Anxt Posted August 17, 2008 Share Posted August 17, 2008 Had a bit of a contraversial end to my our game today, after much searching and head scratching we still didn't come to a satisfactory conclusion so thought I'd see what you guys thought. We played a game with mission objectives and at the end one was unoccupied and the other was occupied by a squad of my Berzerkers .... or so I thought. The last turn involved them wizzing towards the objective, then leaping out and sprinting to the marker. As we finished rolled to see if it was the last turn and found it was, I spotted that due to my need to make everything look cinematic and heroic, the only model in the squad that was actualy within 3 inches was the Lord who was leading the squad. So here is my question, while the Lord does come from the HQ choice, does he count as a member of the squad when claiming the objective since he has actually joined the squad and so allow the squad to claim it or not. There seems to be nothing in the rulebook to say either way and there are two precidents set which could go either way. When attacked by shooting attacks he needs to be nominated to take an armour save just like everyone else meaning that from that point of view he is a part of the squad but in close combat he is treated as a separate unit. So, what do you guys think? Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/143819-more-objective-queries/ Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master Incarias Posted August 17, 2008 Share Posted August 17, 2008 To control an objective, you need to have a Scoring Unit within 3" of it. Scoring units are Troops. No part of a Troops unit was within 3". I can't actually find a rule that states that the character becomes a part of the unit he joins (this might, however, be due to the fact that 5th is still new to me). In fact (and this is the closest to an answer I've been able to find) it says on p.48 that unless otherwise specified, special rules are not carried over onto the character. It's tenuous, but hey... That being said, I think I'd have let you get away with it... Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/143819-more-objective-queries/#findComment-1666436 Share on other sites More sharing options...
nighthawks Posted August 17, 2008 Share Posted August 17, 2008 In a frinedly game, I would definitely say that's scoring, but in a ourney I would not, at least until it's clarified from GW or in the tourny's sups Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/143819-more-objective-queries/#findComment-1666480 Share on other sites More sharing options...
boreas Posted August 17, 2008 Share Posted August 17, 2008 Actually, under 5th, an IC that's within 2" of a unit is automatically part of the unit. So I'd grant the objective as the unit (a troop choice including an IC) is within 3" of the objective... Phil Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/143819-more-objective-queries/#findComment-1666481 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master Incarias Posted August 17, 2008 Share Posted August 17, 2008 No, if within 2", he/she/it is automatically joined to the unit. If you can point me to where it says a character joined to a unit is considered part of it, I'm more than ready to reconsider the point, but 'til then... Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/143819-more-objective-queries/#findComment-1666523 Share on other sites More sharing options...
boreas Posted August 17, 2008 Share Posted August 17, 2008 Haha! Look at the Merriam Webster's definition of "join" link: "to put or bring together so as to form a unit " They even use the work "unit" in the definition!!! I'm of an opinion that pretending that "joined to" and "part of" are different is not a rule debate anymore, but a semantic debate... Phil I just thought about something. Importantly, the IC is joined to (or made part of) the troop unit, not the reverse, so one couldn't claim it's an IC unit with a troop joined in! Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/143819-more-objective-queries/#findComment-1666531 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master Incarias Posted August 17, 2008 Share Posted August 17, 2008 Hey, that's my trick, looking things up in dictionaries :devil:. Semantics mode on. If you join a group of cubscouts walking around on the battlefield, does that make you a cubscout? Do you now function as a cubscout? If you join a unit of Troops, do you become Troops? Can you function as Troops? How ICs interact with units is laid out for us. They move with the unit, they get shot at with the unit and they assault with the unit. They do not fight as a member of the unit would, and most special rules do not carry over. Whether the IC is truly to be considered a part of the unit for things such as objectives is not laid out (once again, unless I'm missing something). Which leaves us to fall back on the definition of Scoring Units as Troops, which ICs are not. And, on a totally related topic, there is one (that I can think of) IC that comes from Troops; the Officer leading the Command Section of an IG Infantry Platoon, once his squad has been killed around him. If he joined a unit of, say Stormtroopers (Elites), could we then measure from any member of that unit? I would of course claim that, no, we could not. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/143819-more-objective-queries/#findComment-1666606 Share on other sites More sharing options...
