DISQUS

Inquis. Jaeger · 7 months ago

Re: The LRBT issue

This topic is a difficult one and credit to those who have discussed at length previously and to mkerr for outlining what he believes to be the applicable solutions.

This is entirely a question of constructional interpretation. When this is done in regard to legal statutes - written law often being outdated, superseded and inconsistent - an important principle applied in common law jurisdictions to attempt to apply the law to solve the legal conundrum consistently with the intention of the original drafter. For instance, the US Supreme Court assess Constitutional matters brought before it in light of the intentions of its original signatories and the UK High Court has regard to the wishes and intentions of Parliament when considering statute law. In this they can be assissted by contemporaneous records of related discussions or debates when the law was drafted, but it still remains an exercise in imagination. And it is this task, which in lieu of an applicable FAQ/Errata from GW, gamers must complete for themselves.

So firstly, what was the original initention of the drafter of the DH/WH rules? I will use the WH as it is the more recent version of the rules, despite them being almost identical.

Facts:

Inducted Guard may accompany a WH army (p25 WH codex).

Inducted Guard consist of only the basic versions of the troop types published in Codex: IG (p25 WH codex)

Inducted Guard consist of 'units' that may be used in WH army and 'occupy spaces in the WH FOC according to the heading they are listed under'

All 'units' are taken exactly as they appear in Codex: IG an may only use the options and upgrades listed there.

Under 'Heavy Support' is the entry '0-1 Leman Russ Battle Tank'

The new IG Codex removes the HS FOC entry of LRBT and replaces it with LR Squadron, which consists of 1-3 LRBTs or LR variants.


This creates an inconsistency. A choice of 'unit' in the WH/DH Codex is 0-1 LRBT. However, not such FOC choice exists in the new IG codex. The 'unit' still does, however. Whether a 'unit' is exactly the same as a 'FOC choice' is incredibly debateable, but that would take far too long. In any case, it is unclear.

However, what is certain is that WH/DH were only ever intended to have access to one solitary LRBT under normal IG rules as one WH/DH Army HS slot. Therefore, to my mind the only reasonable interpretation of the rules (not based on spirit of the rules/spirit of the game/fluff etc but purely on the constructional interpretation) is that WH/DH should be allowed to select the LR Squadron from the new IG Codex as a HS choice, but with the restriction that it consists of one LRBT and one LRBT only, with no varients allowed.

The arguments over the name of the FOC choice changing from LRBT to LR Squadron is immaterial, as the solution I have proposed gives effect to the original intention of the WH/DH Codex writers

Feel free, anyone, to challenge this interpretation if you think differently. After thinking and writing all this, I'm happy to hear an opposing view as long as it is well reasoned!

Sgt_Spindler · 7 months ago

i object?

Yes, I OBJECT!

Your reply is way too long winded. Right, but long winded. We are all impressed by your legal knowledge obtained from Law & Order episodes. You could have just gone right to the point and stated that GW themselves have always said that the the Codex in question has precedence over a similiar rule, unit entry, wargear allowed, etc. found someplace else.

Random Guy · 7 months ago

Objection over-ruled.

Personally, I prefer to see a well thought out, logical post. Even if it is a little "long-winded". The point is, he has backed up his claims with hard information from sources. Something many posters fail to do.

Props Jaeger. Maybe some other posters will take the time to research and properly word their responses as oppossed to the raging drivel that seems to spew from the mouths of commenters these days.

As for me, I'm done reading the comments on this Blog. Nothing really worth reading anymore.

Matt Quick · 7 months ago

If only some lawyers payed attention in that show.

Inquis. Jaeger · 7 months ago

Entirely fair point. I am assuredly guitly of windbaggery. However, I think I got my point across in a clear manner (typos aside)

In reply to your point about one Codex trumping another, I don't, unfortunately, think that's the case here. Because the codices draw on each other, it's more about giving effect to the original intention of the primary text (Inquis. Codex) from the inconsistency created with the secondary text (IG Codex).

I do think you madea very good point in one of your eariler posts Spindler - the WH/DH Codex does use the term 'unit' implying that perhaps there's room to argue that the 'unit', ie the individual squad or vehicle with attendant rules and points cost, is lifted from one codex and used in another, not the FOC choice being accessed by one codex to another.

Sgt_Spindler · 7 months ago

I was just trying to be funny, sorry. I do agree with you somewhat in that if we are talking about a collection of Codices, specifically SM, DA, BA, BT, then when there is an "ajustment" to the rules concerning a piece of equipment in one codex I have no problem letting it apply to other Chapters. If a BT player asks me if he can put his Chaplain in a drop pod with a crusader squad I'll say sure, why not. I can put 12 SMs in one so you can to. The problem I have is when someone gets a wild hair "somewhere" and thinks that they can do the things that are mentioned in this article and posts.

sodcactus · 7 months ago

Well, better than all your "codex THE"-rantings....

Psyberwolfe · 7 months ago

Be careful with RAW. It can bite back. For example what does "basic versions of troop types" mean? A pure Hoyle definition would say "basic" means no upgrades.Just food for thought.

mkerr · 7 months ago

"So firstly, what was the original initention of the drafter of the DH/WH rules? "

I think this is impossible to discern with the information we have. There was no ambiguity because the Imperial Guard rules it referenced only allowed a single tank without variation. The inconsistency was created when unit referenced in the old codex was replaced with a new one.

"This creates an inconsistency."

I agree. The decision is do we change the unit to fit the description in the WH/DH codice (which leads to a unit that is very unlike the new Imperial Guard unit) or do we change the description to fit the new unit (and use the new heavy support choice as it appears).

There's no right or wrong answer here. You should look at the new IG codex carefully and discuss it with the other players in your group. If your gaming group is highly competitive (with players using the WH/DH rules to create tough army lists), I recommend selecting the single tank, no variant choice (closest to RAW). If your group is more fun and campaign oriented, then replace the 0-1 Leman Russ Battle Tank with 0-1 Leman Russ Squadron (the one most consistent with the new IG codex).

"However, what is certain is that WH/DH were only ever intended to have access to one solitary LRBT under normal IG rules as one WH/DH Army HS slot."

I won't assume that the designer's intention were more than restricting the player to a single Leman Russ Battle Tank heavy support choice (in the same manner that they were restricted to 0-1 Sentinel Squadrons). You were able to use the unit - in it's entirety - from the IG codex, but you were restricted to one unit.

If we restrict players to a single tank instead of a single unit, we are redacting the new unit, which is something that the Inducted Guard and Allied Space Marines rules have never done.

In both cases, we are "changing the rules" so change them in the way that most benefits the players in your home group. But "intention" shouldn't be part of the discussion.

Thanks for the comment.

Girls Gone Chaos · 7 months ago

"P47 in the new codex: Psychic Choir: The Psyker Battle Squad counts as a SINGLE psyker for the purposes of using a psychic power. So sorry, no nasty boost to Culexus. That is wishful thinking."

If you take the time to read past the words you added emphasis to, you will realize just how wrong you are. The Culexus DOES get 11 shots. Psychic Choir only shows that the entire squad uses only one psychic power. Each model still counts as a psyker.

Anon · 7 months ago

Note your own text, "for the purposes of using a psychic power".

That doesn't include all the other purposes, this being one of them.

Anon · 7 months ago

derp. Ignore that.

sinsynn · 7 months ago

more CHEEZ, please.
It's stuff like this that simply makes the elitist 'hobbyist' types heads explode! You know, those guys who review your army list before a game and tell you in condesending tones that the craftworld you've chosen wouldn't have a squad of Model A because it quite clearly states on page whatever that they don't have access to the helmets, or some other fluff B.S. You know the type- they play for fun, not to 'win at all costs' (which is code for 'I thought my list was better'). They insist that their 2 warboss list is 'fluffy' because they don't have nob bikers. But in what universe do 2 warbosses sit together and work out a plan? Funnily enough, these are the same guys that make firt-time players at the game stores feel unwelcome with their attitudes, because no one but they are worthy enough to be 'keepers of the fluff', and every one of them has been playing since caveman days. Love those guys.
Yeah, their gonna be having some 'exorcist' head-spinning-in-circles moments. Watch how fast they all become rules lawyers!
Looking foward to it.

GMTA · 7 months ago

The best part is the end where he mentions "spirit of the rules". How is any of that within the spirit of the game. Pfff.

mkerr · 7 months ago

Really? That was the best part of the article? Personally, I thought the best part was finding use for the Sisters Repentia that have been sitting on my shelf for 4 years collecting dust.

All joking aside, I shouldn't have mentioned the "spirit of the rules" in that section. I have no clue what I was thinking and it was completely out of place. I can only assume that I was using the "Mkerr variant to Godwin's Law".

PetulantinPeoria · 7 months ago

That's so funny.

LEGION3000 · 7 months ago

I think you are confusing and mixing gamer archetypes. All the fluff heads I now "myself included" don't usually care if we lose as long as the game was fun. And we would never use a list with 2 warbosses but I would surely roll over you with a dozen bikers in a speed freaks army. Having a hard list and being fluffy are not mutually exclusive. In fact most Fluff Heads are pretty liberal with the rules and often allow stuff (WH assault cannons) because the rules are retarded and outdated.

What you are talking about is a beardy powergamer trying to justify his loss by complaining about fluff. That is a totally different situation.

ReticientinRaccoon · 7 months ago

Indeed!

pierce raats · 7 months ago

There is nothing wrong with being a hobbyist and liking the background over the rules. the rules are consistently inconsistent and inevitably all of them becomes outdated and contradictory, im not harshing on the rules as bad as it sounds like i am. i just mean i would rather lose a game which was played with the background and "spirit of the game" with awesomely painted models which are consistent with 25years of evolving narrative (on both sides of the table)---- than win a game of overcomplicated chess played with ridiculously expensive and horribly painted models.

faultie · 7 months ago

WH have no assault cannons, do they? I think you mean DH assault cannons.

styx · 7 months ago

Error found on this one:

5. PSYKER BATTLE SQUADS. Just about every IG player is building a list around this nasty knot of psykers – and every other player is scouring their codices looking for a way to counter them. Well, here’s another PBS trick. Every Sanctioned Psyker has the "psyker" rule. This makes them a powerful battery for WH/DH players that use Culexus assassins. A full-sized PBS turns the Animus Speculum into a BS5 S5 AP1 Assault 11 weapon. Just think of all of the Spinal Tap jokes you can make with that one! If you are extra cruel, you can take 2 PBSs to make the Animus Speculum an Assault 20 weapon. Who needs counter charge when you have that in the wings? When not being used to power the Culexus, even a small a Psyker Battle Squad works great with a WH Inquisitor Lord using Divine Pronouncement. Oh, just keep the PBSs in Chimeras to shield them from the Psychic Abomination rule (or keep a Book of St. Lucius or some other morale booster nearby).

P47 in the new codex: Psychic Choir: The Psyker Battle Squad counts as a SINGLE psyker for the purposes of using a psychic power. So sorry, no nasty boost to Culexus. That is wishful thinking.

Also, with Inducted IG from the new codex I suspect the 0-1 will but a single tank, I suppose it can be any varient but only 1. GW is not going to FAQ the DH/WH codex to apply common sense from the IG book to match what is in the older books. Look at what they did by screwing over the Dark Angels, Black Templar and Blood Angels! At least the Space Wolves reference the main Marine Codex and is able to get away with much more.

Admiral Halsey · 7 months ago

Since someone's going to be nitpicky, it may as well be me.

'For the purposes of using a psychic power...'

Well thats fine. Because I'm using it for the purpose of determining how many models are psykers within 6inches.

nypunkgeek · 7 months ago

As someone who fields a Culexus against psykers I can tell you I would never accept that as a valid argument on why I can't count each model as a psyker when shooting at it. Just because it counts as one when using powers doesn't mean it is one psyker. It is simply stating that so you don't use each model to cast its own power.

Big J · 7 months ago

I would say that it counts as one model when anyone uses a power. It doesn't specify that squad, just that it counts as a single psycher for the purposes of using a psychic power, any psychic power.

nypunkgeek · 7 months ago

The pistol in question is not a psykic power anyway, so even if you read the rule that way it doesn't change this. I do find that point interesting though.

Chaosgerbil · 7 months ago

Thank you.... that seemed like an exploit, I'm glad it doesn't exist as a legal part of the game.

Mind you, I was tempted as I plan on fielding a psychic choir in my traitor guard.

Oni · 7 months ago

I don't know...the rule as stated above states "Psychic Choir: The Psyker Battle Squad counts as a single psyker for the purposes of USING a psychic power."

This reads to me as "yeah, you have 9 guys here, but we will only let you use soulstorm ONCE." If it didn't read as that, then you'd have 9 individual uses of the power.

I read as 9 psychers working together as one for that common goal. Kinda like GK termies are "psychers" in fluff only. The Brother captain is the actual one that casts the powers. The Culexus only counts him on the uber gun, not the rest of the unit. The IG codex states that EACH sanctioned psycher has the psychic rule.

Still broken.

yeah · 7 months ago

lol why don't you read your own quoted entry again.

mkerr · 7 months ago

No, the PBS is "treated as a single psyker for the purposes of using a psychic power". If you look at the entry for the unit, the Sanctioned Psykers have the psyker rule.

The Overseer isn't a psyker, but all of the sanctioned psykers are.

GuyLeDouche · 7 months ago

The DH codex says "0-1 LR Battle Tank" (singular), not "0-1 LR Battle Tank choice" (which would provide some leeway there).

The 'Using Inducted Imperial Guard or Space Marine Contingents' section (p.21 of my DH codex) says: "No variants of any kind can be incorporated."

I think it is pretty clear that between the two rules, you are allowed to take up to one LR (no variants) from the IG codex. I don't see this as being the least reasonable, fear-based, or knee-jerk reaction at all. Quite frankly, I think that liberally interpreting a clearly stated set of rules and trying to modify it to benefit yourself is more inconsistent with the spirit of the rules.

And I play the Inq.

mkerr · 7 months ago

Re-read the section you are quoting on page 21. You are taking that section out of context. It just means that you can't take a variant type of IG army and use their special rules (i.e., no Steel Legion or Catachan rules, but you can use their models as generic guardsmen).

I think that assuming that I'm "liberally interpreting" the rules to gain benefit is a knee-jerk reaction. As I've mentioned in this thread, I gain benefit if I'm not saddled with the squadron rules (i.e., I'll never use more than one LRBT).

So it's kind of the opposite of your assumption. My opinion is that it's most reasonble to make the LR heavy support choice consistent between the codices.

GuyLeDouche · 7 months ago

The full text (and if this breaks any sort of rules, please let me know and I'll remove it) states: 'When using Allied or Inducted troops, only the basic versions of these troop types published in the appropriate Codex can be used. No variants of any kind can be incorporated." I see where your interpretation comes from, but I am not sure how these lines allow for variants of any kind.

TheHappyTroll · 7 months ago

At best, this rule only covers troops, not heavy support.

GuyLeDouche · 7 months ago

Perhaps. I'm reading that as troops (generic term) as opposed to Troops (the FOC type). But I see both sides of the coin.

eddtheman70 · 7 months ago

I see the "no variants of any kind can be used" as variants of the army list itself, not the models. Catachan and steel legion army lists cannot be used. Neither can "variations" from the doctrines IG and SM can use. (i.e. you cannot use an IG platoon w/ carapace and drop troops in an allied DH/WH force)

Eric E · 7 months ago

The problem is that there aren't any Leman Russ variants. There are different kinds of Leman Russ, but none of them are "variants" as per the rules you're quoting. Variant in the rule you're quoting is something other than the basic choice. Well all the Basic Choices under Leman Russ Squadron are there. I'm not altering it in any way.

Chaosgerbil · 7 months ago

Seconded.

Well researched LeDouche.

LEGION3000 · 7 months ago

Amen brother.

TheHappyTroll · 7 months ago

@Douche

Variants is referring to Army Variants, not Unit Variants.

Nice find, and nice try.

Falchus · 7 months ago

My personal opinion is YES to varients, NO to squadrons.

I recall reading in an ancient copy of WD that the Games Developers deliberatly allowed you to take a Russ for fluff reasons. Now whilst varients wern't mentioned, I think with this new IG codex it isnt unreasonable for DH/WH players to take one of these cool new varients.

What is unreasonable is taking a squadron of powerful vehicles. I know that BOLS has a high proportion of tournament focused gamers, so don't rip me to shreds for saying that "the spirit of the game" allows varients to be taken.

LEGION3000 · 7 months ago

Sorry its going to be one or the other. I don't see how taking a squadron with all of their penalties is any less unreasonable than allowing any variant.

And IMO the rule will be NO variant and NO squadron.

TSINI · 7 months ago

i think in the same way as the space wolf and dark angels codex's, this discussion is about out of date codex's that need F.A.Q updates, or re-writing completely (blood angels style)

any RAW confusion between vehicle names and unit entries pretty much renders them inaccessible due to the name ties being severed (and i'm talking tournement terms here, by all means the codex's are fine for players that agree on their interpretations.)

its looking like these codex's are for friendlies only until they are re-written, unless its been brought up in the tournement F.A.Q's

Dae · 7 months ago

In a similar vein to what has been said above, the version of the DH codex I have explicitly says (and that is the literal translation from french): "0-1 Leman Russ (only the base model).

I can't see how to interpret it in any other way than me being allowed a single Leman Russ, and only the base version at that.

Eric E · 7 months ago

Wow. That is hilarious. Time to wait for the FAQ to either fix this or support it. But its totally hilarious and awesome.

TheHappyTroll · 7 months ago

Why would you need an 'Errata'?

There wasn't an 'Errata' needed in the past 6 years for the allied rules which came out in those two codexes, so why would you think there would be one now?

valhallan42nd · 7 months ago

Why don't we just roll a d6 before every game, like gentlemen?

More fun than having established faqs, I say.

Andrew · 7 months ago

Good idea's on combining Inquisitors and guard, however some how I cant see an inquisitor taking orders from a guard officer after all inqisitors are above them.

TSINI · 7 months ago

that was my first reaction, im pretty certain that imperial guard officers are only 1, 2 or 3 ranks above the grunts they boss around, in terms of rank, even a basic space marine could come down to the IG commanders planet, and order him to paint his army pink and change their name to the Girl Guard, if heso wished.

so its a bit far fetched to allow the orders rules to affect anyone other than the grunts.

mkerr · 7 months ago

Nothing in the IG codex prevents a Junior Officer from giving a Senior Officer an order. Maybe we should look at them as prudent suggestions from experienced soldiers instead of orders.

If I was an Inquisitor Lord and a captain yelled that I should focus my shooting on the rampaging Carnifex, I might listen to his experience. I might execute him after the batte for talking to me that way, but I'd listen.

