BA techmarines

[JamesI]

Breaking off a discussion between Shatter and I in the Death Company thread.

 

Techmarines don't have the IC rule, servitors aren't called retinues. Techmarines with no servitors can not join other units.

 

Anyone have any evidence I'm wrong?

 

To be clear, I am only using the BA rules. Techmarines in Codex Space Marines are clearly ICs, but also cheaper and worse stats.

 

A quick search of the BA forum finds several posts that specifically refer to the techmarine as not an IC.

[Lord Arioch]

They are not IC! And to refer to BBB is wrong. We use codex BA (as it is...) and they are not IC in that! They are just great i CC

[shatter]

BA techmarines do NOT have the independent character rule. I agree. They cannot leave their servitors should they have them.

 

ALL models are called units according to the entry 'unit' in the rule book page 3. The entry stating that BATMs are otherwise treated as an elites unit in the BA codex does not in any fashion preclude them from being anything else with respect to definitions in said rule book. Just because it said unit does NOT make it a squad of one. The word character is also used to represent a wide variety of models, not just independent characters. ie. according to the rule book, an elite unit can be a character and preclude nothing. The codex's mention of BATMs as a separate elites unit is clearly, to me, stipulating that it is in no way attached to the dreadnought or heavy support choice it was purchased with.

 

Page 47 and page 48 of the rulebook break individuals down into two main "character types" (pg47) with one caveat (pg48).

 

Page 47

Independent characters as they're commonly perceived - ok.

 

Upgrade characters are specified as not independent and lists them as part of units that do not have entries of their own, such as sergeants, squad leaders and champions. (While we know that in codexes, these guys can have their own line but they are ALWAYS WITHIN a squad).

 

page 48 "Retinues"

"Some codex books allow you to field characters together with a special unit they cannot leave during the game (which is normally called a 'retinue', 'bodyguard' or similar). Where this is the case, the character counts as an upgrade character until all of the other members of the squad have been killed, at which point it starts acting like an independent character and it will do so for the rest of the game."

 

-"allow you to field characters together with a special unit they cannot leave during the game" - that is EXACTLY a BATM because they are not independent characters!

-it says 'retinue', 'bodyguard', or SIMILAR.

-The only dumb thing here is being anal and saying that a BATM can gain the acts as rule if he takes a servitor, then gets it killed, but that's about as sensible as no fire points on rhinos.

-...and it WILL do so for the rest of the game.

 

Disagreement is fine, but I can't see how to oppose the above interpretation (short of taking and killing servitors) by following the rulebook. If you can find a superior line of logic through it or a caveat I missed, please post it! I want this resolved in a clear and timely fashion!

 

 

You mentioned a comparison to C:SM techmarines. I don't think it was a balanced comparison as you didn't mention some C:SM techmarine advantages i.e. bolster defenses and better repair (vanilla) odds in addition to them having the IC rule with a live servitor squad.

[JamesI]

Retinue rules only apply to ICs! A retinue protects an IC. No IC = no retinue. Everything on page 47 is meaningless to the techmarine.

 

You are assuming techmarines are characters. They aren't. They are a unit of 1, just like assassins.

 

You're trying to argue that a techmarine isn't an IC, but acts as one because he could buy servitors?

Uh-uh.

 

Retinues, and thus what you posted, applies to things like Inquisitors, Grey Knight heroes, I think Eldar Farseers can take retinues. A retinue makes an IC act like it is not an IC, not takes something else and makes it an IC.

[Lord Arioch]

Yeah well if he were a IC he would be fielded under HQ not elites... BBB doesnt overrule Codex... Nice lawmongering though ;)

[JamesI]

Yeah well if he were a IC he would be fielded under HQ not elites... BBB doesnt overrule Codex... Nice lawmongering though ;)

Elites can be ICs (Inquisitors as an example). But other than that you're right.

[Lord Arioch]

Yepp but then it will be stated that they are an IC, our techies doesnt have that stated and our brother is tryting to use things from BBB on our codex which in my way of reading the rules dont apply.

[JamesI]

Yepp but then it will be stated that they are an IC, our techies doesnt have that stated and our brother is tryting to use things from BBB on our codex which in my way of reading the rules dont apply.

Completely agree.

[shatter]

Retinue rules only apply to ICs! A retinue protects an IC. No IC = no retinue. Everything on page 47 is meaningless to the techmarine.

 

You are assuming techmarines are characters. They aren't. They are a unit of 1, just like assassins.

 

You're trying to argue that a techmarine isn't an IC, but acts as one because he could buy servitors?

