View Full Version : Walker Squadrens in Combat
Aegis
08-09-2009, 04:36 PM
Alright, because I was feeling dumb, I ran some Penitent Engines in one of me latest games. Amazingly, the managed to make it into combat against a unit of Wraithgaurd, with two annoying Farseers with hurty weapons of doom.
So far, so good. We fight, I hit first, smush the puny Eldar-Zombies nicely. He gets a couple attacks back, upon which, he is able to get a couple penetrating hits...
Now, because Penitent Engines are taken as squadrons (hate squadrens, for the record), we came to some confusion about how they act in close combat. On one hand, results of immobilized count as destroyed (as par the 'shooting at squadron' rules. However, we also came across a passage in the book on page 73 that states "...immobilized and/or stunned walkers fight in close combat with one less attack than usual ... no matter how many immobilized and stunned results they suffer."
So, to proceed with the game, we rolled off, and ruled in favour of the PE being immobilized while in combat, than destroyed once combat was no longer occurring.
Basically, did we do it correctly, misinterpret, or is this a case of wonky writing/editing on GW's part?
BuFFo
08-09-2009, 05:19 PM
Basically, did we do it correctly
Nope. :(
misinterpret
Yes. :)
or is this a case of wonky writing/editing on GW's part?
Nope. :(
You have two rules, and neither negates the other, okay? So you would then apply both results.
Guess which one takes precedence, since one removes an attack and the other wrecks the vehicle... ;)
Aegis
08-09-2009, 06:08 PM
Nope. :(
Yes. :)
Nope. :(
You have two rules, and neither negates the other, okay? So you would then apply both results.
Guess which one takes precedence, since one removes an attack and the other wrecks the vehicle... ;)
...
No offensive, but that was incredibly unhelpful. The whole reason I posted this query is because we had various interpretations of how the rules passages interact with each other, and were unable to reach a consensus.
For instance, when reduced to one, are the PE's no longer a squadron? Does that happen simultaneously? Why do the rules for Walkers in combat not address, or make a statement regarding squardons? Especially considering that on the second column for the rules of walkers on page 73, it clearly states that walker squadrons follow normal rules for vehicle squadrons, except in assault.
Suffice to say, the wording in the book to two vague/unclear for my gaming group to come to a consensus.
So please, spare the vague answers.
Old_Paladin
08-09-2009, 06:36 PM
You'll have to forgive BuFFo; he's like that. You get used to it after awhile (usually).
He's got it right though. The walker is destroyed.
Look at 'squadrons in assault' it states that 'all the above rules (about damage) are still applied."
That means an immobolized walker both looses an attack (per walker rules) AND is destroyed (per squadrons in combat rules) [which renders the attack loss pointless to consider].
Aegis
08-09-2009, 07:43 PM
You'll have to forgive BuFFo; he's like that. You get used to it after awhile (usually).
He's got it right though. The walker is destroyed.
Look at 'squadrons in assault' it states that 'all the above rules (about damage) are still applied."
That means an immobolized walker both looses an attack (per walker rules) AND is destroyed (per squadrons in combat rules) [which renders the attack loss pointless to consider].
Okay, thanks. It was the whole losing an attack part that was confusing us on making a solid ruling. Likely it will not come up with my forces again, as I mean, Penitent Engines are laughable, but good to know.
BuFFo
08-09-2009, 11:22 PM
...
No offensive, but that was incredibly unhelpful. The whole reason I posted this query is because we had various interpretations of how the rules passages interact with each other, and were unable to reach a consensus.
And I answered you. But you don't want to hear the correct answer.
For instance, when reduced to one, are the PE's no longer a squadron?
Oh how could I have missed this question? It was right in your... wait... no it wasn't in your original post.
You asked how two rules interact with each other, and I gave as simple an answer as anyone possibly could.
Maybe next time you want to know an answer to a question you aren't asking, perhaps you could, um, I don't know, ASK IT?
Does that happen simultaneously?
Does what happen simultaneously? You are not being specific enough. If you are asking if both rules you asked in your OP happen at the same time, I already answered that.
Why do the rules for Walkers in combat not address, or make a statement regarding squardons?
Why would there be a separate section for squadrons if combat is applied to vehicles REGARDLESS of being in squadrons or not?
Take the rules for combat, and apply it to 'squadroned' vehicles. Whats so hard?
Especially considering that on the second column for the rules of walkers on page 73, it clearly states that walker squadrons follow normal rules for vehicle squadrons, except in assault.
Okay, what you are doing is what I have noticed people doing in the two decades of playing this game.
You are reading the first sentence of a paragraph and ignoring the rest of the paragraph. The rest of the paragraph specifically tells you what to do for a squadron in an assault! Its right there.
The rule you quoted clearly states to follow the rules for vehicle squadrons in assault... So what does that mean? Go to page 64 to figure out how squadrons in assault work!
Suffice to say, the wording in the book to two vague/unclear for my gaming group to come to a consensus.
Well, everyone reads the same thing differently than others. The ruling is quite clear to me and my local gaming group as written for squadrons in assault. If you guys can't figure it out, then best of luck to you!
So please, spare the vague answers.
I never knew "yes" and "no" were vague answers. Its more a problem of understanding and accepting.
Okay, thanks. It was the whole losing an attack part that was confusing us on making a solid ruling. Likely it will not come up with my forces again, as I mean, Penitent Engines are laughable, but good to know.
So wait, I said the exact same thing, yet when I wrote it you didn't understand? Funny at best! :)
bsmoove
08-10-2009, 06:41 AM
Just a clarification. I understand that a vehicle in a squadron will be destroyed on a result of "immobilized" (thank you Buffo) , but will that rule continue once the squadron has been reduced to only one vehicle?
For consistency, I'm inclined to say yes.
But when acting individually, I'm not sure that a vehicle (or walker etc) should be penalized as such.
I'm also a bit wary that uber-smug-rule-lawyer-types might use this to argue that any vehicle that can be taken as a squadron counts as a squadron. Therefore, immobilized destroys any vehicle squadron even if it is only one tank.
Latro_
08-10-2009, 07:05 AM
pg.64
"DAMAGE RESULTS AGAINST SQUADRONS
...
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
...
"
:rolleyes:
Nabterayl
08-10-2009, 07:12 AM
Page 64:
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
...
When engaged in close combat against a squadron, enemy models roll to hit and for armor penetration against the squadron as a whole. Damage results have the same effect as described above, and are allocated against the squadron ... (emphasis added)
So, if a squadron of walkers suffers three separate Immobilized results in a single phase of assault or shooting, it's destroyed - the vehicles were a squadron when the attacks were made (you can get to the same result by remembering that damage results are applied simultaneously, but that's not how page 64 actually analyzes the situation). On the other hand, if to of three walkers in a squadron are destroyed in one assault phase, in subsequent turns that walker will behave like a normal single vehicle, so Stunned will count as Stunned, Immobilized will count as Immobilized, etc.
Tarion
08-10-2009, 07:51 AM
Page 64:
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
...
When engaged in close combat against a squadron, enemy models roll to hit and for armor penetration against the squadron as a whole. Damage results have the same effect as described above, and are allocated against the squadron ... (emphasis added)
So, if a squadron of walkers suffers three separate Immobilized results in a single phase of assault or shooting, it's destroyedThis isn't quite true.
If Unit A shoots and destroys 2 out of 3 of the walkers, and then unit B shoots at the final one, that one is no longer part of the squadron. The "When an enemy unit fires at it" clarifies that.
All models in a single unit fire simultaneously, but not all shooting happens simultaneously. Its why a single unit can't pop a transport and mow down the occupants, but two separate units can.
Nabterayl
08-10-2009, 07:54 AM
Apologies; that's true. I should have said "for subsequent attacks ..." The critical thing to look at it is whether the unit consisted of more than one vehicle at the instant the attacks were made.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.