Librarium Online Forums banner
1 - 18 of 18 Posts

·
Senior Member
Joined
·
1,082 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
During a game last week that pitted my guard against the new Orks I attempted to fire my Leman Russ’ battle cannon at a squad of Ork Bikers. As usual I targeted the model in the centre of the squad (which was a Warboss)

Now he says I can’t target that model with the ordnance template due to it being a character forcing me to place the template on another model reducing the number of targets it hits.

Now I thought you can place the template anywhere on the squad and the hits will go to the squad first then the character thus making the ordnance weapon not an assassination weapon.

Can someone explain if he is right or not and give reference so I can show him in the rulebook later this week?
 

·
Suffer not the Unclean
Joined
·
2,251 Posts
Not enough information to provide an answer.

If he had declared the warboss to join the squad during deployment or when he moved into coherency with them, then it is legal for you to place the blast marker on the warboss. As you noted, he would not be compelled to remove that particular model.

If on the other hand the warboss had never been declared to actually be a member of the unit, and he's just riding around in their vicinity, then you may not place the blast marker over him.

It is not uncommon to have a model with the Independant Character rule running around with a squad, but not actually join it. I do it all the time.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,023 Posts
Ia is correct on the points he mentioned.

Let me further say that once he is joined to the unit, he becomes a valid target within that unit.

If he is not joined, and just riding around next to them, you can place the templet over someone next to him, and snipe him with partials=)

In short, if he is joined, he loses the targetting restrictions (see torrent of t\fire, mixed armour, characters, ICs, and general rules for blasts). If he is not joined, you can't target him directly, but you certainly may clip him with blasts and templetes.

Note= you are correct about blasts not being assination weapons in that causalties may be taken ANYWHERE from the squad following normal blast rules LOS, range, and such)
 

·
Firefly
Joined
·
4,209 Posts
That is an important point. For although the character may be under the template, you opponent can remove any model from the unit to replace the character.
 

·
for good and for awesome!
Joined
·
1,492 Posts
Slightly off-topic, but related: The Monolith Particle Whip is an exception. The current FAQ states that models may be removed from anywhere in the effected squad except, specifically, a model beneath the hole of the template. Said model takes an AP1 hit.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,023 Posts
Indeed Kore, it is one of only 4 methods of which to "snipe" specific models in a squad. The others being Mind war, the vindicare assassin, and blocking LOS to all other models (say with 2 rhinos?) and shooting through the gap.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,023 Posts
I have a 5th: using range restrictions (casualties must be in range).
But the chances of having ONLY the IC/model in range, while the rest are out is almost impossible to eyeball, even for someon like me who's played for 14+ years.

But true, it could be one under the right circumstances.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
190 Posts
Incidentally, the 5th edition "leak" says that any character within 2" automatically joins a unit. If he does not want to join, he has to stay at least 2" away. I like the switch in that there can't be any surprises. The character is free, of course, to leave a unit during movement, simply by moving more than 2" away.

Weaf
 

·
Charitably Tables People
Joined
·
1,500 Posts
It's a rare good rule from the 5th edition leak. It prevents people from saying ''yeah he's attached'' or ''no he isn't attached'' depending on what suits them best.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
291 Posts
Indeed Kore, it is one of only 4 methods of which to "snipe" specific models in a squad. The others being Mind war, the vindicare assassin, and blocking LOS to all other models (say with 2 rhinos?) and shooting through the gap.
I have a 5th: using range restrictions (casualties must be in range).
And a 6th: Gift of Chaos.
 

·
for good and for awesome!
Joined
·
1,492 Posts
It's a rare good rule from the 5th edition leak. It prevents people from saying ''yeah he's attached'' or ''no he isn't attached'' depending on what suits them best.
Agreed.
 

·
Dark Eldar Gerbil
Joined
·
1,522 Posts
It's a rare good rule from the 5th edition leak. It prevents people from saying ''yeah he's attached'' or ''no he isn't attached'' depending on what suits them best.
but it doesn't always help as it only joins at the end of the movement phase. you can still fleet or "run" them together and they don't join.
 

·
Dark Eldar Zealot
Joined
·
3,699 Posts
And a 6th: Gift of Chaos.
Number 7: Allure of Slaanesh.

This is designed for use on Independant characters.

Tarzen what have you started here?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,023 Posts
Hey, I can't be held accountable for the new chaos or orc codex. Well, seems we have an answer=)
 

·
Charitably Tables People
Joined
·
1,500 Posts
but it doesn't always help as it only joins at the end of the movement phase. you can still fleet or "run" them together and they don't join.
Thank you for pointing out yet another piece of horrific GW writing and proofreading. These guys blow when it comes to anything requiring precision and foresight with the use of the English language, and with rules crafting.



Oh, and IIRC #8 - Old Zogwort.
 

·
for good and for awesome!
Joined
·
1,492 Posts
Here's a question on the whole "joining" topic: What if there are multiple units the IC could join? Which one did it join? Without specifically asking the player, there is no way of knowing. Now we're back to square one because we still have to ask questions.
 
1 - 18 of 18 Posts
Top