Tuesday, 23 November 2010


Ur doin it rong lulz

More rules queries from us here at the 512th Cadian (on behalf of Wednesday Gaming Night), that will hopefully tickle your inner rules lawyer! These questions come in Imperial Guard flavour, but there are a couple of Daemonhunters-related ones as well. As ever, your input is very much appreciated!

Aten-Hut Soldier! Answer Me This!

Q1. Can you fire Mortars (an Ordnance Barrage weapon) from a fire point when inside a building?

Seems silly, and it’s more reasonable to assume that the mortars are being fired from the top of a building (rooftop/battlement/parapet), but there’s no specific ruling that says you cannot.

Q1.1 What about firing Mortars from a Chimera then?

If a squad is embarked in a stationary Chimera, can it fire the mortar from it’s ‘fire point’ (the hatch)? Recall that the previous 3rd edition IG codex had a rule in which if models fired from the Chimera’s hatch, it counts as open-topped (a rule which has since been scrapped).

Q1.2 How about firing them from under a ruin?

Can one argue that the upper floors will block the trajectory of a mortar barrage? Will it still be able to fire?

Q2. Imperial Guardsmen cannot receive orders if they are already in a transport (Pg. 29 IG Codex). But can Imperial Guard receive orders if they are already embarked in a building?

Does a building count as a (stationary) transport since it uses similar rules, e.g. damage chart, embarking, disembarking, or is it something else unique entirely?

What if the units in a building are ‘on the rooftop/battlement/parapet’, and therefore count as being open-topped? Can the unit take orders in the same fashion that a unit deployed in a ruin can?

Q2.1. Imperial Guard Officers cannot give orders if they are already in a transport (Pg. 29 IG Codex). But can Officers give orders if they are embarked in a building?

Basically the same questions as Q2. What do you think?

Q3. Can a unit of Ogryns be issued, and carry out, Orders?

Are they exempt from Orders as (fluff-wise) they are considered too stupid to follow the simplest command? Nothing in the rules says they cannot follow orders.

Q4. When deploying Marbo (as per ‘He’s Behind You! Pg. 61 IG Codex) can Marbo be deployed in impassable terrain?

I ask this if Marbo can effectively ‘move’ into impassable terrain in the same way Jump Infantry can access impassable terrain by ending their movement on it (not deepstriking onto it, as this is disallowed) and counting it as dangerous terrain? E.g. appearing on the rooftop of very tall buildings previously considered impassable.

Q5. When deploying Marbo (as per ‘He’s Behind You! Pg. 61 IG Codex), is this considered a ‘Deep Strike’ method of deployment?

There is nothing in Marbo’s special rules entry that says it IS a Deep Strike, but if so, can a Daemonhunter opponent with 2no. Mystics in an Inquisitorial retinue take a ‘free shot’ at Marbo? (Pg. 15 Daemonhunter Codex). Fluff-wise it would seem reasonable (e.g. predicting where the enemy will appear).

Unless as a counter argument, the mind of Marbo is so unknowable even by the best Psykers to be able to prepare for his unique deployment style!

Q5.1 If Marbo's deployment is NOT a Deepstrike, can he then deploy INTO a Building or Transport (presumably a Friendly-player's transport!), e.g. He's been in deep cover inside a building waiting for his moment to pounce!

As discussed in the previous post, Pg. 95 of the main rulebook says Deepstriking units cannot deploy INTO a building/transport (this covers both occupied/unoccupied), but if Marbo is NOT Deepstriking in his 'He's Behind You!' deployment, does 'deploy anywhere on the table more than 1" from the enemy' mean he CAN deploy into empty buildings/transports?

Q6. Does Commisar Yarrick have an Invulnerable Save?

Old One-Eyed Yarrick’s Force Field wargear (Pg. 63 IG Codex) reads fluff-wise like a Refractor Field, but nowhere in his profile is it stated he gets an Invulnerable save. Does that mean if Yarrick gets smacked by a power weapon/fist, or hit by a weapon which has an AP greater than 4 (Yarrick’s carapace armour save), he doesn’t get an Invulnerable Save?

Q7. Does the ‘Astropath’ regimental advisor count as a Psyker?

Despite being one (fluff-wise) the IG Astropath does not have a ruling specifically stating it IS a Psyker in its relevant bestiary profile (Pg 31, IG Codex), unlike say a Primaris, or Sanctioned Psyker.

So I’m assuming that despite the fluff, the Astropath is NOT considered a Psyker in game terms, as it does not require a Psychic test to enforce it’s ‘Telepathic Relay’ ability, nor is it affected by rules such as the Culexus Assassin’s ‘Animus Speculum’ wargear, or ‘Psychic Abomination’ special rules (Pg. 27 Daemonhunter Codex).

Q8. Does the ‘Mystic’ Inquisitorial henchmen (see Daemonhunter Codex) count as a Psyker?

Fluff-wise they ARE Psykers, and some Mystics are even Astropaths! However, for the game I would say they are not, as per the reasonings given re: Astropaths in the previous question.

Q9. If an Inquisitor is equipped with a ‘Null-Rod’ (Pg. 18 Daemonhunter Codex), does that mean a Mystic cannot use his (fluff-wise) Psychic abilities? What if said Inquisitor joins a Command Squad with an Astropath, is the Astropath’s Telepathic Relay ability nullified?

Again I would say the Null-Rod works as intended by it’s Codex rules, but as stated previously regarding the game mechanics for Q.7 and Q.8, the Astropath/Mystics remain free to use their abilities.

I know I’m really being very pernickity here, but thanks for reading, and any comments/help is much appreciated!

- Menzies


  1. Jeez, you people need to get out more.

    1) With mortars, I think common sense simply must prevail. Funnily enough I was wondering this whilst playing on a ‘tunnels’ board… I’d say only if they can fire upwards/out of the top.

    1.1) Yes, assuming it’s not moved. It is a mortar hatch, after all.

    1.2) As (1). I’d use the actual terrain to judge this, as you would line of sight (only indirect)

    2) Interesting! I’d say ‘yes’, but I’d suspect the official line would be ‘no’.
    I’d extend the same to the second part.

    2.1) Ditto, although it’d be a crying shame fluff-wise if this were outlawed!

    3) Dunno

    4) Ooh! I’d like to think so, not least because of the picture. But I’d say no – it’d only be used as an unfair advantage…which’d spoil the fun of using Marbo!

    5) No.

    5.1) No to vehicles, but (along the same lines as orders above) I think buildings ought to be allowed. That makes sense. Hiding under the seat in a chimera doesn’t.

    6) Ooh! Dunno.

    7) Definitely not.

    Hope that’s of use/interest…

  2. 1. - RAW yes, you can always argue they've cut/shot holes in the roof.

    1.1 - http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/images/m1064-mortar2.jpg

    1.2 - RAW yes, I'd just take it as an abstraction of the ruin's shape

    2/2.1 - I suspect a RAW answer leans more towards no, but I'd allow it for both.

    3. - Sure, the officer is just telling them 'the Emperor wants you to run over there as fast as you can etc".

    4. - Depends how it's defined. If it's a case of 'this cliff cannot be scaled by foot troops, but jump/skimmers can land on it' (a mesa for instance), then yes, but he'd be stuck.
    If it is simply 100% impassible and nothing can end its movement there (a chemical lake), then no.

    5.1 No to vehicles, yes to buildings.

    6. - No. despite the description of the field being similar, the only game effect given is that wounds must be re-rolled with nothing about saving throws.

    7. Not a psyker gamewise. For the background the soul binding imparts the Emperor's power onto them to make them far, far more resistant to possession and the like, so it could be argued that protects against the powers to a degree.

    8/9 No, they could just be psychically sensitive or have some for of advanced scanner. The null rod could have a dampener so the =I= can turn off the effects for the Astropath's signal to get through.

  3. Thanks for the help guys, much appreciated! (And yes, I need to get out more).

    The recent GW FAQ update made me ponder over many of the questions that crop up often during my games (hence the majority being IG-related in one way or another).

    I'm sure we'll have more soon next time round, but thanks to all who took the trouble to answer the past 3 posts!