BA Techmarine multi-repair

[njm3]

This question came up about 6 months ago and the thread got derailed and the question never answered.

 

http://www.bolterandchainsword.com/index.p...howtopic=132808

 

So here goes, in a slightly different form:

 

BA techmarine (using the BA freebie codex and BotO rule from there and the techmarine and all) in contact with a couple of damaged vehicles. Can he repair both of them on the same turn? And how many die rolls are required anyway? N.B.! The Blessing of the Omm Nomm Messiah rule in codex BA is worded quite a bit differently than in Codexi Spacei Marinei

 

 

Assume the Techie is in BTB with any appropriate damaged vehicles and has a servo harness and 4 servitors with servo arms. Servo mania!

 

Example 1:

 

Immobilized Land Raider with a shot off Multi-melta and shot off TL assault cannon.

 

Blessing lets him repair immob _OR_ weap dest _RESULTS_ (plural). Anything but a one is required (6-4 for servitors) with a reroll. Do you roll three dice? One die? Do you have to make a choice (the OR part)?

 

Example 2:

 

Make it two land raiders, same damage on each. Does he pick one to fix? Can he fix all of the damage on both? Just weapons or imob (on both)? Just weapons or imob on one?

 

The possibilities are endless! Egads! No, not really endless, I count about 12 different possibilities.

[maniclurker]

I don't see how this is even a question... it says roll a D6, subtract the modifiers, and if you pass, then make the repair. It doesn't say anything about fixing multiple vehicles, multiple damages, and it sure as hell doesn't say anything about rolling multiple dice. If you have a harness, you can reroll it. That's it. It says roll A D6... A D6. Not MULTIPLE D6's, Or a D6 PER vehicle in BTB. It says A D6.

 

What I'm trying to say is: Is that this is a non-issue if you read a little deeper than what you want it to be.

[werewolf_nr]

I don't see how this is even a question... it says roll a D6, subtract the modifiers, and if you pass, then make the repair. It doesn't say anything about fixing multiple vehicles, multiple damages, and it sure as hell doesn't say anything about rolling multiple dice. If you have a harness, you can reroll it. That's it. It says roll A D6... A D6. Not MULTIPLE D6's, Or a D6 PER vehicle in BTB. It says A D6.

 

What I'm trying to say is: Is that this is a non-issue if you read a little deeper than what you want it to be.

 

Seconded.

 

I will also add that the plural "results" is referring to the fact that it listed multiple things that could be repaired, not the possibility of two repairs.

[njm3]

Then why is a techmarine 75 points if once per turn you can repair one vehicle that you reached in BTB and only one destroyed weapon or immobilized and you need a 6? Sure, spend 125 points to make it a 2+ reroll repair, but then thats 200 points total for a rather limited fixer who can only be in one place at a time.

=====

"The repair" is fixing the vehicle on a D6.

 

"The model may repair Immobilized or Weapon Destroyed results instead of moving."

 

It does not say "The model may repair an Immobilized or Weapon Destroyed result[] instead of moving." (brackets to show I removed a plural)

 

There is no result that is "Immobilized and Weapon Destroyed". There are results of "Immobilized" or results of "Weapon Destroyed" on the damage chart. And the techmarine can repair results instead of moving.

 

"repair... weapon destroyed results". Is that a single weapon repair on a vehicle with multiple destroyed weapons?

 

Hell... if you do a RAW++ reading, it just says "A Techmarine must be in contact with a vehicle." It doesn't even have to be the vehicle he is repairing!

 

Just to be sure we are all literally on the same page, I'm using the BA codex. Other codexes have different wording.

[maniclurker]

I read the BA dex entry on the blessing of the omnisiah before I answered your question. As such, I posted exactly what I felt it was, through the reading. I broke down everything that I read. That's the conclusion that I arrived to.

 

I think the important thing to see here is the 'OR'. You know, that thing between 'immobilized' and 'weapon destroyed'. In the english language, an 'or' indicates a choice to be made between 2 or more options. I guess you didn't realize that. Also, it says roll A D6. In the english language, 'A' refers to one thing. A fish, a tree, a man. So if you RAW reading on it, you roll A D6, and repair the damage. I guess if you ignore the 'or', imagine an 'and', and pluralize a lot of that entry, then you could probably win the game on a D6 roll of 2+.

[njm3]

In the english language, an 'or' indicates a choice to be made between 2 or more options. I guess you didn't realize that.

