pretre Posted June 17, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 17, 2015 I keep going back to that FNP debate in 5th because it was the same situation. The rules were very different, but the issue was that strict RAW would break the game mechanics and create all sorts of issues. So, while Pretre may or may not be correct that a unit assaults and the IC "tags along," the bottom line issue is that if this is allowed, it really alters the way the entire game plays. It's like a house of cards and trying to replace cards from the bottom, it really risks making the whole thing fall apart. Hence why I choose not to use it until there's a ruling one way or the other. There are plenty of things that I acknowledge are RAW and still don't use. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 17, 2015 Report Share Posted June 17, 2015 Hence why I choose not to use it until there's a ruling one way or the other. There are plenty of things that I acknowledge are RAW and still don't use. So if you are just on the fence enough to wait for a ruling, why disagree with Necrontyr when he said you were playing devil's advocate? You have been debating this one pretty fiercely for someone that doesn't really care, won't use the rule, and will just go with whatever a TO says. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 17, 2015 Report Share Posted June 17, 2015 Not entirely on topic, but sort of: Lukas the Trickster. His "rebellious" rule. If I attach another IC to that unit, perhaps a psyker, is the additional IC considered part of the unit for "Rebellious?" Like for perils, in example. Or for that matter, are other ICs affected by Azrael's 4++ to his unit? I mean, if the IC is joined to, but not part of the unit, then do abilities like these apply to other joined ICs? That whole tagging along concept is interesting, but it really seems to open buckets of worms. I've been thinking the attached IC was part of the unit in all respects, but the idea of him just following them around as a separate unit is interesting too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pretre Posted June 17, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 17, 2015 So if you are just on the fence enough to wait for a ruling, why disagree with Necrontyr when he said you were playing devil's advocate? You have been debating this one pretty fiercely for someone that doesn't really care, won't use the rule, and will just go with whatever a TO says. I'm not on the fence. You convinced me that my interpretation was correct. That isn't the same as my interpretation being popular or acceptable though. I debate plenty of raw issues that I don't actually use and would always go with what the TO says. That doesn't mean we don't still try to determine what the actual rules say. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pretre Posted June 17, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 17, 2015 Not entirely on topic, but sort of: Lukas the Trickster. His "rebellious" rule. If I attach another IC to that unit, perhaps a psyker, is the additional IC considered part of the unit for "Rebellious?" Like for perils, in example. Or for that matter, are other ICs affected by Azrael's 4++ to his unit? I mean, if the IC is joined to, but not part of the unit, then do abilities like these apply to other joined ICs? That whole tagging along concept is interesting, but it really seems to open buckets of worms. I've been thinking the attached IC was part of the unit in all respects, but the idea of him just following them around as a separate unit is interesting too. These are the opposite of what we're talking about. These are special rules that do or do not transfer to the other models in the unit. Assault criteria being based on unit is way different. That being said... Rebellious clearly affects ICs in the unit. It even says his unit can never... Azrael is the same thing, iirc. Those aren't really in dispute. ICs following as a separate unit would be suicide. Lascannon to the face. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 17, 2015 Report Share Posted June 17, 2015 These are the opposite of what we're talking about. These are special rules that do or do not transfer to the other models in the unit. Assault criteria being based on unit is way different. That being said... Rebellious clearly affects ICs in the unit. It even says his unit can never... Azrael is the same thing, iirc. Those aren't really in dispute. I did say it was kinda off topic. But I am still curious. I mean, if your stance is correct and things which apply to the UNIT are separate from things that apply to the IC within the unit, then why would effects applied to the unit also affect additional attached ICs? Rebellious clearly says it affects lukas and his unit. An additional IC is neither lukas nor his unit, right? Same with Azrael, says Azrael and his unit. Neither say it affects them, their unit, and additional attached ICs, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pretre Posted June 17, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 17, 2015 I did say it was kinda off topic. But