Imperial Guard: Supermen?

[.Torch.]

Hi,

Recently got back into the gaming side of things, (I don't play many games as I don't like using unpainted models) but I need some questions answered against some strange goings on within the ranks of the Guard. I don't really want this to turn into a "grown men cheating at 40k" rant, but I would like some of these rules explained to me by some veterans. All help appreciated. ;)

 

So, other than moving the tape measure with the model/ moving only the first model in the squad and then putting the rest around him... (ok, slight rant ;))

 

I was playing against some sort of Tank spam army, with three Leman Russ Executioners? (The ones with the plasma cannons?)

 

1.) "Lumbering Behemoth" - Leman Russ.

i - Can the model move 12" if it chooses not to fire any weapons?

ii - Can the model take its 1D6+6 move and still fire its turret weapon?

 

2.) "Doctrines" - Veterans.

i - Can they take more than one doctrine?

ii - How many demolition charges can they have? (Normally three are taken)

iii - Four attacks each on the charge? Three when I charge them?

iv - Have preferred enemy?

 

3.) Sisters of Battle Allies

i - Can they take a Valkyrie?

 

4.) Specialist Teams

i - Can they be taken as a detachment off the Veterans so you don't have to buy an infantry platoon?

 

Thanks in advance. :)

[Panzerbjørn]

I'll reply to your slight rant rather than your actual question ;-)

 

1) Learn to call them out on it. And if they are friends, better that you do it rather than they get a reputation for cheating in their local store/club.

2) If 1) fails, do it blatantly yourself.

3) Get two T.A.C. templates from Gale Force 9 and tell them to use it

http://www.waylandgames.co.uk/gale-force-9.../prod_4766.html

It is faster than trying to use a tape measure and harder to cheat with :-)

[Kierdale]

1. Forget Lumbering Behemoth, as per the errata, all Leman Russes are now Heavy.

 

2. They can take all three doctrines if they want to spend the points. One guy gets a demo charge, all get melts bombs. One attack each as standard, two for the sarge (three if he's pistol-and-CCW). No prefered enemy.

 

4. Special weapon squads can only be chosen as part of an infantry platoon, up to 2 per platoon.

 

Sounds like someone needs to read the codex.

[dswanick]

1. No. Lumbering Behemoth now makes a Leman Russ Heavy

2.i. Yes.(a. 4+ Armor Saver, b. Camo Cloaks and Snare Mines, c. Demolition Charge and Melta Bombs.)

2.ii. 1 Demo charge, all models have Melta bombs.

2.iii. 1A, 2A for Vet Sgts and Vet Heavy Weapons teams.

2.iv. No.

3. No.

4. No.

[.Torch.]

Thanks, I was pretty sure it was a dodgy list. I'm sure the group will sort it out. Pretty sure its not the first time, but I'll be civil.

 

Might buy the codex for Allies, and then I can give a decent re-read.

 

T.A.C templates look awesome. I now have two on the way. ;)

 

Thanks, now off to paint more marines! ;)

[jeffersonian000]

While everyone seems to be going the "CHEATER!!!!" route, I'd recommend sitting down with the relevent codex(s) your opponent was using, and build the list they used. This will let you both vet-out their list and understand what they were attempting to do when you played them. Only then can anyone say for certain if your opponent cheated.

 

SJ

[Panzerbjørn]

While everyone seems to be going the "CHEATER!!!!" route, I'd recommend sitting down with the relevent codex(s) your opponent was using, and build the list they used. This will let you both vet-out their list and understand what they were attempting to do when you played them. Only then can anyone say for certain if your opponent cheated.

 

SJ

 

Regularly moving 7" or 8" with infantry models is cheating regardless of how the list has been built.

This is why the T.A.C. template is a glorious gift For The Greater Good.

 

Where rules have changed, that could just be an honest oversight or misunderstanding, and the reason why you should always look things up if you are unsure of how something is worded...

[Naminé]

3.) Sisters of Battle Allies

i - Can they take a Valkyrie?

 

:lol:

 

I wish!

 

I've had games like this before... things that seem a bit too good and make you smell a rat; then you check afterwards and find your opponant did everything wrong/blatently cheated.

 

Call him out on it, even if it was a mistake, he should be more careful. Social pressure is generally the only way to make people change their ways :)

[Hellios]

You could also try asking, as you are setting up or during his movement (Whenever you have spare time), if you can flick through his codex; To 'remind' yourself what each of the units can do.

[DarkGuard]

As others have said, don't be afraid to call people out, especially if you aren't sure. If he's there to have a good time, as opposed to slaughter people, then they shouldn't get too annoyed by it and will be happy to help.

[Grey Mage]

"Can I read that? It seems odd" isnt out of line. Never be afraid to look at their codex.

[Axagoras]

Am I the only one who asks to see their codex when they pull stuff like that...

 

How the hell can a guardsman get all those buffs, 4 attacks, that's a space marine vanguard...

 

Also how would SoB take a valkarie, Guard can just take it normally, and special weapon squads can ONLY be bought from a infantry platoon, tell your opponent to read his damn codex. I read mine cover to cover at least 4 times before I tried making my own list. (I had firends who helped me through the process)

[Naminé]

A lot of people have mentioned that you should read an opponent's codex before/during the game, but honestly, I would say it is more the duty of the individual player to play by the rules and manage themselves then for another to vet your army lists.

 

I for one have little time to waste flicking through an alien (and i mean unknown, not xenos :)) codex for the minutiae of the army specific rules, which can be quite complicated at times. Tyranids alone have so many special quirks that even now I don't understand everything they do, despite several games and me owning the codex itself.

 

The point being, in a game that is meant to be about fun I do not feel it is MY duty to ensure my opponent is playing by the rules; rather it should be a given that the game is fair!

 

If I do find that I have been cheated though (which has happened, and honestly I don't know why anyone would want to cheat at a friendly game of toy soldiers), then I will damn sure call them out on it and make sure others know. I do not want my friends time wasted like mine has been, and soon the offending player will struggle to play any games at all.

[jeffersonian000]

My point about sitting down with your opponent's codex was not so you know the rules they are using. Its so you can see how they built their army. The OP stated the SoB had Valks, and suggested the Valks were part of the allied detachment. If the OP had sat down with the BRB, IG codex, and SoB articals, he could see whether or not the Valks filled an IG slot with the allied SoB hitching a ride. Or if the guard infantry unit could in fact have all the rules being used. Or gain a better understanding on how the tanks could/should have moved. That one step would assure the OP that his opponent was either playing by the rules, or making them up as he went along. The opponent should have had books in question availalbe for personal reference, anyway.

 

By advising the forum in general terms of what he encountered, we as a forum cannot respond with anything more than general information. To respond with specific information is the same as taking a wildass guess, with the same results (bad info in = bad info out).

 

So, instead of automatically deciding the OP's opponent was cheating, I'm advising the OP to attempt to build his opponent's list to see what that person was attempting to do, be it legal or not. Without knowing exactly what was fielded, we cannot give exact advice on the legality of the opposing army list. However, we can advise the OP on the best process for figuring it out of his own. After that, any specific questions he may have can be answered specifically.

 

SJ