 

The coordinating conjunction "Or" by itself is not exclusive. In formal logic, math, or English grammar*, two items joined with OR can be true if either or both of them are true. Alternatively, if a choice, choice A, B, or AB can be selected.

 

You must eat fish or chicken. (A, B, AB)

You must either either fish or chicken. (A, B ) (this is exclusive OR, notice the "either" part)

You mist eat fish and chicken. (AB)

You must eat neither fish nor chicken (!AB)

 

Logic is fun!

 

The indefinite article "A" can refer to any member of group. Here, the group is not defined. Vehicles is a group. Does this group include all vehicles (silly), all vehicles on the table (silly), all the player's vehicles (maybe), all the player's damaged vehicles (possibly), or all the vehicles the techmarine is in contact with (probably), or a single designated and damaged vehicle the techmarine is in contact with (most likely)?

 

You want the entry to say

Once per turn, during the movement phase, a techmarine may repair either an Immobilized result or a Weapon Destroyed result instead of moving. The Techmarine must be in contact with the vehicle he wishes to repair (and not in combat, fleeing,etc etc). Roll a D6, and 6 is required to make the repair successful.

 

But that isn't what it says. RAW, not RAI.

 

Will you at least admit there is a bit of ambiguity, not necessarily enough to drive a rhino through, but that on some distant planet people might interpret it that way so as to justify the completely ridiculous cost of a techmarine?

 

*: English is great in that it has no authoritative rules.

[Praeger]

Couple of thigns guys.

 

1 - please keep it cool ok?

 

2 - I agree with Manic, the rule says you roll one dice, and can either do X OR Y, not both. With the rolling of one die it does come across as only one vehicle can have only one of those options applied to it, though I do agree that could have been written better.

 

3 - As to the cost the answer is simple. Game mechanics and fairness. 75pts really isnt that much, and yes an upgraded one costs ALOT more, but at the same time, play a game of Apoc and stick him next to a Titan or Superheavy and im pritty sure he will make his points back. Plus slam this guy into CC and again you can see where his points cost comes from.

 

Iv always thought that any model that can keep multiple land raiders moving, 1 per turn, aprx 6 per game, is well worth the 75pts ;)

[maniclurker]

Apologies for the slight trolling...

 

To praeger: I competely agree with you on the techmarine. He is pretty decent at combat. And when you add the harness, he packs a wallop in the shooting with a plasma pistol and a flamer. He does good for his points cost. In 5th, he isn't as good at combat, but he provides more of a support function for your army. He makes a ruin have a better cover save (so a squad holding an objective in your deployment zone, or a devastor squad providing fire support, is harder to remove), and he provides even better repair capabilities when couple with servies and another techmarine (both of the techmarines benifit from the servies when repairing).

 

To njm3: I apologize for being so heated. However, if you're just going to argue with someone who disagrees with your opinion when you ask if it's correct, then you shouldn't ask it. Instead, just say "Hey, I'm going to do this. Isn't it cool?" You're still going to get people disagreeing with you, but at least people won't think that you care what they say.

[njm3]

So "I do agree that could have been written better" here isn't in 4th edition "terminators don't have terminator armor" and "carrying rapid fire weapons prevents charging" territory?

 

Not even the "Techmarine must be in contact with a vehicle."?

 

I guess RAW has been replaced with passive aggressiveness (which this sentence is, how coolcrappy is that!). Sure, I fully agree its a twisted and ridiculous reading of the rules, but it is gramatically and logically a colorable argument. What are you going to do when the guy across the table has that as his position (which wouldn't be me) and you can't ask a judge or similar authority? It's in "I'm gonna force a 4+ 'I'm right roll' to get an advantage in this game" territory, and then you just don't play that guy any more, seems to be the resolution.

 

He makes a ruin have a better cover save.

both of the techmarines benifit from the servies when repairing

 

Wha? I don't see that in the BA dex anywhere. The ruin thing I just dunno, and do you mean if a techmarine joins another techmarine and his servitors?

[Mordekiem]

I agree, the rules are exceptionally poorly worded in the BA codex.

 

First, the BA codex says he may fix "results" which is plural and infers that he can fix more than one.

 

I disagree that the reading limits you to one dice roll. The entry implies to me that you only roll one dice per repair attempt. If you read it this way then it could also be argued that he can only roll one dice in the entire game!