TSINI · 7 months ago

hmm i guess, but from a fluff point of view (yes i'm a fluff bunny through and through)

i think the point of the orders is to represent the terrible skills of the guardsmen, i imagine the concentrate fire on the tank order doesnt make the troops more accurate in their firing, otherwise they'd fire like that all the time, instead it just gives them the go ahead to blast away furiously with the lascannon, or take more time to aim (depending on the drill skills of the guardsmen)

basically what i'm saying is that an officer wouldnt be able to tell an inquisitor or any space marine to aim better or fire more furiously beacuse they are well trained warriors who fight and shoot to the best of their abilities all the time. in contrast to the guardsmen who just blast away willy nilly hoping to hit something (just like in WW1/2 etc lol)

mkerr · 7 months ago

I can think of dozens of movie and literary references to a grizzled non-commissioned officer telling his "betters" how to handle a battle.

Maybe orders coming down are traditional orders, but orders going up are examples of experienced soldiers making a suggestion.

You could always choose to have your Inquisitor or Space Marine unit ignore the orders. It wouldn't give you any benefit, but it would be funny.

TSINI · 7 months ago

lol, i think you're right in that it will have to be rationalised in a better way than just an order, sometimes it will be a suggestion, or maybe even a flash of inspiration of the gunner totally indipendant of the commander.

but yeah. i've read enough inquisitor background to know that most inquisitor lords would despise being told anything by a commander unless he was asked for information. although there are the good few that do listen to the grunts. :D

faolan_conall · 7 months ago

Hell Mkerr, I can give you plenty of real life examples of that.

And you do see it in the fluff at times, a more senior officer or Inq defering to the immediate expertise of an underling - after all, that's what they're for.

Rift Knight · 7 months ago

Heck, I've even seen a U.S. Army SGM(Sergeant Major) chew out a 2nd Lt. The 2nd Lt. even got at parade rest while he was being chewed out. Probably because he know the SGM was right.

Rift Knight

TheHappyTroll · 7 months ago

@ valhallan42nd

Or you can play by the rules?

The rules allow allies. Use them.

I don't have to make you roll a D6 for taking a tactical squad just because I don't like them.

KINGS · 7 months ago

WH and DH are 3rd edition codexes. You cannot use them anymore. Too old. :)

~kings

Andy · 7 months ago

Congratulations on being an idiot.

sinsynn · 7 months ago

jeez, that was uncalled for.
this website really has a ton of viewers that feel that anyone who cracks a joke or-even worse-has an upopular opinion deserves to be insulted.
'Cuz ya know, anyone who does such things MUST be an idiot.
I agree with Kings- those codexes are too friggin' old! I have both. I enjoyed them both for a long time. But they have rules in them that makes using them in 5th ed. just plain old annoying.
I truly wish that GW didn't waste our time with garbage like Planetstrike and instead updated the codexes that need updating. Why is that not priority #1 for them?

Miggidy_Mack · 7 months ago

Because they have open disdain for you. You purchased product from them without the psychic ability to know they were only joking about it being a real army. They don't want your money, you aren't good enough for them.

Seriously... that's the only explanation for expecting customers to be fine with this sort of thing. It would take what, a few hours to write a real errata and make it available?

sodcactus · 7 months ago

But they are the only ones we got... :-( Should we say the same about DE?

SM · 7 months ago

Agreed, an army book can be used until a new one comes out. (I might even go so far as to say you can use the old codexes, even if you have the new ones)

thatguy · 7 months ago

Al'Rahem is sick! Notice that his special order allows the unit he uses it on to Shoot, and then MOVE 1d6. Because it isn't a run, they can still assault in your assoualt phase as long as they were firing assault weapons or pistols. (Ogryns or Stormtroopers perhaps.)

Engelus · 7 months ago

feel free to not worry about shooting first and killing all the guys within assault range, that was something that petrified me when I played black templars.

Herald of Nurgle · 7 months ago

Close Combat Guard lives?

Galaxy Burner · 7 months ago

Close Combat Guard: Colonel Straken, 5 priests, 5 penal legion squads, one infantry platoon w/ maxed conscript squad and Chenkov, rough riders.

Add in some psykers and you have yourself a Lost and the Damned list!

Herald of Nurgle · 7 months ago

YAWN
I didn't write up a houseruled LatD book for nothing. I'll keep to mine

TheHappyTroll · 7 months ago

Very nice, basic tactica here for allied IG and the reverse.

Reecius · 7 months ago

I am just waiting for the fluff bunnies to come in and scram hate at you for even proposing such a dastardly thing as this!

Prepare for wailing and gnashing of teeth!

TSINI · 7 months ago

you got my number!

Reecius · 7 months ago

I respect honesty!

Miggidy_Mack · 7 months ago

If GW doesn't update the rules we already have to meet the fluff they wrote AFTER the rules came out then I don't see a point in trying to adhere to the fluff. GK's have Razorbacks & Rhino's in the fluff. GK's ALL use teleporters, not just the fast attack units that can't score. Hell, there are a bunch of abilities that have no effect on Daemons now, thanks to rules changes.

So yea, fluff and rules don't match when GW creates them, why am I being forced to adhere to something GW doesn't even try to?

jose21018 · 7 months ago

fluff wise the DH and WH can do what ever they want as giving them a dirty look can be grounds for execution at the hands of the Inquisition. i mean that's the whole reason behind the allies isn't it? i mean the only fluff i have read is the guard and nids codex plus the Cain novels and even in there the ordo xenos bosses a lord general around.

sinsynn · 7 months ago

well GW's inevitable FAQ regarding the WH/DH ally rules should be interesting.
I haven't used my Sisters or my WH Inquisitor in a long, long time.
In fact, they were early models in my painting career, and the first metal ones, so I hesitate to pull them out of the foam as I'm sure I'll need to repaint them. Sigh..... more work.
Ah, this is gonna be a fun, fun few months after this codex drops. I'm still workong out how to make green stuff Ork intestines to squish into tank treads, onto bayonnets, etc. It just makes me happy............

Joe · 7 months ago

An inevitable FAQ? I'd find it surprising if they even mention allies

Miggidy_Mack · 7 months ago

The "inevitable FAQ" will include a bunch of useless questions (like so many others). Like "If my shoot the big ones order is used on a unit with a twin-linked weapon can I reroll the misses twice?" I also expect to see a bunch of questions about upgraded characters for units that are really self apparent.

TheHappyTroll · 7 months ago

Once again....

Why would you need an 'Errata'?

There wasn't an 'Errata' needed in the past 6 years for the allied rules which came out in those two codexes, so why would you think there would be one now?

Maine · 7 months ago

As a Guard player and fancier of Witch Hunter myself, I'd have to say 6.2 or 6.4. My reasoning is this:

The original WH codex was published after the second 3rd Edition IG codex, both in 2003. The 3.5 IG codex had the Russ and 1 variant, the Demolisher. By explicitly allowing only the standard Russ and NOT a Demolisher, they showed their intention as not allowing variants.

Second, the 0-1 restriction shows they want it to be very limited; it's hard to say at that point if squadrons should be allowed. I'd think WH have more effective things to spend those points on.

That said, I'm a proponent of The Most Important Rule. If I was flexible and allowed variants or a squadron of variants, I'd expect my opponent not try to argue rules or fractions of an inch with me. Nothing is more annoying than someone who will pick nits on his opponent but expects everyone to give them huge leeway.

DJofE · 7 months ago

As a WH player myself, I really don't think the argument over leman russes will be game breaking at all. I mean, more than half our time, we usually fill our lists with 2 or 3 exorcists anywayz as they are so worth the cost.

No leman russ? Okay, here's another exorcist and some more bodies on the table.

TSINI · 7 months ago

on the Leman russ discussion, its the same with the Space wolves, i don't think they'd be allowed to take leman squadrons, let alone any other variants other than the exterminator.

when the guard get tanks into the field, they're normally on loan from a tank company, hence the large amount available, whereas WH and SW would probably own the tanks, and therefore have access to fewer russ'.

Rushputin · 7 months ago

This.

It's not as if this new codex is the firs ttime variant LRs have been introduced. The IG book contemporary to the DH book had *4* LR variants, and the DH book clearly calls out the LRBT only.

Nobody tried to slip in a LRD in a DH army under the previous codex. Why should they start trying now?

Catzilla · 7 months ago

Because the rules are unclear about it? I would not mind option 6.3 actually, but I agree that at least WH armies have better choices with the exorcists.

Rushputin · 7 months ago

What's unclear about "0-1 Leman Russ Battle Tank"?

- What you can take is a Leman Russ Battle Tank
- You can take none or you can take one.

There's some vague stuff in 40K. This isn't one of them.

TSINI · 7 months ago

the argument is that you can't technically take "a leman russ battle tank" because that unit no longer exists, the only entry for them that exists now is the "leman russ squadron" so technically now it would read "0-1 leman russ squadron" meaning you could field 3 leman russ varients in a DH army

Rushputin · 7 months ago

Huh. Nobody in our local forum had brought that up.

I mean, I still disagree. The codex says "0-1 Leman Russ Battle Tank." I think it's a smaller leap to say, "Because that's no longer an option in the IG codex, I do not get to take it at all," than to say, "Because that's no longer an option in the IG codex, I'm going to take this *other* thing because it's kind of like it." (Neither of which is as good as, "I get to take a Leman Russ Battle Tank. I better look up what that is in the IG codex.")

The *intent* is clear in the DH book: at the time of its printing, there were other versions of the LR tank, and yet DH are only supposed to take the LRBT version. They're only supposed to have one of them.

So, I think it's clear by both RAW and RAI.

jose21018 · 7 months ago

I wholly agree with you on that the DH book was crystal on what it meant. but the fact is that what it meant is out of print soon. so now it becomes a question of which codex take precedent. the DH book says that the units taken are as listed in the units codex. this was put there for this reason. as the only russ listed in the book is the squadron it is a reasonable question of how is this meant to be used. where do you draw the like the turret weapon or the load out as a whole the old LRBT didn't have mulit metas or plasma cannons but the errata says that units taken from the guard book can buy any available upgrades. so now you could argue that the main guns are just another upgrade. now the 0-1 well that's a reference to the force org chart which now says that 3 russes are 1 slot. so all in all this is something that will very likely be addressed on may 2nd when the guard book goes live. as of right now even the FQA email hotline is refusing to make any judgments on the new guard book.

TSINI · 7 months ago

i havent got the DH book myself, but it kind of depends on how its written, if it has the tank entry complete with all the options then its obviously still that, but if it says "0-1 leman russ from the IG codex" then its more likely to be a squadron now. its a matter of fluff whether they should be varients or not.

but then reading the rules "as written" is a bit redundant when it was written for a different codex altogether. of course its not going to make sense RAW wise.

Crevab · 7 months ago

The WH/DH codeices list what type of Space Marine and Imperial Guard units you can induct. The line given is: "0-1 Leman Russ Battle Tank". The Russ section in the back of the new book is:
Leman Russ Squadron
1-3 in any combination:
Leman Russ Battle Tank
Leman Russ Exterminator
Leman Russ Vanquisher
...


Curiously, it says 0-1Land Speeder Tornado and 0-1 Land Speeder Squadron.
Anyone know if they were separate entries back in 3rd.

mkerr · 7 months ago

Yup, Land Speeder Squadron and Land Speeder Tornado were separate in 3rd Ed.

That's the part that makes this harder for me. When Battle Tank and Demolisher were distinct units, it was clear.

Now we're left with figuring out if it should refer to the new unit or the distinct model.

volrath8754 · 7 months ago

Yup that pretty much sums it up. I as a DH player am loving this new codex!!!
I do hope that they faq it to clarify the Russ and Sentinels. Because as it stands my friends and I have agreed that as the unit entry's name has changed unless faq'd it simply isn't allowed anymore... :( but the 15 heavy weapons teams (5 squads) per imp guard platoon is amazing.

Engelus · 7 months ago

so then take it from the old codex and don't use the new rules. if they were ok playing against it then, the should be ok playing against it now. just don't mix codex editions.

volrath8754 · 7 months ago

Um... No...
I really hate it when players try to use their old codex because the new one isn't to their liking. At my FLGS we had to boycott playing with three people until they would suck it up and buy the new marine codex. Mind you it was to their advantage and it took them 3 months to buy the damn book. My point is that when GW puts out new rules it replaces the old ones utterly and completely. I may not be as much of a rules natzi as some of my finds but my response to odd things like this is based of the "everyone theory." Basically if everyone used whatever edition codex they wanted would I be ok with it, as I wouldn't be OK with everyone else doing that 100 percent of the time I will not do it myself.

Engelus · 7 months ago

I would agree with you for the purposes of the main codex, you should use the newest.

but for inducted guard, the WH/DH codex was balanced with the guard codex at the time so you can have the view that it was balanced as a single codex. for the purposes of allied forces this makes sense and is fair. but for an entire army it is not

so I both agree and disagree with you.

kravkalash · 7 months ago

Total ack.

Using WH/DH allied with 5th IG is like using DA and claiming 3+ invul saves for their stormshields.

SM · 7 months ago

You forced people to buy $30 worth of GW product?? Do you work for GW?(sarcasm) Maybe the players didn't feel like wasting money on a codex they didn't want. What a horrible thing to do!!! If they don't have the new codex, they can play with the old one. Its not like you can't use the new rules to take advantage of them.

Gosh, I'm sure glad I don't go to your FLGS, I would just let them play with me, instead of you and your ostracizing friends. What an abuse of the Golden Rule!!! (< Since you obviously don't know what that is: "Make sure both players have a good time")

I really hate it when players are just down right rude, and you are a prime example of that.

wokkers · 7 months ago

Surely the team at G-dubyah will make changes to the 'Animus Speculum' once use of this seriously unbalanced loophole becomes popular. Assualt 20? give me a break!

scotchjon · 7 months ago

I was once playing the clubs resident beard player whose seer council was legendary. Everyone wanted him taken down. So 500 points of my army went on schaeffers last chancers, upgrading each one to a psyker. They then followed the assassin. Ld 7? No problem. As long as schaeffer is alive somewhere on the board they automatically pass all morale checks. I then went for his seer council.

Unfortunately it didn't quite work. A poor difficult terrain roll (on 3 dice and still only move 3 inches) meant that I was only in range of half his seer council. That was still about 4 psykers in range of a S5 AP1 Assault 26 gun, and they were decimated. Sadly rules at the time were that you could only kill squad members in range, and some of his seer council survived. Upon realising how potent a threat the assassin and attendant squad was, he proceeded to pound the hell out of them, and eventually won the day.

On a bright side I played the squad and assassin again in a 5000 point a side game we had (pre apoc, it took a while) and the terminator squad that deep striked in front of my mystics, well after the inquisitor had sent the assassin in they were just a puddle, and all other deep strikers stayed the hell away from the centre of my lines.

pierce raats · 7 months ago

Am I the only one disappointed to see the last chancers go? I mean, sure their rules are a bit out of line with how the game(you just lost) works, but they are just so characterful, especially the original 11 set, some of the coolest guard models there are. I'm going to try to use the old rules as an apocalypse formation with one extra rule added
(Against All Odds: the Last Chancers legendary formation may be fielded in a normal battle- with opponents consent)
with my opponents consent of course, BTW im not a tournament gamer and id never try to use this in a formal setting.

sinsynn · 7 months ago

I am with you, brother.
The Last Chancers were a fun group of dudes to play around with. They were very characterful. Anytime they were on the board I would make up a whole movie plot based on their exploits, 'cuz they ALWAYS got into sumthin' ! I would always try hard to keep Kage alive......
Fun times, fun times.
They WILL be missed.
So far, that's the wackedest bit o' news from the new book.

Catzilla · 7 months ago

I would love to see the Last Chancers reborn as an apocalypse formation with decent rules. :)

roa · 7 months ago

as to the Leman Russ thing, it's quite clear that it only applies to being allowed a single tank, and only a basic russ at that.

"Leman Russ Battle Tank" is a discrete unit, it's the first variant in the codex list. It's the one with the battlecannon. Such a description does not include say, the Eradicator, which is a "Leman Russ Eradicator" and not a "Leman Russ Battle Tank Eradicator".

Furthermore, the WH/DH states "Tank", not the plural "Tanks".


I don't see why there is any further debate on this.

Xelloss · 7 months ago

The DH/WH codices were written when each LR need a heavy support slot.
With the new IG codex, HS means squadron of them, meaning they balance the price with this option in mind.

Imagine for a minute : "In the name of the emperor I need your 3 Leman Russ squadron ! - sorry sir, you can only have one, the others have to stay here doing nothing..."

Roa · 7 months ago

No they don't balance with that in mind. If they meant WH/DH to have multiple leman russ's, regardless of squadrons, there would be no 0-1 restriction, and would not refer to singular "Tank".

It plainly says one "tank". Not "tanks". Not "squadron". Only "tank".

Using your logic, why can't they just say "we need hellhounds" "sorry, you can't take them, they are our FA choice". such things belong in Apocalypse.

All that matters is that the book clearly states you can have *ONE* Leman Russ Battle Tank. Not squadron, not any variant Leman Russ, but a single LRBT.

Anything else at this point without an FAQ saying otherwise is looking for something in the rules *that is not there*, plain and simple.

Is it an outdated rule? Possibly. But GW's insistence so far has been that the codex rule overrides everything else, thus the soon to be replaced IG codex, along with Black Templars, gain no benefit from the new dedicated transport rules, DH assault cannons are 3 shots with no rending, etc.

Play it as it states it in the codex. One LRBT. Anything else is creative rules interpretation, nothing more.

Pharol · 7 months ago

For what it is worth...

In the french version of the DH/WH codices, it says that you are allowed a Leman Russ Battle Tank, only the basic "châssis".
"Châssis" (in french) stands for the metal frame of a vehicle. I do not know the proper translation in english (google translate gives me "chassis" as well).

For 4th ed. IG codex, it explicitely ruled out demolishers. For 5th ed. IG codex, I think that it rules out anything that is demolisher mounted, but allows for all the versions that are based on the standard LR "frame" (in my opinion, standard LRBT, Eradicator and Exterminator).

Joe · 7 months ago

fyi, chassis is an english word too, with essentially the same meaning.

Joe · 7 months ago

blast, another one of us. maybe it's about time I come up with an actual moniker for BoLS.

faultie · 7 months ago

That's true. Good call.

mkerr · 7 months ago

At the time "0-1 Leman Russ Battle Tank" was the equivalent to one IG heavy support choice. It's clear that they didn't want the WH/DH to be dominated by IG heavy support choice (forcing the player to use some of the HS choices from the codex).

But now they've changed what a LRBT heavy support choice it. Not only is it 1-3 tanks, but they've also added different flavors of tanks. These aren't separate entries, like the Demolisher used to be. These are all different kinds of "Leman Russ Battle Tanks".

I don't think this is as simple as "it says tank, not squadron". I think that groups should step back and look at the entries carefully instead of jumping to conclusions.

My initial instinct was the same, but now I'm not so sure.

roa · 7 months ago

Mkerr, you are mistaken.

Leman Russ Battle Tank is a specific Leman Russ tank.

The codex lists the leman russ tanks as such

Leman Russ Battle Tank

Leman Russ Exterminator

Leman Russ Eradicator

etc...

ergo the Leman Russ Battle Tank means the basic basic version, no variants.

Furthermore, had they wished to allow more than the basic Leman Russ, they would have allowed Demolishers, which they don't, and thus variants still would be right out.

The 0-1 restriction, coupled with the specific wording of "tank", would infer a single Leman Russ Batttle Tank, no variants, no squadrons.

Anything else is trying to read more out of the rule than is there. May it be changed in an upcoming FAQ? Possibly, but given GW's insistence on keeping exactly what a codex states, regardless of updates (e.g. DH assault cannons remaining Assault 3, Dark Angels stormshields 4+ in CC only, etc) I doubt that GW will allow anything more than 1 basic LRBT, no variants, no squadrons.

kravkalash · 7 months ago

Actually, the unit is also named "Leman Russ Battle Tank". So the name "Leman Russ Battle Tank" is ambiguous, as it names the variant of the Leman Russ as well as the unit presented in the codex, which can consist of any combination of up to 3 Leman Russ.

But then again, I wouldn't use the new IG codex as allies anyway, cause that's not what the designers had in mind back in the time they wrote codex DH / WH.

roa · 7 months ago

In the upcoming codex, of which I have a copy in front of my, the unit entry in the army list is "Leman Russ Squadron".

"Leman Russ Battle Tank" the the first variant option you can take.

Then it lists "Leman Russ Exterminator", then "Leman Russ Vanquisher", etc...

The "Leman Russ Battle Tank" is specified as a discrete and specific Leman Russ version.

By the wording of the rule, you can take one "Leman Russ Battle Tank", a squadron selection of one tank consisting of a battlecannon armed Leman Russ.

kravkalash · 7 months ago

Right, I didn't check the list in the back.

But in the unit description on page 48 the Squadron has the headline "Leman Russ Battle Tank".

Confusing at best.

Jens J · 7 months ago

Jeez, no it doesn't say that. At the top of page 48 it clearly says: "Leman Russ Squadron" and the first type of tank listed under that entry is a "Leman Russ Battle Tank". I don't really think it's that confusing.

mkerr · 7 months ago

If you look under the wargear section of the unit entry, you'll notice that the battle cannon is found on the "Leman Russ", there's no wargear section for the "Leman Russ Battle Tank".

There's no name for the basic variant. While I agree that a Leman Russ Battle Tank is most commonly the default option, all of the variants are also Leman Russ Battle Tanks (as you can see from the unit desription page).

mkerr · 7 months ago

@roa: I'm not seeing a mistake on my end. Check out the "Leman Russ Battle Tank" section of the new Imperial Guard codex (notice that the section isn't titled "Leman Russes" or "Leman Russ Tanks").

It's pretty clear that ALL of the variants are Leman Russ Battle Tanks. There just isn't a different name for the default tank.

Sgt_Spindler · 7 months ago

That is your problem mkerr. You saw LR in the new IG Codex and now you are appling it to everything that has words Leman Russ in it.

If GW ever publishes Codex "THE" we are all f-ed once you get your hands on it.

Sensable people everywhere,"THE what?"

mkerr,"THE everything. THE Ratling Snipers now get Plasa Cannons that don't over heat and are Assault 50 AP -12! Yeah! THE LR Crusader can now deepstrike. Yeah again! THE Necrons can now wear Kilts that give them Toughness 13! Yeah,yeah,YEAH!"

mkerr · 7 months ago

My problems are myriad, but this isn't one of them. I'm really not sure that I understand the last three paragraphs of your comment, but I'll do my best to respond.

I'm looking at a two-page spread that is titled "LEMAN RUSS BATTLE TANK" in the new Imperial Guard codex. In that section, there are a bunch of Leman Russ battle tank variants with cool names. All of them fall under the title of the LEMAN RUSS BATTLE TANK.

Now when I flip back to the back of the book to see how to include them in my army, I see a SINGLE heavy support choice called "LEMAN RUSS SQUADRON". In it, I find a bunch of different Leman Russ battle tank variants (including the default LRBT).

This has nothing to do with semantics, if that's what you are trying to say. They've changed the definition of a Leman Russ battle tank by merging all of the variants together.

This is in stark contrast to the previous IG codex where the Leman Russ Battle Tank and the Leman Russ Demolisher were two clearly different HQ selections. Now all Leman Russes fall under the same choice (like the Hellhound).

Sgt_Spindler · 7 months ago

So what you are basically saying is that you look for every loop-hole you can in order to justify yourself.

"Page 12 says 'A', but page 13 says, 'a'. Oh my God I have discovered the 'THE'! Where are my Ratlings?"

I don't have the new Codex but when I do I'll explain to you how you are still wrong. Although until you RaU the rules of the game it will just be a wasted effort on my part.

mkerr · 7 months ago

"I don't have the new Codex but when I do I'll explain to you how you are still wrong. "

@Sgt_Spindler: So you are assuming I'm wrong without any knowledge or reference to the codex I'm reviewing.

In addition to arguing with just about every comment I've made, you are accusing me of exploiting loop-holes in a codex you don't have?

Ah, I see. Wow.

Menos · 7 months ago

If you used the Inquisition as allies, you can use
any type of Leman Russ you want. For some
reason it seems as though they wanted to say:
only 0-1 LRBT for a Sisters army (for example), or a Grey Knight army (if you like), because if
they happen to use their authority and usurp
command of an Imperial Guard detatchment,
then its most likely to be accompanied by a
single LRBT. The one with a battlecannon
as they are the most common variant. If you
have your opponents permission, or in an
Apocalypse game then take whatever.
They specifically didn't allow demolishers
before; I don't see why as they should,
technically ,be allowed to requisition anything.

Menos · 7 months ago

Another point is that its very hard to design a
large Inquisition army without running out of
slots by the time you get to 2500. I ran into this
problem years ago, trying to design a radical
Inquisition army. You can't take grey Knights,
Sisters (fluffwise don't work well with daemonh=
osts), nor SM. So you're limited to stormtroopers
as troops choices (and these have changed
radically anyway), and taking Inducted
Guard. The only way to do radical would be
to have an Imperial Guard army, with 0-1
daemonhosts and an allied Inquisitor Lord.
I'm off to write codex?THE?

obsequiousmelon · 7 months ago

I think when it comes down to the rules of the game the fluff section has no hold. The important pages as far as playing the game according to the rules are at the back of the book. It says Leman Russ Squadron, you have the option of one - three and you have a list of variants, the first one being the Leman Russ Battle Tank (the one with the battle cannon) therefore it is still possible to pick 1 Leman Russ Battle Tank in a heavy support slot. As the DH/WH codexes say that you can take one (for whatever reason) and it is still possible to select that unit under the new rules then that is what you get and suggesting anything else is (in my humble opinion) either semantics or bending the rules to your advantage. I understand the possibility for confusion (and this whole thing would be sorted if GW were more methodical about up dating there codexes) but there doesn't need to be any,
No offence mkerr, I'm not trying to imply that you are cheating but I do think that you are looking for something that isn't there.
Also in official solo tournaments in the UK you haven't been allowed to use allies for a long while which tells us about GW attitude to the whole thing I think.
Once again, no offence meant mkerr, another good article on a great website but I think that this is pushing rules lawyering too far.

p.s. Sgt_Spindler, grow up.

mkerr · 7 months ago

@obsequiousmelon: The rules don't really give us any guidance on weighting the back of the book unit summaries heavier than the front of the book unit descriptions.

Sure, that's where the pricing is but why should that section "have no hold"? That's where most of the rules about the tanks are listed. Clearly there are "rules" there and it's much more than a "fluff section".

I'm not suggesting a RAW interpretation of the "0-1 Leman Russ Battle Tank" is wrong. I'm saying that combining all of the LRBT variants into a single unit makes it more complicated.

Either we say that "0-1 LRBT" means that you get access to the UNIT or you get access to the MODEL.

There's never been a precident where the allies rules gives you access to a subsection of the rules for a unit. "Sure, you can take a tank but you have to cross out this section, and this section. Oh, you can only have 1 instead of 1-3, etc.".

By doing this we are changing the rules of the Imperial Guard codex.

I'm saying that it makes more sense that you get 0-1 LRBT heavy support choice. It's the most logical interpretation, even though it's not the most correct by RAW.

I think your interpretation is great. I think that most groups are going to use it. There's nothing wrong with it. I just don't think it's the most correct and consistent with the rules. See what I'm getting at?

Anon · 7 months ago

"Either we say that "0-1 LRBT" means that you get access to the UNIT or you get access to the MODEL."

Really? I was under the impression that "tank" was a singular noun. I guess on BOLS where cheating is justified by what you define as "logical" is the perfect place to learn something new everyday.

Next time someone asks me for, lets say a pen I should probable use the patented BO,LS "logical" thinking and give them fifteen! A whole squadron of pens!

Let it go dude. It says, and means, one tank.

mkerr · 7 months ago

@Anon:

The only way to buy a "Leman Russ Battle Tank" in the new IG codex is to use the "Leman Russ Squadron" entry under heavy support. If I look at those rules, I see that a unit size is 1-3 tanks. I also notice that there are all kinds of battle tanks in that description.

"0-1" has ALWAYS meant 0-1 unit, not 0-1 models.

For example, I can also take "0-1 Sentinel Squadron". Does that mean 0-1 Sentinel unit (which comes in squadrons) or does that mean 0-1 Sentinel "models"?

This would be the first case where you could only ally part of a unit.

"Next time someone asks me for, lets say a pen I should probable use the patented BO,LS "logical" thinking and give them fifteen! A whole squadron of pens!"

That's not actually a logical argument. Here's a better one way to look at it.

Until Bic released a multi-colored pen, all ball-point pens had a single cartridge inside with a single color. Then suddenly there was a pen that could have up to 4 colors inside. It was really 4 pens combined into a single pen.

If you asked to borrow a pen, and I only had that multi-color pen in my pocket. Would you expect me to loan you the pen as is? Or would you expect me to disassemble it and give you a single ink cartridge because you didn't use the phrase "multi-colored pen"?

Anon · 7 months ago

Act your age. A pen with multiple ink tubes is still one pen. If you had a Leman Russ with two turrets it would still only be one tank (just as a more related example).

mkerr · 7 months ago

@Anon: I was correcting the commenter's "whole squadron of pens" analogy. It's certainly not one that I would've picked, so direct your venom at him.

The reality is that I must use the Codex: Imperial Guard to buy my WH Leman Russ. The ONLY way to buy a Leman Russ is to use the Leman Russ Squadron unity entry.

The only reason people are hung up is because the word "tank" is used. The "0-1" doesn't imply a single tank; it implies a single unit. You just have to stop seeing the singular property of the noun as the center of the discussion.

If the reverse had happened (e.g., the Sentinel Squadron went from 1-3 to 1), no one would expect to be able to buy more than one model because "squadron" implies multiple models.

mkerr · 7 months ago

@Anon: I was correcting the commenter's "whole squadron of pens" analogy. It's certainly not one that I would've picked, so direct your venom at him.

The reality is that I must use the Codex: Imperial Guard to buy my WH Leman Russ. The ONLY way to buy a Leman Russ is to use the Leman Russ Squadron unity entry.

The only reason people are hung up is because the word "tank" is used. The "0-1" doesn't imply a single tank; it implies a single unit. You just have to stop seeing the singular property of the noun as the center of the discussion.

If the reverse had happened (e.g., the Sentinel Squadron went from 1-3 to 1), no one would expect to be able to buy more than one model because "squadron" implies multiple models. They'd follow the rules of the changed codex.

obsequiousmelon · 7 months ago

True but that doesn't change what is in the DH/WH codexes that still says the singular. You can still take singular LRBT for each heavy slot if you want to so like some others on this forum I don't understand why this is a problem. It says one battle tank so you get one battle tank, not 3, not any other version, just 1 leman russ battle tank!

mkerr · 7 months ago

But does the singular refer to the "model" or the "unit"? The 0-1 has always restricted you to taking a single unit (so you can't buy multiples of the restricted unit).

Are you trying to make the Inducted Guard rules consistent with the new codex or the old one?

So while the most literal interpretation supports a single tank without variation, I think the most reasoned interpretation is a single LRBT heavy support choice.

obsequiousmelon · 7 months ago

I see what you are getting at and I fully understand what you are saying but I guess that I tend to play as close to the RAW as possible and I find that as soon as people try to interpret the rules they run into problems. If that makes me a rules lawyer then so be it but I think that my interpretation is as close to RAW as possible (as you say the most literal interpretation). The rule at the time was clearly one battle tank and as that option is still possible then I think that that is the fairest solution (and indeed the correct one). I'm not trying to make the inducted guard consistent with any version of the codex particularly, I'm trying to make the inducted guard consistent with the codexes that refer to them i.e. DH/WH codexes. The way I've always seen it is that the imperial guard codex gives you stat lines and points costs to be used according to the Dh/WH codexes. Looking at the DH codex it says that they may have one Leman Russ Battle Tank, not unit, tank (in the description in the army list, 0-1 is in the title and it is clarified by the previously mentioned sentence in the description.) I regard any other interpretation as semantics and would not play against anyone that suggested it!

mkerr · 7 months ago

Nothing wrong with that interpretation. I don't agree that the "rule at the time was clearly one battle tank", but I can see your side of the coin.

My interpretation is that WH/DH players had access to a single Leman Russ heavy support choice (which happened to be one tank at the time). Since then, they've restructured the unit and so the Inducted Guard rules should follow suit.

To me, it makes more sense to restrict the WH/DH player to 1 "unit" instead of 1 "model".

I don't think either interpretation is wrong or an effort to undermine the rules. And I certainly wouldn't go so far as to "not play against anyone that suggested it".

I'd much rather play against a WH player with a squadron of Leman Russes than a single Leman Russ and 2 Exorcists (or in the case of DH, 2 Landraiders). It's certainly less abusive!

obsequiousmelon · 7 months ago

Fair enough maybe I went a bit too far with not playing against anyone that suggested it, but I think that this will create some genuine irritation amongst some players and at the end of the day maybe we should be emailing GW highlighting issues like this so that they hurry up and update some of their codexes, after all isn't that the real issue, still nice to have a pleasant dissagreement on a forum without some troll ruining it...

Oh and I agree that I would definately rather play against a squadron of LRBT's of any description than the equivalent landraiders or exorcists you mention.

mkerr · 7 months ago

I agree completely. I've already encountered a lot of frustration from players that haven't even seen the codex.

The new IG codex is going to change the game more than any codex since the Orks (and for some, the best players, it is going to completely change the timbre of the game).

It's natural to be nervous when faced with power-creep like this. It's also natural to try to find a way to balance out that shift -- as a group, we are very resistant to change. But I'm trying to find the best solution to the problem, not the strongest or weakest interpretation.

In any case, I'm sure we'll get through this -- and manage to have fun along the way.

Don't let a few trolls get in the way of a fun argument -- I'm looking forward to seeing how this gets FAQed!

Jipin · 7 months ago

Probably because the LRBT was a unit of 1 back then so having a "0-1" pretty much indicates there's no need to use the plural "tanks"

Anon · 7 months ago

It is just silly that people don't understand this. You are allowed one "Leman Russ Battle Tank". Not One "Leman Russ Battle Tank Squadron". Not one choice of "Leman Russ Variants". Pay attention people this isn't that complicated.

TSINI · 7 months ago

although i don't agree with mkerr, i do understand exactly where he's coming from,

What Mkerr is saying is that the old unit selection for a leman russ, was a single vehicle. but now it can be taken in squadrons. now the only entry in existance for leman russ' is the Leman Russ vehicle squadron. and as a rule of a thumb, updated unit entries supercede any older unit options in codexes that reference it, for example the imperial guard stormtroopers in a DH army would now be taken from the new codex, not the old one, as the new one is the only official rules

I personally think that it would still be a singular tank, as the vehicle squadrons are to represent the ease in which an imperial guard commander can lay his hands on many many tanks on loan from tank companies. whereas other imperial armies are much more likely to have singular tanks that they have adopted as their own, to represent the rarity of them outside the tank companies

Bucho · 7 months ago

I can see your point here, but look at the space wolves codex, it pulls a lot of its entries from the third edition codex. Do we now use the new space marine codex as it's basis?

And the rules for the basic space marines, do we use the SM codex that the SW book originally used, or do we use the new one?

From my reading of the rule, it means one LRBT. You use the LRBT squadron unit for points values but can only purchase one standard default pattern Leman Russ from that unit entry.

If you DO want to purchase lots of tanks with an Inquisitor, add an Inq to your IG army...

There are always going to be one or two unforseen loopholes that players will find and exploit. (or something that wasn't intended as becoming the norm that gets spammed) Hell even I am looking at Vulkan as an addition to my SM due to the amount of weapons in my friendly game list that will benefit greatly from him. But half the SM armies I face already have him in their list...

Makn · 7 months ago

with regards to the LR debate, it has to be 6.4 I don't see any reason why that is the "least reasonable" option. It's obvious that it means 1 tank (not "tanks") and it refers to one version of the Leman Russ specifically.

Mkerr, in all honesty, coming to any other conclusion is looking for easter eggs that aren't there. Your assertion that 6.4 is in fact the least reasonable lies only in your desire to read more out of the rules than are there.

The rule is clear. One Leman Russ "Battle Tank". Why is that a "fear based, knee-jerk" reaction? It's exactly what the rule says. How is that against the spirit of the rules other than your desire to find an easter egg that will let you field 3 quintuple plasma cannon Executioners with your INQ army that simply doesn't exist?

mkerr · 7 months ago

I predicted this would be a heated issue.

The new Imperial Guard codex changed the way that Leman Russ Battle Tanks are used. They've shifted to a single tank as a heavy support choice to a squadron formation.

I agree that a 6.4 (one tank, no variants) is the most literal interpretation of the codex, but I don't think it's the most reasonable. Step away from your literal interpretation and try to figure out what the role of the Inducted Guard is in the army. They didn't put the "0-1" there because they only wanted one tank, they put it there to prevent the WH/DH player from using multiple heavy support selections on Leman Russes. WH/DHs get one Leman Russ heavy support choice -- it should be the same one from the Imperial Guard codex. In my opinion, this is the most reasonable interpretation.

I didn't say anything about the spirit of the rules because I don't think that kind of reasoning applies here.

As always, your mileage may vary.

roa · 7 months ago

You did say something about the spirit of the rules, re-read your 6.4 description.

Also your view on whether or not they only wanted 1 LRBT or only one HS slot to be used for LRBT's is up to interpretation. I would say it's one and the same.

Matt Quick · 7 months ago

You can't claim Spirit of the rules while trying to come up with a Gladiator List of Domination. Spirit of the Rules is used for games where armies driven by fluff and fun play, literal interpretation is used whenever your only goal is to add some plasma to you Assault 20 AP 1 assassin. Doing both is impossible.

mkerr · 7 months ago

I shoudn't have used phrase "spirit of the rules" in section 6.4. There's no place for that argument in these discussions, so strike that.

I still feel that the "one tank, no variants" is the lest reasonable and most inconsistent with the new IG codex. But it has the merit of being the most defensible RAW position.

static grass · 7 months ago

I am sorry Mkerr but

They didn't put the "0-1" there because they only wanted one tank.

Equals....

they put it there to prevent the WH/DH player from using multiple heavy support selections on Leman Russes.

If you are preventing multiple tanks or as you crafted it "multiple heavy support" selections. Then you are "only wanting one tank".

It's an interesting discussion but it would have been nice to wait until the book was out. There are however no excuses for some of the insults flung at you.

mkerr · 7 months ago

Oh, I'm sure this conversation will live until everyone has a copy of the codex!

Every time I check my mail, there's a new comment. :)

GMTA · 7 months ago

It's only heated because you're out of your gourd with your conclusions.

AdamHarry · 7 months ago

He listed all 4 obvious conclusions...are you saying there are other interpetations of how it's written? if so, please share them with the class.

It's a vague issue, and He already said it was gonna sparke a debate...which it has by the 200+ replies he's gotten upto this point...

roa · 7 months ago

It's not vague.

You can take a single Battlecannon armed leman russ according to the wording of the rule.

Anything else is an easter egg.

GMTA · 7 months ago

This.

Catzilla · 7 months ago

As previously mentioned, I like version 6.3 quite well. :)

However, to cite you:
"There are two approaches you can take when a codex is updated: a) analyze the changes that were made (i.e., name changes, unit structure changes, unit composition changes, etc.) and try to keep the WH/DH rules in-line with the new Imperial Guard rules, or b) take the most literal interpretation. The first approach is friendlier and keeps the Inducted Guard in line with the updated codex Imperial Guard, but the second approach will be used in competitive play."

So...
...friendly games: Version whichever you agree.

...competitive games: The "literal" version 6.4: One LRBT and nothing else.

;)

mkerr · 7 months ago

That's correct. A competitive player shouldn't expect to have more than one LRBT in their tournament army (and I would argue that there's not room for more than one in a well-built army anyway).

I would still argue the point, but mostly because I like to argue.

Dragosanii12 · 7 months ago

I think the main problem here is that you are reading a rule in one codex and then refrencing a rule change in another, the fact that LRBT squadrons and variants are now available in the new IG codex is not the issue here, you are using a rule from the WH codex that states you can take a single (even going so far as to say 0-1) LRBT, the fact that in the new IG codex you can have squadrons of them and varients has absolutely no baring on this rule, all the IG codex is used for in this instance is for the statline and options for the tank.
all that being said i think i would be cool with my opponent using tank squadrons in an allied IG list as i'm generally pretty cool with that kind of thing but from a stright rules point of veiw WH/DH with allied guard can have 1 LRBT and 1 only.

TSINI · 7 months ago

best easter related comment on BOLS :D

Vorlon · 7 months ago

Thanks alot for the DH/IG post!! I am a new player and i had decided to go with IG before I realized the new codex was coming out and this answered all of my questions about incorporating daemons hunters with the new rules. So thanks again ^_^

Eyespy · 7 months ago

Good Tactica. I'm going to have to take a good long look at the DH and WH codex's for fun ideas.

I dissagree with your dismissal of Rough Riders however. Sure they die almostly instantly from a stiff breaze without ever entering combat, however a squad of Rough Riders given Scout by Creed will gleefully destroy anything except a landraider or monolith within 19"-24" of the table edge. Add an astropath for extra giggles.

mkerr · 7 months ago

Oh, I think Rough Riders are very effective. I wasn't dismissing them, I just noted they haven't recieved the same boost in power as most of the other IG units (besides getting free grenades).

You don't even need to outflank them, Creed's ability to give scout to any unit will give you a first turn charge with Rough Riders (and Seraphim, Grey Knights in a Landraider/Valkyrie, and possibly even Repentia/Arco-flagellants).

Denzark · 7 months ago

One thing on Rough riders - back in the day, you could charge with your lance and then 2nd turn draw chainswords and laspistols, for 2 attacks. The current (soon to be replaced) guard codex meant you had to swap a CC weapon for the lance, leaving you with 1 attack second turn.

The DKOK riders could still have lance, pistol and sword, so I was going to use these - can anyone say what the new codex lets us do?

jdubb40k · 7 months ago

Rough riders are armed with ccw OR las pistol in addition to the hunting lance.

mkerr · 7 months ago

Right, so you are losing an extra attack in the following rounds for free grenades. Pretty much a wash.

Eyespy · 7 months ago

That only works if you deploy second, and take first turn, which is pretty rare.

To make your strategem work, you need to deply more or less in line with your target, and get to go first to ensue that you don't get shot to hell. The volume of AP5 weaponry available to most armies just makes the Rough Riders as an expensive distraction.

By flanking, all you need is a suitable enemy unit within 19" and you can go hog wild. Pretty much anything except Land Raiders and Monoliths will fall to a Rough Rider flank charge.

mkerr · 7 months ago

Agreed. I think there are better things to outflank than Rough Riders (like a Medusa battery, a Banewolf squadron or a Demolisher squadron), but if you like RRs you have some options.

Lamenter · 7 months ago

As I've just started working on a Grey Knight force, this is a nice read (haven't seen the codex myself).

Personally I'd be careful not to use anything that is too sick (Assault 20!) and try to play within the fluff. I can't imagine a Grey Knight GM ever leading a Guard squad into battle, or taking orders from a Guard Officer.

I'll be using the extras that come with an Infantry Platoon as I don't see that as too OTT. And if I had to vote on it I'd say the LRBT means literally, one tank, no variants.

Anon · 7 months ago

It's been a while since I've read the Inquisition codex, so I might be wrong here, but doesn't it say in there somewhere that you can't have both Grey Knights and IG auxillaries?

faultie · 7 months ago

No.

Lamenter · 7 months ago

You can't have Space Marine allies in a Daemonhunter force if it includes Grey Knights, Imperial Guard are fine.

Anon · 7 months ago

Ah, I knew there was something you couldn't combine, thanks.

Crevab · 7 months ago

But you can have Grey Knight allies in a Space Marine force. it's... odd

Korras · 7 months ago

that Culexus assasin is.. nasty. assault 20? it turns into a Punisher that actually IS useful. it'll go through both Hordes and MEQ like a hot knife through butter.

mkerr · 7 months ago

Especially if you give him the order that forces opponents to re-roll cover saves -- or the order that makes his weapon twin-linked against monstrous creatures.

Menos · 7 months ago

That would only work if all 20 sanctioned psykers were within 12" of
the assassin. And if the opponent has some - all the merrier. Also if
within 6" they must take a morale test.
The rules were written when 5 maximum psykers were allowed in an IG army.
Having 20 is pushing it. Its all within the parameters of the rules.
But (importantly) its not in the spirit of the game. Think about it- using 20
psykers to back up an anti-psyker - its ludicrous and ridiculous.
Read Eisenhorn and the Commissar Cain books on why psykers and
anti-psykers shouldn't mix it up like this. Psykers are terrified of anti-psykers.
The original 2nd ed codex assassins had the animus speculum as an
anti matter ranged weapon blaster, and I think it should go back to this
next time the Inquisition gets updated. Its not worth the points in my
opinion. Someone could drop an earthshaker on all your psykers
(unless you were transporting them all in a Stormlord - then the psykers
would need to take morale checks , I guess)

mkerr · 7 months ago

It's pretty easy when the Psyker Battle Squads are in Chimeras. If the Chimeras are within 12", then all of the sanctioned psykers are in range of the Animus Speculum.

Well, even with the old IG codex you could use Last Chancers and have an army full of psykers.

In any case, I don't think the designers really looked beyond their own codex when they created the Culexus. If they did, they wouldn't have created Seer Councils and other large psyker squads.

Putting them in a Storm Lord is great! The new IG codex is going to have a big impact on Apocalypse games.

Menos · 7 months ago

It still sounds like an expensive points sink.. Is this for a 2000 point
game? The assassin is one elite slot, the psykers (Elite - I don't
have the codex yet???) presumably elites as well.
It boils down to whether X points is worth having a model with
21 attacks in cc. A model which is only T3.
Not only that, but you must take an inquisitor as well (another
elite or HQ slot). How many points does all that come to?
You could take something else instead. Plus I bet when Inquisition
gets redone, the loophole will close.
Its a good plan with the chimeras, though.

mkerr · 7 months ago

The Culexus is actually T4, but I agree with your point. And you'd have to take an Inquisitor Lord (an HQ slot) for this to work -- you can only ally 0-1 Elites.

If were were looking for a strategy using PBSs and a Culexus, I would probably use those PBSs in conjunction with lots of barrage weapons to cause insta-pinning and to force units to fall back.

If your opponent manages to get close (e.g., he has a fast, fearless unit that you can't pin down), then you intercept him with the Culexus. With the right orders, there's not much a Culexus can't deal with with 11+ WS5 S5 AP1 shots.

I wouldn't consider it a loop-hole, you've been able to do this using Last Chancers for years. It's just not an effective use of points. And with GWs track record of FAQing the Inquisition, I doubt that they'll do anything to close the combo.

In general, I don't recommend single, expensive tricks in a competitive army. They work well once, but when you understand the trick it's easy to counter. A more balanced list focusing on cheap, powerful units is better in the tournament arena.

Menos · 7 months ago

Thanks for pointing it out. I might try it for Apocalypse
games. I'm building a new IG army and I'm already
planning on having a Psyker choir, maybe two! That
approaches heresy, so the witch hunters will be after
me for sure.
Do you know if the psykers can use their own powers
(whatever they are) when they are being transported?
Or do they have to be out of the vehicle?
I hope the old random power system has gone..

mkerr · 7 months ago

Yes, you can shoot from a vehicle with firing ports (e.g., up to five models can shoot out of a Chimera), but it's actually even better than that!

A Psyker Battle Squad counts as a SINGLE model for the using a psychic power, so using Weaken Resolve (or Soulstorm) counts as one shot.

So the PSBs and up to FOUR other models can shoot out of the Chimera.

So you could put two Primaris Psykers -- that would give you 4d6 BS4 S6 AP5 shots at 24" in addition to a BS3 S9 AP D6, Large Blast shot at 36".

Ouch!

Paul · 7 months ago

How can you be firing like that out of a chimera.

To the best of my knowledge it has one fire point and then the six lasguns (which can only be fired as lasguns as per the guard FAQ)

If im wrong somewhere i'd love to know cus i play guard and having a mobile psycic destruction bomb sounds fun

Menos · 7 months ago

From what I remember, there is a top
hatch on a chimera. I've got loads of IG,
but funnily I've never used chimeras.
The six port holes can be used for lasguns only, but you can shoot special
weapons or psychic powers from the top
hatch, but if you do it counts as open topped

Menos · 7 months ago

Sorry! I was thinking of Rhino's. Not too sure if this can be done in a chimeras.
Stormlord is a different kettle of fish, with
its passenger firing platform.

mkerr · 7 months ago

They've re-done the Chimera in the new Imperial Guard rules.

"Fire Points: Five models can fire from the Chimera's top hatch. In reality, several are firing from the fixed lasgun emplacements along either flank, but for simplicity we assume all shots are taken from the hatch."

So the six lasguns are just for looks now. If you had a Veterans squad, you could fire three flamers, a heavy flamer and a demolition charge from the hatch, lol.

Sergeant-OZZ · 7 months ago

Actually dude the unit doesn't benefit from the "Aegis" or "The Shrouding" if you look at the rules it specifically says "Grey Knight" units or a unit of Grey Knights not a unit joined by a Grey Knight HQ.... AND his rules are not bestowed upon any "other unit" other wise it would specifically say so as it does in other for other character type models etc etc RAW

mkerr · 7 months ago

You are making up rules, dude. None of that is stated or implied in the Daemonhunters Codex or FAQ.

The Shrouding says "each time an enemy fires at a unit of Grey Knights". The Grandmaster has the Grey Knights special rule, so any unit he joins will be protected by The Shrouding (as long as he is a potential target).

The Aegis says "every time an enemy psyker uses a power that targets a Grey Knight squad or character". If a unit that a Grandmaster has joined is targeted by a psychic power, the unit is protected by the Aegis.

LEGION3000 · 7 months ago

Actually now it is you who are making up rules Mkerr. I have never seen a rule that says the grandmaster confers the Grey Knight rule onto ANY squad he joins. In fact it specifically refers to the following units: Grey Knights squad, Grey Knight Teleport attack squad, Grey knight terminators, grey knight heroes, justicars and brother captains. By my reading NO OTHER SQUAD in the entire game may have this power unless it is on that list!

The Aegis specifically states you must target a SQUAD or CHARACTER. Since you cant target a CHARACTER that is attached to a squad it doesn't apply. The rule doesn't state "potential target". When using mixed squads the hit is only applied AFTER the attack is successful. If you fire a plasma gun at a unit you cannot target the grey knight even though it would be most beneficial. So tit for tat, you can't take advantage of a rule if it doesn't go both ways. Therefore Aegis will only apply to the grandmaster if he is NOT attached. And don't go into the retinue as a possible explanation because the retinue clearly states they are considered as a single unit. A Grandmanster attached to a IG squad is not a retinue.

mkerr · 7 months ago

He doesn't have to confer his rules to the squad. If you are shooting at a unit containing a Grey Knight, then you have to contend with The Shrouding. Nothing in either rule requires that every model have the special rule to gain the benefit.

Unless something in the rules or FAQ say that the special rule is lost when joining a unit of non-Grey Knights, then it's still there.

I've used this in numerous national tournaments and I've been called on it a few times -- every judge agreed that it's correct by RAW.

billygoat · 7 months ago

'Unless something in the rules say is lost' - no, actually the reverse is true, the special rule must state it is transferred to unit - see p48 of main rulebook 'unless specified in the rule itself...the character's special rules are not conferred on the unit.'

ok, so then you might reply that we are firing at the Grey Knights Unit (i.e. the character) as well as the non-Shrouded Guard unit, however:

p49 independent characters 'are considered part of the [Guard, whatever] unit and so may not be picked out as targets. So the character is not longer a separate GK Unit, but is a GK character within a Guard Unit. No GK Unit to be Shrouded.

Even if that does not change your mind, then p49 goes on to say that the unit is hit, the controlling player can choose to allocate 'hits' against the character. However, hits can only come after successfully firing. So you can only trigger a Shrouding roll after a successful hit - which must have satisfied correct targeting rules to be a successful hit i.e. too late for Shrouding?

Maligoare · 7 months ago

A well reasoned and reasonable response, I think. Not only that, we have some solid rules references which should sort the issue out for good, I think. Well done, billygoat!

mkerr · 7 months ago

Hey billygoat, let's talk about the Grey Knights Special Rules and the Special Rules section of the Independent Character rules (p48).

I'll flow this out, so you can see my thought process. I agree this isn't a simple issue and would value your feedback.

Let's focus on the Shrouding:

1. A Grey Knights Grandmaster has the "Grey Knight" special rule. This rule gives him access to a variety of benefits for being a Grey Knight, including the Shrouding. If he was standing along in the field and was fired upon, the enemy unit would have to contend with The Shrouding because the Grandmaster is "a unit of Grey Knights" (the plural is meaningless here). Agreed?

2. The Grandmaster joins a Conscript squad. Now we know he doesn't confer the "Grey Knights" special rule to the Conscripts. The main rulebook covers this on page 48. Agreed?

3. But does the Grandmaster lose the "Grey Knights" special rule? I don't think so. The main rulebook tells us that there are cases where the independent character would lose his special ability (e.g., in the case of a character that has Infiltrate).

But there's nothing that supports the loss of the "Grey Knight" special rule for the Grandmaster -- for example, he wouldn't lose the True Grit or Rites of Exorcism Grey Knights special rules just because he joined a non-GK squad. Agreed?

4. Not it gets tricky. The Grandmaster still has the "Grey Knight" special rules, which means the Conscript squad has at least one Grey Knight in it.

Does this qualify as a unit of Grey Knights? Well, if he was alone it would. So I'd say that for the purposes of the Grey Knights special rule, the unit would qualify because it contains at least one Grey Knight.

So when they are targeted by an enemy, that enemy is shooting a unit of Grey Knights.

5. For argument's sake, let's assume I'm correct in my #4 assumption. Would that unit (that we have classified as a unit of Grey Knights because of the presence of the Grandmaster) gain the benefit of The Shrouding?

The main rulebook doesn't help us here. It says that "in some cases" the character can lose his special rule but it doesn't give us any guidelines for making that decision outside of the USRs.

I conceed that the Grandmaster doesn't confer the "Grey Knights" special rule to the Conscripts, but I think that the Grandmaster would still benefit from The Shrouding.

How do you handle a situation where one part of the unit doesn't have the same targeting rules as the rest of it? I have no clue, but it seems reasonable that unless you could exclude the Grandmaster (as in the case of the Vindicare), you would have to contend with The Shrouding.

So, in a nutshell, that's my position. I'd love to discuss it more.

Sgt_Spindler · 7 months ago

Well in that case then every rule found on page 8 now applies to anyone allied to or inducted by DH armies so long as there is a single GK on the table.

mkerr · 7 months ago

There are defunct rules (like Rites of Exorcism and Daemonic Infestation) that would apply if there was a single GK on the table.

But that's not the case with The Shrouding or Aegis. You need a GK in the affected unit to gain that protection.

Sgt_Spindler · 7 months ago

Read and understand.

Rites of Exorcism:
The -1 Ld for instability tests is no longer valid as daemons no longer have to take them. The rolling a d6 for assault range is. This part of the rule works just like having one or more Hierophants in an Inquisitors retinue.

Daemonic Infestation:
This is actually one that you could have argued, one way or the other, in your own special way that we have all come to know and love.

As a SM and DH player myself I would have to accept that if I was going to field any GKs then my opponent could claim rites to this rule if he was going to utilize any daemons mention in it.

GREY KNIGHTS SPECIAL RULES

Right up there on the top of the page. It doesn't say Daemon Hunters. It doesn't say Inquisitors. It doesn't say anyone you feel like appling them to.

You have to be a GREY KNIGHT to use these rules.

sniff
sniff
What's that smell?

mkerr · 7 months ago

Look up "defunct".

I've been given a bunch of great rules selections to review -- it sounds like that I need to take a look at the special character rules, in particular.

But that aside, your argument isn't solid.

Let's take three simple examples:

Q1. A unit of Grey Knights is joined by a Ministorum Priest (independent character). Does the unit of Grey Knights lose the Shrouding?

A1. No, because the enemy shot at a unit of Grey Knights. The GKs didn't lose the "grey knight" special rule because another unit joined them.

Q2. A Grey Knight Grandmaster is joined by a Ministorum Priest. Does the unit lose the Shrouding?

A2. Well, the Grandmaster still has the "grey knight" rule. Nothing changed that when the priest joined him. So he should still benefit from the Shrouding.

Is this a Grey Knights unit or a Ministorum Priest unit? I don't think it matters, but since there is at least one Grey Knight in the unit, I can qualify the unit as a "grey knight unit".

Q3. A unit of Conscripts ends their movement within 2" of a Grey Knight Grandmaster. What happens woth the Shrouding in this case?

A3. The Grandmaster doesn't lose the "grey knight" special rule. He's still a grey knight and as a grey knight, he should reatin the protection of the Shrouding.

Is the new unit a "unit of grey knights". Well a single Grandmaster is a "unit of grey knights" and there is at least one grey knight in the new unit. So to me at least, it seems that the new unit would qualify as a unit of grey knights.

I'm not suggesting that the Grandmaster is somehow confering the Shrouding to the Conscrips; I don't think he has to. There's a grey knight in the unit, so the unit qualifies for the Shrouding.
Well, nothing in the description of the Shrouding states that every model in the unit must be protected by it.

Until I find something that pushes me in the other direction, I'm still leaning in the direction that the Conscripts unintentionally gain the benefit of the Shrouding too.

In any case, this is just an opinion because there's nothing definitive in the book. Don't let a difference of opinion wreck your day.

Sgt_Spindler · 7 months ago

I've known a lot of gamers like you. They get these big ideas in thier little heads and the won't give them up for anything. I've seen guys like you turn a 2-hour game into a 5-hour headache because your big "idea" is stuck in your little head and it will never come out. I've seen guys like you make new gamers quit because they don't feel like putting up with you in order to play a game.

You will sit there and shout "I have found the 'THE' No one can stop me now!"

You can sit there and answer your own questions all day long if that will make you feel justified in your beliefs but it still doesn't make you right.

You can sit there and say I have problems but it still won't make you right.

"THE" Ratlings have "THE" Kilts and they are waiting for you in "THE" Crusader.

mkerr · 7 months ago

I wouldn't presume to know anything about you. Well, beyond the fact that you'll argue endlessly about a codex that you don't have.

TheHappyTroll · 7 months ago

"The Shrouding says "each time an enemy fires at a unit of Grey Knights". The Grandmaster has the Grey Knights special rule, so any unit he joins will be protected by The Shrouding (as long as he is a potential target)."

Shrouding wouldn't work.

The power says plural 'a unit of Grey Knights'. This isn't a unit of Grey Knights. Its a unit of Imperial Guard with a Grey Knight in it. So Shrouding would not work.

The target isn't a unit of grey knights, and at best, there aren't any grey knights, only a single grey knight.

"The Aegis says "every time an enemy psyker uses a power that targets a Grey Knight squad or character". If a unit that a Grandmaster has joined is targeted by a psychic power, the unit is protected by the Aegis."

Aegis wouldn't work either. The Grandmaster wasn't targeted, the Imperial Guard Squad was targeted. Big difference between the two. As a matter of fact the Aegis rules itself, "every time an enemy psyker uses a power that targets a Grey Knight squad or character", shows a difference between a squad of grey knights being targeted and the character as separate entities.

Too bad neither ability works using RAW. At best, you need an ability like Mind War to have the Aegis work, since it actually targets the Character.

mkerr · 7 months ago

A Grey Knights Grandmaster standing alone in the middle of the board gains the benefit of The Shrouding. Why? Because he is a unit of Grey Knights.

When that Grandmaster joins another unit, he retains his Grey Knights special rules. If he is targeted (i.e., a potential casualty to an attack), then he gains the benefit of The Shrouding.

He doesn't have to be singled out to gain the benefit of his abilties. It may not have been the intention of the designer to confer them to any unit they join, but they didn't add that restriction.

Sgt_Spindler · 7 months ago

He gains the Shrouding from his prayers. Once again all you have to do is read and understand the rule.

TheHappyTroll · 7 months ago

Actually, being in the area of effect of an ability is not the same as being targeted. This difference has been pointed out in a few places in various codexes. Even in the new IG codex.

roa · 7 months ago

Unless otherwise specified, a rule that affects a single model generally doesn't apply to the whole unit.

An HQ with fleet cannot fleet in a non-fleeting unit. A Fearless HQ in a non-fearless unit can still fall back with the unit.

A cannonness in a squad with seraphim prevents it from using Hit and Run as she doesn't have the rule.

A GK GM with Shrouding loses this ability when joined with a non GK squad.

Sgt_Spindler · 7 months ago

Need to type faster. Other people keep beating my to the punch.

Maligoare · 7 months ago

By this logic, a Grey Knight GM who joined a single Inquisitor, or a squad of Inquisition Storm Troopers would give that entire squad the benefit of the Shrouding. Has anyone ever tried to play it this way? Somehow I doubt it. If the DH codex says that you need a GK unit, it has to be a unit consisting of GK, not a GM and 50 guard, not an Inquisitor and five PAGK (strange, but that's the rules).

The Aegis seems a little more debatable, as it includes the wording "Grey Knight character", rather than limiting it only to GK squads. I think I'm going to leave that one well enough alone for the moment.

Well, that's the way I see it...

Sgt_Spindler · 7 months ago

This is exactly what I was going to say. You really should read and know a codex before you start apply it's rules to another army. If the "Aegis" and" The Shrouding" was applicable in the way you are stating don't you think that it would have been used like that before? Next time put a little more research into your articles.

mkerr · 7 months ago

Actually, Sergeant-OZZ jumped the gun with his comment (as well as quoting some made up rules). We actually did research the rules and FAQs for that single sentence -- JWolf's sharp-eye caught the comment and raised the question before the article was published.

Turns out my interpretation is correct.

P.S. I've used that rule many times (including in my Adepticon tournament armies). I've probably even written tacticas that included it. Not having any experience with a rule doesn't mean that it's invalid.

TheHappyTroll · 7 months ago

Jwolf's eye isn't as sharp as you or Jwolf thinks. The responses above this refute either ability working, besides the exception(s) I listed.

Eric E · 7 months ago

Just because a few people deem is untrue doesn't make it untrue suddenly. Their refutations are shaky at best.

BuFFo · 7 months ago

Sup Skrag,

If those few people are correct (see: they are RIGHT) then yes, they do make the previous statement of untruth, untrue.

Their refutations are 100% at worst.

You can also see the mountain of replies bellow this to refute the untruth that the GK's ability confers to the IG unit.

Or you can just read the BBB under Independent Character where powers of a character do not confer to a unit. Or how in the DH book the rule states the GK powers only effect Grey Knight units.

I can keep going if ya want, but I don't want to waste anymore time on this.

Ya'll power gamers want certain rules to bend your way. Thats wishful thinking at best, and cheating at worst.

Laters, Skrag.

Sgt_Spindler · 7 months ago

On what planet? Both the Aegis and The Shrouding only effect Grey Knights. As stated at the top of page 8 in the DH Codex. Further more both rules in their descripions clearly refer only to Grey Knights. The Aegis is produce by the GK armor itself and the Shrouding is produced by the prayers of the GK. Very clear and to the point. As I said before, if it was like you imagined it to be then every other army out there would have been trying to do what you propose long before now.

BeastOfShadow · 7 months ago

by that reasoning kharns blessing of the blood god affects a squad he's with. Yet I had this argued against me in a GT and was then overruled.

yeah · 7 months ago

JWolf should read the main rule book more often

Page 48, subject line Special Rules under Independent characters

Looks pretty cut and dry to me

Damon · 7 months ago

Your logic is circular, unfounded in the RAW, and when someone points this out to you, your response has been (several times now) to say "my interpretation is correct."

In order for the shrouding to kick in, the model or models with that special rule must be targeted. A single GK Hero attached to a non-GK unit CAN NOT BE TARGETED. His UNIT can be targeted, but not him. So no shrouding.

This is not only RAW, it is the simplest interpretation to defend. Does not require arguments or appeals to tourney organizers. It is an interpretation easily understood. Occam's Razor. It is the CORRECT interpretation.

Let's take the reverse situation. Say you join an Inquisitor to a Troops GK unit, and that unit is targeted by enemy shooting. Would that unit benefit from the shrouding? YES! Why? Because the Inquisitor, who does not have the shrouding, IS NOT BEING TARGETED. Because the GK UNIT is being targeted, the shrouding functions normally.

Again, this not only conforms to RAW, it is simple and does not require complicated explanations or appeals to tourney organizers.

And in the final analysis, how does arguing that joining a single GK model to a non-GK unit bestows shrouding conform to you and your website's avowed mission of promoting "friendly" gaming? Arguing as you do is clearly a power-gaming tool's maneuver, and should be dismissed outright on that basis alone.

Sgt_Spindler · 7 months ago

Yeah! What he said.

Spacecurves · 7 months ago

A special rule possessed by a character is NOT conferred to a squad he joins unless the codex has an explicit rule saying otherwise.

This is why they addressed the issue in the 5th ed rulebook, and why space marine chaplains have a special rule that spreads their "Fearless" rule to their squad.

Aegis and Shrouding do not have a special rule that allows an independent character to give them to non-grey knight units he joins, so they cannot be used this way.

Everyone makes mistakes mkerr, but don't get aggressive when people point them out.

Also as an aside, I think it is obviously not intended for an IG officer to issue orders to non-IG units. Yes RAW allows it, but I will be amazed if the INAT FAQ doesn't get rid of it, and I bet even the GW one will fix the issue. (probably about the same time the dark eldar codex comes out :P)

mkerr · 7 months ago

I've been baited by the best, Spacecurves. It's just not going to happen here.

Bottom line is that I've expressed an opinion. I'm not the center of the 40K universe (as my friends constantly remine me). If you don't agree, then don't use it. If you agree, then enjoy. If you want to argue with me about it, then that can be fun too -- heck, maybe we'll end up with a better product from the debate.

I'll continue to respond when time (and interest) allow, but I'm not losing any sleep over it. It looks like it's about 20 hours since I took my turn in this "heated" argument, so it can't be that hot on my side.

Perhaps it would make it easier if you just assumed the best about the tone of my responses instead of looking for an attack that's just not there.

Amdor · 7 months ago

Hey, guyz - sry to dissapoint you but you can't take even one tank in DH/WH, coz there is no specified entry for Leman Russ Battle Tank :D
1 - in IG it's called "Leman Russ Squadron" - nope, not "Leman Russ Battle Tank "with 1-3 choices
2ndly there is not even Leman Russ Battle Tank in this codex - only Leman Russ ;]

But ya know - i'm just correcting ;]

static grass · 7 months ago

Case closed then.

nypunkgeek · 7 months ago

I have to disagree with this. If they are all squadrons even if you take a single one then by the rules for squadrons if it takes an immobilized damage result it is destroyed. I know that would not fly so I think taking one standard Leman Russ is definitely fair.

mkerr · 7 months ago

That's a good question. If I take one Leman Russ, it is a squadron of one? Does the WH/DH Leman Russ have the "squadron" rules?

Great question, nypunkgeek!

TSINI · 7 months ago

just flicked to the vehicle squadron rules in the main rule book, pg 64 "damage results against Squadrons"

it states "If a squadron consists of a single vehicle when and enemy unit fires at it, it reverts to the normal rules for damage results"

so any left over shots from the unit that wiped out the 2nd from last vehicle, would still be able to take out the last vehicle on an imobilised result, because the vehicle was still part of a squadron when it was fired upon

but all subsequent units firing upon the last vehicle would not :D

mkerr · 7 months ago

Yup, Bigred called me on that one yesterday. I knew that if you destroyed the other squadron mates, they lost the squadron restriction but I thought I could still buy a "squadron of one".

Live and learn!

static grass · 7 months ago

I think you have misunderstood, as mkerr is following the letter of the law then if the new IG codex only contains an entry to Leman Russ Squadron and not to Leman Russ as a heavy support choice then you can not take any Leman Russes at all because there is no "Leman Russ Tank" entry only squadrons.

You choose to take a squadron and then choose how many tanks are in it.

I don't have the new codex like some people but if it is true then there you go follow the RAW.

nypunkgeek · 7 months ago

The title on the top of page 48 in the new codex in huge bold letters:

"Leman Russ Battle Tank"

Then it describes all of the squadron stuff and different patterns available. I would have a hard time believing this doesn't count.

UltramarineFan · 7 months ago

The problem is that in the army list at the back they put it under 'Leman Russ Squadron'. I have to say that Amdor didn't solve anything, just brought up the problem that mkerr had brought up that it's all about how you interpret it and from where you're getting the info.
I think it's time that we began praying for an FAQ.

chris · 7 months ago

Emperor, schmemperor! I finally managed a win with my Chaos Space Marines using the fifth edition codex. Two land Raiders and some well-timed cowardice served me well. (Mission focus sometimes means the last dude in a squad running with his power-armored tail between his legs, hahaha!!!)

Bradley Vender · 7 months ago

I swear I feel like the blog writers are deliberately trolling the commentors. >.< Where's the report post button?!?

Ter0rByte · 7 months ago

Mkerr, how does a rule that lets you take one leman russ (and a very specific one at that) suddenly become most reasonably interpreted as allowing you to take all variants in a squadron? IIRC it says you can take exactly one LRBT, not any other version or any more than one. Methinks youre "most reasonable" interpretation is the most exploit and the one that tries to get the most out of a rule that doesn't say what you want it to say. the rule says 1 lrbt, not "one squadron of leman russ tanks".

mkerr · 7 months ago

When you venture into "mkerr's opinionland" make sure you bring a lunch.

My reasoned opinion is that Inducted Imperial Guard are first and foremost Imperial Guard. When the Imperial Guard change, so do the Inducted Imperial Guard.

The IG Codex changed the way Leman Russes work. The LRBT heavy support choice has changed from single tank unit to multi-tank squadrons. There are NO Leman Russ battle tanks that aren't part of squadrons now.

Ter0rByte, if you prefer a solely RAW interpretation then there's nothing wrong with restricting WH/DH players to a single Leman Russ Battle Tank. But if you do that, you need to remove the squadron rule (which feels like a rules change).

Sgt_Spindler · 7 months ago

How is that different from what you are doing in the first place by changing the DH/WH rules?

mkerr · 7 months ago

I'm not following your question. Am I changing the DH/WH rules? I wasn't aware that I wielded that kind of power!

Sgt_Spindler · 7 months ago

Your entire article is about changing, ignoring and making up rules.

mkerr · 7 months ago

I'm not seeing anything that fits with your changing, ingnoring or making up rules accusation.

Perhaps you just don't like these types of articles where we talk about cool tips and fun tricks to do with an army. You certainly seem to have your dander up! Personally, I really enjoy talking about this kind of stuff -- it's one of the best parts of a new codex release!

Sgt_Spindler · 7 months ago

I'm sorry. I guess myself and everyone else who has shown how you are wrong are just a bunch of... oh, I don't know, mkerrs.

You ignored the rules regarding the Aegis & Shrouding. Then you changed them to make up your own version of how they would work.

I have no problem with Tactica articles so long as they are concise and well thought out. Your article is average at best.

You could do so much better if you RaU'ed before you wrote.

"THE" Ratlings are calling for you.

eddtheman70 · 7 months ago

there is no LRBT in the new book, only leman russ. The DH/WH books are based on choices in the IG book. The 0-1 choice literally means "one or less Leman Russ battle tank choice from the IG book" That choice has been replaced by 1-3 tanks of different variants.

roa · 7 months ago

No, if you have seen the new book, in the Leman Russ entry has a specific "Leman Russ Battle Tank" which is distinct and different from a "Leman Russ Exterminator" or "Leman Russ Demolisher" . This is the version with the battlecannon.

The allies rule says "one LRBT". This is still perfectly within the current rules, you take a "squadron" of a single Leman Russ Battle Tank. The rule as written does not allow multiples of Leman Russ tanks (only "Tank), ergo no squadrons, no variants.

eddtheman70 · 7 months ago

The unit entry reads "leman russ squadron" (forgot squadron in my last post) in the back of the book. There are no IG or SM entries in the WH/DH books. You have to see the appropriate codex for the allies. The way I see it, if an ally's book changes then the inducted SM or IG also change. When the IG book went from "leman russ battle tank" which was one specific unit, to "leman russ squadron" which is 1-3 with variants, the allied IG can take 0-1 leman russ squadrons.

limiting the DH/WH player to 1 Leman russ with no variants goes against RAW, because it effectively creates a unit entry which doesn't exist.

Roa · 7 months ago

**The allies rule doesn't refer to a unit entry**.

It refers specifically to "0-1 Leman Russ Battle Tank".

A Leman Russ Battle Tank is a specific and distinct Leman Russ version.

The allies rule allows you to take 0-1 of these. Thus you can take up to a single Leman Russ Battle Tank.

eddtheman70 · 7 months ago

"Leman Russ Battle Tank" was the unit entry in the current (soon to be previous) IG book

There is no LRBT unit entry in the new IG book that is only 1 tank. It is 1-3 tanks with variants. ergo, 1-3 tanks with variants in the DH/WH book.

Roa · 7 months ago

by your reasoning then, they don't get LR's at all, as their rule doesn't state "Leman Russ Squadron".

Looking at the IG codex in front of me, the unit entry in the Heavy Support section is titled "Leman Russ Squadron".

The first version of the Leman Russ is the "Leman Russ Battle Tank". It's the basic battlecannon version.

The other variants are then listed under that in order of cost.

So it goes

"LEMAN RUSS SQUADRON"

Leman Russ Battle Tank---Xpts
Leman Russ Exterminator...Xpts
Leman Russ Vanquisher...Xpts
Leman Russ Eradicator...Xpts
Leman Russ Demolisher...Xpts
Leman Russ Punisher...Xpts
Leman Russ Executioner...Xpts


The "Leman Russ Battle Tank" is a distinct, specific version. The wording of the allies rule does not specify "Leman Russ HS selection", but rather it specifies a specific model, that you can take 0-1 of.

Roa · 7 months ago

To copy another earlier comment

Leman Russ Battle Tank is a specific Leman Russ tank.

The codex lists the leman russ tanks as such

""Leman Russ Squadron""
Vehicle Squadron composed of 1-3 of the following tanks in any combination

Leman Russ Battle Tank

Leman Russ Exterminator

Leman Russ Eradicator

etc...

The Allies rule specifically refers to the Leman Russ Battle Tank, not to an HS slot choice, but to the exact type of model, of which it says you can take up to 1.

So no squadrons, no variants.

mkerr · 7 months ago

Check out the description page (not just the unit entry). The section is titled the "Leman Russ Battle Tank" (not the "Leman Russ" or the "Leman Russ Tank").

All of the LRBT variants are listed under that heading. To me, that implies that all of the variants are variants of the Leman Russ Battle Tank (which makes sense because they are built on the same chassis and have Leman Russ in their name).

