PDA

View Full Version : New Empire Army Book Oddities



NakedFisherman
05-12-2006, 02:29
In the new Empire army book, the Master Engineer has a few oddities.

1. When he joins a war machine, he replaces a crew model. This can lead to the situation where a destroyed war machine will have one lucky crew member left. :p

Empire army book, page 46:

'Master of Ballistics: A Great Cannon or Mortar (not a Helstorm Rocket Battery or Helblaster Volley Gun...) that an Engineer has joined may re-roll either one scatter dice or one artillery dice per turn. This, however, may not be the roll to determine the distance bounced by the cannonball -- Engineers are good, but not that good! If the Engineer uses his re-roll ability during the firing of the war machine he has joined, he cannot shoot with his own missile weapon in the same shooting phase...'
'Extra Crewman: An Engineer can also replace one crew member of a war machine he joins, including Volley Guns (which will fire using the Engineer's Ballistic Skill) and Rocket Batteries, but if the Engineer is operating the machine, he cannot fire his own missile weapon. If a machine with an Engineer attached to it explodes, the Engineer will be killed with the rest of the crew if he replaced a crewman or used his re-roll ability during that turn (ie, [sic] if he was too close to the gun when it exploded!).'

2. A Master Engineer is able to stand and shoot with Pigeon Bombs. :D

Rikkjourd
05-12-2006, 05:35
Excuse me if I misremember: But if you can SaS with pigeon bombs, wouldn't that make it faaaar more dangerous to charge that warmachine? I mean, fast cav and such stuff usually snuff it if they get hit by even the smallest shooting attack.

Yade
05-12-2006, 16:21
If I remember correctly he replaces a crewman if he uses his ability and he cannot shoot in that turn. In the case of a misfire the Master Engineer is only spared if he did not use his ability in that turn. Otherwise him and all of the crew are destroyed. If the machine is killed by the enemy then he can lead the crew to another.

Jedi152
05-12-2006, 16:27
Consider the engineer panicingly hurling pidgeons, bombs and all, at the charging foe.

:)

NakedFisherman
05-12-2006, 16:35
If I remember correctly he replaces a crewman if he uses his ability and he cannot shoot in that turn.

Yep. Keep in mind, however, that he can't shoot in that turn. A 'turn' is now defined as a player turn, so if he fires, say a Helblaster in your turn and is then charged the next, he can still stand and shoot.


In the case of a misfire the Master Engineer is only spared if he did not use his ability in that turn. Otherwise him and all of the crew are destroyed. If the machine is killed by the enemy then he can lead the crew to another.

Nope, he replaces a crewman when he uses a war machine. So there's one crewman who arguably isn't part of the crew anymore, and hence is spared should the machine explode. :p

Yade
05-12-2006, 16:39
Well if that is your interpretation of "replaces a crewman" then your opponent could easily argue that the other guy does not even exist because the Hellblaster comes with 3 crewman and if thats the max you can have, and the master Engineer replaces one, then three it is.

Tough argument to make if the Master Engineer did not start on the machine at the beginning of the game. I think in the spirit of the wording they are simply indicating that he is eligible for all effects that impact someone labelled as a "crewman". The rule is there to govern mechanics not to be taken literally.

If I am wrong... Then you should model one Empire crewman sitting on a log smoking a cigarette and keep him handy for when this happens!!

:)

Ganymede
05-12-2006, 16:41
Dang.

When you said Empire Book Oddities, I thought you were going to referr to things like the "Incredible Shrinking Fluff Section", or the "Bearded Steamtank"

NakedFisherman
05-12-2006, 16:44
Well if that is your interpretation of "replaces a crewman" then your opponent could easily argue that the other guy does not even exist because the Hellblaster comes with 3 crewman and if thats the max you can have, and the master Engineer replaces one, then three it is.

Of course the other guy exists. He doesn't disappear when he's replaced, he's just temporarily laid off.

