Cerberus Launcher Rule Question – You Make the Call

On Tuesday, I’d posted a list for a 500 point tournament based exclusively around Landspeeder Storms, which got me to thinking.  The idea here is that this list allows you to punch ino the enemy with a first turn assault, and forces them to make break tests in their deployment zone–hopefully getting them to run off the board.

But that got me to thinking.  One of the rule that makes this possible is that of the Cerberus Launchers on the storms themselves.  Essentially, they cause the unit that’s being assaulted from the storm to make any leadership checks at -2.  My question is this: if a single unit is assaulted by multiple scout units, disembarking from multiple storms, are the -2 modifiers cumulative?

For your convenience, the exact rules of the cerberus launchers can be found below:

The cerberus laucher is used to stun enemy units prior to an assault by Scouts.

If a Scout unit charges nito comat on the same turn as it disembarks from the Land Speeder, any enemy units that th Scoutsassault have their Leadership reduced b 2 for the duration of that assault phase.

Are those modifiers cumulative?   If so, an assault by two scouts units, both with powerfists, would likely mean a victory by at least 1 wound–making the negative modifier at least -5.  Best case scenario, this means that a unit is going to need to roll a 4 or a 5 in order to stay in combat…

I’m interested to hear your thoughts on the matter… Do you think the modifiers should be combined?

Image stolen from the math department at Oakland Community College.

Advertisements

12 comments on “Cerberus Launcher Rule Question – You Make the Call

  1. I would think that it did stack, yes.

    However, you usually don’t _want_ to end the combat on the first turn this way, otherwise they’ll get to shoot you on your turn. Unfortunately, Scouts in fives don’t have the ability to sustain a fight for very long.

    • Oh certainly… they’re a write-off from the moment I deploy them on the
      board. I use them as the chess equivalent of trading pieces: if I can break
      a unit and get it to run off the board on turn one, and it was more costly
      (or viscious) than the scout squad itself, then it’s a good trade.

      That, and nobody expects to get hit first turn, so even if they’re not a
      great unit, they can force your opponent to react, and throw his game off
      tilt…

      • I think they’re a very good unit overall, it would go along way if the storm could seat another couple scouts though.

  2. I certainly don’t see why not. It’s not like for instance the Ordnance Barrage where the unit takes a leadership test at -1, it’s simply that the unit’s leadership is lowered by 2 for the duration of the assault phase. Granted, you still need to win the combat, but I think Storms need all the help they can get.

  3. There is no rule that says they don’t.

    This is why things like multiple IG Astropaths stacking was brought up by the community and FAQ’d by GW.

    • Except that GW isn’t super consistent on it’s rulings. Astropaths and
      Autarchs stack, but for some reason, multiple Hive Commanders do not.

      Clearly not every rule they have is covered, so this was just a feeler to
      see how people felt about it. Granted, this is a relatively small sample
      size, but it seems pretty lopsided that people agree the bonuses should
      stack (at least in this case).

    • Except that GW isn’t super consistent on it’s rulings. Astropaths and
      Autarchs stack, but for some reason, multiple Hive Commanders do not.

      Clearly not every rule they have is covered, so this was just a feeler to
      see how people felt about it. Granted, this is a relatively small sample
      size, but it seems pretty lopsided that people agree the bonuses should
      stack (at least in this case).

      • Astropath’s don’t stack, autrachs do.

        Another reason i enjoy Warmachine, everything is written in a universal language when it comes to rules and if it’s not understood rulings are made every day on their forums and they release Erratas(sp?) without the staple “it’s not official”. Some of the rules in warmachine can be hard to understand at first glance, but thats because it’s like a math problem for some of them…it’s exact in what it’s saying you just need to maybe take a moment and read it through piece by piece. As opposed to GW who attempt to put their rules in every day speech, which leads to all our misunderstandings.

        It’s a mild gripe for me, as i tend to think most rules are pretty self explanatory in their intentions, however it’s the rules lawyers among us that have things in a tizzy. Stupid crap like “it changes your leadership to a number lower to what it was, thats not the same as reducing it so stubborn doesn’t help you”.

      • Initially, I figured the errata and such was largely unnecessary. Granted,
        if they made the rules a bit clearer in the codex, it would help
        tremendously, but the old rule of “if you can’t settle things, roll a 4+”
        seems to work. When you’re playing for fun against other mature gamers,
        there isn’t a big issue, but when it turns competitive, even nice guys can
        turn into real schmucks…

        The fact that GW doesn’t write consistent erratas only further complicates
        things. Astropaths vs. Autarchs… Bikes vs. Thunderwolves…

        By the way, we need to have another Apoc game. I’m thinking of that more
        and more…

Have something to add?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s