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.

Zimko wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Whether or not lack of Ld makes one ineligible to be a warlord is a moot point, as the Tank Commander does have an Ld.

In this case it is a moot point because the rule seems to skip the LD comparison altogether. An HQ that doesn't have the highest leadership can't normally be chosen as a warlord... this rule says the TC can be chosen as a warlord so his LD doesn't matter.

Except some people do not accept that it skips the Ld comparison.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
We will go back to your Basket of Oranges; If you have a Basket, and in that basket you have a small, insignificant piece of orange Peel you technically have an orange in your basket, but not enough to matter, You have a Null Set of oranges(no actual oranges, just a piece that does not count). If you lack even that tiny piece of peel you have an Empty Set, you have no oranges at all.

That's so incorrect I'm not sure where to start.

We are using Comparison math, where we simply determine who has more Ld in value; A lack of value equates to 0 for this purpose. 1 is greater than non-existence would you agree to this statement?

1 is greater than non-existence. Lack of value does not equate to 0.

Define 0 then

 Crimson wrote:

Zimko wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Whether or not lack of Ld makes one ineligible to be a warlord is a moot point, as the Tank Commander does have an Ld.

In this case it is a moot point because the rule seems to skip the LD comparison altogether. An HQ that doesn't have the highest leadership can't normally be chosen as a warlord... this rule says the TC can be chosen as a warlord so his LD doesn't matter.

Except some people do not accept that it skips the Ld comparison.

So it seems...

Looking at this another way... without the special rule for TC if you had a CCS and a TC for your HQ choices and it came time to choose a warlord then you would need to build a pool of candidates to pick your warlord.

The TC will not be in this pool because he doesn't have the highest LD of your HQ choices. So he can't be chosen as your warlord. But the Codex has a rule that says the TC can be chosen as your warlord. The codex trumps the BRB here.

What if the TC was the only HQ choice, and since he doesn't have a LD value he may or may not be the model with the highest LD (that is still being debated). Luckily we don't have to deal with this because we have a rule in the codex that says he can be chosen as the warlord.

It seems pretty clear.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
Define 0 then

Zero is a number that's less than 1 and higher than negative 1.

It's not <NaN>, <null>, etc. Unless you have some proof that it is (forgive me for not accepting your say-so).

That said - if the profile applies, since I mis-remembered the FAQ about vehicles (it only restricts who can be characters, and the unit is explicitly a character so the FAQ doesn't apply), I'll concede that argument.

But trying to not apply the profile and then pretend that <null> == 0 is simply false.

So If I concede that the Profile Applies, you will Concede that Vehicles that Are HQ Characters can be the Warlord without need for additional special rules?

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
So If I concede that the Profile Applies, you will Concede that Vehicles that Are HQ Characters can be the Warlord without need for additional special rules?

No. HQ Characters that have a LD can be Warlord without any additional special rules.
Since the profile applies and Page 3 defines that - == 0, the model has a LD.

well, I am going to bed

We are clearly not going to resolve this, and you are welcome to believe a SW army with only Bjorn as an HQ is illegal to field.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
well, I am going to bed

We are clearly not going to resolve this, and you are welcome to believe a SW army with only Bjorn as an HQ is illegal to field.

I'm not simply believing that - it's an actual fact.
Almost like the rules spell it out for you.

Just like fielding a Tyranid army with just a Tervigon as HQ is illegal to field. Or fielding an army without an HQ at all is illegal to field.

There are 3 rules in the BRB relevant to choosing a warlord.

When choosing your army, you must nominate one model to be your Warlord.

This is always the HQ choice character with the highest Leadership. If several characters are tied for highest Leadership, you choose among them which is your Warlord.

Furthermore, your Warlord must be chosen from your primary detachment

The AM codex has 1 rule relevent to choosing a tank commander as a warlord.

The Tank Commander's tank is a character, has Ballistic Skill 4 and can be chosen as your army's Warlord.

The AM rule does not conflict with the 1st BRB rule. You must still nominate a model to be your warlord.

The AM rule DOES conflict with the 2nd BRB rule. Because you have permission to nominate the tank commander's tank as your warlord your nominee is not always the HQ choice character with the highest leadership. since these 3 requirements, HQ choice , character, and highest leadership, are all lumped together in a single statement they all must be followed or none must be followed. Because there is a conflict with the AM codex none must be followed.

The AM rule DOES conflict with the 3rd BRB rule. Because the permission to nominate the tank commander's tank as your warlord is not dependent on said tank being in your primary detachment you may have a warlord that is not chosen from your primary detachment.

DOOMONYOU wrote:

The emperors Benediction has the precision shot special rule, Does this mean that every shot from it is a precision shot regardless of the to hit roll (excluding misses of course)?

Can orders be issued by officers that have already received an order? I can't find anything that says they can't like the previous edition.

I tried asking this back on page 5.

 DJGietzen wrote:
There are 3 rules in the BRB relevant to choosing a warlord.

When choosing your army, you must nominate one model to be your Warlord.

This is always the HQ choice character with the highest Leadership. If several characters are tied for highest Leadership, you choose among them which is your Warlord.

Furthermore, your Warlord must be chosen from your primary detachment

The AM codex has 1 rule relevent to choosing a tank commander as a warlord.

The Tank Commander's tank is a character, has Ballistic Skill 4 and can be chosen as your army's Warlord.

The AM rule does not conflict with the 1st BRB rule. You must still nominate a model to be your warlord.

The AM rule DOES conflict with the 2nd BRB rule. Because you have permission to nominate the tank commander's tank as your warlord your nominee is not always the HQ choice character with the highest leadership. since these 3 requirements, HQ choice , character, and highest leadership, are all lumped together in a single statement they all must be followed or none must be followed. Because there is a conflict with the AM codex none must be followed.

The AM rule DOES conflict with the 3rd BRB rule. Because the permission to nominate the tank commander's tank as your warlord is not dependent on said tank being in your primary detachment you may have a warlord that is not chosen from your primary detachment.

That's a good break down... let me emphasize something to0...

The codex actually gives you permission whether or not to select the TC as your warlord.

I will say that I do see both side of the arguments... given that this is a new codex (creepage!), we'll need GQ to FAQ this for clarification.

DOOMONYOU wrote:

DOOMONYOU wrote:

The emperors Benediction has the precision shot special rule, Does this mean that every shot from it is a precision shot regardless of the to hit roll (excluding misses of course)?

Can orders be issued by officers that have already received an order? I can't find anything that says they can't like the previous edition.

I tried asking this back on page 5.

1) That all depends on what the precision shot special rule is. A precision shot may be allocated to any model in the target unit. Some players argue that the precision shots rule means a model that scored a 6+ to hit has made a precision shot, while other claim the rule means all shots from that model are precision shots. I personally am of the opinion the former is the right answer but the rules are a bit ambiguous.

2) As long as they don't issue an order to units that already recieved an order this phase, embarked in a transport or building, that are locked in combat, are falling back, or have gone to ground. So an officer who has received an order may issue an order to a different unit but not his own.

 DJGietzen wrote:

DOOMONYOU wrote:

The emperors Benediction has the precision shot special rule, Does this mean that every shot from it is a precision shot regardless of the to hit roll (excluding misses of course)?

1) That all depends on what the precision shot special rule is. A precision shot may be allocated to any model in the target unit. Some players argue that the precision shots rule means a model that scored a 6+ to hit has made a precision shot, while other claim the rule means all shots from that model are precision shots. I personally am of the opinion the former is the right answer but the rules are a bit ambiguous.

While it seems absurd, the Former is pretty much the only way the rules can be read, as far as I'm concerned. Emperor's finest conscript snipers aside.


Look at the Precision shots entry. "If any of your characters' shots roll a 6 to hit, these are precision shots"- etc. The precision shot is an allocated shot- and anything that gives precision shots allows an allocated shot. If the order specified 'The unit may make precision shots as a character' it would be different. Alas, it does not.

Further enforced by the sniper rule entry. "If a weapon has the Sniper special rule, or is fired by a model with the sniper special rule, each To Hit roll of a 6 results in a precision shot". If Precision Shot was any roll of a 6 was allocated, that entire entry would be a needless entry.

And again, look at the Emperor's Benediction. It can ONLY go on characters. What good would precision shot be as a rule on a character only bolt pistol if it only activated on a roll of a 6, as it did for being a character?

I can't see any way you could ever read it a different way. Just wishful thinking of people who don't want Lascannon teams getting magic aiming ability (which is an understandable notion)

re: Yarrick having chain of command, he also has the senior officer special rule. So he can be the warlord & cannot be the warlord at the same time.

Oh yarrick. Youre dead, youre not dead, youre the warlord, youre not the warlord... just cant make up his damn mind.

also in regards to the precision shot argument, RAW all guardsmen automatically hit who they want, its the same kind of wording as eldar pathfinders who pay through the nose to get it. RAI, its obviously a mistake, as 40 guardsmen and 5 lascannons all hitting a chapter master in his terminator retinue is clearly way too good. If not rather hilarious

Bobug wrote:

also in regards to the precision shot argument, RAW all guardsmen automatically hit who they want, its the same kind of wording as eldar pathfinders who pay through the nose to get it. RAI, its obviously a mistake, as 40 guardsmen and 5 lascannons all hitting a chapter master in his terminator retinue is clearly way too good. If not rather hilarious

The wording is quite different than what Eldar Pathfinders have. And of course the there's this:


The problem is that 'Precision Shot' refers to two different things, the rule that characters have that allows them to generate allocatable hits, and those hits themselves.

