The Emperor protects - a Codex: AM review

[Halfpint100]

 

 

It is an FAQ to a different document. I would say yes they can order themselves. The rules states they can order a friendly leman russ. Both Pask and the tank commander are friendly leman russes. If they wanted to keep the index FAQ bit in, they would have added it into the codex, but they didn't. Infantry guard officers can order themselves, why not their tank versions? they do that the rest of the crew in their tank. 

 

I think we will have to agree to disagree on this. The index is a different document agreed, the question in the FAQ is based on the rules in the index, but the rules haven't changed from index to codex. IMHO the FAQ stands. From my perspective the use of the word "friendly" and"within 6" of this model" indicates the rule it is to be used on other LRBT not the tank commander issuing an order to themselves. You can feasibly issue an order to a Tank Commander via Pask and vice versa however.

I see your point on INF officers issuing orders to themselves via interpretation of the rules wording, but practically who would use an order to give your Platoon commander FRFSRF for example. again in IMHO this hasn't been FAQ'd as its not very likely to occur, whereas for Tank commanders there is a a obvious benefit hence the FAQ.

 

 

I do see your side. I think an FAQ is definitely needed. 

 

I would have just expected that any changes in the Index via the FAQ would have been implemented in the codex (then again, we all know how good GW is at doing this....) 

[CoffeeGrunt]

 

From my perspective the use of the word "friendly" and"within 6" of this model" indicates the rule it is to be used on other LRBT not the tank commander issuing an order to themselves. You can feasibly issue an order to a Tank Commander via Pask and vice versa however.

 

I see your point on INF officers issuing orders to themselves via interpretation of the rules wording, but practically who would use an order to give your Platoon commander FRFSRF for example. again in IMHO this hasn't been FAQ'd as its not very likely to occur, whereas for Tank commanders there is a a obvious benefit hence the FAQ.

 

Friendly is simply there to clarify that you can't use it on enemy models, and the main Rulebook FAQ clarified that effects that happen within a range also affect the model itself, because it's always in range of itself as long as it has the applicable Keywords. Examples include Primaris Gravy Captains and the like.

 

Giving a tooled-up Company Commander Fix Bayonets might be useful though.

[Mitchverr]

I think we will have to agree to disagree on this. The index is a different document agreed, the question in the FAQ is based on the rules in the index, but the rules haven't changed from index to codex. IMHO the FAQ stands. From my perspective the use of the word "friendly" and"within 6" of this model" indicates the rule it is to be used on other LRBT not the tank commander issuing an order to themselves. You can feasibly issue an order to a Tank Commander via Pask and vice versa however.

I see your point on INF officers issuing orders to themselves via interpretation of the rules wording, but practically who would use an order to give your Platoon commander FRFSRF for example. again in IMHO this hasn't been FAQ'd as its not very likely to occur, whereas for Tank commanders there is a a obvious benefit hence the FAQ.

 

 

frfsrf no, but to advance and keep up with his boys? Yup. Is pretty important to tallarn too(mobility is highly important to them and their order). And as said, the CC order too, or for DKK and Elysians special orders etc.

[our_baz]

 

 

From my perspective the use of the word "friendly" and"within 6" of this model" indicates the rule it is to be used on other LRBT not the tank commander issuing an order to themselves. You can feasibly issue an order to a Tank Commander via Pask and vice versa however.

 

I see your point on INF officers issuing orders to themselves via interpretation of the rules wording, but practically who would use an order to give your Platoon commander FRFSRF for example. again in IMHO this hasn't been FAQ'd as its not very likely to occur, whereas for Tank commanders there is a a obvious benefit hence the FAQ.

 

Friendly is simply there to clarify that you can't use it on enemy models, and the main Rulebook FAQ clarified that effects that happen within a range also affect the model itself, because it's always in range of itself as long as it has the applicable Keywords. Examples include Primaris Gravy Captains and the like.

 

Giving a tooled-up Company Commander Fix Bayonets might be useful though.

 

 

 

 

I think we will have to agree to disagree on this. The index is a different document agreed, the question in the FAQ is based on the rules in the index, but the rules haven't changed from index to codex. IMHO the FAQ stands. From my perspective the use of the word "friendly" and"within 6" of this model" indicates the rule it is to be used on other LRBT not the tank commander issuing an order to themselves. You can feasibly issue an order to a Tank Commander via Pask and vice versa however.

I see your point on INF officers issuing orders to themselves via interpretation of the rules wording, but practically who would use an order to give your Platoon commander FRFSRF for example. again in IMHO this hasn't been FAQ'd as its not very likely to occur, whereas for Tank commanders there is a a obvious benefit hence the FAQ.

 

 

frfsrf no, but to advance and keep up with his boys? Yup. Is pretty important to tallarn too(mobility is highly important to them and their order). And as said, the CC order too, or for DKK and Elysians special orders etc.

 

@Coffee/@mitchverr. I hadn't of thought of either of those options. TBH I'm not comfortable with the idea of an officer ordering himself to do something, but until its FAQ'd make hay while the sun shines.

@Coffee: Yeah see your point. Voice of command is an aura, auras include the model with the ability. I'll hold my hands up I'm wrong.

[duz_]

Looks like another for the books well have to wait and see! ;)

 

How are people feeling about the wyvren? No changes from the index other than the TL stratagem and some possible combos with RDs. Having no AP or ignores cover really hurts it.

[Lord_Caerolion]

But don't most other units that buff things within 6" always count as being within range themselves, for example? Plus, it could always be interpreted 'fluffwise' as the Commander giving the orders to his crew, not just 'to himself'.

An FAQ is definitely needed, I just think it's weird that they'd disallow it, given other units with similar criteria are allowed to self-select.

[Mitchverr]

 

@Coffee/@mitchverr. I hadn't of thought of either of those options. TBH I'm not comfortable with the idea of an officer ordering himself to do something, but until its FAQ'd make hay while the sun shines.

@Coffee: Yeah see your point. Voice of command is an aura, auras include the model with the ability. I'll hold my hands up I'm wrong.

 

I think it might be easier to think of it as "order other guys to do it, but you then lead by example by doing it yourself", the "ordering yourself" thing is more "you do it too" which in my view is a fair enough thing, afterall, guard is fluff wise heavily about the junior officers leading by example and doing the same as their men.

 

Especially for a TC where the tank DOES have a crew the TC should be ordering to do things (eg ordering say, strike and shroud, saying "gunner fire and smoke" then your crew knows when he fires, whoever is in charge of the smoke charges sets it off and nobody in the tank is suprised).

Edited October 17, 2017 by Mitchverr

[our_baz]

I want to like it. Its just taken a massive nerf since 7th. It will cut through low T INF chaff. But I feel you can get more bang for your buck with the points equivalent in Mortar Heavy Weapon Teams.

[hhhdan]

until FAQ, Yarrik can't use his warlord trait, as to issue an order an officer must have the same regiment as the target unit. Yarrik has no regiment, thus can not benefit from his warlord trait. :(

 

On a happier note: crusaders are really cool! Take a full squad with an astropath and a priest in a Valkyrie and you will have a very tough to kill distraction in the enemy lines turn 1. And while they deal with it, you can bombard them with all the artillery and tanks :D 

[hhhdan]

Looks like another for the books well have to wait and see!

 

How are people feeling about the wyvren? No changes from the index other than the TL stratagem and some possible combos with RDs. Having no AP or ignores cover really hurts it.

I feel like i'd only ever take it if i needed the heavy slots. If i had several spare i would immediately replace it with 3 mortar squads (almost the same cost, but they easily outshoot it).

[Halfpint100]

until FAQ, Yarrik can't use his warlord trait, as to issue an order an officer must have the same regiment as the target unit. Yarrik has no regiment, thus can not benefit from his warlord trait. :(

 

On a happier note: crusaders are really cool! Take a full squad with an astropath and a priest in a Valkyrie and you will have a very tough to kill distraction in the enemy lines turn 1. And while they deal with it, you can bombard them with all the artillery and tanks :D

That sounds.... terrifying! 2++ and 2 pOwer sword attacks each!

[CoffeeGrunt]

IIRC they have 2 attacks base so it goes up to 3 with a Priest. Pretty tasty!

[duz_]

I haven't run the numbers, but I suspect the Basilisk now with AP-3 is definitely a better option for anti MEQ+ (particularly in cover) vs they Wyvren which used to do a good job.

They Wyvren can still do some damage to light infantry not in cover, but it even struggles with guardsmen in cover these days who benefit from a 4+ :ermm:

[micahwc]

And we are not lacking for anti-infantry firepower between mortars, punishers, frag missiles, etc.

[Brother Talarian]

Would crusaders truly get a 2++? There was an FAQ for the GKs indicating they couldnt get any better than a 3++. 3 attacks each at AP -3 is quite terrifying, even if they're only str 3.

 

I'll probably proxy my BT crusaders :)

 

I find all the doctrines terribly cool and fluffy... I'll have to experiment with all of them - they all offer exciting and different play styles.

[Halfpint100]

IIRC they have 2 attacks base so it goes up to 3 with a Priest. Pretty tasty!

 

Oops so they have! I am used to 7th edition crusaders, since mine are modeled with a mix of power halberds (to represent axes) and axes. The days of inquisition having tonnes of wargear options *sighs* 

[hhhdan]

 

until FAQ, Yarrik can't use his warlord trait, as to issue an order an officer must have the same regiment as the target unit. Yarrik has no regiment, thus can not benefit from his warlord trait.

 

On a happier note: crusaders are really cool! Take a full squad with an astropath and a priest in a Valkyrie and you will have a very tough to kill distraction in the enemy lines turn 1. And while they deal with it, you can bombard them with all the artillery and tanks

That sounds.... terrifying! 2++ and 2 pOwer sword attacks each!

 

 

3 power sword attacks each with the priest!

 

IIRC they have 2 attacks base so it goes up to 3 with a Priest. Pretty tasty!

 

Oops so they have! I am used to 7th edition crusaders, since mine are modeled with a mix of power halberds (to represent axes) and axes. The days of inquisition having tonnes of wargear options *sighs* 

 

 

They did change them (and deathcults) to only have swords already in 7th digital codex. The power weapon was only for the 6th edition codex.

I haven't run the numbers, but I suspect the Basilisk now with AP-3 is definitely a better option for anti MEQ+ (particularly in cover) vs they Wyvren which used to do a good job.

They Wyvren can still do some damage to light infantry not in cover, but it even struggles with guardsmen in cover these days who benefit from a 4+

 

But the earthshaker platform is still better

Would crusaders truly get a 2++? There was an FAQ for the GKs indicating they couldnt get any better than a 3++. 3 attacks each at AP -3 is quite terrifying, even if they're only str 3.

 

I'll probably proxy my BT crusaders

 

I find all the doctrines terribly cool and fluffy... I'll have to experiment with all of them - they all offer exciting and different play styles.

 

Well they still have 3++, but 2s count as 3s, because of the psychic power and/or take cover stratagem

[Halfpint100]

The take cover strat!! OMG!! I just realised (After reading hhhdan's post) Bullgryns with 4++ shield, plus psyker, plus take cover = 2++ saves.... 

 

Ah may bad as well about power weapons being 6th. I often forget what happened in what edition. 

[hhhdan]

The take cover strat!! OMG!! I just realised (After reading hhhdan's post) Bullgryns with 4++ shield, plus psyker, plus take cover = 2++ saves.... 

 

Ah may bad as well about power weapons being 6th. I often forget what happened in what edition. 

 

Also Bullgryns with slabshield have +2 to their save, so near celestine, they get 2+ armour and 4++ invul, +1 for the psychic power, +1 for the take cover; they can get to 0+/2++ save from shooting (1s fail of course)

 

But i still like crusaders more, as they fit in a valkyrie and even leave space for priest and psyker/astropath and get acts of faith too, which makes them obnoxious if left alone (double move, or even double combat if already engaged or healing a guy back)

[Beams]

 

 

 

until FAQ, Yarrik can't use his warlord trait, as to issue an order an officer must have the same regiment as the target unit. Yarrik has no regiment, thus can not benefit from his warlord trait.

 

On a happier note: crusaders are really cool! Take a full squad with an astropath and a priest in a Valkyrie and you will have a very tough to kill distraction in the enemy lines turn 1. And while they deal with it, you can bombard them with all the artillery and tanks

That sounds.... terrifying! 2++ and 2 pOwer sword attacks each!

3 power sword attacks each with the priest!

 

 

IIRC they have 2 attacks base so it goes up to 3 with a Priest. Pretty tasty!

Oops so they have! I am used to 7th edition crusaders, since mine are modeled with a mix of power halberds (to represent axes) and axes. The days of inquisition having tonnes of wargear options *sighs*

They did change them (and deathcults) to only have swords already in 7th digital codex. The power weapon was only for the 6th edition codex.

I haven't run the numbers, but I suspect the Basilisk now with AP-3 is definitely a better option for anti MEQ+ (particularly in cover) vs they Wyvren which used to do a good job.

They Wyvren can still do some damage to light infantry not in cover, but it even struggles with guardsmen in cover these days who benefit from a 4+

But the earthshaker platform is still better

Would crusaders truly get a 2++? There was an FAQ for the GKs indicating they couldnt get any better than a 3++. 3 attacks each at AP -3 is quite terrifying, even if they're only str 3.