I am still curious. I mean, if your stance is correct and things which apply to the UNIT are separate from things that apply to the IC within the unit, then why would effects applied to the unit also affect additional attached ICs? Rebellious clearly says it affects lukas and his unit. An additional IC is neither lukas nor his unit, right? Same with Azrael, says Azrael and his unit. Neither say it affects them, their unit, and additional attached ICs, right? ICs count as part of their unit for all rules purposes except for the purposes of special rules that don't transfer. Those two special rules clearly say they transfer to the unit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 17, 2015 Report Share Posted June 17, 2015 ICs count as part of their unit for all rules purposes except for the purposes of special rules that don't transfer. Those two special rules clearly say they transfer to the unit. And why would they transfer to joined ICs? It doesn't specifically say they do. It says the unit get's them, not attached ICs. Similarly, imagine an IC arriving from reserves and joining a squad that had been sitting on the board already. By your interpretation, the existence of the other squad apparently overrules the "can't charge from reserves" rule in the BRB even if the unit has no special rules of any kind. The second one seems to be based on Unit though: "A unit cannot charge, or use any abilities or special rules that must be used at the start of the turn, in the turn it arrives from Reserve."So, yes, it looks like the second one works under my interpretation. See, you are making a distinction between the IC and the unit. The only way the above works is if the IC is not the unit, despite being joined together. If the IC is not the unit, then why would Azrael's or Lukas' ability transfer to additional joined ICs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pretre Posted June 17, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 17, 2015 And why would they transfer to joined ICs? It doesn't specifically say they do. It says the unit get's them, not attached ICs. See, you are making a distinction between the IC and the unit. The only way the above works is if the IC is not the unit, despite being joined together. If the IC is not the unit, then why would Azrael's or Lukas' ability transfer to additional joined ICs? The rule says 'the unit'. The IC is part of the unit for all rules purposes. As for the second part, I'm making a distinction between IC and unit for the purposes of restrictions. That's different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 17, 2015 Report Share Posted June 17, 2015 The rule says 'the unit'. The IC is part of the unit for all rules purposes. As for the second part, I'm making a distinction between IC and unit for the purposes of restrictions. That's different. Are you hearing yourself? The "special rule" says unit. The IC rules say they don't transfer special rules from the UNIT unless it says specifically that it affects attached ICs (like stubborn's wording). So this is a distinction between IC and unit for the purposes of restrictions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 17, 2015 Report Share Posted June 17, 2015 Okay, examples. Blood claw unit joined by Lukas and a Rune Priest. Lukas' Rebellious Rule specifically applies to Lukas AND his unit. So when the UNIT takes leadership based tests, or lukas specifically does, this rule obviously applies. Now if the Rune Priest get's perils and tests, what leadership does he use? Tactical Squad joined by Azrael and a PA Librarian is assaulted, and the librarian gets locked in a challenge. Azrael's Lion Helm clearly confers a 4++ to Azael AND his unit. So, clearly the tactical squad and Azrael have a 4++. Does the Librarian have a 4++ too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pretre Posted June 17, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 17, 2015 Are you hearing yourself? Yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mr. Bigglesworth Posted June 17, 2015 Report Share Posted June 17, 2015 Yes. You read your posts out loud? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 17, 2015 Report Share Posted June 17, 2015 Are you hearing yourself? The "special rule" says unit. The IC rules say they don't transfer special rules from the UNIT unless it says specifically that it affects attached ICs (like stubborn's wording). So this is a distinction between IC and unit for the purposes of restrictions. Yes. Honestly, kinda amazed. If I said something like this: The rule says 'the unit'. The IC is part of the unit for all rules purposes. As for the second part, I'm making a distinction between IC and unit for the purposes of restrictions. That's different. It would really bug me. That's like Saturday morning cartoon villain hypocrisy. To simultaneously argue that the UNIT and the IC are one for all rules purposes, but are different for some rules purposes, seems pretty absurd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 17, 2015 Report Share Posted June 17, 2015 You read your posts out loud? I actually do this. Helps with proof reading and such. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 17, 2015 Report Share Posted June 17, 2015 Any clue, the new SM book, are missile launchers including flak by default now, or do you still have to buy them extra? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pretre Posted June 17, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 17, 2015 Honestly, kinda amazed. If I said something like this: It would really bug me. That's like Saturday morning cartoon villain hypocrisy. To simultaneously argue that the UNIT and the IC are one for all rules purposes, but are different for some rules purposes, seems pretty absurd. The difference that you are failing to understand. The IC is part of the unit for all rules purposes. The first part (do unit rules cover all parts of the unit) is me saying he is part of the unit for all rules purposes. The second part (does he count as an individual model when he is part of a unit) is me saying he is part of the unit for all rules purposes. You just aren't understanding it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pretre Posted June 17, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 17, 2015 Let's put it this way: Does an IC get Lukas' Ld when part of a unit? Yes, because he is part of the unit for all rules purposes. Can a unit assault with an attached IC if: a) He is part of the unit b) he is not eligible c) the unit is eligible d) it is one of the non-assaulting scenarios that specifies 'the unit cannot assault if it did X' and not one that specifies 'a model who did X cannot assault'. Yes, because he is part of the unit for all rules purposes. They derive from the same ruling; you just seem to be missing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 17, 2015 Report Share Posted June 17, 2015 Let's put it this way: Does an IC get Lukas' Ld when part of a unit? Yes, because he is part of the unit for all rules purposes. Can a unit assault with an attached IC if: a) He is part of the unit b) he is not eligible c) the unit is eligible d) it is one of the non-assaulting scenarios that specifies 'the unit cannot assault if it did X' and not one that specifies 'a model who did X cannot assault'. Yes, because he is part of the unit for all rules purposes. They derive from the same ruling; you just seem to be missing it. BRB is pretty clear that the unit is made of models. Why would one model in the unit not be considered part of the unit when making assault decisions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pretre Posted June 17, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 17, 2015 BRB is pretty clear that the unit is made of models. Why would one model in the unit not be considered part of the unit when making assault decisions? As I have covered, in depth, previously. Some restrictions for assault are based on model (Heavy, Disembarking), some are based on unit (deep strike, reserves, g2g, falling back, etc.). Why? No idea. But that is how the raw works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 17, 2015 Report Share Posted June 17, 2015 As I have covered, in depth, previously. Some restrictions for assault are based on model (Heavy, Disembarking), some are based on unit (deep strike, reserves, g2g, falling back, etc.). Why? No idea. But that is how the raw works. I totally disagree that this is RAW. I think you are making a distinction between model and unit that is simply not there. And again, that assault restriction list is specifically, a list of "common reasons" and is no way list as a definitive list of the reasons that a unit could or could not assault. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 17, 2015 Report Share Posted June 17, 2015 Page 9 is pretty clear that units are made of models, or a model. If your IC joins a unit, that means he is one of the models in the unit. If the assault restrictions say a unit cannot assault after arriving from deep strike, and any of the models in that unit did arrive from deep strike, then saying the unit didn't arrive from deep strike is just a lie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 17, 2015 Report Share Posted June 17, 2015 On a side note, how does your stance apply to units made entirely of ICs? It is completely within the rules to do this. How does one determine the original unit? In example, if an IC deepstrikes and joins another IC already on the table, can they assault? How about if one disembarks a transport (without assault vehicle)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InfestedKerrigan Posted June 17, 2015 Report Share Posted June 17, 2015 Yay! Space Marines! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pretre Posted June 17, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 17, 2015 And again, that assault restriction list is specifically, a list of "common reasons" and is no way list as a definitive list of the reasons that a unit could or could not assault. Agreed. But if you go to the section for each of them, they tell you whether a model or a unit is restricted. Go try it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts