BA techmarines

[Morticon]

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

 

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

 

Two things, and then a question.

 

Firstly, people are more than able to use other codicies to refute a logical argument. The reason being if your argument is broad enough to cover more than one argument/codex (in this case characters from the BGB - pretty big yeah ? ) then it needs to be logically sound across the board. (ie: your argument regarding characters and retinue squads must be valid for every situation it occurs, not just BATMs). If, however, you find that the other codex argument is irrelevant then by all means say why and disprove it.

 

Secondly, don't tell another frater what to do. In this case, to "stop it".

You don't have that right.

What you do have the right to do is tell them they're incorrect and say why.

 

Things will always get heated in OR debates and it's important that if you want to make people see eye to eye or at least look at it from your point of view that you not act indignant or precocious about it.

 

 

Question is here since ive been trying to follow (honestly not asking a rhetorical question and more of a perfectly honest one)....

 

are you arguing that the BA Tech is not an IC usually and does not follow IC rules, but if he buys a squad of servitors and then they die, then he becomes an IC?

 

Cheers.

[jubei124]

are you arguing that the BA Tech is not an IC usually and does not follow IC rules, but if he buys a squad of servitors and then they die, then he becomes an IC?

From what I've read of this thread yes he is.

 

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

Your codex is specific also, The Techmarine entry doesn't have the Independent Character special rule.

 

Upgrade characters cannot gain the page 48 rule unless they can have a retinue.

Wrong, The box out that is P. 48 deals with independent characters and only independent charicters not upgraded characters. The retinue section is for independent charicters who add a retinue to them.

 

Example: Tyranid Hive Tyrant and its Tyrant Guard. A hive tyrant (IC) purchases a tyrant guard and is now considered a UC until the tyrant guard is dead then reverts back to a IC.

 

To sum it up your techmarine never is and never will be a independen charicter. If you want a techmarine to be an IC you need to play either BT or a C:SM army.

[Parcival]

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.

 

This sums it up excellently except that the Techmarine and the Servitors may be joined by independent characters, of course. A Techmarine, Servitors, Mephisto and Corbulo are a possible cargo for a Rhino.

[Legatus]

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.

So, a BATM is neither an Independent Character nor an Upgrade CHaracter?

 

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

See page 47 in the rulebook. It defines two types of Charactes: Independent Characters and Upgrade Characters. Special Characters, as described in their rules on page 49, are either Independent Characters (like Marneus Calgar) or Upgrade Characters (like Telion). There is no other type given than these two.

 

You must agree that BATMs fall under the Character (unnamed) and Upgrade Character definitions.

But I don't. I think he may be intended to be a character, but by the definition given on page 47 of the rulebook, he is not. GW needs to FaQ that.

 

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.

Since he is not a character, he must be a squad then. Like single Crisis Suites. Or Attack Bikes. Or Obliterators. Or Spawns. Or Zoanthropes. OR assassins. There are a lot of infantry units consisting of only a single member that are not characters out there.

 

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

Because right before that part, the very same rule tells you that as long as the 'retinue' unit is still alive, that model will in fact count as an 'Upgrade Character' instead. You buy that 'Character', and you buy him a nice retinue. Now he will count as an Upgrade Character for that retinue, which basically means that he can not be individually attacked in close combat. Only if all the retinue models are killed he will count as an Independent Character again.

 

There are currently only two Codices I can think of that have 'Retinues', that being the Imperial Guard (Command Squads) and Space Wolves (Wolf Guard). I think Tau Ethereals have a retinue as well, but I am not sure. Other codices used to have such units (SM Command Squads, Chaos Chsoen Squads, Eldar Warlock council), but in their recent Codices these squads have changed from retinues to being independent in the game from the model they are bought for.

 

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?

I suggest you re-read the Character rules on the pages 47-49. You currently have an odd inpterpretation of what a 'character' is and what types there are. I would also suggest to read a few codices, to familiarize yourself with the different unit types that are available, such as the many different units that can consist of only a single model, or the different versions of 'retinues' avialable, or units that are described as a "retinue" in the fluff, but don't actually work like one in the game (like Space Marine Command Squads or Blood Angels Honour Guard).

 

 

EDIT:

Yes. The Techmarine is a character.

Judging from the definitions for the two character types on page 47, I have my doubts that he is.

[Steelmage99]

Who are Independent Characters?

 

Only those that have the Independent Characters special rule.

 

Done.

[JamesI]

Who are Independent Characters?

 

Only those that have the Independent Characters special rule.

 

Done.

You would think that would be enough. I've tried that one a few times.

 

Considering the posts above, I'm amazed this discussion is still ongoing.

[JamesI]

are you arguing that the BA Tech is not an IC usually and does not follow IC rules, but if he buys a squad of servitors and then they die, then he becomes an IC?

 

Cheers.

No. Looking at his earlier posts, he's arguing that a techmarine is not an IC but follows IC rules if he buys a squad and it dies and someone would have to be a jerk to require the buying of the squad ergo the techmarine is an IC.

 

Now, I think the techmarine should be an IC. Too bad the rules disagree with me.

[JamesI]

Shatter.

 

ICs can not leave their retinues. That is the retinue rules. Look at other codex, such as Deamonhunters. A retinue takes an IC, makes him not an IC while the retinue is alive, and when they aren't they return to IC status.

 

Example: Grey knight terminators. Buy them as Elites, they come with a Brother-Captain. Brother Captain is an upgrade character, squad dies, he's still part of the squad.

Grey Knight Brother Captain (HQ) is an IC. Buy him some terminators, they are his retinue. He's an upgrade character until they all die, then he becomes an IC.

 

That is what a retinue does.

 

So, no IC=no retinue. Servitors are just a squad.

[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.

 

This sums it up excellently except that the Techmarine and the Servitors may be joined by independent characters, of course. A Techmarine, Servitors, Mephisto and Corbulo are a possible cargo for a Rhino.

Doh! I I forgot more than few possible combinations there, didn't I? :D

 

But my point still stands: The Techmarine is a character (much like a Veteran Sergeant or Apothecary), but not an Independent Character (like a Captain, Librarian or even a Codex Techmarine).

 

 

See page 47 in the rulebook. It defines two types of Charactes: Independent Characters and Upgrade Characters. Special Characters, as described in their rules on page 49, are either Independent Characters (like Marneus Calgar) or Upgrade Characters (like Telion). There is no other type given than these two.

And which catagory is a Sergeant in? He isn't an IC and comes standard with many units, so isn't an upgrade.

 

The Techmarine in the BA (and DA) Codex is somewhat unique: He is a character and a unit of one - but he is not an IC. When adding Servitors, it is still one unit, but led by a character - much like a Sergeant/Veteran Sergeant leads a squad.

[angronn]

I'm sorry, Bannus, but I don't see where the 'Techmarine is a character' thing comes in, at least rules-wise. He isn't stated as a character, insofar as the rules are concerned. He's merely a single-unit model.

[Bannus]

I'm sorry, Bannus, but I don't see where the 'Techmarine is a character' thing comes in, at least rules-wise. He isn't stated as a character, insofar as the rules are concerned. He's merely a single-unit model.

He is a character in that he is a defined individual - in the same sense as an Apothecary, a Standard Bearer or Veteran Sergeant. These have always been defined as 'characters' to distinguish them from the rank-and-file, but not in the same sense as an Independent Character.

[Legatus]

And which catagory is a Sergeant in?

The rules say upgrade characters are part of a unit and represent their leaders or champions. It does not say that it has to be a manual or optional upgrade to the unit. He is just an "upgraded" member of the squad.

 

He is a character in that he is a defined individual

Like a Tyranid Lictor or a Chaos Obliterator? As far as the rules currently are concerned, Blood Angels Techmarines are not Characters. The Character rules are not very detailed, and I honestly think Blood Angels Techmarines are supposed to be independent Characters, but they somehow forgot to edit it in.

The previous Codex Space Marines (older than DA and BA) already had Techmarines as ICs. The new one has them as ICs as well. I am pretty sure BA and DA Techmarines not being ICs is merely an oversight.

[JamesI]

And which catagory is a Sergeant in?

The rules say upgrade characters are part of a unit and represent their leaders or champions. It does not say that it has to be a manual or optional upgrade to the unit. He is just an "upgraded" member of the squad.

 

He is a character in that he is a defined individual

Like a Tyranid Lictor or a Chaos Obliterator? As far as the rules currently are concerned, Blood Angels Techmarines are not Characters. The Character rules are not very detailed, and I honestly think Blood Angels Techmarines are supposed to be independent Characters, but they somehow forgot to edit it in.

The previous Codex Space Marines (older than DA and BA) already had Techmarines as ICs. The new one has them as ICs as well. I am pretty sure BA and DA Techmarines not being ICs is merely an oversight.

I disagree. I think this was an intentional change, which was deemed either a bad idea or unpopular so it was changed back. But not retroactively. So all Techmarines are ICs except those 2.

[Bannus]

...and I honestly think Blood Angels Techmarines are supposed to be independent Characters, but they somehow forgot to edit it in.

If that were the case, then they would have occupied Elites slots like the IC Techmarines.

IC Techmarines that don't take up FOC slots? I don't see GW doing that.

If they give them their IC status back, you can bet that they will start using up slots again.

[Steelmage99]

GW screwed the pooch on characters, especially Veteran Sergeants.

At the time of writing the rulebook Veteran Sergeants was indeed Characters in the classic sense. They were an "upgrade" characters bought for a, say Tactical Squad.

Then GW in their infinite wisdom decides to just include the Veteran Sergeant in various squads, which just muddies the waters.

In the end Veteran Sergeants are still characters, just not Independent Characters.

 

Only characters with the special rule Independent Character, are independent characters.

 

Rulebook, page 47

 

"If a model is an independent character, it will have its own entry in the appropriate Codex, and its rules will also clearly state that the model in an independent character.

[Legatus]

If that were the case, then they would have occupied Elites slots like the IC Techmarines.

IC Techmarines that don't take up FOC slots? I don't see GW doing that.

Why not? The Emperor's Champion does not take up an HQ slot. Techmarines are hardly as potent in combat and there would still be the prerequisite of fielding an Elite or Heavy Support vehicle. I don't really see a problem with IC Techmarines not taking up slots.

[nighthawks]

whatever you think it aught be, they don't have the IC rule so it's a moot point.

 

also - while a lone D/BATM is not a character, with the addition of servitors they do become an "upgrade" character in the sense that they confer Ld. etc... to their squad. there is absolutely nothing in the rules that would change the TM into an IC upon the destruction of the servitors, however. to read it in such a way is to willingly try and squeeze an advantage out of the rules by reading them creatively. as a few sig's around here say - the designers do not hide easter eggs.

 

an IC is an IC and a non-IC is a non-IC. No unit that I know of can actually change from one status to another, even if in an actual retinue, which the servitors in question are not.

[Legatus]

also - while a lone D/BATM is not a character, with the addition of servitors they do become an "upgrade" character in the sense that they confer Ld. etc... to their squad.

I am not sure. Black Templar Neophytes have LD7, while Paladins have LD8. I assume the unit is allowed to use the Paladins LD value, even if only one of the paladins was alive, and I also assume that does not make the last surviving Paladin (or all of the Paladins in the squad) a character. I checked the rulebook on what it says about units with different LD values, and on page 8 it says that you allways use teh highest LD value in the unit. It is not necessary that the model with the higher LD is a character.

[nighthawks]

good enough for me. must be having 4th flashbacks.

[angronn]

I'm sorry, Bannus, but I don't see where the 'Techmarine is a character' thing comes in, at least rules-wise. He isn't stated as a character, insofar as the rules are concerned. He's merely a single-unit model.

He is a character in that he is a defined individual - in the same sense as an Apothecary, a Standard Bearer or Veteran Sergeant. These have always been defined as 'characters' to distinguish them from the rank-and-file, but not in the same sense as an Independent Character.

 

I would accept that as a descriptive term, but as far as the rules are concerned, he is not an Upgrade character or an Independent Character, so he's not a "Character". He's merely a single-model unit.

[shatter]

This official Codex for

the Blood Angels,

written by Jervis

Johnson, will be

presented in two parts,

and completely

replaces the published

Codex: Blood Angels.

Now, you will need only

these two issues of

White Dwarf and the

Warhammer 40,000

rulebook to field a

Blood Angels army.

 

I'm pretty sure this means other codexes are not needed to use blood angels and the rule book, ergo to use other codexes to define BA units is against RAW. (Most especially, I'd say, codexes produced before 5th ed release.)

If the RAI desires them treated as a unit of one, we'll need GW (or JJ) to say so to counter the RAW. Which is why on page 1 of this thread I asked for a method of petitioning GW. So far, in my humble opinion, contributors are arguing RAI.

 

 

The arguments against 'my' RAW interpretation revolve around character definition and retinue definition via RAI opinion.

 

I was pretty sure I'd shown that a BATM could not be an upgrade character when without servitors as the 5th Ed. rules clearly state that upgrade characters are a component of an existing squad and are always and only such. eg techpriest in a Blood Angels' Honour Guard squad or a sergeant in a tactical squad. BATM simply do not fit this criteria unless they're a sub component of one in a squad of one which is rather peculiar and isn't mentioned in the rulebook. This is covered by 'Units of one'. (BATMs with servitors count as upgrade characters when with servitors as without the Independent Character special rule, they cannot leave their servitors.)

 

'Units of one' as described in the 5th Ed. rulebook can only EVER be one. BATM do not fit this criteria as they may be accompanied by servitors.

 

Contributors have also stated that BATM servitors are not a 'bodyguard, retinue or similar' but are instead a squad.

 

The Techmarine may be accompanied by

up to four Servitors armed with a servoarm

and close combat weapon for +x

points per model. Any Servitor may

replace its servo-arm with a heavy bolter

or multi-melta for free, or a plasma

cannon for +y points per model. ***point costs removed***

 

Please note that while it doesn't use the words 'bodyguard, retinue or similar' precisely, it most certainly does not say he may join a squad of servitors. They accompany him. They are his. This language of this BATM rule in any (English) dictionary fits 'bodyguard, retinue or similar'.

 

Because they are a 'bodyguard, retinue or similar' as per the definitions within the English language and the BATM codex entery, he gains the counts as IC rule when they're dead. As per the rule on page 48 under retinues.

 

The glaring hole left by the simplicity of the codex is that their unit entry does not have 'independant character' listed under their special rules. In the case of 'with servitors', this, as shown above, gives them counts as. The big problem is using them as an independent character rule bearing model when they didn't start with servitors at all which I put down, perhaps in error, to unspecified by omission in the entire 5th Ed. rule-set/codex relationship. So what happens to a BATM if taken without servitors to start with? And there's the rub.

 

The rules make it clear that characters count as independent character special rule characters when bodyguard, retinue or similar dies. Some say that it was RAI only for independent characters stuck (via codex restrictions) with a retinue. But the rule simply does not say that nor is it intimated IMO. It is a clause to include characters within the relevant part of the book that contains detail relevant to the consequences of the clause. That is reason enough for it to be in said rules pages.

 

So I called upon common sense (and I was guilty of using codex:Space Marines) to appreciate the balancing forces.

 

Assuming I am completely correct, the differences between the two techmarines in game play are as follows.

 

CSMTM characters can leave their servitors (to their mindlock) because they have the independent character special rule innately.

They can break up into 2 units - wow. Very powerful.

 

BATM characters cannot leave their servitors because they do not have the independent character special rule innately. BA servitors do not have the mindlock rule but they cannot be left abandoned.

 

But this all leads to the real problem. If they can, as the rules do indeed at least suggest, gain the counts as rule, Are they IC rule bearing if they never took servitors? On the surface, I'd say NO! But it's damn weird that they don't because of the counts as rule. However, BA rhinos don't have access or firepoints. So, where is the error? It definitely exists, hence all this RAI vs RAW debate. So, please... someone tell me how to force GW to fix it or to explain what GW and JJ intended as I am fiddling around with techmarine models!

By far the easiest ways to fix this would be to change the BA codex to say that a BATM can join a Squad of servitors OR to give them the IC rule and say that they cannot leave their bodyguard.

 

I'd have liked the frater here to show me the correct rules I assumed I'd failed to read from the codex or 5th Ed. rulebook. So far none have. The only rules so far expressed as relevant to the issue are pages 47 and 48.

[nighthawks]

P48 of the BBB deals with rules for ICs leaving and joining units. the BATM is not an IC. he may be accompanied by servitors, but this is not a retinue as he is not an IC.

 

IF it were a retinue, he would count as an upgrade character while it was alive, and return to IC status upon their demise (or "count as" an IC - per the special rule "Independent Character").

 

I'm sorry - what you want to see printed simply is not there. the rules you are reading where you think you see a loophole do not apply to the model in question thus present no loophole.

[Legatus]

I'd have liked the frater here to show me the correct rules I assumed I'd failed to read from the codex or 5th Ed. rulebook. So far none have. The only rules so far expressed as relevant to the issue are pages 47 and 48.

These are the relevant rules you are looking for, all on page 47:

 

"Warhammer 40,000 armies normally include two types of characters:

 

- Independent characters are represented by individual models, which fight as units in their own right. (...) If a model is an independent character, it will have its own entry in the appropriate Codex, and its rules will also clearly state that the model is an independent character. (...)

 

- Upgrade characters are fielded as part of units from the start of the game, representing a squad leader or unit champion, such as a Space Marine Veteran Sergeant. They do not have an entry of their own and are effectively just another trooper in their unit, with enhanced characteristics and perhaps a wider selection of weapons and wargear choices."

 

a Blood Angels Techmarine is not declared to be an Independent Character, so it is not one. A Blood Angels Techmarine does not originally come with any other models, which means it is not an upgrade character either. Ergo, according to RAW, a Blood Angels Techmarine is not a character at all. Any definition by which you would declare him a charcter anyway would be made up or RAI, because there is no other definition given.

 

A Blood Angels Techmarine is simply a "model". A unit consisting of one single model. You can add additional models to the unit. Models with lower stats. That does not change the model from "not a character" to "character". Units do not have to be composed of the same model types. There are rules in the rulebook that explain how units with different model types function, and there are several units available that can consist of different model types with different stats, none of which being a character.

 

A BATM is not a Character. Adding Servitors does not make it a Character. Killing of all the servitors does not make it a Character.

[Culsandar]

I'd have liked the frater here to show me the correct rules I assumed I'd failed to read from the codex or 5th Ed. rulebook. So far none have. The only rules so far expressed as relevant to the issue are pages 47 and 48.

 

I'd like to know exactly what point you are arguing here.

 

BATM are "characters" in a sense because they are different than rank and file.

 

There are only two types of characters listed in the main rule book. Independent and upgrade.

 

The original argument was if "you could put one (or several) BATM inside a transport with another unit."

 

The rules specifically state that only one unit may occupy a transport at a time. It further stipulates that any independent characters that have joined this unit may occupy the transport with the unit.

 

The techmarine is not an independent character, because RAW it is not listed in his description in the BA codex. End of story.

 

Character he may potentially be, he is still a one man unit and not an independent character. He cannot join another unit in order to ride in a transport.

[angronn]

Please note that while it doesn't use the words 'bodyguard, retinue or similar' precisely, it most certainly does not say he may join a squad of servitors. They accompany him. They are his. This language of this BATM rule in any (English) dictionary fits 'bodyguard, retinue or similar'.

 

Because they are a 'bodyguard, retinue or similar' as per the definitions within the English language and the BATM codex entery, he gains the counts as IC rule when they're dead. As per the rule on page 48 under retinues.

 

This is where your attempt at RAW rules-lawyering fails. The servitors are never called a retinue, bodyguard or the like, therefore you can't argue they are, any more than Neophytes are retinues for Initiates in C:BT. You even attempt to obfuscate that point by stating first that C:BA doesn't say they are, and then in the next paragraph stating your proof (the English language suggests they are - which it doesn't) and using the proof to change what the C:BA says and then use that as ADDITIONAL proof.

 

Further, as people have noted, you try and reverse engineer rules on Independent Characters that are quite clearly stated to be for characters with the Independent Character special rule.

 

You might as well argue that since the rules say that a transport can move after troops have embarked, as long as it didn't move previously, then an immobilised transport can move again if some troops embark on it. That argument involves the same lack of context as you're employing.