 

Also, just to make a point about how badly this entry was written, The techmarine can repair any vehicle (friend or foe) and in order to attempt a repair he needs to be in base contact with a vehicle, not just his own vehicle or the damaged vehicle! He could even be in base contact with an enemy vehicle.

 

I'm not bringing this up to create alot of loopholes, but point out that the ruleset is terribly written and shortened to save valuable space in the magazine for more GW ads. ;) I would highly recommend that in the case of obviously broken rules that you use the rules from the marine codex to help clarify them.

[SeattleDV8]

If you want a clear version check the DA codex. one techmarine= one repair

[maniclurker]

To njm3: I guess the terminator references are from last edition. You're correct about people arguing things like that, and I find it sad, especially if it's a casual game. I'm not quite sure what you're trying to ask me otherwise. But then again, I slept for about 4 hours last night, and I just got out of a tech course. Maybe you could clarify for me...

 

As to the better cover save and servies comment, I completely forgot that I was in a debate about the BA techmarine. The new SM codex techmarine does that. My apologies there.

 

Also, I'd like to further apologize. I think I misinterpreted your intentions with this post. I assumed you were going to attempt this yourself, instead of trying to clarify this is something to watch out for in a game.

 

To Mordekiem: It would seem you can make as many rolls to repair as you want. So, in essence, you could just keep rolling until all of your vehicles are fixed?

[Praeger]

So "I do agree that could have been written better" here isn't in 4th edition "terminators don't have terminator armor" and "carrying rapid fire weapons prevents charging" territory?

 

Not even the "Techmarine must be in contact with a vehicle."?

 

I guess RAW has been replaced with passive aggressiveness (which this sentence is, how coolcrappy is that!).

 

Calm down boyo

 

Manic has already apologised for coming across a bit harsh, and I dont beleive anything I said was agressive so lets just calm it down a notch.

 

Like i said, i do agree it could have been written better - thats the problem with the BA "codex" - its really a small WD article that was never publised corectly.

 

Could you please type here the section exactly as it apears in the article? I am wandering if maybe the printing in difrent countries is the same.

[njm3]

Blessing of the Omnissiah: The model may repair

Immobilized or Weapon Destroyed results instead of

moving. A Techmarine must be in contact with a

vehicle. Roll a D6. A 6 is required to make the repair.

Add +1 to the roll for each servitor equipped with a

servo-arm in the Techmarine’s unit. You may reroll the

die if the Techmarine is equipped with a servo-harness.

 

It's not printed any more, its the online update available in the gaming section of GW UK and GW US.

 

This is from the one that has

As featured in the June and July 2007 editions.

Revised and updated for the 5th edition of Warhammer 40,000

 

on the first page. There was one with a Yellow circle on the first page, i think they took that one down because the jpgs inside were at a miserable resolution.

[Praeger]

Looks like the same version iv got - just wanted to make sure as there have been times of difrent printing in the past :confused:

 

To me it still reads the same. You may roll ONE dice. Nowhere does it say difrently.

 

Roll a D6. A 6 is required to make the repair.

Add +1 to the roll for each servitor equipped with a

servo-arm in the Techmarine’s unit. You may reroll the

die if the Techmarine is equipped with a servo-harness.

 

See? You may re-roll the dice, you ad +1 to the roll for each servitor, but its still just one dice.

 

However i do agree that by reading it directly as it says, then you would be able to fix ALL imobolised and weapon destroyed results - no just for the vehicle your next too, but all vehicles. Including the enemies.

 

yes thats right, without the simple word "the" being placed instead of "a"

Techmarine must be in contact with a vehicle

it can easily be read that all vehicles on the table, yours and his, will have all results fixed.

 

With the word "the" it would be shown imediatly that the results where talking about THAT vehicle, but with an open statment like this you can easily make it apply to all vehicles.

 

BUT I still beleive this was a mistake due to a VERY badly written "codex" (worst iv ever seen) and personaly iv never considered the BA "rules" as stand alone rules. This is just me however.

[Mordekiem]

BUT I still beleive this was a mistake due to a VERY badly written "codex" (worst iv ever seen) and personaly iv never considered the BA "rules" as stand alone rules. This is just me however.

I agree. They skimped on this all over the place. The best thing to do in this (less than ideal) situation is use a bit of common sense and see how it works in a better written codex. I'd probably refer to the DA codex since they were written very closely together and seem to share many of the same rules, ideas and concepts.