Astra Militarum Typos/Issues/FAQ needed

[BitsHammer]

Compare to Tank Orders, which still include the "immediately" verbiage, except for Strike and Shroud. Would you argue that this must be done immediately, despite the clear difference in timing between that order and the others?

Because the order must be resolved before you can issue another order. And you "resolve" orders by completing whatever the listed effects of the order are. You don't need "immediately" there to explain that you do it immediately because before you can issue another order you have to complete the one you're currently issuing.

[Seahawk]

Then why include "immediately" when it's so apparently redundant? 

[BitsHammer]

Then why include "immediately" when it's so apparently redundant? 

Why assume that you can resolve an order later in the same turn based on part of a sentence that can only apply properly to a single order while ignoring a different sentence that says to resolve each order before issuing the next?

 

Seriously, I don't know why they included the word immediately off-hand. Perhaps it was written before the specific wording for the orders was refined, I don't know. I'd have to be GW to tell you why they do specific things. :P

[Fibonacci]

No, that's saying it can act later in the phase if the order was successful.

The unit may act later in the phase, unless the order was to make a shooting attack or run.  that is what it is saying.

[Andhil]

The whole piece stating that the Ordered unit may act normally later in the phase, unless they made a shoting attack or running move is redundant as there is only a single order that doesn't make the unit Shoot or Run. And that order itself clearly states that the unit may at normally after the order's effects. Conclusion: waste of space.

I must say that, personally, I find that having to resolve the orders at the start of the phase sometimes takes away the tactical advantage of said orders. Sometimes you would want your Vanquisher to open up that Transport before your Ordered unit fires at the contents of that transport with FRFSRF. It's quite ridiculous really.

[Seahawk]

Or Searchlights going first when it's Night fight. 

[Andhil]

Exactly. I might get my group to house rule this. Should ask next time....

[Thoqqu]

From the new rulebook, updates for take aim, emperor's benediction and tank commander dilemma.

 

Precision shots is now a usr and characters don't automatically have it. To hit rolls of 6 can be targeted.

 

One must nominate a model to be the warlord. Unless specified otherwise this must be a character model, tank commander's tank is considered a character therefore he can be the warlord.

[march10k]

 

- Tank Commanders

--> They are Characters, so do they get a 4+ Look Out, Sir! against incoming fire, and can they challenge in close combat?

---> Resolution: Since the "wound" terminology is also used in invulnerable saves, and those are allowed for vehicles, then a Tank Commander can make LO,S! rolls for incoming fire. Characters that cannot strike blows cannot issue challenges (BRB, p.64).

 

 

 

 

Overturned by 7th edition rulebook... And, might I say "I told you so," and restate my opinion that those who were LoS!ing tank commanders at the tail end of 6th were covering absolute cheating with a fig leaf of ambiguity?  Pardon the acid tone, but nothing pisses me off more than rules-twisting powergamers who are about as pure as Chicago politicians, yet cry "foul" if you suggest that they might be anything less than angelic.

 

The rule covering invulnerable saves explicitly states:  "suffers a wound, or, in the case of vehicles, suffers a penetrating or glancing hit" (p. 37, BRB, hard copy edition), while the LoS! rule (BRB, hard copy edition, page 100) explicitly states that only "non-vehicle characters" are elligible for the save.  

 

Also, the last "pending" issue is rendered bogus by the 7th edition BRB.  There are warlord traits that don't do anything if you don't have a LD value, but there is no requirement that a warlord have a leadership value.  There is absolutely no reason that a tank commander cannot be your warlord.  That said, your warlord can be ANY character you want, and if you don't have any characters (possible in an unbound army) it can be any model you want.

[Seahawk]

Yes, you should be sorry for the acidic tone you took. I understand that ambiguous issues can be exploited, but it doesn't call for anger. Instead, calm and collected debate will always work just fine.

 

I'll update the OP.

[march10k]

Calm debate never works with people who know they're wrong, but also know there's just enough gray area that they can just stick to their guns and get away with it.  You can't convince someone who already knows you're right, but has reason to pretend otherwise. Thanks for updating the OP, though.

[librisrouge]

I, for one, look forward to Primaris Psykers and Tech Priests being My go to warlords this edition.

[march10k]

Hmm...a techpriest skulking behind a tank rendering repairs as warlord?  I guess it means you can throw the CCS into the fray without hesitation, but it does strain the fluff a bit.

[librisrouge]

Idk, there are tech regiments the no doubt give overall command to a mechanicum official. I also seem to recall regiments that specialize in psy craft and would no doubt have the biggest, baddest brain at the top of the totem pole. Would Cadians or Catachan? No.