He also isn't replaced unless the Master Engineer actually crews the machine. If the Master Engineer crews the machine, the crew becomes two normal crew plus the Master Engineer. If he doesn't crew the machine, the machine reverts back to its original crew. Apparently, 'too many cooks spoil the broth' when it comes to Empire war machines. The rule is even called 'Extra Crewman'. :p

Now, what happens when a Master Engineer crews a machine with only one crewman remaining? Does he replace the one crewman, or is it possible for him to replace the spot of a dead crewman? I'd say the latter. :D


[QUOTE=Ganymede;1123578]Dang.

When you said Empire Book Oddities, I thought you were going to referr to things like the "Incredible Shrinking Fluff Section", or the "Bearded Steamtank"

There's no Strigany to be found in the book, actually. :D

However, the Bearded Steam Tank certainly does exist. It's possible to take two of them in 2000 points. :eek:

DeathlessDraich
05-12-2006, 18:21
Latter or former? Latter doesn't make sense.
That would be saying that "replacing a crewman" includes "replacing dead crewmen" which he could have done when there were just 2 crewmen alive.

NakedFisherman
05-12-2006, 18:33
That would be saying that "replacing a crewman" includes "replacing dead crewmen" which he could have done when there were just 2 crewmen alive.

The number of crewmen isn't important. The reason I used 'one crewman' is that whether he replaces a dead crewman or not is important -- a war machine with one crewman left can only fire every other turn.

Thus, if he replaces the last living crewman, the machine still only fires every other turn. However, I'm asserting that he can replace any member of the crew -- alive or dead -- and hence him joining the single-man crew of a war machine and acting as crew will allow it to fire every turn.

DeathlessDraich
05-12-2006, 18:45
So you are saying that "replaying a crewman" should be interpreted as "replacing a crewman, alive or dead".

NakedFisherman
05-12-2006, 18:49
So you are saying that "replaying a crewman" should be interpreted as "replacing a crewman, alive or dead".

Yes. The rule is called 'Extra Crewman'. :)

txamil
06-12-2006, 00:04
The number of crewmen isn't important. The reason I used 'one crewman' is that whether he replaces a dead crewman or not is important -- a war machine with one crewman left can only fire every other turn.


that's not true for warmachines with just 2 crewmen.

NakedFisherman
06-12-2006, 02:51
that's not true for warmachines with just 2 crewmen.

That's what I meant. I just re-read my post before reading yours and noticed it's worded absolutely terribly. :(

txamil
06-12-2006, 04:50
Hey I was just happy to finally be able to contribute to the rules forum Ive leeched so much from ;)

Milgram
06-12-2006, 09:57
well... what if there are no other crewmembers left? can the engineer fire the weapon alone every second turn? IF he replaces a 'dead' crewmember, he probably could...

also: would the warmachine give points to the enemy at the end of the game when there are no regular crewmembers left? IF he replaces a 'dead' crewmember, the warmachine would still have one and therefore not give any points...

NakedFisherman
06-12-2006, 13:29
well... what if there are no other crewmembers left? can the engineer fire the weapon alone every second turn? IF he replaces a 'dead' crewmember, he probably could...

Yep. That's another reason why I believe he can replace any crewman, alive or dead.


also: would the warmachine give points to the enemy at the end of the game when there are no regular crewmembers left? IF he replaces a 'dead' crewmember, the warmachine would still have one and therefore not give any points...

No, it wouldn't give points as he is 'in a position to operate the machine' and can act as crew.

Edit: I included the wording in my original post so others can discuss the first oddity.

EldarRaven
06-12-2006, 13:49
replace

1 : to restore to a former place or position *replace cards in a file*
2 : to take the place of especially as a substitute or successor
3 : to put something new in the place of *replace a worn carpet*

Are you sure they are not talking about the 2nd meaning. Here's how I see it played. Say you have a full crew of 3 and then the Master Engineer joins the crew you will still have the 3 other models there just one of them is not involved is the work of the gun. He can still be killed and attacked but he just does not help out with anything on the gun. I do agree that his wording would mean that he can take the spot of a dead member.

NakedFisherman
06-12-2006, 13:58
Of course he can still be killed or attacked, but since one crewman is replaced by the Master Engineers, should the machine explode due to a misfire, we are instructed to remove the machine and its crew.

However, one crewman was simply in the unit -- he wasn't part of its crew (think of it as if a Liche Priest had joined a Screaming Skull Catapult.

Kotobuki
06-12-2006, 16:11
Fisherman, if you want to count the Engineer as being able to replace a dead crewman, then you have to allow that the crew of the machine (whether working or not) all dies when the machine explodes. You don't get to have your cake and eat it too. The crew of the machine is still the crew of the machine.

NakedFisherman
06-12-2006, 16:28
Fisherman, if you want to count the Engineer as being able to replace a dead crewman, then you have to allow that the crew of the machine (whether working or not) all dies when the machine explodes. You don't get to have your cake and eat it too.

Please explain the relation between the Master Engineer replacing a crew and the crew all being removed when the machine explodes.


The crew of the machine is still the crew of the machine.

The simple fact is that one 'crew member' is replaced. If a war machine with three crew members is joined by a Master Engineer and the machine misfires, one 'crew member' will still be alive. The rules tell us to remove the war machines crew (i.e. those that are currently crewing it). A crew member, being replaced, must then survive.

DeathlessDraich
06-12-2006, 16:58
I haven't seen the New Empire rules but it will be interesting to see how the Engineer/Master Engineer rules are phrased exactly.


Yep. That's another reason why I believe he can replace any crewman, alive or dead.
.

This interpretation is without precedent.
e.g.1 When a character replaces a chariot crew - different interpretation there.



However, one crewman was simply in the unit -- he wasn't part of its crew (think of it as if a Liche Priest had joined a Screaming Skull Catapult.

Again without precedent. A model of a unit is always part of that unit. If he is not, he cannot 'join' a unit. Only characters can. If he is not a crewman what can he be? The warmachine unit has crewmen and machine only, usually.


The rules tell us to remove the war machines crew (i.e. those that are currently crewing it). A crew member, being replaced, must then survive.

And this brings up the problem of the exact meaning (by that I don't mean dictionary meaning but meaning in relation to the rules) of "replace" or "replaced crewman".

Is the replaced crewman still part of the crew or is he not?
Both interpretations lead to problems.

The exact words used in the new Empire book will be important. I just hope GW doesn't create another mess!

Mephistofeles
06-12-2006, 17:00
So where does the "replaced" crewman go when the engineer crews it? He stands beside the machine, as a separate unit? Is he removed from the table until the machines firing has been resolved, and then placed with it again?

What says he comes back? He might just continue to be a separate model. Or removed.

Kotobuki
06-12-2006, 17:00
It says to remove "the rest of the crew", not "those that are currently crewing it". The infantry models bought with the warmachine are the crew. Whether one has been displaced, replaced, misplaced, or any-other-kind-of-placed, he's still crew, and is removed as per the rules.

szlachcic
06-12-2006, 17:42
This interpretation is without precedent.
e.g.1 When a character replaces a chariot crew - different interpretation there. If the character leaves the chariot and a crewman is killed and then the character joins the chariot he doesn't replace a dead crewman.

This arguement makes no sense. Crewmen of a chariot can not be killed unless the chariot as a whole is destroyed and therefore it cannot be compared to a warmachine.

I have to agree with NFM about the Engineer replacing crew members. I think you would actually have all four models near the war machine but only 3 can count as "manning" it. I do also agree that he should be able to join the crew when some have died and take their place.

I do not agree with the idea of one crewman surviving a misfire when an engineer takes his place. I would think he is still considered part of the crew even though he is not manning the gun (maybe he is running ammo or powder) so he would therefore still be killed in the event of a misfire.

NakedFisherman
06-12-2006, 18:39
I haven't seen the New Empire rules but it will be interesting to see how the Engineer/Master Engineer rules are phrased exactly.

I already gave the quotations.


This interpretation is without precedent.