 Crimson wrote:

Bobug wrote:

also in regards to the precision shot argument, RAW all guardsmen automatically hit who they want, its the same kind of wording as eldar pathfinders who pay through the nose to get it. RAI, its obviously a mistake, as 40 guardsmen and 5 lascannons all hitting a chapter master in his terminator retinue is clearly way too good. If not rather hilarious

The wording is quite different than what Eldar Pathfinders have. And of course the there's this:


The problem is that 'Precision Shot' refers to two different things, the rule that characters have that allows them to generate allocatable hits, and those hits themselves.

Interesting.

Worth noting that it's not done the same way in the BRB, not even close. Are ebook publications considered overruling the BRB, as they're more new? Because if they do- The Emperor's Benediction is, indeed, given a 100% pointless special rule.

Disregard, I misread that cutout quote for a moment. Yeah, that's the same as in the BRB.

So as before, it's listed for characters getting precision shots under a precision shot subheading.

Bobug wrote:
also in regards to the precision shot argument, RAW all guardsmen automatically hit who they want, its the same kind of wording as eldar pathfinders who pay through the nose to get it. RAI, its obviously a mistake, as 40 guardsmen and 5 lascannons all hitting a chapter master in his terminator retinue is clearly way too good. If not rather hilarious

The sharp shot rule is very different. It states that all shots made by a model with that rule are precision shots. The order does not state that the shots fired by the target unit are precision shots.

 DJGietzen wrote:

Bobug wrote:
also in regards to the precision shot argument, RAW all guardsmen automatically hit who they want, its the same kind of wording as eldar pathfinders who pay through the nose to get it. RAI, its obviously a mistake, as 40 guardsmen and 5 lascannons all hitting a chapter master in his terminator retinue is clearly way too good. If not rather hilarious

The sharp shot rule is very different. It states that all shots made by a model with that rule are precision shots. The order does not state that the shots fired by the target unit are precision shots.

The problem is that the Precision shot special rule IS an allocated hit. Characters get to make precision shots on 6's. Snipers get to make precision shots on 6's. Neither of them have the precision shot special rule.

The subheading with the details for precision shot isn't in a rule listing- it's just a subheading in the character section of the BRB. The only things ever actually called precision shots are allocated hits, the roll of a 6 generating it is part of being infantry (character) or the Sniper special rule.

There is no Precision Shot special rule.

 Brachiaraidos wrote:

 DJGietzen wrote:

Bobug wrote:
also in regards to the precision shot argument, RAW all guardsmen automatically hit who they want, its the same kind of wording as eldar pathfinders who pay through the nose to get it. RAI, its obviously a mistake, as 40 guardsmen and 5 lascannons all hitting a chapter master in his terminator retinue is clearly way too good. If not rather hilarious

The sharp shot rule is very different. It states that all shots made by a model with that rule are precision shots. The order does not state that the shots fired by the target unit are precision shots.

The problem is that the Precision shot special rule IS an allocated hit. Characters get to make precision shots on 6's. Snipers get to make precision shots on 6's. Neither of them have the precision shot special rule.

The subheading with the details for precision shot isn't in a rule listing- it's just a subheading in the character section of the BRB. The only things ever actually called precision shots are allocated hits, the roll of a 6 generating it is part of being infantry (character) or the Sniper special rule.

No. Either the precision shots special rule is the subheading under character. Indicating it is a special rule possessed by all characters, or it does not exist. Since the order refers to the rule we must assume it does exist. Either the order gives every model in the target unit the subheading, or it does nothing at all.

 DJGietzen wrote:

 Brachiaraidos wrote:

 DJGietzen wrote:

Bobug wrote:
also in regards to the precision shot argument, RAW all guardsmen automatically hit who they want, its the same kind of wording as eldar pathfinders who pay through the nose to get it. RAI, its obviously a mistake, as 40 guardsmen and 5 lascannons all hitting a chapter master in his terminator retinue is clearly way too good. If not rather hilarious

The sharp shot rule is very different. It states that all shots made by a model with that rule are precision shots. The order does not state that the shots fired by the target unit are precision shots.

