PDA

View Full Version : Warmachines and crew - Can you target the crew??



DVeight
13-07-2015, 02:19
I had a second run with the rules and in the game my opponent, in the shooting phase, chose to target the crew of my Empire cannon. I argued that he cannot target the crew. That is selecting a model in a unit which the rules don't talk about. Under Picking Targets, it says that you must select a target UNIT. No mention of models in a unit.

The counter argument is that the crew have their own stat line therefore can be targeted. My argument is that the stat line is there for the combat phase as the cannon cannot fight in combat phase.

We would like your thoughts on the matter.

Bede19025
13-07-2015, 02:47
The Warscroll says the crew and the warmachine are a unit. Not separate units. You target a unit and the player gets to allocate the wounds. You were right.

SimaoSegunda
13-07-2015, 06:25
The Warscroll says the crew and the warmachine are a unit. Not separate units. You target a unit and the player gets to allocate the wounds. You were right.

No, that isn't what it says, actually. It says that a cannon is made up of "a war machine... And a unit of 3 empire crew". It seems quite clear to me that they are separate, and can be targeted separately. Indeed, if they cannot be targeted separately, then why is there a stipulation that the crew count as being in cover when within 1" of the war machine?

DVeight
13-07-2015, 07:42
Aha, we have difference of opinion on the internetz as well. That was the argument of my friend. The crew have their own stat line. My argument was that they do because cannon cannot fight in combat phase so this represents the crew stats for fighting. Also while fighting they are considered in cover. It makes little sense to think you could target the crew. Three crew with one wound each and save of 6+. Why would you target a cannon and for that matter why would a cannon have wound values because no one in their right mind would target the cannon as crew are easier fodder and wound three of them, game over for the cannon. Still doesn't make sense....... more input appreciated.

furrie
13-07-2015, 07:51
No, that isn't what it says, actually. It says that a cannon is made up of "a war machine... And a unit of 3 empire crew". It seems quite clear to me that they are separate, and can be targeted separately. Indeed, if they cannot be targeted separately, then why is there a stipulation that the crew count as being in cover when within 1" of the war machine?
So with a field trebuchet you would agree with the op, that you can't target the crew:

A Field Trebuchet consists of a Trebuchet
War Machine that can hurl Rocks and
Masonry at the foe, and a Crew of 5
Peasants, who defend themselves with a
variety of Tools.

madden
13-07-2015, 07:56
And "dwarf cannon consists of a cannon war machine and 3 duardin crew." And is all one scroll so one unit. The crew cant be hurt seperatly this applies for all dwarf cannon types. But skink handelers are a seperate unit in lizard armies so its all down to the scrolls.

Dwane Diblie
13-07-2015, 09:41
While it appears that The Empire are an anomaly, I actually think that is the way it is suppose to be. We have 2 different stat lines, 2 different unit keyword lists and where are the rules for handling units with different saves, even with the cover thrown in?

Also, Warscroll does not equal Unit.

theunwantedbeing
13-07-2015, 10:10
The rules don't say how to resolve it.
But there doesn't appear to be anywhere that allows you to strike a model you aren't in range of, so if the crew are the only thing in range they'll be what you roll against.

So...
You pick a way to resolve it
Your opponent picks a way
Highest roll decides.

You can always just allocate the wounds to the machine if they rolled against the crew stats afterwards.

Bede19025
13-07-2015, 13:42
Yes. I was thinking of Dwarf cannon, not Empire. Sorry about that.

forseer of fates
13-07-2015, 18:18
So if they are one unit that creates another pile of problems. Sigh.

Last Edition
13-07-2015, 21:47
As long as the War Machine and Crew is one Warscroll, you as the contolling player of the War Machine and Crew can field them as one unit; no rules prohibits you from doing that. As one unit, you allocate wounds per normal, described in Inflicting Damage section. I see no rules problems here...

Bede19025
13-07-2015, 22:37
As long as the War Machine and Crew is one Warscroll, you as the contolling player of the War Machine and Crew can field them as one unit; no rules prohibits you from doing that. As one unit, you allocate wounds per normal, described in Inflicting Damage section. I see no rules problems here...

Not a rules problem. I did read one post where the player was explaining that his opponent used the cannon (four wounds) to suck up the damage while the crew was in close combat. It's gamey, but the rules are clear about permitting it I think.

DVeight
14-07-2015, 06:10
Its certainly logical as I see it when I consider the new rules and their intention. In addition the wording, specifically when talking about unit/s versus model/s. What also makes me think that the crew and cannon are all one unit is that the crew do not have their own movement characteristic. If the argument is that they are separate and therefore can be targeted instead of the cannon then why don't they have their own movement characteristic?? As humans should be 5 inches at least though they do not get it and their movement is actually 4 inches with the cannon. In addition, it is true that the rules state the player controlling the unit being shot at/attacked decides which models take the wounds. So I think it makes the argument even more mute now as you can say whatever you like for your shooting. As the player with the cannon and crew, I will decide where the wounds go. You cant separate my unit.

Last Edition
14-07-2015, 06:39
Not a rules problem. I did read one post where the player was explaining that his opponent used the cannon (four wounds) to suck up the damage while the crew was in close combat. It's gamey, but the rules are clear about permitting it I think.
More gamey than shooting into combat? :P Both actions of those players are well explained in the rules. I don't see them as loop-holes in the rules, meaning I don't view it as gamey :)

Harwammer
14-07-2015, 11:06
This is the first actually ambiguous ambiguity I think I've seen. Can't decide if the empire cannon is a typo, an exception or the rule :S.

SimaoSegunda
14-07-2015, 11:20
But you allocate wounds after you've rolled saves, and the crew and war machine have different save values.

forseer of fates
14-07-2015, 14:22
The problem is there is no rules for units with multiple saves and T values.

Harwammer
14-07-2015, 15:40
Whats a T value?

forseer of fates
14-07-2015, 16:10
Ofc, what am I talking about:p carry on

Bede19025
14-07-2015, 16:32
But you allocate wounds after you've rolled saves, and the crew and war machine have different save values.

This is a problem.

Bede19025
14-07-2015, 16:32
Whats a T value?

He's got WFB on the brain.

Bede19025
14-07-2015, 16:35
More gamey than shooting into combat? :P Both actions of those players are well explained in the rules. I don't see them as loop-holes in the rules, meaning I don't view it as gamey :)

Let's just say that both rules lack versimilitude!

theunwantedbeing
14-07-2015, 16:37
This is a problem.

It really isn't.

Bede19025
14-07-2015, 16:43
It really isn't.

Ok. It's not a problem. Do you agree though that; 1) the rules assume that all models in a unit have the same save value and ;2) that the rules do not say how to allocate hits where models in a unit do not have the same save?

theunwantedbeing
14-07-2015, 16:49
Ok. It's not a problem. Do you agree though that; 1) the rules assume that all models in a unit have the same save value and ;2) that the rules do not say how to allocate hits where models in a unit do not have the same save?

1. Yes.
2. Yes.

It would be better if we had some rules that governed the situation obviously, but we don't so we make do.

Ix't
14-07-2015, 19:24
Why would the warscroll specify that "the crew is in cover when within 1" of the warmachine" if they can't be targeted at all? If they can't be targeted, then why proclaim that they're in cover?

If the crew were in the unit, why would the rules specify that "a dwarf bolt thrower can only move if its crew are within 1" at the start of the movement phase." or the shooting phase (in order to fire) for that matter?

They all have separate keywords and stats, too.

All of these rules imply that the crew needn't be within 1" of the cannon, meaning that the unit is separate (since units must retain a 1" coherency). In this manner, you could have 3 crewmen operate more than one artillery piece (should the others die).

Last Edition
14-07-2015, 20:29
Why would the warscroll specify that "the crew is in cover when within 1" of the warmachine" if they can't be targeted at all? If they can't be targeted, then why proclaim that they're in cover?

If the crew were in the unit, why would the rules specify that "a dwarf bolt thrower can only move if its crew are within 1" at the start of the movement phase." or the shooting phase (in order to fire) for that matter?