So? What does a precedent have to do with the rules?


A model of a unit is always part of that unit. If he is not, he cannot 'join' a unit. Only characters can. If he is not a crewman what can he be? The warmachine unit has crewmen and machine only, usually.

Ugh.

When a Captain joins a war machine, he is not part of the crew and is not killed should it misfire. When a Master Engineer joins a war machine and acts as crew, he is killed should it misfire. However, since he 'replaces a crew member', when the war machine is destroyed by a misfire the crew (i.e. those crewing it) are removed. One crew member is not part of the crew when a Master Engineer has replaced him.


Both interpretations lead to problems.

What problems?


It says to remove "the rest of the crew", not "those that are currently crewing it". The infantry models bought with the warmachine are the crew. Whether one has been displaced, replaced, misplaced, or any-other-kind-of-placed, he's still crew, and is removed as per the rules.

It says to remove 'the rest of the crew', but who are the crew? I'd say the crew are those crewing it. N.b. the Empire army book entries for all of its war machines give the profiles for 'Crewman', not 'crew'.

I'm inclined to agree with you, though. Even if he's referred to as a 'crewman', to be a crewman he'd have to be crew. He never ceases to be a crewman, even though he is replaced. He just stands too close and is unlucky. :p

DeathlessDraich
06-12-2006, 19:19
One crew member is not part of the crew when a Master Engineer has replaced him.
p

That does not answer the all important question:
What is the replaced crew member?
The Empire warmachine has only 2 types of models in its unit - crewmen and machine itself. (An O&G Bolt thrower has 3 types).

Which type is this 'replaced crewman'? Simply saying he is a replaced crewman is insufficient.
To be with a warmachine the model must either be a crewman or a machine. If he is neither he cannot be part of that warmachine unit and to join that unit he can only be a character.


Does it say anywhere in the Empire rules what the characteristics of this 'replaced model' are?

If it does not then the rules are inadequate and your interpretation is an assumption.

szlachcic: *edited*

eldrak
07-12-2006, 00:30
I think the intention only was to allow the machine to fire when it was down to 1 original crew + engineer. Anything else is just bad wording.

And it's a difference between empire and dwarf engineers.

Kotobuki
07-12-2006, 02:43
NFM, where does it say that the crewmen stop being crew when they've been replaced? Where does it ever say the replaced crewman is no longer crew? Actual quote, please. Not "I think the wording means someone stops being crew".

Longinus
07-12-2006, 14:57
I would assume that the engineer can replace dead crew member and that all crewmen, replaced or not die, if the cannon explodes. Why? Because it makes sense. I, mean why couldn't the engineer replace a dead guy? It would just be stupid. Also, allowing replaced crew members survive would just lead to unnecessary confusion.

Axel
07-12-2006, 15:56
I agree with eldrak on this one.
The engineer CAN replace a crew member. He doesn`t has to, even when he uses his special ability for the machine. It only makes sense for him to work the gun when it is down to one member and would else only fire every other turn, though. In that case there is no question wether both die if the machine blows up.

NakedFisherman
07-12-2006, 16:18
NFM, where does it say that the crewmen stop being crew when they've been replaced?

The fact that they're 'replaced' and replaced is undefined is what causes the confusion. I'd consider a crewman who has been 'replaced' to no longer be part of the crew, just as I'd expect a quarterback who has been replaced to no longer be a quarterback.

Kotobuki
08-12-2006, 01:57
So, in the absence of a rule stating that a replaced crewman stops being crew, it makes more sense to you to assume that he stops being crew, rather than continue to play him as crew since his status as crew is unchanged per the rules?

NakedFisherman
08-12-2006, 02:05
So, in the absence of a rule stating that a replaced crewman stops being crew, it makes more sense to you to assume that he stops being crew, rather than continue to play him as crew since his status as crew is unchanged per the rules?

No, in the absense of a rule defining replaced I don't assume that the word is meaningless. Your interpretation has no real backing in the rules, either.

