Space Marine rules questions (Auspex and Chronus)

[Haighus]

Ok, so I have a couple of things I want to clarify with the Space Marine Codex. I appreciate this may be invalidated in the very near future, but hey.

First up, Antaro Chronus' rules state that he can be taken for any Ultramarines tank. This doesn't specify any specific tank types. Does that mean that he could also be taken on the FW vehicles found in IA2 Second Edition, so long as they are also tanks (such as Sicarians, FW Land Raider variants etc)?

Secondly, can auspexes be used from within a transport vehicle? The rules for them merely states that they are used instead of shooting, but doesn't say that they are a form of shooting attack. For me, this could go one of 3 ways:
They can be used from within a vehicle no problem, in the same way Blessings of the Omnissiah can be used (also something that replaces the models shooting).
They require a firing point and are used in the same way as a shooting attack.
They cannot be used inside a transport vehicle.

The rules for auspexes (auspices?):
A model with an auspex can use it in place of making a shooting attack. If he does so, target an enemy unit within 12" (this does not count as choosing a target for his unit to shoot at). A unit that is targeted by one or more auspexes has its cover saves reduced by 1 until the end of the phase .

So what do people think?

[Denzark]

I thought Chronus specified those in the codex. If not, does the comment 'ultramarine tank' have some implication of 'ultramarine faction' which can only be found in the codex?

As to the auspex I reckon it uses 1 fire point but await a more proficient rules lawyer to say why not...

[Haighus]

"Sergeant Chronus may be taken as an upgrade for one Ultramarines Tank in the army."
That is the wording of his profile. Hmm. Tanks don't have Chapter tactics, so I can't see how the FW ones are any different to the Codex ones, they are the same faction.

I would play the auspex the way you say at the moment, but I am also awaiting rules lawyers for a ruling

[Denzark]

I know Pask says codex - I wonder if the new SM codex will limit Chronus? I like to concept of him, just never found a SM tank worth it yet. Mebbe a Pred Annihilator in a fluffy list, but preds do not get out much in competitive lists...

[Houghten]

We've had this argument over Pask / Generic AM Tank Commander before, I think. Sure, it says "choose from those on page 102" but the Annihilator and Conqueror's rules both say they can be taken as part of a Leman Russ squadron; it doesn't explicitly say "staple this page to page 102 and count it as part of it" but the effect is the same.

[Haighus]

It is much more vague than the wording for Pask/Leman Russ commander though- literally just says what I posted above- may be taken by any Ultramarines tank.

As for his worth in being taken, he could well be worth it in a Sicarian, as BS5 Accelerator autocannons and BS5 lascannon sponsons would be brutal. Could even give the vehicle Tank Hunters and resistance to Haywire with one of the Legacies of Glory in IA2. Was thinking about it for a Land Raider Achilles too, as the Achilles is already very tough. Giving it IWND would make it even harder to kill. Except for Eldar probably.

[Denzark]

Not hugely convinced by the Pask argument. There may be slight discrepancies in points cost or options between IA1 Vol2 and Codex AM. The Squadrons that allow annihilators and conquerors to be taken as part of them are those in the LR entry in IA1 Vol2, not the page 102 list in Codex AM. It is pure RAW and is also backed up by the fact that Pask has further effects on his vehicle depending on the type, ie rending on the punisher, big blast on the plasma. He does not have similar rules effects on conqs and annihilators.

If you say Chronus can go in any tank, he could be amusing in the Warhammer World exclusive Land Raider Excelsior. That can get BS+1 from the command Rhino and Pask would make it 6 - then you can give friendly units skyfire so could be firing grav amps and lascannons at fliers at BS 6 - nice.

[Houghten]

Not hugely convinced by the Pask argument. There may be slight discrepancies in points cost or options between IA1 Vol2 and Codex AM. The Squadrons that allow annihilators and conquerors to be taken as part of them are those in the LR entry in IA1 Vol2, not the page 102 list in Codex AM. It is pure RAW and is also backed up by the fact that Pask has further effects on his vehicle depending on the type, ie rending on the punisher, big blast on the plasma. He does not have similar rules effects on conqs and annihilators.

The Conqueror entry says "Leman Russ Conquerors may be taken as part of a Leman Russ squadron for a Codex: Imperial Guard army." Likewise Annihilators. Each is a unit entry, whole and unto itself, and makes no reference to the Leman Russ squadron (other than the Conquerors or Annihilators, which have their own upgrade lists) having to be point-valued up from Imperial Armour instead of Codex: Imperial Guard.

That Pask's Crack Shot rule has no effect on a twin-linked lascannon or Conqueror battle cannon only means that you'd have to be away with the fairies before paying 40 extra points to put him on a Conqueror / Annihilator, but the generic Commander is a handy BS boost.

What you quite clearly can't do is put one on a Destroyer or Thunderer, as they have no ability to be taken as part of a Leman Russ squadron, but other than that your "pure RAW" seems to be... not.

[Denzark]

Well 2 things then. Can you find conqs and annis on P102 of the Codex? And if you copied the IA entry verbatim, there ain't a codex Imperial Guard any more.

So, rules as written eh?

[Houghten]

I've already given my reasoning about not stapling the unit entries to page 102 and won't repeat it. It's not precisely "as written," I just don't think your interpretation is either. When it comes to FW you can't "pure RAW" because GW refuse to ever mention or acknowledge FW publications in their own.

If you honestly think treating Codex: Astra Militarum as somehow not Codex: Imperial Guard in any aspect is a clever thing to do, then I will speak with you no further.