They all have separate keywords and stats, too.

All of these rules imply that the crew needn't be within 1" of the cannon, meaning that the unit is separate (since units must retain a 1" coherency). In this manner, you could have 3 crewmen operate more than one artillery piece (should the others die).
But they are still one warscroll, which means you can field them as one unit and allocate wounds as a unit. Ignore the Cover rules for the crew and save on your best saving throw, which the rules does not prohibit you in doing. The 1" rule for operating the War Machine is a nice rule to have in case you enter combat and pile ins puts you too far away from the war machine.

This would be solved if just GW had us roll damage before rolling saves...

Avian
14-07-2015, 20:47
But they are still one warscroll, which means you can field them as one unit and allocate wounds as a unit.
That isn't actually part of the rules. As far as I can tell, it never says that one warscroll = one unit, it merely says that units can't include models from different warscrolls.

So there is nothing against having two units on one warscroll.

Ix't
14-07-2015, 20:55
But they are still one warscroll, which means you can field them as one unit and allocate wounds as a unit.

Sure, they belong to one warscroll... but warscrolls seem to define models, not units.

"All models are described by warscrolls,
which provide all of the rules for using
them in the game. You will need warscrolls
for the models you want to use."

So with that in mind, it looks like you field models from warscrolls with multiple entries at the same time. That doesn't, however, make them a single unit.

Again, the rules within the artillery's warscrolls clearly grant the Crew autonomy in a way that surpasses the main rules' limitations, which I'll post:

"A unit must
be set up and finish any sort of move as
a single group of models, with all models
within 1" of at least one other model from
their unit."

The Crew does not need to follow any of these rules, as defined by their warscroll entry.

"A Dwarf Cannon
can only move if its Crew are within
1" at the start of the movement phase.
If its Crew are within 1" of the Cannon
in the shooting phase, they can fire the
war machine. The war machine cannot
make charge moves, does not need to take
battleshock tests and is unaffected by any
attack or ability that uses Bravery. The
Crew are in cover while they are within 1"
of their war machine."

All of those "ifs" tell me that they're free to do whatever they please ("if" they're back by dinner!). So, a separate unit.

"Claiming that they are one unit" is nowhere in the rules.

Last Edition
14-07-2015, 21:16
"Models fight in units. A unit can have one
or more models, but cannot include models
that use different warscrolls. A unit must
be set up and finish any sort of move as
a single group of models, with all models
within 1" of at least one other model from
their unit. If anything causes a unit to
become split up during a battle, it must
reform the next time that it moves."

Only limitation for creating units is that they cannot include models from another Warscroll.

Last Edition
14-07-2015, 21:20
So there is nothing against having two units on one warscroll.
I didn't say that... I said: you can field them as one unit, not that there was a rule prohibiting you from creating two units from 1 warscroll. If you want to field a cannon as one unit and your crew as one, then sure... but why would you when you don't need to?

Last Edition
14-07-2015, 21:20
double post.

Avian
14-07-2015, 21:37
I didn't say that... I said: you can field them as one unit,...
The rules don't actually say that.

Last Edition
14-07-2015, 21:49
The rules don't actually say that.
What doesn't it say? That you can form a unit containing models from one warscroll?

Avian
14-07-2015, 21:53
What doesn't it say? That you can form a unit containing models from one warscroll?

Correct, it doesn't say you can form them however you want.

Last Edition
14-07-2015, 21:58
Well, they give you the exception of how you can't form your units, so yes, they are actually telling you just that.

Rule for how to form a unit: "A unit can have one or more models.."

Exception to rule: "..., but cannot include models that use different warscrolls"

theunwantedbeing
14-07-2015, 22:03
Well, they give you the exception of how you can't form your units, so yes, they are actually telling you just that.

Rule for how to form a unit: "A unit can have one or more models.."

Exception to rule: "..., but cannot include models that use different warscrolls"

There's another bit you're not reading.
Also the cannon warscroll explains what the unit is but we'll ignore that too.

Last Edition
14-07-2015, 22:22
There's another bit you're not reading.
Also the cannon warscroll explains what the unit is but we'll ignore that too.

Which part is that?
It sure does. Still doesn't hinder you in forming that warscroll into a unit you wish to form - as long as you don't toss in another warscroll in the mix :)

Ix't
14-07-2015, 22:38
Which part is that?
Still doesn't hinder you in forming that warscroll into a unit you wish to form

The "Description" section within warscrolls tells you how to field models & units. In the 'Warscroll Key' within the 'Introduction' area, section 3,

"3. Description: The description tells you what weapons
the model can be armed with, and what upgrades (if
any) it can be given. The description will also tell you if
the model is fielded on its own as a single model, or as
part of a unit. If the model is fielded as part of a unit,
then the description will say how many models the unit
should have (if you don’t have enough models to field a
unit, you can still field one unit with as many models as
you have available)."

Some, like Hammerers, say "A unit of Hammerers consists of x or more models..." That unit consists of x (or more) hammerers.

The Dwarf Lord warscroll says, "A Dwarf Lord is a single model." That unit consists of one Dwarf Lord.

Artillery says,

"A Dwarf Bolt Thrower consists of a War
Machine that can fire Runic Bolts across
the battlefield and 3 Duardin Crew, who
are equipped with a variety of engineering
and artillery Tools."

It says nothing about the entire warscroll being a single model. It says nothing about the entire warscroll being a unit. It says that this warscroll grants you a war machine, and also 3 Duardin Crew. Where does that leave us?

For starters, that tells us that the Duardin crew clearly count as models. This is reinforced by the fact that they have their own profiles. Crew had their own profile in 8th, yes, but in AoS there is nothing in the rules saying that they do not count as models, or that they belong to their war machine.

They also, for what it's worth, are not explicitly labelled as part of a unit, in contrast to every other unit in the game. Special rules go further, saying that the Crew may receive cover if they are behind their war machine, which implies that they may be targeted. These special rules (and the others) imply that they have autonomy, and that they are their own unit (or are some weird exception of being neither a unit, nor a single model at all).

All of this, to me, tells me that they may be targeted, that they are independent. In short, there is nothing at all saying that you can "form a warscroll into a unit," and there is nothing there to indicate that they are one unit or one model to begin with.

Bede19025
14-07-2015, 23:48
What is the meanng of the statement " a Dwarf Bolt Thrower CONSISTS OF a Warmacine. . . and three Duardin crew..." If not to inducate that they are one unit?

Ix't
15-07-2015, 00:04
What is the meanng of the statement " a Dwarf Bolt Thrower CONSISTS OF a Warmacine. . . and three Duardin crew..." If not to inducate that they are one unit?

It tells me that the Dwarf Bolt Thrower warscroll dictates that you drop a Warmachine and three Duardin crew... but it doesn't say that they are one unit, and it doesn't say that they are a single model. Everything (literally everything) that I have read so far has pointed me in the direction of their being a separate unit/being able to be targeted.

What does "The crew are in cover if they are within 1" of their war machine" indicate? Why would they ever need to be in cover if you could not target them?

forseer of fates
15-07-2015, 00:31
This is what happens when there are just four pages of rules.

Bede19025
15-07-2015, 00:45
It tells me that the Dwarf Bolt Thrower warscroll dictates that you drop a Warmachine and three Duardin crew... but it doesn't say that they are one unit, and it doesn't say that they are a single model. Everything (literally everything) that I have read so far has pointed me in the direction of their being a separate unit/being able to be targeted.

What does "The crew are in cover if they are within 1" of their war machine" indicate? Why would they ever need to be in cover if you could not target them?


You've convinced me. However, models in a unit can get out of coherency. That could explain how a crew could not be within 1" of the gun.

SimaoSegunda
15-07-2015, 00:46
What is the meanng of the statement " a Dwarf Bolt Thrower CONSISTS OF a Warmacine. . . and three Duardin crew..." If not to inducate that they are one unit?

Because that tells you what the warscroll consists of, not what the unit consists of. "Warscroll" and "unit" are not lexically coterminous.

Ix't
15-07-2015, 02:18
This is what happens when there are just four pages of rules.

This same thing happened with hundreds of rules, though.

DVeight
15-07-2015, 04:04
Say that those of you that argue the models are separate and can be targeted are correct with your interpretation. My question then is why would you EVER target the warmachine, considering (using Empire cannon as example) that the crew are one wound each and have a save of 6+. Even with the cover bonus that places them at 5+ save. So one wound each for three crew amounts to three wounds compared to four wounds for the cannon. The answer has to be "never". There is no rhyme or reason to target the warmachine. Hence the additional quandary. Why have wound value or save value for the cannon? On reflection its pointless.

I acknowledge that the rules aren't clear enough. Wont be the first or last with issues. Nevertheless I like to apply the Occam's razor principal in this matter. Assumptions introduced to explain a thing must not be multiplied beyond necessity, and hence the simplest of several hypothesis is always the best in accounting unexplained facts.

Sir Jadon
15-07-2015, 04:37
I believe they are separate units for all the reasons stated above, especially when you look are war machines from skaven for example which states in the discription that they are counted as a single model and get none of the rules empire war machine do.

Dwane Diblie
15-07-2015, 05:07
I can think of many reasons to want to wound the war machine. Not many of them put the war machine as a priority over the crew though. Killing the crew does not automaticaly remove the war machine. It is still an enemy model. It still can get in the way of things. Victory may be reliant on it.

Also if crew and war machine are the same unit then why does the Brettonian Treb. have two rules for making mobeld immune to battleshock tests?

Ix't
15-07-2015, 05:28
Also if crew and war machine are the same unit then why does the Brettonian Treb. have two rules for making mobeld immune to battleshock tests?
My first instinct was to use the Bretonnia armybook for examples, but sadly I opted for Dwarves. This point would have saved me so much time... Nice catch, man.


Nevertheless I like to apply the Occam's razor principal in this matter. Assumptions introduced to explain a thing must not be multiplied beyond necessity, and hence the simplest of several hypothesis is always the best in accounting unexplained facts.
This is not a case of Occam's Razor. The rules are pretty clear, I think. Their implication leans far, far closer to the crew being separate, and they even spell it out for us on several occasions (such as in the case of Bretonnia's peasantry). There is basically nothing which implies that crew and war machines are of the same unit.

Actually, I just looked at the Empire Cannon rule, and it specifically calls the Crew "a unit." The rest of the language is identical to what we see in other artillery warscrolls. This further cements it for me... looks pretty clear that all crew are separate units.

Sir Jadon
15-07-2015, 05:46
I also believe they are separate units for the reasons pointed out above. When you look at skaven war machine for example they are stated in the discription as a single unit and have 1 stat line for the whole thing. Empire and bret war machine say consist of a war machine and a crew, with separate rules for both, separate keywords too.

mhsellwood
15-07-2015, 06:34
Agreed with the majority - two separate units. I feel this is further supported by the fact that the crew and war machine can have different saves - currently no unit has models with more than one save value, or any modifiers to the saving throw that may only apply to one model rather than another. So, it is reasonable to think that if you have different saves, you have different units in play.

In terms of why would you ever shoot the machine over the crew. With careful deployment crew can be in range of the machine and largely out of sight - so you may not be able to shoot the crew. The crew may also be out of range but the weapon itself is not - given the short range of many weapons you could well have this situation and at that point, shooting the machine and hoping for the best may be your best bet. But, by and large yes I think you would shoot the crew. This of course makes a balanced army that can shoot to remove enemy war machines that bit stronger than one that absolutely focuses on one thing.

DVeight
15-07-2015, 06:36
I can think of many reasons to want to wound the war machine. Not many of them put the war machine as a priority over the crew though. Killing the crew does not automaticaly remove the war machine. It is still an enemy model. It still can get in the way of things. Victory may be reliant on it.

Also if crew and war machine are the same unit then why does the Brettonian Treb. have two rules for making mobeld immune to battleshock tests?

No chance that the cannon can get in way of things. Under these rules models can walk over terrain, structures, whatever. Nothing gets in way. Killing crew doesn't remove the cannon since it has its own wound characteristics though cannon has no function once those three crew are gone. Once again, I see no logic in targeting cannon if I can target crew instead. All I need is to get rid of three crew which have one wound each and 5+ save if near the cannon compared to 4 wounds and 4+ save on the cannon. Once again...... appears to be totally pointless if you are correct. No gamer in their right mind would make it harder for themselves to eliminate a unit/model in competitive play.

What I find interesting is that the mortar crew have no movement value at all, yet the cannon crew do have a movement value of 5 inches. Oversight?? Possible.

Considering there are two camps on this issue I might as well go to the last page of the rules and apply "The Most Important Rule"

Avian
15-07-2015, 07:16
Say that those of you that argue the models are separate and can be targeted are correct with your interpretation. My question then is why would you EVER target the warmachine,...
Because you need to wipe out all enemy models to get a major victory.

DVeight
15-07-2015, 07:22
Because you need to wipe out all enemy models to get a major victory.

Oh wow. So I target your crew at first opportunity because they are now literally cannon fodder and worry about that cannon later for my major victory. Lets see how that stacks up when the book is out with its scenarios and battle plans.

Harwammer
15-07-2015, 10:01
He's got WFB on the brain.

Ah, of course! I think I've been thinking about AoS too much :S.

SimaoSegunda
15-07-2015, 10:39
No chance that the cannon can get in way of things. Under these rules models can walk over terrain, structures, whatever. Nothing gets in way. Killing crew doesn't remove the cannon since it has its own wound characteristics though cannon has no function once those three crew are gone. Once again, I see no logic in targeting cannon if I can target crew instead. All I need is to get rid of three crew which have one wound each and 5+ save if near the cannon compared to 4 wounds and 4+ save on the cannon. Once again...... appears to be totally pointless if you are correct. No gamer in their right mind would make it harder for themselves to eliminate a unit/model in competitive play.

What I find interesting is that the mortar crew have no movement value at all, yet the cannon crew do have a movement value of 5 inches. Oversight?? Possible.

Considering there are two camps on this issue I might as well go to the last page of the rules and apply "The Most Important Rule"

The first part of your post is actually untrue. You say nothing gets in the way, but models do, and in combat you pile in towards the closest model. So if, for example, I have a sabre tusk, and I charge a cannon, it might be that I only roll high enough to get within 1/2" of the cannon. Once I've done that, I can't move over the cannon until it is dead, and any pile in move has to carry me closer to the cannon. If the crew are out of range then of my attacks, I will have to go against the cannon.

Ix't
15-07-2015, 13:51
Considering there are two camps on this issue I might as well go to the last page of the rules and apply "The Most Important Rule"

Has the "they're one unit" camp generated enough evidence to use the Most Important Rule? I see no good reason to call them one unit. To me, there is no debate: they are clearly, *clearly* not one unit.

Last Edition
15-07-2015, 17:01
Has the "they're one unit" camp generated enough evidence to use the Most Important Rule? I see no good reason to call them one unit. To me, there is no debate: they are clearly, *clearly* not one unit.

I, for one, have not responded because I would only repeat myself. You have not said anything new since my last post. By fielding them as one unit, you are not violating any rules, not any rules the other camp has come up with anyway or I can read...then again, by the rules, you are free to field them as two units as well :)

Ix't
15-07-2015, 19:02
I, for one, have not responded because I would only repeat myself. You have not said anything new since my last post. By fielding them as one unit, you are not violating any rules, not any rules the other camp has come up with anyway or I can read...then again, by the rules, you are free to field them as two units as well :)

Actually, you aren't 'free' to make any decision. The Description section within each army's Introduction tells you exactly how models are fielded. You then check the Warscroll to see how you field the models. There is no choice given. What you're doing is creating a house rule.

