rules concerning Basilisk and Medusa platforms

[lomaxxdurang]

Can the IG give them orders since they are now crew served? For example could the player give the bring it down order?

[Nabterayl]

Yes, you could do that.

[Denzark]

What is the context of this - has something changed, I thought the orders applied only to inf squads.

[Nabterayl]

They apply to "non-vehicle unit"s, not just infantry. Since the various immobile artillery platforms have non-vehicle crew, they can receive orders.

[Colonel Bindoff]

My reading is that they can indeed receive orders, although personally I'm not wholly sure it's within the spirit of the rules. Id have no problem allowing an opponent to do this though.

[Nabterayl]

I dunno, an artillery platform is just an up-sized mortar team. If you can give orders to the guys manning that 81mm mortar over here, I see no problem spirit-wise (or rules-wise) with giving orders to that 150mm howitzer over there. An artillery platform is more like a heavy weapons team than it is like a tank.

[Colonel Bindoff]

An artillery platform is more like a heavy weapons team than it is like a tank.

I think in my mind I'd probably say the opposite, if only because of the calibre of weapon, it being crew served rather than manned. The thing is, if you have an earthshaker platform why is it any different to a basilisk or Minotaur in terms of being able to receive orders? Surely both should be on an even footing here.

The heavy weapons teams all have weapons which could theoretically be quickly adjusted and aimed to follow some lieutenant's quick orders. I don't see that those heavy artillery carriages could do this, which leads to my interpretation re the spirit. It ties in with my personal hang ups about what feels right.

Plus I reckon those mortars in the kit are more like 51s than 81mm.

[Dorsai]

I really don't think you can compare a fixed emplacement that requires a crew of four to that of a man portable weapon that only requires two people. Also, there is the consideration that a leadership test much be taken to see if the order is received.

But I would use this logic for deciding if a unit can receive orders: Does it use the vehicle damage chart or have hull points? Then it can not receive orders.

[Nabterayl]

The similarity I was thinking about was that the emplacement crew isn't buttoned up. Using the codex's 1930s model of Guard armor, if you want to talk to a guy inside a Chimera, you very likely have to pick up a wired phone on the outside of the vehicle - hard to do from 12" away. The guys manning an Earthshaker platform you can still just yell at. And remember, we aren't just talking about Earthshaker and Medusa crews. We're also talking about Sabre crews and the like.

But regardless ... gun crews have Leadership characteristics, and are clearly non-vehicles.

[Dorsai]

Yes, but looking at the Forgeworld updates: http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Downloads/Product/PDF/v/vehicle6thupdates.pdf They list those types of platforms as Immobile Vehicles. I would say that this means that they qualify as a vehicle, therefore unable to receive orders.

[Nabterayl]

An Immobile Vehicle with non-vehicle crew, though. Even if the guns themselves were standard artillery models (as with a Rapier battery (http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Downloads/Product/PDF/i/Imperial_Guard_Rapier.pdf), it would be the crew receiving the order, and the crew taking the Leadership test, right? I'm not convinced the characterization of the gun models is relevant from a rules standpoint.

[Dorsai]

If they were using the artillery rule in the BRB, then I would agree. However, given also, that they do not have a crew number listed with them, how are you to issue orders to them? Given also, that unlike the Rapiers, you cannot purchase extra crew. And given that in the entry, it is listed as open topped, I treat it as a vehicle. Crew included. Unless, and until, you can show me a rule stating that the crew can abandon a destroyed emplacement and become an infantry unit, I don't see how they can be treated as a separate unit that is manning the platform. It is not like the quad gun were you are manning it.

Honestly this is one of the problems with the wording of the rules. If they had said infantry or cavalry, then we would not be having this debate.

[Nabterayl]

However, given also, that they do not have a crew number listed with them, how are you to issue orders to them?
They do have separate crew now; that's the whole genesis of the OP. As the vehicle update (http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Downloads/Product/PDF/v/vehicle6thupdates.pdf) indicates, heavy artillery have four crew models per gun, and Sabre platforms have one crew model per gun. cf. the Imperial Guard Update (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&ved=0CD8QFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.forgeworld.co.uk%2FDownloads% 2FProduct%2FPDF%2Fi%2FImpgupdate.pdf&ei=DrvgUKaOCJH1iQL1qIHoAQ&usg=AFQjCNEgaW3OemgLD3pVz_0Or6bOsg8kLA&sig2=ZmcRDAmlRGNUxKlJ2PqVYA&bvm=bv.1355534169,d.cGE), which is quite clear that the crew of a Sabre platform has its own statline, and is of the Artillery unit type rather than vehicle, despite the fact that the platforms themselves use the vehicle rules.

[Dorsai]

If those were the platforms he had mentioned in his post, then I would agree with you. However, he mentioned the Basilisk (which is the name of the tank that carries the Earthshaker cannon) and Medusa platforms. Since those are the platforms he mentioned, and those are not listed as heavy artillery, but as Immobile Vehicles, I say that no, they cannot receive order. The smaller platforms like you list, the Sabre platforms all do list a crew and are using the artillery unit rule in the BRB on page 46.

Looking at that rule, I take it to read that the unit must be mobile. And while most people would have models representing the crew of the Earthshaker cannon emplacement, would you really use just that to say that it now qualifies as and artillery unit? Yes, it is artillery, but far larger than I think GW meant for that rule. The rule is thinking in terms of the Rapier or at the largest, a jeep towed howitzer. Not something that qualifies as a Self Propelled Gun like our M109 Plaidin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M109_howitzer One can be moved around using nothing but a couple of men. The other requires its own power source just to load, aim, and fire.

[Nabterayl]

If those were the platforms he had mentioned in his post, then I would agree with you. However, he mentioned the Basilisk (which is the name of the tank that carries the Earthshaker cannon) and Medusa platforms.
I assume he means the Earthshaker and Medusa platforms, since there is no "Basilisk platform." You agree, right?


Since those are the platforms he mentioned, and those are not listed as heavy artillery, but as Immobile Vehicles, I say that no, they cannot receive order. The smaller platforms like you list, the Sabre platforms all do list a crew and are using the artillery unit rule in the BRB on page 46.

Looking at that rule, I take it to read that the unit must be mobile.
Sabre platforms are "artillery" units that consist of an Immobile Vehicle crewed by two guardsmen. So clearly you can be artillery while (i) having vehicle models in the unit and (ii) not every model in the unit being mobile. What's the mechanical difference between that and an Earthshaker platform?


And while most people would have models representing the crew of the Earthshaker cannon emplacement, would you really use just that to say that it now qualifies as and artillery unit?
I call an Earthshaker platform artillery because that's what Forgeworld calls it (http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Downloads/Product/PDF/i/IA1update28AUG.pdf) in the most modern unit entry I know of. Just like a Sabre platform, an Earthshaker platform is explicitly classified as artillery, with each vehicle gun crewed by separate guardsmen. Since the unit type is Artillery and not Vehicle, I think it qualifies as a "non-vehicle unit" within the meaning of the orders rules.

[lomaxxdurang]

It is called an imperial guard heavy artillery carriage battery. It does not refer to the emplacements as vehicles but instead classifies them as 1-3 heavy artillery pieces each with 4 imperial guard crewmen forming a battery. It just says that it is immobile artillery unless moved with a trojan.

[Dorsai]

The sabre platforms ar not listed as immobile vehicles in the same way the the Earthshaker platforms are. the Sabre platform is listed as artillery, using the rule from pg.46. The Earthshaker is liseted as an immobile vehicle. So, while the Sabre may be immobile, it is small, meaning the the crew is more likely to get hit.

What we are seeing here is the same unclear rules writing that has plagued 40k. In one document from Forgeworld, it calls it artillery, in another, it calls it an immobile vehicle. So which is it? An immobile vehicle, or an immobile artillery?

But again, I'm thinking in terms of scale. Anything that requires dedicated equipment to move, like the Earthshaker platforms, shouldn't really be considered an artillery unit. None of the other armies are likely to get anything on that scale, so why treat it the same?

[Nabterayl]

What we are seeing here is the same unclear rules writing that has plagued 40k. In one document from Forgeworld, it calls it artillery, in another, it calls it an immobile vehicle.
Which documents are you thinking of? Are you aware of a more up-to-date characterization of the Earthshaker platform than the Armored Battlegroup (http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Downloads/Product/PDF/i/IA1update28AUG.pdf) list? If so, could you link it, or at least cite it? Whatever problems Forgeworld has, having conflicting characterizations of a model or unit is not one of them. Whichever document is the last published controls.

[Dorsai]

In this one: http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Downloads/Product/PDF/h/Heavy_Artillery.pdf it is listed as Artillery, immobile.
In this one: http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Downloads/Product/PDF/v/vehicle6thupdates.pdf it is listed as an immolbile vehicle.

both were posted on their site on the same day. So which one are we supposed to use?

[Nabterayl]

There's no contradiction there. Here (http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Downloads/Product/PDF/h/Heavy_Artillery.pdf) the unit type is listed as Artillery, full stop. The fact that the unit has vehicle models doesn't change the unit type. Here (http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Downloads/Product/PDF/v/vehicle6thupdates.pdf), the Earthshaker Platform and Manticore Support Platform are listed as having the Immobile Vehicle special rules, which is not a contradiction of the unit type or a characterization of the unit.

EDIT: As lomaxxdurang was getting at earlier, the fact that the guns themselves (a component of the unit) are vehicles does not make the entire unit a vehicle for purposes of the orders rules. If the unit type does not include "vehicle," it is a non-vehicle unit, despite the presence of vehicle models in the unit.

If there were no unit type listing, I might agree with you, but to read "Unit Type: Artillery" and then ask, "Yes, but how can we tell what type of unit this is?" strikes me as quixotic. The unit type does not necessarily tell us anything about the types of the constituent models. Ork kannon are not infantry just because their gretchin crew are.