The problem is that the Precision shot special rule IS an allocated hit. Characters get to make precision shots on 6's. Snipers get to make precision shots on 6's. Neither of them have the precision shot special rule.

The subheading with the details for precision shot isn't in a rule listing- it's just a subheading in the character section of the BRB. The only things ever actually called precision shots are allocated hits, the roll of a 6 generating it is part of being infantry (character) or the Sniper special rule.

No. Either the precision shots special rule is the subheading under character. Indicating it is a special rule possessed by all characters, or it does not exist. Since the order refers to the rule we must assume it does exist. Either the order gives every model in the target unit the subheading, or it does nothing at all.

Subheadings in other areas of the book are not special rule. It's just a thing. If it's not in the special rule section of the BRB, it isn't. Of course, Special rules not in the BRB are listed in the codex they come in, unless GW messes up and uses precision shot as a rule that's never listed. So there's a description of how characters and snipers make them, but no special rule for them in either codex despite now being used as a special rule.

It depends on what you want to infer from that. Precision Shot is not a thing characters get or snipers get and it is not rolling 6's to hit to allocate, ever. The BRB is explicit about it. When you allocate a hit, that's a precision shot. Characters and snipers make them on 6's. If you want RAI based on an error in RAW, it's the full squad gets to plant hits, and the Benediction gets the same effect.

RAW do give us a special rule that currently does not exist, per se, though. True.

Precision shot is a shot that allows the firer to allocate and has an on/off switch normally based on rolling a 6. This order ignores switch and says it is always on.

RAI: On a 6 guardsmen get to lascanon snipe.
RAW: we suffer thru guardsmen sniping until it gets faq'd.

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?

Good call on the thread. I have a couple notes and a few more questions.

 Scipio Africanus wrote:


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.
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.

Tactical Auto-Reliquary: “When rolling Leadership tests for orders issued by an officer with the Tactical Auto-Reliquary, any successful Leadership test that results in a double will count as Inspired Tactics” it must be a successful test.

Take Aim!: “The ordered unit must make a shooting attack. When resolving this shooting attack, all models in the ordered unit have the Precision Shot special rule.”

This isn't ambiguous to me at all. The squad gains the precision shots rule, only rolls of a 6 to hit are precision shots.

Unfortunately the Smite at Will! command is similarly worded, suggesting that the successful order grants the splitfire special rule (meaning the squad must pass a second ld test to successful splitfire.

Additional question:

- Can CCS advisors (astropath, master of ordnance, OOTF) be equipped with camo gear or carapace armor like the veterans in the squad?

Any thoughts on my previous question??

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?

Yes.

You are called upon to Measure distance to the unit embarked on the tranport; Page 73 is clear on this matter.

So the ability can be used when:
a) the model with the aquilla is embarked.
b) The unit benefiting is embarked
c) Both units are embarked.

Interesting so it creates a larger "footprint" for the Aquila?

I am not sure on the size of the Chimera but that extends it's range vastly.

 TheSilo wrote:

Take Aim!: “The ordered unit must make a shooting attack. When resolving this shooting attack, all models in the ordered unit have the Precision Shot special rule.”

This isn't ambiguous to me at all. The squad gains the precision shots rule, only rolls of a 6 to hit are precision shots.

Unfortunately the Smite at Will! command is similarly worded, suggesting that the successful order grants the splitfire special rule (meaning the squad must pass a second ld test to successful splitfire.

Additional question:

- Can CCS advisors (astropath, master of ordnance, OOTF) be equipped with camo gear or carapace armor like the veterans in the squad?

The reason Take Aim! is ambiguous is more obvious if you take a look at the Precision Shot entry of the BRB. First of all, it isn't a special rule (not even in the special rule chapter of the book). Second, read the entry for Precision Shot closely. It says that when a character rolls a 6, it becomes a Precision Shot. This means that when a model is given a "Precision Shot", it doesn't have to roll a 6 to get the shot, it is simply given it. I agree with Scipio on HIWPI, btw.

I was actually just wondering about Smite at Will! today.

The advisers cannot take those items, as they do not have access to special issue wargear and are not given special permission to take them (unlike the commander and veterans, respectively).

Also, I'm mad that Stormtroopers can't outflank in a Chimera anymore.

Hollismason wrote:
Interesting so it creates a larger "footprint" for the Aquila?

I am not sure on the size of the Chimera but that extends it's range vastly.

Yes, all abilities that measure range to a model can be extended by being embarked on a vehicle. It makes actual sense which Voice of Command on a chimera; many other abilities, not as much(Technically you can Blessings of the omnissiah a vehicle from inside a chimera that moves into contact with it; I would not suggest making use of this chicanery)