In the Skaven & Ogre Kingdom book, there are instances of weapons teams being described explicitly as single models. There are instances of artillery being described as single models. There is only a single profile in these cases. The language is consistent between these two books. These are the only two books (unless I missed something) in which that language appears, and it is pretty clear.

In the Tomb Kings, Lizardmen, Empire, and Bretonnia books, there are multiple instances (exact wording, even) which spell out that the crew and their weapon are separate units. Look for yourself.

Remember how the pages read, because the special rules (and descriptions) in these warscrolls are worded in the exact same manner as the rules within the WoC, Orcs & Goblins, Dark Elves, Dwarves, and High Elves books. The Crew profiles are laid out the exact same way.

Although the aforementioned books don't spell out so directly that the crew is a separate unit, they do not say that the warscroll is fielded as one unit. Because of that, the very presence of warscrolls signifying crew as separate units (and all AoS crew sharing nearly identical wording) justifies, to me, that all crew are separate unless otherwise stated. There is nothing about combining them into one unit, which is clearly against the rules per the Introduction page. There is nothing proclaiming that the warscroll is fielded as a single model. The language is the exact same, except for the word "unit." The fact that you would still call them one unit is, in my opinion, intentionally ignoring the rules. To say that you can "make them into one unit" is a loose reading at best, and very, very shady play at worst.

The logical conclusion here is obvious: the fewest assumptions would indicate that since they aren't single models, and since they aren't spelled out as a unit, but since they follow the same rules and have the same warscroll setup as 'units' of crew, that they are also separate units.

Now, with the wording being the same in these books, with the lack of any rule which states that they are all part of the same unit, with a conflict stemming from their separate profiles and different stats, and also the fact that there are no rules saying that you may field them as a unit, how have you come to the conclusion that you may field them as one unit? Again, there is no, "I'd like to field these models as one unit," rule, and they are not specified as being one unit (such as every other unit in every army book, *some* artillery aside). To form them into a unit creates a storm of conflict, and the rules *can't resolve that conflict.* Then what? Create more rules to support the rule you created? Just curious: in which phase of my turn do I combine my models from different units into a single unit? Where do I find the instructions for doing so in the rules?

There are no instances of crew being called a single unit with their war machine. Even if there were, however, it would still stand against your current argument because the crews in question aren't labelled in such a way. Honestly, I'm hard-pressed to find anything that stands with your argument. This isn't a 'Most Important Rule' thing -- they're simply a separate unit. Honestly, you'd have a stronger argument of them being fielded as a single model (rather than some unprecedented pseudo-unit) although it would still be wrong.

Hell, there's even some light evidence which would indicate that the Crew and the Weapon are separate warscrolls due to their keywords and the wording of the Keyword section:

"5. Keywords: All models have a list of keywords."

We have two types of models: Cannon, Crew. These each have lists of keywords, which are different listings.

"Sometimes a rule will say that it only applies to models
that have a specific keyword on their warscroll."

That wording is interesting: keywords on "their" (the specific model's) warscroll. Now that I'm looking at it, it looks like the "Empire Cannon" is a warscroll with two different warscrolls inside of it (much like battalions). Are warscrolls defined by keywords, or do warscrolls define keywords? Or both? What do you guys think?

Last Edition
15-07-2015, 21:35
Actually, you aren't 'free' to make any decision. The Description section within each army's Introduction tells you exactly how models are fielded. You then check the Warscroll to see how you field the models. There is no choice given. What you're doing is creating a house rule.
Since you have repeated your argument, I might do that as well. There are no house rules in play here. You are reading into something that has little, to no relevance to the rule query at hand.

1. The Warscroll specify how many models the scroll consists off, or how many it can consist off.
2. After you decided how many models you want to field (if you have the option to decide, like a unit of Hammers), make the decision of how many units those models will make. In case of a War Machine, the scroll tells you that this warscroll consists of 1 war machine and 3 crew members - total of 4 models. Nowhere (Description, Warscroll Key section or Core rules), does it say that a War Machine and crew must be fielded as separate units. It only states if a model is a part of a unit, the description will state how many models you should have – that rule you don’t even need to follow as stated in the text in brackets, and the word “should”.
3. Now I want to field my War Machine and I have not read anything about this warscroll being one unit or two separate units. I have to look to the Core rules. So I follow the rules for Warscrolls and units. Will my War Machine qualify as a unit under these rules? Yes. Units can have one or more models, – check! But cannot include models that use a different warscroll – check!

Now if I would look for the intention of a war machine and crew being one unit or not, I think, yes that is the intention. If GW wanted these to be separate units, all they had to do was create separate Warscrolls for War Machine and Crew. They would even save time by doing so. One Warscroll for crew which can operate any war Machine with the following Keywords: ....... would be easy as pie to create.


Now, with the wording being the same in these books, with the lack of any rule which states that they are all part of the same unit, with a conflict stemming from their separate profiles and different stats, and also the fact that there are no rules saying that you may field them as a unit, how have you come to the conclusion that you may field them as one unit? Again, there is no, "I'd like to field these models as one unit," rule, and they are not specified as being one unit (such as every other unit in every army book, *some* artillery aside). To form them into a unit creates a storm of conflict, and the rules *can't resolve that conflict.* Then what? Create more rules to support the rule you created? Just curious: in which phase of my turn do I combine my models from different units into a single unit? Where do I find the instructions for doing so in the rules?

I think I responded to the text above this (and frankly, most are not even relevant), so I’ll skip to this.
No need to create more rules at all, because there aren’t any conflicts by you operating a war machine warscroll as a unit. Frankly, I see fielding a War Machine as 1 unit creates some decision making of how to allocate wounds, which is a good thing. A game where you can just snipe off the crew with ease, seems like a boring game...but that is not relevant ;)



Hell, there's even some light evidence which would indicate that the Crew and the Weapon are separate warscrolls due to their keywords and the wording of the Keyword section:

"5. Keywords: All models have a list of keywords."

We have two types of models: Cannon, Crew. These each have lists of keywords, which are different listings.

"Sometimes a rule will say that it only applies to models
that have a specific keyword on their warscroll."

That wording is interesting: keywords on "their" (the specific model's) warscroll. Now that I'm looking at it, it looks like the "Empire Cannon" is a warscroll with two different warscrolls inside of it (much like battalions). Are warscrolls defined by keywords, or do warscrolls define keywords? Or both? What do you guys think?
Not even close to light evidence... The warscroll having separate keywords can have multiple reasons: Spells affecting only models with various keywords, loss of crew or cannon cause you to lose keywords for your unit and command abilities don’t work anymore, Would be funny if engineers could repair crew members (could happen if crew had multiple wounds), and probably more.

And I do think that the Empire Cannon is one Warscroll. Headliner Name, 1 Description, and all abilities are listed as one Warscroll. Seems very clear to me, at least :P

I think I have said all I need to say about this. Our gaming group agree that the rules clearly allow you to field a War Machine as a unit, and if they suddenly decided to play it as separate units, I would be okey with that – I am a Beastman player after all ;)

Ix't
15-07-2015, 23:59
Honestly, the winky faces were the most convincing part of all of that beardy rulesmithing. The rest of it? Well... play it how you want, bud. The more I think about it, the more convinced I am that War Machines & Crew are separate warscrolls, merely placed at the same time.

DVeight
16-07-2015, 05:58
So by your assessment..... I can field 5 units of crew with three models each without the cannon because they are separate warscrolls. Then take the cannon and have 15 crew around it to ensure I have full fire rate for most of the game.

Avian
16-07-2015, 06:20
Nothing costs any points. Why not take 15 crew and 5 war machines? Considerably better.

DVeight
16-07-2015, 08:16
It really goes against my logic (as I still firmly believe they are one unit) though I like your thinking Avian. :)

Ayin
16-07-2015, 08:41
Nothing costs any points. Why not take 15 crew and 5 war machines? Considerably better.

Hey now, we've gotta balance for wounds on each side ( :) ), so remember that your opponent gets, what? A half dozen Goblins for every cannon or some such?

Gotta keep it even.