What do you believe replaced means?

feeder
08-12-2006, 02:30
I would like to say that 'crew' is one of those words that looks really odd when you read it over and over.

The Engineer can replace one of the crew, and will die if the machine explodes. The 'replaced' crewman is in a sort of limbo, though. I would remove him as a casualty with the rest of the crew and the Engineer, for simplicity's sake.

NakedFisherman
08-12-2006, 02:46
The 'replaced' crewman is in a sort of limbo, though.

I agree.


I would remove him as a casualty with the rest of the crew and the Engineer, for simplicity's sake.

I would as well.

Longinus
08-12-2006, 12:58
I would as well.

So actually everyone agrees on how it is supposed to work?

NakedFisherman
08-12-2006, 14:47
So actually everyone agrees on how it is supposed to work?

No. I stated in a previous post that that's how I would play it.

I'm not sure how it is supposed to be played, though.

Himself76NY
08-12-2006, 15:02
This whole tangent is ridiculous. I play Orc and Goblins and by this same logic the Bully who just bosses around the goblins crewing the machines could not be killed cause he could not be considered crew in a sense. Of course I remove him though because why? Well there is no rule that states otherwise!! Stop looking for cheap ways to get points etc.

JonnyTHM
08-12-2006, 15:05
Ummmm, the bully explicitly 'counts as part of the crew' as said in the army entry. That makes it rather different, and also not up for interpretation at all.

Axel
09-12-2006, 17:27
Why should the engineer replace a living crewman, and thus put him into a rule-limbo and himself into additional danger, if there is no need for it due to a complete crew?
In the enemies turn he will be solo again anyway, so this offers no protection from fire or in cc.
While the problem might theoretically arise, it will not on the "real" battlefield, unless a player deliberately wants to sow confusion.

Festus
09-12-2006, 17:47
Why should the engineer replace a living crewman, and thus put him into a rule-limbo and himself into additional danger, if there is no need for it due to a complete crew?
As he replaces a crew, he does not add toit: A cannon with just one crew left will still only fire every other turn, even if the engineer helps...


In the enemies turn he will be solo again anyway, so this offers no protection from fire or in cc.

It still offers protection, as the Charater still is joined to the unit. He just isn't crew anymore.

Festus

NakedFisherman
09-12-2006, 17:58
As he replaces a crew, he does not add toit: A cannon with just one crew left will still only fire every other turn, even if the engineer helps...

He replaces a crewman, he doesn't displace him. Sometimes they are one in the same, however, they often aren't. If I were to break a chair, I would be asked to replace it, for instance. In this sense, the Master Engineer can replace a crewman who is no longer able to crew the machine.

Suppose all the crew died. The Master Engineer can replace a crewman and fire the machine on his own.

loveless
09-12-2006, 20:38
I've got to agree with NF's last post

From the way people have been stating the rule, I'd say the Engineer confers the bonus of having another body that can man the machine - effectively requiring the opponent to slay 3 crew members before slowing the firing rate of the war machine (or 2 if it's not one of the Hells)

Sedekiel
09-12-2006, 22:31
One simple question...because I just cant understand the ruling.

If an engineer joins a cannon crew, the crew members are four or three?

Cheers fdr

NakedFisherman
09-12-2006, 22:41
If an engineer joins a cannon crew, the crew members are four or three?

I don't know. :( That's the main argument on this thread.

DeathlessDraich
10-12-2006, 10:22
Compare with Hydra rules which are slightly better:
"A Beastmaster on foot may join the unit (replacing a lost Apprentice if you wish) ... etc"

Clearer rules here. Obviously a more careful rules writer.

Sedekiel
10-12-2006, 17:00
Dwarfs additional crew rule :
In any given shooting phase, a Master engineer or an engineer who has joined a war machine can either act as an additional crew; use their artillery master or artillery specialist special rules; or fire personal weaponry. They must declare the option they will use before firing the war machine.

The rules are probably the same with the dwarfs so:

If the character uses his personal weaponry in the shooting phase he may not count as part of the crew.

If the character uses his ballistic special ability(use his BS or re-roll the art dice) or helps to load the weapon (obviously, replacing already dead members of the crew) he counts as crew and is affected by a possible misfire.

Cheers fdr

Axel
10-12-2006, 17:25
Nope, it seems the Empire ruling is that the Engineer can use his skill. He can ALSO choose to replace a crew member. That, however, only makes sense when there is any benefit, mainly when the machine is down to one or zero crew. If he replaces a member before he just gets himself into danger when the machine explodes without any gain whatsoever.

And if the Engineer can only replace a LIVING crewman, as Festus indicates, then there would be no sense at all for this rule. Thus by implication he can also replace a dead member.

Sedekiel
11-12-2006, 00:28
Nope, it seems the Empire ruling is that the Engineer can use his skill.
He can but only when he is not using his weapon. He cannot use his superior BS in firing the Hochland and firing the Volley. The player has to pick one of the two he cannot do both.

Cheers fdr

eldrak
11-12-2006, 22:40
Dwarfs additional crew rule :
In any given shooting phase, a Master engineer or an engineer who has joined a war machine can either act as an additional crew; use their artillery master or artillery specialist special rules; or fire personal weaponry. They must declare the option they will use before firing the war machine.

The rules are probably the same with the dwarfs so:

If the character uses his personal weaponry in the shooting phase he may not count as part of the crew.

If the character uses his ballistic special ability(use his BS or re-roll the art dice) or helps to load the weapon (obviously, replacing already dead members of the crew) he counts as crew and is affected by a possible misfire.

Cheers fdr

Sorry, you read it wrong, the dwarf master engineer is not crew unless he uses his option to function as extra crew.
It's even clarified in the dwarf FAQ.

Sedekiel
12-12-2006, 01:13
Sorry, you read it wrong, the dwarf master engineer is not crew unless he uses his option to function as extra crew.
It's even clarified in the dwarf FAQ.

That is what I am saying to. We are saying the same thing...

Cheers fdr

crossorion
12-12-2006, 01:33
If you want an oddity, a REAL oddity in the empire army book, Luther has an ability in his army list entry that doesn't exist in any description inside the army book or the rulebook. Enjoy looking for it ;)

Spoonie
12-12-2006, 01:51
If it's something that's spelled wrong or uses a synonym I'm going to be very dissapointed. Like the Eldar Harlequins who have the "Furious Assault" skill when clearly they meant the "Furious Charge" skill, which actually exists. But if they actually just totally forgot to reference an ability, that's awesome.

crossorion
12-12-2006, 12:50
Oh, no, it has nothing to do with a spelling mistake or something, it is an actual special rule in Luther's army list entry that me nor the guy in the store can find any referance to. :P

Templar_Victorious
22-01-2008, 00:37
Hehe, I know what U mean... Fiery Demagogue... I also looked for it, and neither the Arch lector, Volkmar or Warrior Priest has anything with that name, which would be the case if the rule was entried at the wrong character, but the summary does not include it at all, nor the description of their rules...

Crazy Harborc
22-01-2008, 01:41
My regular opponents and I have been just plopping engineers into a war machine/artillerie's crew. If it's his BS that's needed....So be it, but no shooting his handgun, pistol or whatever in that turn.

May be wrong at GDs/tournies in GW stores. No one has spoken up yet. I will worry if and when it is objected to.;)

Dendo Star
22-01-2008, 03:06
Why...field....useless Master Engineer....?

Jonke
22-01-2008, 04:25
Threadomancy is bad. Especially if you don't have anything constructive to say.

Templar_Victorious
22-01-2008, 11:13
The only reason I see to field master engineers is if you should have an open hero slot in a big game, not good to fill up in smaller games, to man a helblaster, so that the chance of hitting is mildly increased, or if you play a friendly game, where the hilarity of a Pigeon bomb is the center of much amusement.

Crazy Harborc
23-01-2008, 01:27
A regular opponent used a pidgeon bomber a couple of battles ago. It worked and did do some harm.:mad: He only had one.:D