Uh-uh.

 

Retinues, and thus what you posted, applies to things like Inquisitors, Grey Knight heroes, I think Eldar Farseers can take retinues. A retinue makes an IC act like it is not an IC, not takes something else and makes it an IC.

 

1. doesn't say that. nowhere does it say under the retinue entry that it must be an independant character to gain the independant character rule. Which is a little weird. IC's can voluntarily detach from any squad. the retinue rule is for those characters that do not have the IC rule or cannot leave a purchased with squad. (It doesn't say independant characters!!)

 

2. I'm not assuming anything. Characters can be units of one. Units of one can be characters. The definition of character is very broad in the rule book. Not the point. I'm speaking specifically about A character, the BA techmarine (note I dont say special character or independant character, just like the page 48 entry DOESN'T) - assassins are not in the BA codex. Regardless, they have no retinues!?! Why mention them? I'm also pretty sure that inquisitor rules are quite comprehensive and specific to the point with their bodyguard.

 

3. That's exactly what I'm saying... and not to be priggish, but I'm the one using rules and the codex to back it up. Because he can buy a bodyguard he is covered by page 48 when he's alone.

 

Until you can prove that servitors are not bodyguards for a character despite being only for him and accompanying him with weapons we're still at odds. I suspect you're getting frustrated with me. =(

I hate to say it, but I think you're guilty of making more assumptions here than me. It may be that your use of language within the game has trapped you into some core rule beliefs that are not (no longer?) true. Much of this issue in the rule book is over the definitions of character and unit. Independant character is just a rule, not a model.

[JamesI]

I don't need to prove it. You do.

 

If the techmarine were an IC, it would say so. You would need to use a very rules lawyery manipulation (which fails by the way for reasons pointed out) to get what you want.

 

Techmarine is not a character.

 

Servitors are not a retinue.

 

Prove otherwise.

 

I'm not frustrated. I just am pointing out blatent cheating that would get you banned from most groups I've encountered. You are refusing to listen to obvious truths.

[Morticon]

Shippin this over to OR.

[JamesI]

For the sake of the OR forum:

 

This started by an idea of having a Land Raider Crusader containing:

Mephiston

Corbulo

4 Techmarines

and a Death company.

 

I objected as that is 5 units (our techmarines are not listed as ICs, so can't join the DC).

 

Shatter's counter arguments are above.

[shatter]

I did show that BATM fit the criteria on page 48. - prove they don't fit.

 

According to the rulebook, many models can be and are referred to as characters. Your definition of character is not RAW.

 

BATM do not have the independent character rule, they cannot leave their 'bodyguard', 'retinue' or similar! The page 48 caveat specifies body-guarded type characters gaining the rule in their absence. What/who else is the rule for?

 

You refer to those that have it as 'independent characters' thereby being characters. This is not RAW! All independant character rule characters are characters, not all characters have the independent character rule! The same section refers to sergeants as characters.

 

ugh. I dont see anything obvious about your point of view (and truths) other than it is a point of view or established practice for you and your mates at least. If it's established practice, ok. Fine. But that doesn't necessarily make it right or wrong! After all, I see 4th ed errors all day long on these threads.

 

If you'd like to add anything to your thread, please do so but stick to rules not opinions, assumptions and condescension. It's a bit frustrating and upsetting as I want to get a real answer while I'm up to my elbows in techmarine bits. Hehe, yesterday would have been a lot better.

 

I am new to this game but I have only read the core rules and the BA codex these last four or five months. I've played 2 games against humans. However, while I'm sick at home it is ALL I do. So I'll suggest that as I've only read 5th ed and the BA pdf codex, I'm less biased or 'corrupted' by 4th ed or common practice than you.

(I have and read C:SM for perspective and barely glanced at all the others)

 

Please, data from the 5th ed rules and BA dex only. "You can't do that" is worthless to me without a RAW why. And if you expect page 48 to be just for inquisitors or some other codex, how can you justify foreign codexes usage taking priority to the point of defining the rule? That's well against core rules.

[Spagunk]

One thing you missed there, the servitors aren't a "Bodyguard" or retinue. The unit listing is "Techmarines" which allows you to purchase additional models to the unit. These models are "Servitors" which only help to describe the nature of the models for the purposes of stats. If the "Techmarine" entry said "You may purchase a Retinue of 4 servitors..." THAT would make them a Retinue and your point would be valid. HOWEVER, it does not state that at all. Nor does it call the servitors anything other than servitors.

 

The whole retinue part is partially a throw back from 3rd and 4th ed but also is in place to explain the nature of Gun Drones for Tau or Retinues for older codexes like Dark Eldar.

[JamesI]

Shatter, when I have access to my rulebook, I'll give you the quotes.

 

Sorry, I don't take my rulebook to work with me.

 

But for somethign to be a retinue, it needs to be for ICs. Retinues make them not ICs, when the retinue dies, they become ICs again. Ba don't have any retinues.

[JamesI]

One thing you missed there, the servitors aren't a "Bodyguard" or retinue. The unit listing is "Techmarines" which allows you to purchase additional models to the unit. These models are "Servitors" which only help to describe the nature of the models for the purposes of stats. If the "Techmarine" entry said "You may purchase a Retinue of 4 servitors..." THAT would make them a Retinue and your point would be valid. HOWEVER, it does not state that at all. Nor does it call the servitors anything other than servitors.

 

The whole retinue part is partially a throw back from 3rd and 4th ed but also is in place to explain the nature of Gun Drones for Tau or Retinues for older codexes like Dark Eldar.

Exactly.

 

Servitors are not a retinue.

 

If they were, you'd still only gain the IC rule the way you work it if the serivtors were taken and killed.

 

Trust me, Shatter. The rules are far simplier than you give them credit for. If a BA techmarine was an IC, it would say so.

[Legatus]

The box on page 48 that contains the 'Retinue rules' is titeled 'Independent Characters Joining & Leaving Units'. In fact, after the short introduction on page 47, describing both Independent and Upgrade Characters, the rules then proceed to be almost entirely about Independent Characters. It was the same in the 4th Edition Rulebook, where the 'Characters' section would introduce the two types of Characters, but back then also pointed out that the rules following would not affect Upgrade Characters. That did not stop the rules from refering to 'Characters' all the time, when they were really only talking about Independent Characters.

The 5th Edition rules are similar, but unfortunately the nice pointer that the rules do not concern 'Upgrade Characters' is lacking. It is still obvious that the rules use the term 'Character' when they are talking about Independent Characters though. Take the first bullet point on page 48, where it describes how Independent Characters join units. After starting out correctly by stating that independent Characters join units by moving within 2" of them, the rules then state that 'If a Charactaer does not intend to join a unit, it must remain more than 2" away from it at the end of the Movement phase'. The rule is talking about Independent Characters, and starts out by calling them so, but in later sentences only refers to them as 'Characters'.

 

Or take the paragraph about 'Special Rules'. It talks about 'Independent Characters' joining a unit with different special rules. The paragraph then proceeds to state that the 'Character' does not benefit from the unit's special rules unless specified, and the unit does not benefit from the 'Character's' special rules.

The rules are content to refer to Independent Characters only as 'Characters', after they have sufficiently established that they are indeed specifically talking about that type of Character. What should still have been done is to write 'Independent Character' in the 'Retinue' paragraph, just to make it perfectly clear. But the whole page is a box titeled 'Independent Characters Joining & Leaving Units', and as per their own definition on page 47, Upgrade Characters allways start the game with a unit they cannot leave. But this rule is not talking about Veteran Sergeants, ork Nobs or Eldar Exarchs becoming Independent Characters once their own unit has been wiped out. The rule is talking about the cases where an Independent Characters starts the game inside a unit he cannot leave, which would not normally be the case. Upgrade Characters starting inside a unit they cannot leave is allways the case, and the rules would not say that 'some Codex books' have that, and that such a unit would be called a retinue or bodyguard.

 

In fact, the Techmarine is neither an Independent Character, nor is he an Upgrade Character, which is defined as starting the game inside a unit but having better stats or equipment options. But the Techmarine does not start the game inside a unit by default. He can get the servitors, optionally, but that then is compareable to a single Tau Crisis Battlesuit, which is not a Character either. Said Battlesuit could be accompanied by Drones, chosen as a battlesuit support system, but that would not make it a Character either.

A Techmarine, as available to Dark Angels and Blood Angels currently, is a one model unit, where the model can chose additional models to accompany it.

[elijahdprophet]

Semi related question that might clarify things:

 

Tellion is an upgrade to a Scout Squad. If all the scouts are killed leaving him alone, does he become an IC able to join another unit, or is it only when the Retinue rule is in effect that an upgrade character becomes an IC?

 

I assume the latter, which also suggests that the BATM does not gain the IC special rules when his servitors are killed.

[JamesI]

Semi related question that might clarify things:

 

Tellion is an upgrade to a Scout Squad. If all the scouts are killed leaving him alone, does he become an IC able to join another unit, or is it only when the Retinue rule is in effect that an upgrade character becomes an IC?

 

I assume the latter, which also suggests that the BATM does not gain the IC special rules when his servitors are killed.

Telion is just an upgrade to a sergeant. So unless his rules specifically state he becomes an IC when his squad dies, he doesn't. Telion is just a fancier scout vet sergeant.

[angronn]

Legatus took the words right out of my mouth, particularly re: the rules on "characters" being about Independent Characters, and p.48 being entitled "Independent Characters Joining and Leaving Units...".

[Bannus]

Yes. The Techmarine is a unit.

 

Yes. The Techmarine is a character.

 

Yes. The Techmarine unit may include Servitors.

 

No. The Techmarine is not an IC because that is not listed among his special rules.

 

No. You cannot put more than one unit into a transport (of any type).

 

As the Techmarine counts as a unit, if you place him in a transport, the only additional models that may join him are Servitors.

 

Same applies to DA Techmarines - but not to Codex Techmarines (they are Independent Characters).

[shatter]

What should still have been done is to write 'Independent Character' in the 'Retinue' paragraph, just to make it perfectly clear.

 

If you're gonna rewrite the rules to back up your position, you should get GW's O.K. first.

Seriously, if you start saying the rulebook is wrong, we're all doomed.

 

Character types include independant characters, units of one, squad component members of note... blah blah... it's pretty encompassing.

 

The Independant character entry (page 47) states ..."bear in mind that there are other models that ONLY EVER fight as units of one model, but are not independant characters." - BATM (and DATM, but I'm loathe to mention other codexes) techmarines cannot be included as they don't ONLY EVER fight as a unit of one because they have servitor options, ergo they are NOT confirmed as a unit of one.

 

Page 48 is a subheading/insert of page 47's CHARACTERS title. The retinue caveat speaks of gaining the IC rule under conditions. By your logic, they would need to already have the independant character rule to gain the independant character rule. Which it DOES NOT say unless you edit the entry.

 

Please, an argument without editing the rules to suit.... although I'm begining to doubt it is possible to argue against the interpretation without doing so to support established expectations.

 

 

How does one go about petitioning GW for a clarification?

[Bannus]

Still, the Techmarine (unlike the true Independent Characters) does not include "Independent Character" as part of his special rules. So no clarification is needed.

[Legatus]

If you're gonna rewrite the rules to back up your position, you should get GW's O.K. first.

Seriously, if you start saying the rulebook is wrong, we're all doomed.

I thought I had elaborated quite detailed that the paragraph is refering to Independent Characters when it is saying 'Characters', just like all the other paragraphs on that page do. GW should have written 'Independent Characters' in that particular place so that people would not be confused about what the rules are refering to.

 

Character types include independant characters, units of one, squad component members of note... blah blah... it's pretty encompassing.

Units of one are not characters. They are mentioned on page 47 in the end of the 'Independent Characters' definition to specifically point out that such units are NOT Independent Characters, even though they also operate alone just as the Independent Characters that were just being described.

 

The Independant character entry (page 47) states ..."bear in mind that there are other models that ONLY EVER fight as units of one model, but are not independant characters." - BATM (and DATM, but I'm loathe to mention other codexes) techmarines cannot be included as they don't ONLY EVER fight as a unit of one because they have servitor options, ergo they are NOT confirmed as a unit of one.

No, they are a unit of 1-5 models. Similar to Crisis Suites or Attack Bikes, the unit could consist only of the single default model, or include additional models. Fielding only a single model of such a unit does not make it a Character.

 

Page 48 is a subheading/insert of page 47's CHARACTERS title. The retinue caveat speaks of gaining the IC rule under conditions. By your logic, they would need to already have the independant character rule to gain the independant character rule. Which it DOES NOT say unless you edit the entry.

There are only two types of Characters. Independent Characters and Upgrade Characters. The 'Retinues' rule on page 48 (in the 'Independent Characters Joining & Leaving Units' box, mind you) explains how in some Codices certain 'Characters' can get a special unit which they cannot leave during the game, in which case they will count as an Upgrade Character until all the other unit members are killed.

Ignoring the title of the box this paragraph is in, and ignoring that the term 'Character' is used for Independent Characters at several points in that box, are you suggesting that this rule is saying ALL Upgrade Characters (who will all start the game inside a unit they cannot leave) will become independent characters once their unit has been wiped out? If that was supposed to be the case, such a rule should have been placed somewhere in a 'Upgrade Characters' section, since that would be a major part of how they would be played in the game, since every army would include multiple of such Upgrade Characters (Except Necrons and Tyranids perhaps).

 

But when you have convinced your opponents that all squad characters will indeed become independent Characters if all the other squad members have died, that will still leave you with the problem that BATMs are not characters by the definition in the rulebook, since they are not by default fielded as part of a unit at the start of the game. Crisis Suites can be fielded alone, and they can get drones, who have a profile worse then them, but they are not Characters.

[shatter]

A couple of things, please stop using other codexes in support, it's against RAW. The tau codex is tau specific.

 

Ignoring the title of the box this paragraph is in, and ignoring that the term 'Character' is used for Independent Characters at several points in that box, are you suggesting that this rule is saying ALL Upgrade Characters (who will all start the game inside a unit they cannot leave) will become independent characters once their unit has been wiped out?

 

Your assumptions are making the word character stand for what you expect/want, not as RAW. Stop it.

And, no, Upgrade Characters are specifically defined and excluded from the IC qualification/rule as per page 47's upgrade characters heading. BATM when alone are not upgrade characters, although a BA techpriest from a BA HG choice is. The difference is pretty obvious, no? Upgrade characters cannot gain the page 48 rule unless they can have a retinue. A good example would be a BA techpriest within a BA HG squad. He cannot get a retinue of his own within the squad. He cannot gain page 48s counts as.

 

You say there are only two types of (infantry/jump infantry) character. This isn't correct. There are (at least) four.

Special characters (named) eg. Mephiston (an infantry unit) (max 1 of each with respect to FOC)

Characters (unnamed) eg. A BA Librarian (an infantry unit) (max not specified beyond FOC)

Upgrade characters. eg. A techpriest in a BAHG squad. (an infantry unit squad member) (max not specified beyond FOC)

Units of one. eg none specified in the BA codex (only fight as a unit of one ever) (max not specified beyond FOC)

 

Both Special characters (named) and characters (unnamed) usually have the independent character rule and are often referred to therefore as Independent Characters. BUT nothing in the rules says Special Characters (named) or Characters (unnamed) must have the independent character rule to be labeled characters. That's merely a common assumption/practice and is usually correct.

 

Normally, characters (unnamed) as above are HQ choices. So what. Nothing in the rule book says characters (unnamed) cannot be outside of HQ choices in any codex. Nothing. Nothing says they must be HQ choices either.

 

Now, in my efforts to identify precisely what kind of unit/character/squad/swarm/MC/tank/walker a BATM is, I read the codex. Apparently:

a They're an infantry unit (elite).

b They are separate from their enabling unit (walker or mech' support piece).

c They are an individual model representing a unit.

d They can have a retinue of servitors... or a squad of servitors if you like. regardless, a component squad is added with him in charge. That is similar to a bodyguard or retinue by ANY definition.

e They can't leave their servitors because they don't have the IC special rule.

 

You must agree that BATMs fall under the Character (unnamed) and Upgrade Character definitions. Swarms, MC and tanks n' walkers are out, leaving unit/character/squad. The definition of unit is ubiquitous. every model is a unit or unit component, no matter what type. This leaves character or squad.

A BA techmarine is either a Character (unit of one), an Upgrade Character or a Character (unnamed). However, according to page 47, units of one MUST be ALWAYS alone. The BATM does NOT qualify to be a character (unit of one) as it can have servitors. That leaves Upgrade Character and Character (unnamed). Upgrade characters by page 47s definition are component members of an existing squad that started the game that way. BATM are not components of existing squads, unless they started the game with servitors. Without servitors, the only definition not excluded is Character (unnamed).

 

Now, why do you think the page 48 clause says 'counts as' when it already must (by your assumption) have it?

You're saying the whole rule is redundant because 'everyone knows' it's only for characters already with the independent character rule. And this is despite the fact that it mentions Upgrade Characters changing to count as ICs.

So why is it there? Who is it for? It's a very strange way to say retinues cannot be abandoned by IC special rule bearing characters. What tag needs to be affixed to a unit entry to enable or decline it?

According to it, the only requirement is to be a character able to take a "'retinue', 'bodyguard' or similar" yet not have one which BATM can do.

 

BATM are Characters (unnamed), just like a librarian, only without the independent character rule, unless sans retinue in which case, they get counts as. This is what the rules say. I am not ruleslawyering. I'm merely applying them in their simplest sense to the codex I'm using. No mental gymnastics required. No clever reading, only the core rules. What rule am I missing? Where is it?

 

For this interpretation I've been accused of cheating, being unsportsmanlike and so on. Far out. It's the rules man, the rules.