As I've said before, I think that limiting players to a single basic LRBT is a valid RAW argument but I don't agree that it's 100% clear-cut. Why? Because they've merged all of the LR variants into a single unit in the new codex.

Maligoare · 7 months ago

Mkerr, the description page might list them all under that heading, but that doesn't carry rules-weight. Quite simply, descriptive text is there to provide a context for the game, but can not (and should not) be used to affect gameplay. For all the use it has in a game, it could list all the LR variants under "Barrel of Monkeys" in the description, and it would make no difference.

mkerr · 7 months ago

Had the Landraider, Land Raider Crusader and Land Raider Redeemer all been lumped into a single unit (like the new Hellhound or the new Leman Russ), then we would've had this discussion then.

In the previous version of the IG codex, the Leman Russ and the Leman Russ Demolisher were separate entries. Now they've been combined.

Not only have they been combined (which definitely confuses the issue), but they were first introduced in a section entitled "Leman Russ Battle Tank". This created additional confusion about the difference between the common weapon loadout and the variants.

The way it's presented is that they are all Leman Russ Battle Tanks. If they'd followed the path of the Space Marine Codex, we wouldn't have this issue.

Lagduf · 7 months ago

Good article until right up to the end with the discussion of what the 0-1 Leman Russ Battle Tank choice means.

Your four options [6.1-6.4] are all logical choices as to what players will undoubtedly be arguing over, but I find the reasons for your conclusion on what should be acceptable to be less than compelling.

You offer no reasons as to why you think one choice is correct over the other. You state one choice as even being knee-jerk reactionary (while it really represents the status quo.

You then state it is the choice that is the most against the spirit of the rules. That's a bold statement, and one that will lead to a lot of debate.

In the future when you make such statements you really need to explain your reasoning more. The whole end of this tactica over the Leman Russ Battle Tank issue just looks really rushed and not well thought out. It's clear what option you think is correct for DH/WH but, again, you don't really explain why you don't think the other options for players are the ones that shouldn't be used.

Nice work otherwise, looking forward to more articles.

mkerr · 7 months ago

I live in the United States where "knee-jerk" and "popular opinion" are often synonymous.

I wasn't trying to define how Leman Russes work in WH/DH armies. I even stated that I'm torn between which is the most reasonable.

I also did state my reasoning. WH/DH players have always had access to a single Leman Russ heavy support choice. The new IG codex changed that choice (turning it from a single tank unit to a squadron and adding variants). These changes should carry over to the Inducted Guard.

From my discussions, I find that the reasoning that most players have for making it a single tank with no variants is because they feel the new LR squadrons are too tough. If the rule had made the LR heavy support choice weaker, they wouldn't be so restrictive in their interpretation. That's why I find it to be a knee-jerk and fear-based decision.

If you come to the same conclusion after putting some thought and research into it, then that's cool.

Sgt_Spindler · 7 months ago

Once again read and understand. Page 26 of the WH Codex and pages 30-31 in the DH Codex state 1,no more, no less, Leman Russ Battle tank.

Inquisitor Hate Machine · 7 months ago

Actually, you CAN have less LRBT. Hence the 0-1

I will agree with mkerr (nice to see you again! I was just asking abe and brandon about you!) I, too, believe they refered to a 0-1 choice in the FOC. That's what we select, slots in the foc. So if it says 0-1 grey knight squads, and one squad is 5-10 guys, I would get 5-10 guys. Why? Because it is a single FOC selection

roa · 7 months ago

You'll note it states "Tank", not "Leman Russ selection" or "tanks", but singular "Tank".

mkerr · 7 months ago

Of course it doesn't say "0-1 Leman Russ Battle Tanks", but thanks for illustrating the knee-jerk reaction that I described earlier. :)

Sgt_Spindler · 7 months ago

You can brown-nose all you want Hate Machine but it still does not change the fact that niether you nor mkerr are reading AND understanding the rules form the WH & DH Codices. The sidebars on page 25 & 21 of the WH/DH codices, respectively, indicate what FOC chart selections can be taken by allied Inquisitorial forces. FOCs are all encompassing and used in the braodest of terms when talking about the number of respective units from each type you can have in an army. All of which has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. Now the sidebars on pages 26 (WH) and 30-31 (DH) show you the SPECIFIC units you can take when considering Allied SM or Inducted IG. This IS NOT a FOC as you are using the term in your arguments. These are VERY SPECIFIC units that you are allowed to take from that particular FOC selection

I really do not understand why you people do not get this. You all keep using FOC as your mantra to support your truely baseless arguments. It's like having a discussion about grazing rights in Montana while a bunch of idiots in the back keep shouting "NORTH AMERICA!"

Read and understand before you speak. You people keep spouting off about RAW but when those of use who truly are doing that point out how you're wrong you just don't get it.

mkerr · 7 months ago

@Sgt_Spindler: I'm beginning to develop the opinion that you either care way too much about this issue or you aren't completely stable. In either case, please refrain from talking down to people with differing opions (especially people that tell me that they happy to see me post again).

If you read my article and responses, I agree that a single LRBT is the most accurate interpretation of RAW -- but I don't agree that it's the most reasonable position.

But then again I considered more than the phrase "0-1 Leman Russ Battle Tank" when I developed my opinion.

But it's a free country (even in Montana) and you don't have to agree with me -- if your interpretation works for you, then go with it. It's certainly the simplest. And simple is a virtue in game design.

P.S. And if you bothered to read Inquisitor Hate Machine's response, he wasn't "spouting off about RAW".

Sgt_Spindler · 7 months ago

If you would just admit that you made a mistake then people would stop posting on this matter. A vast majority of these posts are against your article's assumptions because your assumptions are wrong.

But instead of saying,'"Hey, look I stepped in IT. Then I stuck my foot in my mouth. And now I know where that taste came from." You have taken the stance that a lot of people in your position have resorted to. Attacking everyone who disagrees with you.

I can assure you that I do not care overly much about this issue and I am as stable as the next guy who assembles, paints and plays with 28mm "Army Men".

mkerr · 7 months ago

I LOVE that people are posting about this article -- we have like 289 comments so far and it's still growing! Why would I want them to stop? It's awesome!

As far as the LRBT goes, I offered four different suggestions on how it could be played and encouraged people to comment. These comments aren't "against my article's assumptions". I put the options out there to be discussed and that's the VAST majority of the content of these comments.

Awesome job, readers!

As far as the Grey Knights thing goes, I may well be wrong but I've got some homework to do before I'm certain. Fortunately, popular opinion isn't a requirement for a rule.

If you remember my "Vindicare can shoot into close combat" assumption wasn't very popular, but it turned out be correct. So I'm okay with my interpretations being controversial. I actually really like that part.

Finally, it's funny that almost every time I write an article, there's one commenter who always gets hung up on whether "I'll admit that I'm wrong". The importance of the rule or the debate goes out the window and it just comes down to trying to make me admit I made a mistake.

I've never understood that. I make mistakes all of the time -- we play a really complex game with poorly organized rules. How could you not make mistakes from time to time?

If you review the comments for this article alone, I've already made, admitted and and fixed a couple of mistakes. 1) I said that Creed could give the Scout rule to Seraphim. WRONG! They can't scout because they are Jump Infantry instead of Infantry. 2) I said that a single Russ unit was better than a one Russ squadron because I thought that a "squadron of one" suffered from the squadron rules. WRONG!

When I make a too-common mistake, the sharp-eyed readers here catch it and I'll fix it. I don't think I know a single person that has a problem admitting when they've made a mistake -- I certainly don't.

So spend more time chatting about the thing you enjoyed from the article (or expressing your thoughts) and less time picking out a nice place to put my cross.

Sgt_Spindler · 7 months ago

My apologies to Hate Machine for calling him a "Brown-noser"

From henceforth I shall call all such people "Yes Men"

mkerr · 7 months ago

Please stay on topic.

soylent robot · 7 months ago

ugh, just....uugh
ive half a mind to stop reading BOLS cos of all this cheesy rule-dodging crap

volrath8754 · 7 months ago

Umm you know a good percentage of us are tornament players and actually care what the rules are. So while any discussion of the RAW may seem like cheesy rule-dodging crap to you, it is a discussion of what I will be able to bring to my local tournament next month.
BTW I actually think that you can't take any Russes because the unit entry has changed.

Catzilla · 7 months ago

Yes, would be nasty to travel hundreds of miles to turn up with all these big cases and not being able to use the vehicle minis in the end. A lot of opinions here are valid IMHO and there should be FAQ.
Otherwise it will be very chaotic on the next tourney. Oh wait...GW did stop the 2009 tourneys in the US, right? Lol!

faultie · 7 months ago

Adios.

All the best,
Faultie

sinsynn · 7 months ago

'Hobbyists.' They're a riot.
@soylent robot-
if the article isn't your cup o' tea, why did you read it and leave a comment ? I don't read terrain articles (not MY cup o' tea), and I'm sure we'll be seeing a bunch of THOSE soon (starting today, it seems), but I won't be leaving comments calling the "crap".
And while I find the depth that this discussion has descended to hysterical (over 200 comments regarding ONE rule interpretation-AWESOME !! And the book isn't even OUT YET!!!), all the posters seem to be politely working out how to play within the rules.
Why are you 'hobbyist' types so elitist?

sodcactus · 7 months ago

Ok. Hope you find some other "less cheesy" forum to follow.

Jipin · 7 months ago

If it doesn't get FAQ'd, I'd probably say 6.2 so then you can atleast take a Leman Russ, with the new Squadron rules, but no fancy variants - so is that a more "best of both worlds" answer? I would say so.

Ben · 7 months ago

This is a hillarious article on how to totally exploit the gaping holes left in the game by the Codex update.

Horay for Codex Sprint!*

*My new term for Codex Creep, since it's obviously getting faster. :-)

TheHappyTroll · 7 months ago

Welcome to the past 25 years of the game!

You must be a very new player because this has been happening for a quarter of a century, and you get used to it after a while.

TheEnd · 7 months ago

I personally defend 6.2 as the "most reasonable interpretation". While yes, the LRBT has now become a squadron, the rule apparently already shut out the demolisher variant when it was acceptable.
Since at the time a single HS choice was a single tank, and now a single HS choice is a squadron of tanks, I feel that allowing a squadron is the correct choice. However, given the rule's previous opposition to variants, maintain that opposition.

in other news from a GK player, A USEFUL Culexus? Will wonders never cease?

Krang · 7 months ago

Even if it is one single LRBT, can't you arm those with hosts of new sponson weapons that you coudlent before? like plasma cannons etc? even the least attractive/'the same as before' option is beefed up.

As for taking whole squadrons of 15 plasma cannon firing death.... me thinks not. There is no way they playtested that kinda allied firepower with the DH or WH codex development.

Krang · 7 months ago

also on the squadron front, as mentioned you need two platoons which is 50 men + the price of the three tanks...

sorry but after that many points you may as well flip the coin and do a IG army with the Inq forces as allies.

mkerr · 7 months ago

Yeah, the LRBT is greatly improved. I love the Lumbering Behemoth rules.

I doubt that I will ever use more than one LRBT (e.g., Exorcists are just too good), so I'm happy if the decision is to make it a single tank.

Why? Because an IG player takes a single LRBT it's a one-tank squadron. If a WH/DH player takes a single LRBT it's a single tank and not part of a squadron. That makes my LRBT better than the IG tank. Strange, eh?

ResearchFail · 7 months ago

BRB: "If a squadron consists of a single vehicle when an enemy unit fires at it, it reverts to the normal rules for vehicle damage results"

mkerr · 7 months ago

Yup, Bigred caught me on that one right after I posted the comment. I knew that if I had a squadron reduced to a single model, it would revert to the normal rules. For some reason, I assumed that this didn't apply to a squardon of one.

My mistake on that one. The single LRBT is still an awesome choice for WH/DH players.

Haljin · 7 months ago

In what is it better? A single tank in a squadron instantly reverts to just being a single tank.

kravkalash · 7 months ago

"As for taking whole squadrons of 15 plasma cannon firing death.... me thinks not. There is no way they playtested that kinda allied firepower with the DH or WH codex development."

I don't think that this unit is as mean as it sounds. Taking vehicle squadron rules into consideration, 3 Executioners are total overkill. Yes, you prolly kill one infantry squad per turn, but no more, since you can't split your fire (except due to unrealistic scatter luck). But your unit costs TONS of points, comparable to a baneblade. Might work when expecting uber-units in the open field, but I wouldn't count on that.

In close combat you're still the sitting duck, only that by using squadrons of 3 tanks you assure that enemy tankhunters may kill 3 tanks in one charge.

Another big drawback of squadrons is: You can be killed by glancing hits.

That is a huge downside considering that with a front armor of 14 you take a good percentage of glancing hits from most tank hunting weaponry.

All in all, I would refrain from using LR squadrons, ever.

dietrich · 7 months ago

Good use of selection RAW. This is just another reason for them to remove the DH and WH codex and replace them with stand-alone GK, SoB, and an Inquisition Forces codex. The recent codexes don't account for allies in the rules.

randomuser · 7 months ago

every tournement, will pull your oants over your ears when you conme with allied nonsence like this, note I speak only for europe.
Anyway a nice wack of of the possibilitys,

mkerr · 7 months ago

I'm assuming that having your pants pulled over your ears is a bad thing?

Tommo · 7 months ago

I think in the USA you call them 'Underwear'?

faultie · 7 months ago

Wow!!!

Please tell me, illustrious GW Regional Director for European Tournaments, what do you guys substitute for GW Codex rules (specifically, WH/DH Allies Rules)? I'm interested to know, so that I can throw out my codex, start doing it like you guys, and brag to all my friends that I'm playing "Euro-style 40k".

Regards,
Faultie

P.S. I do believe you give yourself too little credit. Europe is a large, diverse, and marvelous land of varied cultures, ideas, and people. Do not think you speak "only" for Europe. You are a representative of a great civilization! Be proud!

Stormin Van De Noorderwind · 7 months ago

Great post! I was already thinking about using the new Guard codex with my Witch Hunters but now I'm convinced!
But... My current Witch hunter force is made up of 100% female models (not just the sisters but the inquisitor and her retinue as well). Is there a good source for female IG models (from GW or other companies as a 'stand in')? I've looked at Necromunda Escher models but they look to ganglike to be military.
Any suggestions are welcome!

Catzilla · 7 months ago

There are a female Tanith model, a female Catachan model and some old female Last Chancer models around, all metal of course.
Don't know if that helps you though...:)

*edit*
Oh, forgot the female Comissar!

baneblade · 7 months ago

Hey mkerr, Are they your guard models pictured? Would you be able to tell me how you painted them? I really like the colour scheme and will probably do my guard a similar colour.

mkerr · 7 months ago

These are my guard models, but I didn't paint them. The guy who did is a regular BoLS reader; hopefully he will pop up and answer your questions.

By the way, the army is GORGEOUS (every single guardsmen is just a work of art). The painter sold them because he wasn't happy with them and wanted to do a newer and nicer army. Too crazy!

RealGenius · 7 months ago

Like sands through the hourglass, so are the reasons to retire the old 3rd edition Inquisition books.

spnkr · 7 months ago

If you allow all variants of the Leman Russ, then surely you must also allow all variants of the Land Raider, due to the same argument: LRBT= LRE, LRV...LR=LRC, LRR....(all entirely incorrect, mind you). Crusader/Redeemer in Inquisitorial forces? Yea you already get one, but now you get the better one! I'd love to do that in my DH army, but hey, I try not to break rules when I play.

>_>

mkerr · 7 months ago

I haven't looked into it, but that may well be the case. If you'd like me to look into how the new Space Marine codex affects the Allied Space Marines rules, I'd be happy to do that.

LEGION3000 · 7 months ago

While everyone is fixated on the Leman Russ squadron thing Mkerr let another little gem of misinformation slip through in the first bullet point.

"You want an outflanking 50-man squad with 5 Commissars and a Grey Knight Grandmaster? Then Combined Squads are for you! Oh, and that massive unit also benefits from the Grandmaster’s Aegis and The Shrouding."

The rules for shrouding AND Aegis state "Each time an enemy unit fires at a unit of GREY KNIGHTS it must check if it can see them". It says nothing about shooting at a unit that is accompanied by or combined with a single grey knight. Since you can't specifically target characters IN a squad I don't see how this could possibly work. And using the rules for complex units you have to go by the toughness of the majority which is going to be the crappy guard.

In your rush to be the biggest cheese monger I think you are taking rather blatant liberties with the rules.

Facebook User · 7 months ago

See Sergeant-OZZ's comments above and Mkerr's response -

"The Shrouding says "each time an enemy fires at a unit of Grey Knights". The Grandmaster has the Grey Knights special rule, so any unit he joins will be protected by The Shrouding (as long as he is a potential target).

The Aegis says "every time an enemy psyker uses a power that targets a Grey Knight squad or character". If a unit that a Grandmaster has joined is targeted by a psychic power, the unit is protected by the Aegis.""

Just quoting what he said, don't know the rules myself.

BS-o-meter · 7 months ago

I call BS: Does the Grey Knights special rule state that it transfers over to the squad? What is the unit type of the majority of the squad?

This is akin to having a SM special character in Terminator Armor joining a group of IG and claiming they now have ATSKNF and a 2+/5+ save...

mkerr · 7 months ago

It doesn't have to transfer to the squad. When an independent character joins a unit, he becomes a potential casualty when that unit is fired upon.

Nothing in The Shrouding or Aegis rules remove the special rule when he joins a unit (unlike Fearless, for example). So if an enemy fires on a unit containing a Grey Knight, then that unit benefits from The Shrouding. And if an enemy psyker targets a squad containing a Grey Knight with a psychic power, that squad benefits from Aegis.

TheHappyTroll · 7 months ago

No, targeting a unit and a character within the unit are two different things.

I target your unit with power X;

is different than

I target your Grey Knight Character with Mind War.

Being in the effect of a power does not equal being the target of such a power.

Otherwise half of the Eldar powers which don't target units specifically but still effect them, like Doom, would be countered.

yeah · 7 months ago

Page 48, main rule book

Daniel Victor Hill · 7 months ago

Man you're dense. Special rules do not transer to units unless they say they do. "potential casualty" or no, the unit you are shooting at does not have the shrouding nor the aegis.

Goatboy is a great player with a tactical mind who admits his rules misinterpretations. You are just beyond the pale, though. Please go back into whatever hole you were stuck in as BoLS has grown too big for your shenanigans.

mkerr · 7 months ago

LOL! Awesome comment! I guess when you have as many ex-wives as I do, you learn to appreciate the work that went into shitting on another person. Well done, Mr. Hill!

But in response:

First of all, Goatboy is a great player with a fantastic tactical mind. He's a genuinely nice guy and he deserves our praise for all of his work (and his ability to find the good stuff in a codex). We're completely in agreement here.

Secondly, if you skim through my previous articles and comments, you'll see many instances where I've made mistakes and corrected my statements (like today when I incorrectly assumed a "squadron of one" took damage as a squadron).

