Artillery in Combat phase

[foolsama]

A question came in up in my last battle against some Duardin artillery.

Once I kill the crew, am I still locked in combat with the weapon itself? Or is that done, and I can move/charge/pile in somewhere else?

The rules specify that it counts as seperate units for the purposes of selecting for attacks, however it's pointed as one. What do you think this means for battleplans like Escalation? Or, when counting 'units destroyed' or 'points removed' does that imply that both the weapon and the crew have to be slain?

[bottle]

I have always played it as:

1. They deploy as one drop,

2. You have to kill both to get the points,

3. You can't move within 3" of an unmanned artillery piece unless you declare a charge,

4. If you are in combat and kill the crew, you will also need to destroy the artillery or make a retreat move in the next turn to move away from it.

[foolsama]

An un-manned artillery piece is essntially just scenery, however. It can no longer provide any function on a battlefield...

[Squirrelmaster]

I agree with @bottle here. Certainly, it's something you could house-rule, but by the rules as written, it is still an enemy model.

Also, keep the "Screaming Skull Catapult" in mind. For that warscroll, as long as the machine is still on the battlefield, any Death Wizard can resurrect the crew.

[arnoldrew]

2 hours ago, foolsama said:

An un-manned artillery piece is essntially just scenery, however. It can no longer provide any function on a battlefield...

Where does it say that in the rules? Even though it can't do anything, it's still technically an enemy model and you'd have to retreat to get away from it or charge to get within 3" of it.

[Nico]

The unmanned cannon can still score objectives. You still need to kill it in order to get the Kill Points for the Warscroll of the artillery piece.

[StealthKnightSteg]

and it can be re-manned by another set of crew by moving within range of it.

[Squirrelmaster]

1 hour ago, StealthKnightSteg said:

and it can be re-manned by another set of crew by moving within range of it.

Has this been FAQ'd? Because from the way the warscrolls are worded, I would say no to this.

[StealthKnightSteg]

19 minutes ago, Squirrelmaster said:

Has this been FAQ'd? Because from the way the warscrolls are worded, I would say no to this.

Hmm after re-reading some of the warscrolls (also old compendium ones) it does say "it's"  crew which would mean that each piece of artillery has it's own set of crew eventhough the wording for the crew warscroll is similair within a faction. But I would allow it.

[foolsama]

It would seem to depend on the intent of the game. Obviously, with chariots climbing walls, we aren't aiming for realism. If we were - I would go with my original thought, that once the crew is dead, the weapon becomes scenery. I would also say that weapons cannot hold objectives, but their crew can. I would also say that if the dwarves had an Engineer present, or a Cogsmith, other artillery crew can move to populate the dead crew's emplacement, but they'd incur penalties (no move and shoot, not shooting in to or out of combat, for instance).

However, since they're not and this isn't... I'm down with calling the weapon itself an enemy model for all intents and purposes.

[arnoldrew]

4 hours ago, foolsama said:

It would seem to depend on the intent of the game. Obviously, with chariots climbing walls, we aren't aiming for realism. If we were - I would go with my original thought, that once the crew is dead, the weapon becomes scenery. I would also say that weapons cannot hold objectives, but their crew can. I would also say that if the dwarves had an Engineer present, or a Cogsmith, other artillery crew can move to populate the dead crew's emplacement, but they'd incur penalties (no move and shoot, not shooting in to or out of combat, for instance).

However, since they're not and this isn't... I'm down with calling the weapon itself an enemy model for all intents and purposes.

Well, they are aiming for as much realism as you can get and still have a simple, unbloated ruleset. I much prefer it to a giant all-encompassing tome of rules that I would need to consult after every die roll.

[Squirrelmaster]

It would be simpler and more realistic, imo, if they ruled that the machine and crew functioned as a single model, which should be mounted on a combined base.

It works for chariots, and the Skaven war machines.

[Nico]

Quote

It would be simpler and more realistic, imo, if they ruled that the machine and crew functioned as a single model, which should be mounted on a combined base.

They are deliberately separate to make it harder for you to buff the machine and to make it easier to kill the crew. 

Those Chaos ones are costed on the basis that they don't have a separate crew, which is a big advantage. 

[Squirrelmaster]

With regard to making it easier to kill the crew, the combined model could just be 3 wounds with a 4+ save.

With regards to buffs, they could just omit the relevant keywords, or make the available buffs a bit more restrictive.

Or for that matter, nerf or re-point the whole thing appropriately.

[BaldoBeardo]

With regard to making it easier to kill the crew, the combined model could just be 3 wounds with a 4+ save.
With regards to buffs, they could just omit the relevant keywords, or make the available buffs a bit more restrictive.
Or for that matter, nerf or re-point the whole thing appropriately.

I'll be curious to see the first AoS warmachine - which'll probably be along with Steamheads.
I'd wager all future warmachines will be the single model concept (like Skullcannon), and current rules are as they are because they're accommodating legacy minis.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk