Librarium Online Forums banner
1 - 12 of 12 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
38 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
What do you guys think about using an enginseer with a few gun servitors as a fire support squad?
I have only one (So far) tank in my 1500pt army, so his special rule probably will not get used.

Thanks in advance.
:?
 

·
durus
Joined
·
2,578 Posts
I like the fluff for Enginseers, but really I think they too expensive for a fire support squad. If you could give the Enginseer a long range gun like you can with an Inquisitor it would be OK, but in a fire support squad his points are completely wasted.

Your much better off with two Heavy Bolter FS squads for about the same price.;Y
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
457 Posts
Agreed, for the points there really is little point in having an engineseer as fire support. Whack in the extra tank, or the aforementioned fire support as an alternative.

Personally I don't rate engineseer's at all in rules value, but I love the fluff, So I always whack one in a mechanised or armoured company, but even then, I don't use gun servitors I'm afraid.

Just back up really.
 

·
Monkey Pirate
Joined
·
452 Posts
Engineers should be used to for fixing tanks. The gun servitors aren't worth the cost. As previously stated fire support squads are the way to go if your not going to be sticking heavy weapons in your line. Your better off with another tank. Or 2.
 

·
durus
Joined
·
2,578 Posts
Engineers should be used to for fixing tanks.
The best way I have used this is to park a Enginseer with 4 tech Servitors in base contact with two Russes or a Russ and a Bassie. That way if either needs fixing a roll of a 2+ fixed!
 

·
Senior Member
Joined
·
2,399 Posts
Actually the servitors make really good Fire support squads - with a BS4 two heavy bolters are the same as 3 on a anti-tank squad.
For more effect however, get a DH inquisitor, give him a psycannon, and 2x servitors with heavy bolters (and may i suggest some more chums to soak up wounds)
 

·
Set Sail and Conquer!
Joined
·
1,633 Posts
The best way I have used this is to park a Enginseer with 4 tech Servitors in base contact with two Russes or a Russ and a Bassie. That way if either needs fixing a roll of a 2+ fixed!
Engineers should be used to for fixing tanks. The gun servitors aren't worth the cost. As previously stated fire support squads are the way to go if your not going to be sticking heavy weapons in your line. Your better off with another tank. Or 2.
Wow - you guys both advocate using them for fixing tanks! I couldn't agree less. Respectfully, of course. :)

My reason is that that is a whole bunch of points sitting around doing almost nothing bar waiting for an imobilised or weapon destroyed result which can thusly be fixed. There's a high chance that the tank will simply be destroyed anyway, rendering the techpriest completely useless. And even fixing a weapon destroyed result will not always mean that the gun can be fired that same turn, if the tank also has a shaken or stunned result. Which will often be the case.

I'd prefer to spend the same points on plasma and missile launchers!



What do you guys think about using an enginseer with a few gun servitors as a fire support squad?
I have only one (So far) tank in my 1500pt army, so his special rule probably will not get used.

Thanks in advance.
:?
I love it! Whilst, as you can read above, I have absolutely no love for mr 'fixit' style techpriests (and techmarines), I do love gun servitors. Its highly useful to have a unit of decent balistic skill heavy weapons in an IG army, as you can actually rely on them somewhat to get the job done.

I very often run a techpriest with 3 heavy bolters and a plasma cannon. Wow, they can do well.

And sure, they are a small squad fairly easily killed, but I tend to give my opponent a proliferation of targets to choose from, and as this squad is sitting back and not really claiming any objectives (just shooting away), it does tend to actually survive fairly well against competant opponents. (Actually, thats a weird duality, they tend to be killed quickly by less effective opponents).


So yeah. I love them. However - I may be jaded by the fact that I run a Skitarii army, and all things Mechanicus do tend to get a slight leg up into the army list...
 

·
Treadhead with a Chainaxe
Joined
·
1,805 Posts
Unless you're a fan of the fluff or the models, you're probably better of brining another fire support squad of heavy bolters.

A shame really. Really wish there would be more people playing with Enginseers and Techmarines. I'm a big fan of Adeptus Mechanicus fluff, but gamewise, fielding them is generally considered a bad idea by the community for various reasons.
 

·
Librarian from Hell
Joined
·
4,133 Posts
As much as i've been thinking about getting me a TechPriest (they do look so awesome) and give him a shooty retuine, there's a thing in the FAQ that bothers me a little.
It says the full cost of the servitors is to be counted towards the Wargearlimit.
So it seems to me as if the 3HB+PC servitor crew is not fully legal.

Or am I just wrong again...
 

·
Treadhead with a Chainaxe
Joined
·
1,805 Posts
As much as i've been thinking about getting me a TechPriest (they do look so awesome) and give him a shooty retuine, there's a thing in the FAQ that bothers me a little.
It says the full cost of the servitors is to be counted towards the Wargearlimit.
So it seems to me as if the 3HB+PC servitor crew is not fully legal.

Or am I just wrong again...
Ah, I had completely forgotten about this. But when reading your post, it's all comming back to me. :>

In the earliest printings of Codex: Imperial Guard 4th Edition, the Enginseers servitors didn't count as wargear. Later, FAQ: Imperial Guard appeared, saying that the servitors where infact, wargear and thus, the Enginseer would only be allowed a limited number of servitors because of the point limit on wargear allowed to one model.

Later in newer printings of the Imperial Guard Codex the codex specifically states that the servitors are not wargear. However, GW has said that the FAQ overrules anything said in the Codices, thus, even if the book says they're not - they are.

And since GW have said that they're no longer going to produce new FAQs or update old ones, the Enginseer and his servitors are quite screwed.
 

·
Set Sail and Conquer!
Joined
·
1,633 Posts
As much as i've been thinking about getting me a TechPriest (they do look so awesome) and give him a shooty retuine, there's a thing in the FAQ that bothers me a little.
It says the full cost of the servitors is to be counted towards the Wargearlimit.
So it seems to me as if the 3HB+PC servitor crew is not fully legal.

Or am I just wrong again...
No, you are not wrong - GW is. Again.

The FAQ actually came out at about the same time as the second edition of the IG codex (yes, there IS a second edition of the IG codex).

This newer edition of the codex states in the techpriest's army list entry quite specifically that servitors do NOT count towards the wargear limit of the techpriest. If your codex does not have this entry, you have the older version.

Moreover, there is a large body of evidence that contradicts the FAQ here. Such as the statement in the codex that a techpriest cannot take more than 1 plasma cannon servitor - if it counts as wargear, he wouldn't be able to afford more than 1 anyway!

Then there's the fact that if a servitor counts as wargear, you could only take one - no repeating of wargear, people, sorry! And there's a pic in the codex of a techpriest with two servitors following him, if i'm not mistaken...

There's more, but I can't be bothered going on, plus I don't have my codex on me at the moment, so I can't quote stuff properly. I've spoken to GW tournament organisers on this issue, and they have always told me to ignore the FAQ on this issue.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Andusciassus

·
Treadhead with a Chainaxe
Joined
·
1,805 Posts
There's more, but I can't be bothered going on, plus I don't have my codex on me at the moment, so I can't quote stuff properly. I've spoken to GW tournament organisers on this issue, and they have always told me to ignore the FAQ on this issue.
I'd agree with Cadaverjunki on this matter. Clearly GW has made an error here.

EDIT: Andusciassus, don't know if you're familiar with the Swedish Warhammer 40k FAQ, but it's a document created by people representing 40k clubs from all over Sweden where they clear up various oddities with GW's ruling and wording in order to make tournament play in Sweden less of a hassle. In my three year 40k career, I've yet to be at one tournament in Sweden where the Swe40kFAQ wasn't "official".

GW does make their mistakes and since they take forever to fix them, the Swedish 40k Scene acted and did it for them. You'll find the latest version of it here; Current version of the Swedish FAQ

EDIT2: After having checked it, it seems it does not mention Enginseers. Ah well, it might be usefull to you either way, so I'll leave my edit in place.
 
1 - 12 of 12 Posts
Top