boreas Posted August 17, 2008 Share Posted August 17, 2008 In that second problem (IC troop joining an Elite troop) I'd say no. Once he becomes part of the unit, the units nature isn't changed by any rule. For all purposes, except combat where it's clearly specified, the IC is just another part of the unit. Now, as an objective's control is measured to a unit, we have to see what we measure to. The IC is part of the unit, not a unit in itself. So saying that we measure to the IC is actually false. We measure to the unit's closest model, which just happen to be an IC. I doesn't change the fact that the unit we measure to, as a whole, doesn't change in nature... Hehe, GW has to hire a female linguist as rule revisor! That would lead to a foolproof 5" thick rulebook... ;) Phil Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/143819-more-objective-queries/#findComment-1666636 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master Incarias Posted August 17, 2008 Share Posted August 17, 2008 I had a good read of the Character section just now, and it seems I had indeed missed a sentence... It is found under Shooting at Indepenedent Characters, so might not be definite, but it's rather close. "Independent characters that have joined a unit are considered part of that unit and so may not be picked out as targets" (BBB, p.49) I maintain that my arguments were valid, but this seems to trump them. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/143819-more-objective-queries/#findComment-1666659 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anxt Posted August 17, 2008 Author Share Posted August 17, 2008 Just had another thought, if you have an IC in a squad he must be in coherency with them, now consider that the IC is used to maintain coherency you could have a gap of 4" + base size between two parts of the squad meaning that they are clearly not in coherency however an IC plonked in the gap allows for the maintainence of coherency which could only happen if he was considered part of the unit. If he was not considered part of the unit you would have to ensure that at all models where within 2" of at least one other model NOT including the IC Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/143819-more-objective-queries/#findComment-1666697 Share on other sites More sharing options...
nighthawks Posted August 18, 2008 Share Posted August 18, 2008 Anxt makes a good point. so does Incarias in that quote from P49. everything boreas said is entirely reasonable. when you shoot at a unit, move the unit, determine coherency, choose to assault, get assaulted, embark, disembark, or shoot with a unit, the IC is a model in the unit, in every single way. only in combat is that character specially singled out, and then only for the purpose of resolving attacks. the charge, the movement, and determining the winner are all done with the assumption that the IC is a full part of the attached unit. I think that, while it is not specified in the BBB and thus remains a possible grey area, there's obviously a very good case for the unit in the OP's (Anxt) post to be considered scoring. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/143819-more-objective-queries/#findComment-1666853 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordekiem Posted August 19, 2008 Share Posted August 19, 2008 No, if within 2", he/she/it is automatically joined to the unit. If you can point me to where it says a character joined to a unit is considered part of it, I'm more than ready to reconsider the point, but 'til then... And two bullets later on the same pg (48 BRB) it says"While an IC is part of a unit..." So yes, the IC is a part of the unit and has all the benefits and drawbacks that ensues. So if the IC is part of a unit then you can measure from him to the objective. Besides you can for assaulting, shooting, etc etc. Why would this be any different? Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/143819-more-objective-queries/#findComment-1668048 Share on other sites More sharing options...
HiveFleetEzekial Posted August 19, 2008 Share Posted August 19, 2008 You're a little late on the counter-argument mordkiem. See his latest responce, 3 posts above yours, #9. Good counter though, but just a wee bit late. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/143819-more-objective-queries/#findComment-1668174 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agrab Posted August 19, 2008 Share Posted August 19, 2008 Being a member of a squad does not change the buying slot. Troops are units that ARE BOUGHT in the troop locale (which, in my mind, includes designated transports), not any unit that can join with troops. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/143819-more-objective-queries/#findComment-1668337 Share on other sites More sharing options...
nighthawks Posted August 19, 2008 Share Posted August 19, 2008 the question is whether measuring to an ajoined IC counts as measuring to the unit he has joined. examples have been given to support the affirmative (movement to vehicle disembarkation, and everything in between EXCEPT resolving attacks in CC) as precident to GW's game rules logic. Arguments against focus on "that model is not a 'troop' unit choice." and are valid in that regard, though this is the only time in the game, then, where measuring to a unit and measuring to the attached IC are not the same (as explained in the affirmative argument). as the issue is not clarified, expressed upon, nor explained very thuroughly in the rules, we are left to hash this out for ourselves. it's almost rhetorical. whithout a FAQ, there is no right answer. I think everyone should just add their oppinions or additional arguments and attempt to reach a group concensus. it's not RAW, but it's better than arguing. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/143819-more-objective-queries/#findComment-1668352 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agrab Posted August 19, 2008 Share Posted August 19, 2008 the question is whether measuring to an ajoined IC counts as measuring to the unit he has joined. examples have been given to support the affirmative (movement to vehicle disembarkation, and everything in between EXCEPT resolving attacks in CC) as precident to GW's game rules logic. Arguments against focus on "that model is not a 'troop' unit choice." and are valid in that regard, though this is the only time in the game, then, where measuring to a unit and measuring to the attached IC are not the same (as explained in the affirmative argument). as the issue is not clarified, expressed upon, nor explained very thuroughly in the rules, we are left to hash this out for ourselves. it's almost rhetorical. whithout a FAQ, there is no right answer. I think everyone should just add their oppinions or additional arguments and attempt to reach a group concensus. it's not RAW, but it's better than arguing. The issue is simply in wording. Joining a unit says that he is attached to the unit (counts as joined) which implies that he is seperate but acts with them. As a seperate member.... Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/143819-more-objective-queries/#findComment-1668374 Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeattleDV8 Posted August 19, 2008 Share Posted August 19, 2008 The issue is simply in wording. Joining a unit says that he is attached to the unit (counts as joined) which implies that he is seperate but acts with them. As a seperate member.... Except the only times you treat him different are spelled out ( in CC and in the movement phase). The rest of the time he is part of the unit. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/143819-more-objective-queries/#findComment-1668695 Share on other sites More sharing options...
boreas Posted August 20, 2008 Share Posted August 20, 2008 The issue is simply in wording. Joining a unit says that he is attached to the unit (counts as joined) which implies that he is seperate but acts with them. As a seperate member.... I don't actually understand where it implies that he is separate. It's actually pretty explicit that he is not separate, but part of (see definition of "joined"). Phil Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/143819-more-objective-queries/#findComment-1669081 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordekiem Posted August 20, 2008 Share Posted August 20, 2008 You're a little late on the counter-argument mordkiem. See his latest responce, 3 posts above yours, #9. Good counter though, but just a wee bit late. Hrm, I must've skimmed over that one post in my excitement to contribute. Ah well a day late and a dollar short. Story of my life. :devil: Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/143819-more-objective-queries/#findComment-1669155 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agrab Posted August 20, 2008 Share Posted August 20, 2008 Okay, think about it like this: I attach a piece of paper to a file, the paper is filed with the file That does not mean that the paper is the File, but it is moved with it, shown with it, etc. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/143819-more-objective-queries/#findComment-1669513 Share on other sites More sharing options...
boreas Posted August 20, 2008 Share Posted August 20, 2008 Okay, think about it like this: I attach a piece of paper to a file, the paper is filed with the file That does not mean that the paper is the File, but it is moved with it, shown with it, etc. Ok, lets say you attach a 1" thick document to a 3" thick file. I then ask you to measure the file's thickness. Would you say 3" or 4"? I'd definitely say the file is now 4" thick... The important thing is that the document is now part of the file, being in the same "folder". Phil Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/143819-more-objective-queries/#findComment-1669675 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Praeger Posted August 20, 2008 Share Posted August 20, 2008 I attach a piece of paper to a file, the paper is filed with the fileThat does not mean that the paper is the File, but it is moved with it, shown with it, etc. No, but if I asked you to pass the file would you take that paper off? What about thepaperclip holding the top together? Or the beige file is its (why is it ALWAYS beige???) Point is that although the file could be considered JUST the original papers with text etc on it, it can ALSO be considered the paperclip, cover sheet, folder etc that has been ATACHED to the file. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/143819-more-objective-queries/#findComment-1670029 Share on other sites More sharing options...
HiveFleetEzekial Posted August 22, 2008 Share Posted August 22, 2008 Might as well just close this thread, Praeger. We all know semantics arguments never go anywhere. Specialy when one person is utterly cinvinced that their definition is the correct one. And that's all that's going on now, is arguing over what constitues the IC being 'part' to the squad. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/143819-more-objective-queries/#findComment-1671061 Share on other sites More sharing options...
nighthawks Posted August 22, 2008 Share Posted August 22, 2008 second that Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/143819-more-objective-queries/#findComment-1671108 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.