 

I'll probably proxy my BT crusaders

 

I find all the doctrines terribly cool and fluffy... I'll have to experiment with all of them - they all offer exciting and different play styles.

Well they still have 3++, but 2s count as 3s, because of the psychic power and/or take cover stratagem

The GK thing is complicated, but it's essentially there to prevent nonmatched play abuse of sanctuary. In effect, you get a 3++ with a +1 on your rolls, ie an effective 2++.

[Finkmilkana]

The GK thing is not a FAQ, it's an Errata that introduces changes the text of sanctuary to specifically not work on 3++ models. It is not based on a general rule and has no direct implication beyond Sanctuary. Currently Crusaders can clearly get 2++.

 

One could argue that they should introduce something like that for guard in the future if 2++ crusaders are too strong. Just as one could argue that not every single model in the army being a psyker and crusaders not being as overwhelming as a dreadknight with a 2++ is enough that guard does not require such a limitation. I'm honestly still unsure which is better.

Edited October 17, 2017 by Finkmilkana

[Beams]

The GK thing is not a FAQ, it's an Errata that introduces changes the text of sanctuary to specifically not work on 3++ models. It is not based on a general rule and has no direct implication beyond Sanctuary. Currently Crusaders can clearly get 2++.

 

One could argue that they should introduce something like that for guard in the future if 2++ crusaders are too strong. Just as one could argue that not every single model in the army being a psyker and crusaders not being as overwhelming as a dreadknight with a 2++ is enough that guard does not require such a limitation. I'm honestly still unsure which is better.

The dreadknights still gets a 2++ (technically a 3++ with a +1 to your roll). Heed the Prognosticators doesn't increase your save, but the number rolled, as opposed to sanctuary which ups the save by 1. This was done specifically because in nonmatched play, where you could use Sanctuary multiple times, your librians with warding staves, Khaldor Draigo, and a single Prognosticated Dread would give you a butt ton of 2++'s.

 

A single squad of Toughness 3 crusaders, which have 2 to 3 Str 3 ap-3 attacks each, is hardly as broken.

 

Or in nonmatched play, a bunch of those squads would still be relatively easy to deal with, since they can't cast it on themselves and can't gate of infinity. All you'd have to do is snipe the psyker.

Edited October 17, 2017 by Beams

[Yorkston]

 

The take cover strat!! OMG!! I just realised (After reading hhhdan's post) Bullgryns with 4++ shield, plus psyker, plus take cover = 2++ saves.... 

 

Ah may bad as well about power weapons being 6th. I often forget what happened in what edition. 

 

Also Bullgryns with slabshield have +2 to their save, so near celestine, they get 2+ armour and 4++ invul, +1 for the psychic power, +1 for the take cover; they can get to 0+/2++ save from shooting (1s fail of course)

 

But i still like crusaders more, as they fit in a valkyrie and even leave space for priest and psyker/astropath and get acts of faith too, which makes them obnoxious if left alone (double move, or even double combat if already engaged or healing a guy back)

 

 

Looking through the codex, Ogryn bodyguards can also take the slabshield and have the <AM> <infantry> and <character> keywords.  The deathmask heirloom gives a base 4++ invuln.  Can you put the deathmask on the bodyguard and have a 2+/2++ healing beatstick?

[Halfpint100]

 

 

The take cover strat!! OMG!! I just realised (After reading hhhdan's post) Bullgryns with 4++ shield, plus psyker, plus take cover = 2++ saves.... 

 

Ah may bad as well about power weapons being 6th. I often forget what happened in what edition. 

 

Also Bullgryns with slabshield have +2 to their save, so near celestine, they get 2+ armour and 4++ invul, +1 for the psychic power, +1 for the take cover; they can get to 0+/2++ save from shooting (1s fail of course)

 

But i still like crusaders more, as they fit in a valkyrie and even leave space for priest and psyker/astropath and get acts of faith too, which makes them obnoxious if left alone (double move, or even double combat if already engaged or healing a guy back)

 

 

Looking through the codex, Ogryn bodyguards can also take the slabshield and have the <AM> <infantry> and <character> keywords.  The deathmask heirloom gives a base 4++ invuln.  Can you put the deathmask on the bodyguard and have a 2+/2++ healing beatstick?

 

 

Yes you could. That is terrfying. T5 W6 and a 2++! that can heal D3 wounds once per game

[BurntheHeretic]

The only ´´problem´´ is that the bodyguard is often more expensive than the Commander it needs to protect!  It´s kind of nasty, but he would do very well protecting a Tank Commander.