Techmarines repairing vehicles from the inside

[sp4rky]

Hi guys,

 

In the rules, it says Techmarines must be in Base to Base with a vehicle to repair it. Does this mean they have to be standing next to it or can they be onboard when repairing?

 

 

Thanks for any help :)

[Rymeer]

If the vehicle damaged had a techmarine aboard at the time it was damaged, I might agree to the inside thing. otherwise, no.

 

Just my thought,

 

Rymeer

[Hemal]

Technically, a Techmarine in a vehicle is not on the board but then again the way that SHP work might leave that rationale in doubt....

 

Rationally? How is he going to get a vehicle that has thrown a track or ground a bearing going without being outside?

[chapter master 454]

Technically, a Techmarine in a vehicle is not on the board but then again the way that SHP work might leave that rationale in doubt....

 

Rationally? How is he going to get a vehicle that has thrown a track or ground a bearing going without being outside?

 

The same way rhinos magically mend their tracks!

[Slick Jimmy]

They don't magically mend tracks. on a roll of a 6 it is an engine problem that dude inside is able to fix. 1-5 it's probably a thrown track.

[ShinyRhino]

Yes, they can. Refer to the Space Wolves FAQ for precedent (It allows Iron Priests to do that exact thing, repair while embarked).

[Ian MacKay]

There was this topic that ran 3 pages. While the SW faq may be explicit, that doesn't apply to any other armies.

[Grey Mage]

There was this topic that ran 3 pages. While the SW faq may be explicit, that doesn't apply to any other armies.

Why is that?

 

Frankly the wording of Battlesmith and Blessing of the Omnissiah is not signficantly different in respect to the position condition of the models- IE "in base to base contact".

[ShinyRhino]

There was this topic that ran 3 pages. While the SW faq may be explicit, that doesn't apply to any other armies.

 

I know it's not "official GW", but the INAT FAQ v3.3 also supports the allowance:

 

"SM.71A.01 – Q: Can a Space Marine Techmarine who started the turn embarked on a vehicle attempt to repair it?

A: Yes he can [clarification].

Ref: BT.36C.02, BA.06C.01, IG.34A.02, DA.31A.02"

 

The same ruling has been applied for Black Templars, Blood Angels, Imperial Guard, and Dark Angels.

 

INAT FAQ is often derided by those who don't like its rulings as "not official GW, OMG !!11!1one!", but with the numebr of events that actually USE it, compared to those "officially sanctioned GW events", it's a pretty damned good resource. Heck, yakface's rulings tend to end up in the official GW FAQs anyways.

[Ian MacKay]

There was this topic that ran 3 pages. While the SW faq may be explicit, that doesn't apply to any other armies.

Why is that?

 

Frankly the wording of Battlesmith and Blessing of the Omnissiah is not signficantly different in respect to the position condition of the models- IE "in base to base contact".

 

But the FAQ is only for the SW codex. Just because the rules are not "significantly different" is not sufficient. They are different rules regardless of the wording of the rules. IMO they would have put it into the standard SM codex if that was the way they wanted it played.

 

As far as the INAT FAQ goes, if I was playing in a tourney using them, I'd abide by those rules.

[Brother-Chaplain Gaius]

He has to disembark to repair, thats how we've always played it :shrug:

[Grey Mage]

There was this topic that ran 3 pages. While the SW faq may be explicit, that doesn't apply to any other armies.

Why is that?

 

Frankly the wording of Battlesmith and Blessing of the Omnissiah is not signficantly different in respect to the position condition of the models- IE "in base to base contact".

 

But the FAQ is only for the SW codex. Just because the rules are not "significantly different" is not sufficient. They are different rules regardless of the wording of the rules. IMO they would have put it into the standard SM codex if that was the way they wanted it played.

 

As far as the INAT FAQ goes, if I was playing in a tourney using them, I'd abide by those rules.

Not true Ian, if theyre worded the same they should be interpretted the same.

 

Example: The origional SW FAQ stated that CA and FC stacked with each other.... thus they would for all codices.

 

Iron Priests have to be in BtB to repair a vehicle, and it is known that the Iron Priest counts as in BtB while inside a vehicle then it is accurate to say that all models inside their transports are also in BtB with them.

[Isiah]

Not true Ian, if theyre worded the same they should be interpretted the same.

 

Example: The origional SW FAQ stated that CA and FC stacked with each other.... thus they would for all codices.

 

Iron Priests have to be in BtB to repair a vehicle, and it is known that the Iron Priest counts as in BtB while inside a vehicle then it is accurate to say that all models inside their transports are also in BtB with them.

 

Hmmm it's not usually how FAQs should work as they are Codex-specific – you don't normally apply another Codex's FAQ to your own Codex unless being told (somewhere) that you can, no matter how similar the wording of a rule is. If you go down that route terrible confusion ensues.

 

Back on topic. Yes Techies must be in "base contact" with a vehicle. So by RAW he can't repair a vehicle from the inside because at that point his base isn't even on the table.

 

Unless that is, your FAQ tells you otherwise :P.

 

Cheers

I