I'm not cerrtain admitting I'm wrong makes me a better or worse player/tactician, but I definitely want people to know if I've made a mistake so they can avoid it when they play.

I fully admit I might be wrong about Grey Knights characters benefitting from Aegis and the Shrouding (I hope not because it's pretty cool). I've got a post-it note full of rules references and awesome comments to follow up on (thanks everyone!).

5E is still a minefield for me, especially when you are talking about strange applications of the the WH/DH rules.

In any case, I'm particularly impressed that your third comment on our little forum could be so constructive! I can't wait to see what else you have in the wings to brighten up our little corner of the internet!

P.S. If you'll give me your night-time phone number, I'll be happy to contact you the second I settle this extremely important rules issue! :)

Sgt_Spindler · 7 months ago

Kiss your mother with that mouth?

Didn't you mention something to me about talking down to others. Such language!

mkerr · 7 months ago

I'm more of a hugs guy.

Your comment was directed at a player that offered a constructive comment; mine was at a troll.

I don't have a ton of sympathy for trolls or people that use the word "shenanigans".

Sgt_Spindler · 7 months ago

hmph, he doesn't look trollish.

Rahveel · 7 months ago

but I like shenanigans. especilly evil shenanigans.

in truth, I disagree with the majority of your interpretations though mkerr. I totaly get your side on the LRBT question, although I am on the other side of the fence from you on the matter, I do belive there is no clear answer. I simpily sit on the other side because the tank only got better, not worse.

on the matter of a GK GM passing the shrouding and aegis over to a unit of normal guys... it just dosent mesh well in my head, and seems more like wishlisting. I really cannot see any reason why the power would pass over to the unit, the codex seems very particular about it, and it opens up to many odd situations. (a GK BC could take a Psycannon, sit with a heavy weapons team in the way back-feild, and keep that unit out of sight. just feels wrong.

even though I do not play DH/WH/IG, I regularrly play against them, and honestly am glad to see the Culexas have some boost/trick to make him awesome. he has (purely IMO of course) the coolest fluff. Pariah Gene, FTW!

Vorlon · 7 months ago

Ok, another question, IG stormtroopers are counted as elites, DH stormtroopers are counted as troops.. If I play two IG ST units and 2 DH ST units would that violate the IG FOC?

mkerr · 7 months ago

No, you can ally 0-2 DH Troops choices. So if you want to bring 2 Inquisitorial Storm Troopers units into your army, then you can. Keep in mind, that the Inquisitorial Storm Troopers won't use the new IG Storm Trooper rules (because they have their own entry).

styx · 7 months ago

I suspect GW will drop a FAQ about the Psychic Choir thing and the Celexus...I just can't imagine that being allowed. That just goes beyond silly...

volrath8754 · 7 months ago

Right... experience tells us that GW may eventually get around to FAQing it but it is unlikely and won't be this year. After all Codex Daemons still don't have an FAQ (unless it just went up).

Oni · 7 months ago

Not arguing the silly, only that RAW shows it to be viable and allowed.

Eldorad · 7 months ago

Mkerr - I am more interested in that command squad - sweeet Officer conversion - what did you use to make the cloak? and the fist?

Oh, and do you have a photobucket account or something where I could see all your army? They are a little small in your 'collection' photos from a while back.

pierce raats · 7 months ago

yeah very cool, its nice to see well converted plastic models can be really impressive centerpieces.

QuerulousinQuail · 7 months ago

Green bases! When was the last time one saw green bases! How very 2nd edition! Nice! BRAVO!

Anon · 7 months ago

Is this a joke? Did Goatboy really write this? You're a tricky little piece of livestock aren't you?

zed · 7 months ago

Taking allies is cheating pure and simple ;o)

SeriousinSanDiego · 7 months ago

Not to mention all the other rules liberties that Mkerr is obviously taking.

Why does he insist on building armies made of pure gouda?

Methinks he wears the Yellow Helmet because of all the rocks that get thrown at him and his cheating ways.

Mind you, this seems to be par for the course at BOLS - cheesemongering FlyLords writing poorly written and blatantly wrong articles, which are quickly dismembered by the reading populace.

pierce raats · 7 months ago

dont feed the troll

RealGenius · 7 months ago

What can I say?

The FlyLords supply the cheese and the commenters provide the w(h)ine.

Sounds like a nice party to me!

You should change the blog title:

Bell of Lost Souls: Some Cheese For Your Whine

TussledinTucson · 7 months ago

Nicely played!

Krang · 7 months ago

You may want to also make an amend to the article, as Creeds ability to grant scout applies to vehicles and infantry units. Seraphim are 'jump' infantry as i remember right?

therefore they dont get it.

mkerr · 7 months ago

Awesome find! I'll fix it!

UltramarineFan · 7 months ago

Knight Commander Pask in Punisher, Heavy 20 hitting on 3+, wounding on 3+ against MEQs. Hehe.
For the battle tank in WH/DH armies I think 6.2 or 6.3 are the most sensible though even 6.1 could be possible but I think it would be safe to just dismiss 6.4 because they would take the variants in DH/WH armies so 6.4 just wouldn't amke sense.

Krang · 7 months ago

also 230pts before you add sponsons and you have an effective 24" range.. A11 at the back.... any daemon prince will eat those 230+ pts for brekfast.

UltramarineFan · 7 months ago

Well if the daemon prince can get behind your leman russ then you'd probably have more to be worrying about than 230pts.

Zach · 7 months ago

Psyker Battle Squads count as a single psyker, so the animus only gets +1.

TheHappyTroll · 7 months ago

If you are going to make up your own rules, why stop there?

How about "Psyker Battle Squads causes the player fielding them to auto lose the game."

Or

"If a player puts a Psyker Battle Squad on the table during deployment, that player must give his entire army to his opponent to keep."

:rollseyes:

mkerr · 7 months ago

Hey Zach, they only count as a single psyker for the "purposes of using a psychic power". All of the sanctioned psykers are psykers (i.e., they have the psyker rule) and would count for the Animus Speculum.

Izandral · 7 months ago

i'm just wondering , i don't have the WH/DH nor the IG codex in front of me right now, is there a definition of what the 0-1 represent somewhere in the DH/WH codex ? I seem to remember somewhere that it refered to a FOC slot but that might have been in the old rulebook

if , in the current rule set, we can't find an explanation to what a 0-1 restriction represent then it seems to me the most direct idea that comes to mind is 0 or 1 tank

if it's specified somewhere that 0-1 represent a FOC choice limit than squadron are ok but only the basic tank since it's the only one actually called a ''leman russ battle tank'' or whatever the name written in the DH/WH codex

so..... , can anyone find a rule for what 0-1 means ?

eddtheman70 · 7 months ago

In most codexes, 0-1 means 0-1 on the FOC. For example, the tyranids can take 0-1 zoanthropes on the FOC, but 1-3 make up that FOC slot

guardsman4life · 7 months ago

I really enjoy how everyone knows how they are going to write their lists and build their armies without the Codex even officially released yet. Of course I have seen the rumors and the other rumors that confirm these rumors but I'm not believing anything until I have it in black and white and in hand.

Bigred · 7 months ago

Of course not "officially released" just means not available for sale. All the listbuilding here and in Jwolf's previous thread are from the physical codex, which are available at pretty much every FLGS by now.

These concepts may be FAQed out of existance in the future, but they are supported by the actual codex, and not supposition.

Roa · 7 months ago

Some moreso than others. The issues regarding the Leman Russ are more of creative reading, what people think it *should* be and looking for easter eggs more than anything else.

Zach · 7 months ago

Oh, wait, nevermind. It's for "the purposes of using a psychic power"...

who wants to take bets that the GW reaction after publishing this codex will be to go the "Beasts of Chaos" route and disallow the use of Witch-hunter/DaemonHunter allies entirely?

Walls · 7 months ago

Hmmm... how come my book doesn't say Herohammer on it?

I can only imagine multi person games with 2 or 3 of each character on the table, since apparently no one plays without one now.

I am both a Sisters and guard player. I cannot wait until things are fixed and allies are thrown out the window. There's no place for them, they are too confusing and produce too many arguments... as this thread has proven.

Crevab · 7 months ago

Or they could, ya know, fix and clarify the rules. It's so much nicer than outright trashing a rule set.

Bijyu · 7 months ago

Every person i have asked and even looking at the rule plainly long before the new codex came out have agreed on the battle tank rule being "No Variants".

A "Leman Russ Battle Tank" is the actual name of the tank. The Variants arent called "Leman Russ Battle Tank Vanquisher" They are called "Leman Russ Vanquisher"

As much as I would LOVE to be able to take the new variants until GW FAQs it players will need to stick to the rules as they have been. Which is a SINGLE tank and NO variants.

I play WH with Inducted Guard. This codex is a big enough upgrade for me to be happy. I might try and ask some people during a friendly game if they mind me taking a variant instead of the basic. Most probably wont mind if I am up front with them on it.

Anonannoyed · 7 months ago

Seeing what kind of player Mkerr is (Assault 20? Shrouding non-GK units? More than 1 LR in DH/GK armies?)... I'm going with the "just say 'yes' " answer. Just smile and nod and let the baby have his bottle. There will be other games. Preferably in environs that don't turn otherwise good hobbyists into goatboys and mkerrs.

TheHappyTroll · 7 months ago

But you are wrong!

This is the age of Bell of Lost Souls : Warseer

So get used to the power gaming and fun-vampires, because it has arrived months ago and it is here to stay.

NallTWD · 7 months ago

I dunno you guys. Allies form the core of my Space Marine list, but this just seems like a guide on how to be a TOTAL jerk to your opponents. Not only do they have to wade through a new codex, 300 boots on the ground and 3-9 AV14 tanks, but pair it up with twin linked storm bolters with divine guidance or outflanking GK terminators? I dunno, it reeks of "0 sportsmanship"

I know it's not a common factor in tournaments you guys are used to commenting on, but its that kind of stuff that'd make me hang up my dice and go back to Fantasy permanently. It really feels like this is the final nail for taking all the fun out of the game and just trying to stick ti to your opponent as hard as you can with this tactica.

Eric E · 7 months ago

would you prefer to not know about the kinds of tactics you may be facing in tournaments and the like?
Or do you live in a little bubble all the time?

NallTWD · 7 months ago

I play in a "bubble" that is friendly games at my club and two others and tournaments that hold comp scores.

Call me an elitist, but I enjoy having fun. If I want a zero-sports score, I'll play against this and have none.

Walls · 7 months ago

I play regularly in two different cities plus at home. I don't do tournaments because of the type of thinking this article (and apparently BoLS now) condones.

I live in a pretty big bubble I guess. Only play with around 20 other guys or so at least. Yeah, poor me us so isolated.

Al Gleason · 7 months ago

MKERR! I thought you were dead! Good to hear from you man!

Nice article....

mkerr · 7 months ago

AL!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Glad to be back -- I'm really looking forward to playing with the new IG.

fade_74 · 7 months ago

I am going to bring up a point that I didn't see in the first hundred posts or so (I couldn't bring myself to actually read the rest). If you want to play a Leman Russ squadron....then make yourself an imperial guard army.......

GW should just do away with the allied bullshit. If you want to play with DH...then buy a bunch of grey knights.....If you want to play sisters....then by all means....buy some of those too........But leave my beloved guard out of it. They are finally getting a decent rewrite and I shouldn't have to listen to everyone try to twist other armies rules to USE the newest codex to gain some sort of unfair advantage over others.

Jump down off the IG bandwagon boys......play fair......play fun....or stay home.

Drop Trooper · 7 months ago

here here.

Anonannoyed · 7 months ago

All these years the guard have been crap, yet people like Mkerr go around saying "I never lose with Guard, I compete at a national level, blah blah blah," but they have to mix codices, forge world rules and easter baskets to do it, all while reading the rulebook sideways. Now that the basic IG are (strongly?) competitive, these cheesemeisters are going to stink up the place even worse.

It's been long enough. Time for the majors to ban the Ordos codices until something that fits with the current edition can be done with them. If Kroot Mercs are so abusive they can't get table time, I don't know what Sisters of Bitto are.

mkerr · 7 months ago

Lol, I wish that I could say that I never lose with Guard! JWolf punished my poor Cadians just last night (tabling me on turn 4 with his nasty new Chaos Space Marines army).

You don't have to win a lot of games to compete at a national level, you just have to buy a ticket. When I go to major tournaments, I usually try to throw in a couple of weird rules to see how they get ruled (e.g., shooting into close combat with a Vindicare, using a Null Rod to circumvent Veil of Tears, etc.). This gives me a response for players that say that it would never fly in a tournament.

There's a saying that I have an uncanny ability "to build extremely powerful lists and lose with them". However, I suspect that JWolf IG win/loss ratio is particularly impressive -- and only going to get better with the new IG codex.

Sgt_Spindler · 7 months ago

A Vindicare CAN shoot into close combat.

mkerr · 7 months ago

Yes, and you can thank me for that clarification.

Ask around :)

Sgt_Spindler · 7 months ago

Yes, thank you for telling me something I knew 10 years ago.

Matthew_Rider · 7 months ago

Funny... as that rule didn't exist 10 years ago....

You must have the gift of foresight

Sgt_Spindler · 7 months ago

RaU

Go get your Assassin's Codex. Open it and look at the copyright.

Then go to the section describing the Vindicare. In the box Marked "Special Rules: Marksman" it states that a Vindicare can target any model regardless of targeting restrictions.

I think you need to get your foresight prescription checked.

Matthew_Rider · 7 months ago

Oh for...

I know he can shoot into combat I use that all the time... but that didn't exist 10 years ago... and in 2nd edition he couldn't... and can you please stop commenting for god sake your just spamming up an old topic with meaningless insults towards people

In fact this is the last I'm even responding to your comments

Drop Trooper · 7 months ago

Yeah, nice article. and great mini's I think you should show us the whole army!

Now one of my favourite armies is non-SoB WH, doesn't win very often but extremely fluffy and fun to play, occassionally(sp?) I'll add in some allies just for a change, I don't mind allies, very fluffy (I love the fluff, what can I say?), but I'll agree with the majority here and say 'by the rules' you can only take one Leman Russ BT, no varients.

And the whole psyker thing? how are people getting it wrong? each model counts as a psyker!!

also I finally got around to reading the new codex the other day (damn being in Australia and always being the last for new things!!) and it's true, no more drop troop IG armies = ( Whine!

BuFFo · 7 months ago

Sup Skrag faces,

I started my own little Blog, found under my profile, and I posted a pretty sweet Psyker Army List.

I call it "Psykerlogical Warfare". It's got a nice ring to it I do believe.

It shows what fun you can have with Psyker Battle Squads, Inquisitors, Snipers, Tank Shocking and the Callidus Assassin...

Four.

GAMES VAULT · 7 months ago

The DH codex says that you can only include Assasins if you also include an Inquisitor Lord or Inquisitor in your force.(referring to Culexus PBS combo)
It also says in bold that only basic versions of the troop types of the Inducted and Allied Space Marine and Imperial Guard contigents AND NO VARIANTS. (referring to the Leman Russ variants debate)

mkerr · 7 months ago

That's correct. You need an Inquisitor Lord (an HQ choice) to take an allied Culexus. That still gives you 2 elites slots to spend on Psyker Battle Squads.

We've already covered the "no variants" thing. If you read the section, it means army variations (no Steel Legion rules, no Catachan rules, no Blood Angels rules, etc.). It doesn't mean that I can't take variations on a unit.

Sgt_Spindler · 7 months ago

Well... that's not entirely true. You can argue, this is another one you could have won mkerr, that an Assassin is an Elites choice (0-1, of course) as stated in thier Codex. If you wanted to field one as part of an Inquisitor force, wether they are Allied to another force or using Allied SM/Inducted IG, then you would have to include a Inquisitor Lord. Niether the WH/DH Codices state that they now overrule the Assassin's Codex.

mkerr · 7 months ago

That doesn't make any sense at all. What are you talking about?

Sgt_Spindler · 7 months ago

Plain and simple. You don't need an Inquisitor to field an Assassin. As long as you use their Codex you can field one in your IG or SM army as an Elites. If you field a WH/DH army and want to have an Assassin then you will need to have a Lord Inquisitor.

RaU

mkerr · 7 months ago

From the DH codex (p26): "An Officio Assassinorum operative may only be chosen if an Inquisitor Lord or Inquisitor is also part of the force.".

There's identical text on page 30 of the Witch Hunters codex.

Seems pretty clear to me.

Matt Quick · 7 months ago

What happened to the good old days? With the Campaign books and fluff driven gaming?

Inquisitor Hate Machine · 7 months ago

gotta do something in the downtime between weekly playtest for the next book. Trust me, so much work is being put into the badab war. There were never any good ol' days...

Leman Russ · 7 months ago

Ok.
A simple solution, for what should be a simple game. You play two forces, each at half of the opponents points (so lets say 2k of chaos v 1k of Daemonhunters and 1k of IG). Sounds like a plan to me. Sod allies rules.
Every gamer will have their own opinion, depending on what side of the fence you are on. Just sort this out with your individual opponents; and lets just pretend that mkerr never ever wrote this, and caused so much NERD RAGE amongst BOLS readers. If Mkerr wants to play his forces this way, let Mkerr do so. If you disagree, then simply don't do what Mkerr is suggesting.If your opponent and you can't agree, theres a reason that we use even sided dice. A d6 is a perfectly impartial judge when last I looked.

When GW write up an FAQ tha works, and actually decide to update codexes, then life will be easier. For now, thinkof house rules, or dice for it.

Chaplain_Judah · 7 months ago

Just a quick post in support of Zed, NallTWD and fade 74 in relation to the allies rules but also in relation to the tournament entering cheese monkey's who really do win the punch in the face award, week in week out with their 'win by the length of my beard' approach to gaming. And no Eric E, I do not live in a little bubble, I just think that Warhammer is about having a decent fight and not trying to win the contest for the most bent army selection. For my money, the more time you spend coming up with a bent list rather than coming up with a genuine strategy for a balanced army; the less skill and intelligence you have. Maybe it's just me !

NallTWD · 7 months ago

THANK you. Glad to know there are folks out there who know when to have fun and when to go 0 sports.

And to Eric E, I know how to play cheese. 19th in the Fantasy Ardboyz finals and I made the 40k semis two years running. So bubble? NOPE.

Matthew_Rider · 7 months ago

I would just like to take the opportunity to say this to the people insulting mkerr- get the fuck of HIS blog

That's right- if your going to do nothing but insult who I regard as a brilliant article writer and gamer, someone who probably knows a damn sight more about 4tk than you do- then why are you reading this post? More to the point, why are you reading the Fly Lords blog? Seriously- if your here to spread hate- and obviously hate BOLS for whatever reason- then do us a favor and go away

Sgt_Spindler · 7 months ago

<CENSORED BY BIGRED>

Matthew_Rider · 7 months ago

So I take it you resorted to insulting me?

