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.

And what can he do, with his bolter?

outside his tank he doens't do more then a regular Techy.

So the interest of doing this, is really limited.

No one is saying this is powerful. Just saying it is dumb.

Yeah, not saying it's good, just it's dumb and there's kind of a marginal way in which you could take advantage of it.

So what happens if you kill him on the table, then kill the tank after? Does he come back to life? I think the "from this point on" part strongly suggests that he cannon be on the board at the same time as his tank, but it is a gak written rule.

Yeah he resurrects if you kill his tank after killing him

 FlingitNow wrote:
Yeah he resurrects if you kill his tank after killing him

I would argue that it really depends on how he was killed. If he was simply "removed as a casualty" in such a way that didn't actually reduce his wounds to zero, he should 'teleport' out of the tank and be able to survive. If he was "removed as a casualty" as a result of being reduced to zero wounds, he would still 'teleport' out of the tank, but then presumably still be at zero wounds... and so he'd be immediately removed as a casualty again. Nothing about walking out of the tank would heal any damage he'd received earlier in the game.

Now, obviously I'm being nitpicky and just curious as to how you think this ridiculously poorly written rule would interact if we took it seriously. HIWPI, he has to start 'in' the tank.

That's a good point. However I would argue the and uses the profile from then on wording would have his profile reset. So for instance had he been deathleapered (or had a permanent stat change by some other method including suffering a wound) the profile would be reset and he'd lose all those modifiers. If he's using a modified profile is he using the listed profile from then on?

 FlingitNow wrote:
That's a good point. However I would argue the and uses the profile from then on wording would have his profile reset. So for instance had he been deathleapered (or had a permanent stat change by some other method including suffering a wound) the profile would be reset and he'd lose all those modifiers. If he's using a modified profile is he using the listed profile from then on?

I agree that the profile would be reset but not that any damage accrued earlier in the game would vanish.

If I have a profile with 3 wounds listed and I've take 2 wounds, I have 1 wound remaining. If I'm subsequently told to update my profile such that the number of wounds listed is now 2, I will immediately be removed as a casualty as I'll have zero wounds remaining.

Being told to use a new profile isn't the same as being told to use a new profile and "reset" all my in game values to match the new profile. If I'm subject to -1T from an effect of some sort, I'll still be subject to -1T. If I've taken 2 wounds, I've still taken 2 wounds.

Away from my rules at the moment. But doesn't suffering a wound reduce your wound profile by 1? Do you have the wording for that effect.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Away from my rules at the moment. But doesn't suffering a wound reduce your wound profile by 1? Do you have the wording for that effect.

Away from my rules also. I didn't think suffering a wound actually changed your profile, but more just changed your current total. The Necron Character who can change profiles might be good to look away. I think he might have some wording on how to handle wounds during a profile change.

I still don't get how, even RaW he'd come back to life. Once he's dead, he's dead and no longer is affected by any game effects because...he's dead and is no longer a part of the game. And no rules specifically allow him to return from the dead. In fact, VERY few rules actually try to interact with dead models.

I'll agree, very poorly written on all levels. Never will play anyone who tries to let this work, even if it isn't that big of a impact on the game. When a model(s) dies/is removed, it does not come back unless the game specifically says it does (Such as in the Ork book, I believe in the Altar of War missions, if a unit of Ork Boyz is wiped out, they go to reserves to come back the next turn as an example).

You've not really made any sort of coherent argument there. No one is suggesting that it should be played that Chronos starts on the board (though that is RaW). Then you've made some claims about how rules interact with dead models, with no support at all. If Chronos dies then his tank dies he becomes a passenger of that tank with his full profile again, the only question is, do modifiers and wounds carry over to this new profile. I think RaW they don't Kriswall thinks they do. To be honest I doubt we'll get a clear answer as the rules are designed to deal with this scenario.

 FlingitNow wrote:
You've not really made any sort of coherent argument there. No one is suggesting that it should be played that Chronos starts on the board (though that is RaW). Then you've made some claims about how rules interact with dead models, with no support at all. If Chronos dies then his tank dies he becomes a passenger of that tank with his full profile again, the only question is, do modifiers and wounds carry over to this new profile. I think RaW they don't Kriswall thinks they do. To be honest I doubt we'll get a clear answer as the rules are designed to deal with this scenario.

I'm actually not sure. My gut tells me they do, but I haven't researched the rules. I freely admit that I may be wrong.

Why would he teleport to a tank that was already destroyed. And why would a tank get his benefits if he isn't in it. And why wouldn't a tank ace like him not start a battle in a tank.

I'm thinking it's like already mentioned by sharkoutofwata

yellowfever wrote:
Why would he teleport to a tank that was already destroyed. And why would a tank get his benefits if he isn't in it. And why wouldn't a tank ace like him not start a battle in a tank.

I'm thinking it's like already mentioned by sharkoutofwata

The answer to the first question is because the rules tell us he does. The second is because the rules say the tank gets the benefits and does not say he must be (or even can be in the case of the non-transport tanks) embarked to get those benefits. Finally nothing tells us he must be (or even can be in the case of the non-transport tanks) embarked at the start of the battle.

yellowfever wrote:
Why would he teleport to a tank that was already destroyed. And why would a tank get his benefits if he isn't in it. And why wouldn't a tank ace like him not start a battle in a tank.

I'm thinking it's like already mentioned by sharkoutofwata

Yes, it's fairly obvious that he is supposed to start in a tank. The point being made here is that this isn't actually explained in the rules.

Yeah, this is a good example of piss poor rules writing, even by GeeDubs standards. Though I don't think it would a huge difference in a game if he did start on the board. As long as he is worth a VP every time I killed him, anyway. And by that same easoning he could net you at least 3 blood tithes, if not more. I would not ague too hard with an opponet about it, even though RaI are obvious in this case. As I don't own the book, could someone tell me if he is a character or an independant character?

My point is even though the rule isn't written well common sense can step in. Play it the way we all know it's supposed to be played.

yellowfever wrote:
My point is even though the rule isn't written well common sense can step in. Play it the way we all know it's supposed to be played.

Common sense is not so common - Voltaire (1694-1778)

yellowfever wrote:
My point is even though the rule isn't written well common sense can step in. Play it the way we all know it's supposed to be played.

How we would play it is not what we're currently discussing. Just about everyone KNOWS how this is SUPPOSED to be played. I would imagine that 99.9% of players simply play with him starting 'inside' his tank.

BUT...

We're discussing what the rules ACTUALLY say... not what we think they were supposed to say.

The rules DON'T tell us to start Chronus inside the Tank you select. In point of fact, the Chronus has an army list entry and has a model. The core rules would require that we either start him on the table or start him in Reserves. There is no current option in the core rules or in Codex: Space Marines to start him 'inside' a Tank.

That's the whole point of this thread... to point out what is almost certainly a glaring error in the rules writing/editing process and then further to have fun nitpicking about how the rules interact in their current state.

What Kriswall said and I hoped the title of thread made it clear what the point was.

 Ghaz wrote:

yellowfever wrote:
My point is even though the rule isn't written well common sense can step in. Play it the way we all know it's supposed to be played.

Common sense is not so common - Voltaire (1694-1778)

Common Sense, so rare it's a super power. - Deadpool 2005