something can be selected for a position.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kanluwen wrote: The exact wording on the Tank Commander is this:
Leman Russ Commander: A Tank Commander starts the game in a Leman Russ tank (pg 46), leading a Leman Russ Squadron. Note that any type of Leman Russ can be taken as the Tank Commander's vehicle, and that it can have any upgrades usually available to that type of tank. The Tank Commander's tank is a character, has Ballistic Skill 4 and can be chosen as your army's Warlord. If his tank is Wrecked or suffers an Explodes! result, the Tank Commander is killed.
A Tank Commander and his Leman Russ Squadron count as an HQ choice for the entire(I assume this is meant to be "entirety") of the battle. The Tank Commander's Leman Russ cannot leave the unit or join another unit, even if the rest of his squadron are destroyed.
The Lord Commissar rule is:
Chain of Command (Lord Commissar only): A Lord Commissar may only be your Warlord if you have no models with the Senior Officer special rule in your primary detachment.
Hmm, okay, I'm gonna stick with my interpretation that the a rule that allows a model to be chosen, you know, allows it to be chosen. I don't see anything that leads me to think that would override a rule of eligibility but not a rule of precedence.
Especially since Lord Commissars are so explicit about when they can be warlords.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/04/14 14:24:07
Khorne Daemonkin - 2100pts
Hive Fleet Cerberus 2500pts
Blood Pact Traitor Guard - 500pts
3000 point 