Class

mkerr · 7 months ago

He's typing the phrase "<CENSORED BY BIGRED>" for some reason. Bigred isn't actually editing posts, so that's just him performing some sort of protest that's likely going to end in him getting a permanent ban.

Thanks for the comment, Matthew!

Vorlon · 7 months ago

So I went to pick up a few cadian squads to add to my IG/DH army and the store owner said his sales rep stated "dont bother stocking up on any more metal greyknights" and explained that plastic models where in the pipe....so perhaps a new DH codex will accompany them?

Paul · 7 months ago

is this the longest thread ever?

May it live on forever.

mkerr · 7 months ago

315 comments and growing strong! It's awesome!

Sgt_Spindler · 7 months ago

318 comments! Most of which stating that you're wrong.

Bigred · 7 months ago

Warning Sgt,

I've just deleted a handful of comments which were purely personal attacks vs another poster. Argue the points, not the person.

Sgt_Spindler · 7 months ago

All I can say about that is you have to protect your friends. I usually don't do that for my friends when they're wrong in matters such as these but they hardly ever are.

Censorship, You gotta love it.

No, wait, actually you don't.

Inquisitor Hate Machine · 7 months ago

Welcome to the internet, It isnt a democracy.

So im gussing you are either Stelek or spoofing the only person to have ever been banned from Bell of Lost Souls.

As much as I LOVE me some good trolling, you need to change your game up.

Sgt_Spindler · 7 months ago

Well I guess that's it then. I had a bunch of <CENSORED BY BIGRED> that showed exactly how mkerr was <CENSORED BY BIGRED> they also showed how mkerr was just <CENSORED BY BIGRED> Labeled personal attacks when what they really showed was mkerr <CENSORED BY BIGRED> What are you gonna do, right? I mean if every time I point how mkerr is <CENSORED BY BIGRED>and how he is <CENSORED BY BIGRED>And when I used the same logic as mkerr to show <CENSORED BY BIGRED> I was censored by BIGRED.

<CENSORED BY BIGRED>
<CENSORED BY BIGRED>
<CENSORED BY BIGRED>But if you ask me I don't think our Founding Fathers had this in <CENSORED BY BIGRED>
I also think that crop circles are <CENSORED BY BIGRED>
<CENSORED BY BIGRED>Codpieces?

Well then Bob's your <CENSORED BY BIGRED>

Justen Hunter · 7 months ago

At my FLGS, there's been talk about letting players take a single Leman Russ with variants(6.3), because, honestly wouldn't the Inquisition have the resources to pull an Exterminator or Punisher out if that Inquisitor wanted one?

Honestly, just make a rule at your FLGS or gaming club until a FAQ gets on this.

Philipp Nordmeyer · 7 months ago

sorry I just saw you got something wrong. I'm half asleep and didn't read all the comments, so I don't know if someone else pointed that out.

Infantry Platoons aren't the only standard choice. Veterans are standard too and not part of any platoon.

mkerr · 7 months ago

I'm not sure that I understand your comment; WH/DH are allowed to ally "Imperial Guard Infantry Platoons" and "Imperial Guard Armored Fist Squads" as Troops choices.

Since they've removed the latter, the only Troops selection a WH/DH has using the Inducted Guard rules is an Infantry Platoon. Veterans aren't an option.

Philipp Nordmeyer · 7 months ago

You're right with that, I misunderstood that part of the blogposting. Sorry ;)

Sgt_Spindler · 7 months ago

Well, so much for a free and open forum.

sodcactus · 7 months ago

Who stated it's a free and open forum? It's the Forum of the Flylords and they make the rules that every visitor to their forum should adhere to or suffer the consequences.

Sgt_Spindler · 7 months ago

This is an email I just form Bigred and my response to it.


-----Original Message-----
From: Bell of Lost Souls <belloflostsouls@gmail.com>
To: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Sent: Sat, 18 Apr 2009 12:11 pm
Subject: BoLS comments behavior


Hello Sgt_Spindler,

Please be aware of the Bell of Lost Souls commenting rules posted here.

Your behavior has been borderline in the following thread.

As pointed out in the comment rules, personal attacks against other readers are nor permitted. If you wish to continue your spirited debate versus Mkerr and others, by all means go ahead, but stay on topic, and debate the points and rules that your disagreement are based on.

Your behavior and off-top posts regarding your previous warning are now bordering on spam. Please refrain from further off topic posting, and delete any of these posts.

No further warnings will be issued.

-bigred

My response-

I know he's wrong, you know he's wrong, even he knows he wrong. A mojaroity of those people who posted on this matter pointed out in black & white how he was wrong but he will never admit it because of his charater flaws. He will continue to shout "I am right, I am right! So that makes me right." no matter how hard you try to show him he's not. So it ends up coming down to you telling him that's it his character flaws that make him wrong and if he could see that he would be taken seriously. But that's not going to happen because you will just keep protecting him by shutting out people like me who are not going to just sit there and take it. Keep protecting him if you want it's your choice.

Anthony Martinez
aka "Sgt Spindler"

Philipp Nordmeyer · 7 months ago

Man with that kind of freetime and that ignorant mindset, you could really make a career in every kind of Religion.

kurtBelarus · 7 months ago

Your offensive anti-religious comment demonstrates that your mindset is just as ignorant.

GuyLeDouche · 7 months ago

Anthony Martinez
aka "Sgt Spindler"
aka "That guy with waaaaay too much time on his hands"

Come on now, it's a debate about 40k rules. I'm gonna go out on a limb and say you are taking things a little too seriously with your non-stop trolling and this 'people like me are not going to just sit there and take it" nonsense. You can continue to imagine yourself as some sort of champion of free speech - just be aware that you look extremely ridiculous doing so.

chosen1 · 7 months ago

In the brief time I've ventured into the BoLS blog, I've appreciated all their hard work and dedication as well as that of a vast majority of their posters. I think their point is your abject "douchery", rather than your disagreement with Mkerr's opinions. If, at the end of every post, you ask yourself: "does this comment make me sound like an asshat?" If "yes" is your answer, then don't post it, you'll be doing us all a favor. If you don't feel that your previous postings to this blog article are objectionable, then there's nothing more to be said on our end until either your views change or you miraculously gain the common decency that God gave a dog.

Chad L.

Catzilla · 7 months ago

So to continue this epic thread I have to throw in my opinion towards the Leman Russ discussion:

Lets take a look at page 30 of the DH codex:

At the bottom of the page text starts with "The following units..." and then goes "All units are taken exactly as they appear in Codex: Space Marines or Codex: Imperial Guard..."

Doesn't that imply that the entry "0-1 Leman Russ Battle Tank" is actually meant as "0-1 Leman Russ Battle Tank Unit"?

So how are Leman Russ Battle Tank Units defined?

The new IG codex (I read it today again at the local store) states that a Leman Russ Tank Unit (as defined in Heavy Support Unit choices) can be a squadron of 1-3 vehicles.
Sounds like there is a valid point in argueing that you can actually field a whole squadron of these, all variants...maybe I just repeat some comment about this posted before, hard to keep track with over 340 posts now...

HOWEVER: it does not mention the word Battle in the unit description, so it is still unclear which variants you may take.

In the end I think the rule is broken there and there will be need of a FAQ asap.

mkerr · 7 months ago

In context it seems that the phrase "battle tank" is a generic term for all combat tanks and it applies to the Leman Russ and all variants. All of the Leman Russes are battle tanks.

The most common variation (the "Leman Russ") doesn't have another designation, so it just referred to as the "Leman Russ battle tank".

"The Leman Russ is the most common batle tank in the Imperial Guard" (C:IG, p48). You can even see this when you look at the weapon options in the unit section in the back of the codex. You'll notice that the "Leman Russ" has a battle cannon (not a "Leman Russ Battle Tank").

I'm of the opinion that they've changed the way they look at the Leman Russ. Instead of different tanks that are distinct units (like the Landraider and the Landraider Crusader, for example), the Leman Russ variants are still Leman Russ Battle Tanks. They did the same thing with the Hellhound variants.

Merging them into a single unit certainly makes the Inducted Guard rules a little more complex.

As I've said before, in friendly games I think you should be able to use squadrons and variations. There's no balance issue and it's certainly logical. But in the tournament environment, plan on only using a single Leman Russ with a battle cannon.

Rahveel · 7 months ago

I think the concern is that a ballance issue does (or could) exist. the army could take a single tank before, and now it can take 3, and they can potentually fill a very different role, and have very different weapons.

look at how many people complained that IW could take 4 heavies in the last codex. IW still had to pay the points to take them, so it should have been ballanced, but in the opinions of most, it was not.

I doubt so many of us would argue against taking 3, and their variants if we did not belive a ballance issue could exist.

mkerr · 7 months ago

It's that "concern" that I'm calling fear-based reasoning in my article. Many players are reacting from the rumors and jumping to a conclusion that allowing a permissive ruling on the allies issue would break the game.

I agree that the new Imperial Guard codex is a beast (I've watched JWolf play two games and played one myself). The units are much tougher and much cheaper than the old edition. On top of that there are tons of new options and a lot more flexibility in how units/armies are built.

If you use the Inducted Guard rules from the new codex, it makes the Witch Hunters and Daemonhunters codices ALMOST as powerful as the Imperial Guard codex. That makes WH/DH much, much more powerful (in the same way as the new Space Marine codex made the Allied Space Marines rules more powerful).

I think the real issue is that people are afraid the new IG codex is too tough for the tournament environment (it seems they have an answer for just about every tournament army out there). If that power creep also applied to WH/DH, then we would have three extremely powerful armies to contend with.

I say that we need to try it out and see. I doubt that the new IG codex is completely broken (every new codex is accused of that). And I doubt that allowing a WH/DH full access to a single Leman Russ squadron would break the game.

Walls · 7 months ago

While I don't necessarily disagree with any choices being game breaking, I do disagree with the interpretation.

It clearly says Leman Russ Battle Tank in the WH/DH codices. It also clearly states there is a Leman Russ Battle Tank in the new guard codex. It's the first entry. The rest are not Leman Russ Battle Tanks but rather Leman Russ Executioner, Demolisher, etc, etc. If you go by wording only the actual Leman Russ Battle Tank fits the description.

In Fluff terms this makes great sense. They are BY FAR the most common tank on the battle line, the others being specialists or even called "rare".

it also clearly states 0-1 Leman Russ Battle Tanks with the purchase of a platoon. Therefore... you can take 0-1 Leman Russ Battle Tanks. Nowhere does it say a squadron. I do realize the guard codex is new, but if we go by how it's stated, then it's pretty obvious.

Another reason I think ally rules are bunk. With all the new books since, they are completely obsolete. Hell, I even refuse to use them and I play sisters regularly.

To reiterate. The WH/DH codex says 0-1 LEMAN RUSS BATTLE TANKS. In the guard codex there is a clearly defined LEMAN RUSS BATTLE TANK. I don't see why or how the discussion could really go against it.

mkerr · 7 months ago

1. I'm a WH player and I want to add "0-1 Leman Russ Battle Tanks to my Inducted Guard army.

2. So I grab a new IG codex and look inside. Cool, there is a Leman Russ Battle Tank in the new IG codex (on page 48). It also tells me that there are all kinds of Leman Russes. Neat.

3. So I go to the back to figure out how build the unit and I notice that the LRBT comes in a unit of 1-3. Hmm. The WH codex gives me 0-1. Does that mean 0-1 UNIT or 0-1 MODEL?

4. Well, when the WH codex was written the unit was comprised of exactly one model. So I can't really determine if the author meant "0-1 Leman Russ Battle Tank" to mean a single tank or a single tank unit.

5. So let's look to see how 0-1 has been used over the years. Well, I can't find a single instance where "0-1" gave me one model from a multi-model unit. It ALWAYS meant a single instance of the UNIT.

It's logical to conclude that "0-1 Leman Russ Battle Tank" means a single Leman Russ unit from the new IG codex.

Don't get hung up on the singular use of the word "tank"

For example, when you look at the phrase "0-1 Ordo Malleus Inquisitor Lord", does that imply that you don't get a retinue and a transport?

In any case, I think your interpretation is completely valid and will be the most commonly used version in tournaments and in competitive circles.

Catzilla · 7 months ago

I second that. Looked at the codices again. All three of them, new guard, old guard (my own) and Demonhunters (my own).
The DH codex refers to "0-1 Leman Russ Battle Tank" unit "as in Codex: Imperial Guard".
So in the new codex a unit is a squadron, in the old one it is a tank.
So it should be valid to take a squadron of tanks as allies then. :)

Actually Inquis. Jaeger posted these thoughts already 3 days ago...it gets really chaotic, maybe we should have a poll on BOLS? ;)

Walls · 7 months ago

Well there is a Leman Russ Battle Tank IN the codex. You can take just 1. The WH codex says you can take up to one. Not much of an argument. I frankly wouldn't care about taking a squadron, but I was just stating RAW.

My main argument was against the use of the variants. Nowhere, nohow does it have any description of using any Leman Russ variant. Quite clearly says Leman Russ Battle Tank

Inquis. Jaeger · 7 months ago

Mkerr do you think there's any chance of replying to my 'constructional interpretation' comment from a couple of days ago? I'd be interested to hear what you think

Cheers

mkerr · 7 months ago

Sure, I'll take a look at it.

nick · 7 months ago

any chance out stormtroopers will get the "hot-lasguns" that the new IG stormtroopers have?

mkerr · 7 months ago

Sadly, not a chance. But our storm troopers get to keep their targeters, so I'm not complaining much!

Catzilla · 7 months ago

Then they would also increase in points cost...

mkerr · 7 months ago

I like the new Imperial Guard Storm Troopers. They have a certain punch that they were missing in the previous interations. I hope the Inquisitorial Storm Troopers have a similar design when they redo the WH/DH codices.

XenoPurge · 7 months ago

short memory, mkerr?
gw already said that rules for a codex only effect units from that codex.
wasn't this all cleared up with the whole "can i use my enemy's teleport homer?" debate.
This is blatant rules lawyering.

XenoPurge · 7 months ago

a better example would have been using vulkan hestan's twin-link rules for wh weapons, i know.

mkerr · 7 months ago

That is a fine example of something that's legal.

Unless I missed something (and I just checked the FAQs), you can use Vulkan Hestan to improve your WH weapons (as long as the Vulkan and the WH units are in the same army).

Walls · 7 months ago

Except for sisters and marines not being allowed in the same army.

Walls · 7 months ago

Which in turn makes me wonder... how come you cannot ally marines into sisters but you can ally sisters into marines? I suppose, in that case, the Vulkan rule would stand.

Not that I like it, nor do I agree you should be allowed to use special rules on allied forces. My interpretation would be you exchange combat tactics for the twin link rule. Since sisters don't have combat tactics they have nothing to exchange, therefore cannot get the rule.

mkerr · 7 months ago

Yup, you pegged it. Although you can't take Allied Space Marines in a Witch Hunters army containing Sisters of Battle, you can take Sisters of Battle as an ally to your Space Marines army.

The reason that Vulkan gives "friendly" models the boost is so that Marine Dreadnoughts and other vehicles (with meltas and flamers) can get the benefit. Allied units were not the intended recipients.

But until they modify the existing "Using Witch Hunters (or Daemonhunters) as Allies Rules", you'll be able to improve them with Vulkan (and give them orders with your IG officers).

mkerr · 7 months ago

Nope, long memory. Check the FAQ again, it doesn't say that at all. When they were asked:

"Q. Am I able to gain the benefits of any of my opponent's wargear or special rules, such as Teleport Homers, Chaos Icons, Tyranid Synapse, Necron Resurrection Orbs, etc.?"

They answered with a recommendation that you "cannot use or gain the benefits from any of the wargear or special rules of your opponent's army". My tips had nothing to do with your opponent's army.

The nice thing about that section is that it reinforces that 'friendly' is used to indicate "your own units". That actually makes it even more clear that you can use Imperial Guard Orders on your allied units. Neat!

Crevab · 7 months ago

4. Well, when the WH codex was written the unit was comprised of exactly one model. So I can't really determine if the author meant "0-1 Leman Russ Battle Tank" to mean a single tank or a single tank unit.

What? At the time there was no difference between a Leman Russ model and a Leman Russ unit. Until GW rewrites that to 0-1 Leman Russ Squadrons like they have clearly written out for Landspeeders and Sentinels, we will have the option to include up to one Leman Russ Battle Tank.

kurtBelarus · 7 months ago

" Although WH/DH players lost a unit or two (e.g., at a minimum Armored Fist squads are gone), the boost from the change to the Infantry Platoons more than makes up for the loss."

Take a couple of IG veteran squads in Chimeras, they are troops now.

Crevab · 7 months ago

The troop units that WH/DH could induct are Imperial Guard Platoon and Armored Fist Squad

kurtBelarus · 7 months ago

You are right. My mistake.

helline9 · 6 months ago

One thing i'm surprised at is that no one's noticed is the techpriests: The techpriest and each servitor has a additional attack that hits as a str 8 power fist (when they are only str3) and 2 servitors can be given multi-meltas, and you can attach a priest to them for re-rolls to hit on the charge, the priest btw can be given a eviscerator (another powerfist but does +2d6 against vehicles!). but they can't have transport you say.. drop them in by valk' to make a mess attacking the rear armor of the enemy vehicles until your opponent is forced to deal with them. Worried about them being shot up before they can do anything after they've deep striked; adding in a primus psyker to them (for nightshroud) fixes that too. Best part about all that... you can have 2 squads of all that!
Still not enough, want more? Add in lord castellian creed; not only can he use 'bring it down' with the multi-meltas but try using 'for cadia' on the powerfisting squad of doom.
Techpriest +5 servitors +priest with eviscerator +primus psyker +'for cadia' charging=
2 power-weapon attacks (str 4) with melta bombs, 4 force weapon attacks, 10 normal attacks and 8 powerfist attacks (2 of those attacks are str6 with +2d6 vs vehicles and the other 6 are at str8) all with rerolls to hit & nightshroud and they can deep strike via valk'.

Jiron Ghrad · 4 months ago

As a note of interest, an "Armored Fist Squad" is now just Veterans inside a Chimera with more Special weapons.

Lt_Kage · 3 months ago

I strongly disagree with most of this article.

Officiers that orders to Sisters or Grey Knight is just cheesy, not to mention the possibility of Russ's squadroon with variants...
In the last codex there still was a demolisher, but this wasn't an option for the Inquisitorial Armies, why now should be different?

If you really like tanks go play the IG straight away

mkerr · 2 months ago

I love you anyway, Lt_Kage!

Perhaps "orders" to their Inquisitorial allies are just suggestions. The Imperial Guard Captain yells "I fought these bastards on Carna II. The big bugs have a soft spot below their fore-talon. Shoot it there!".

Don't take them so literally. It's easy to fit the rules into the fluff if you try.

And to answer your Demolisher question: "Because they changed the Leman Russ heavy support choice in the Imperial Guard codex."