Problems of conferred bonuses in cc...

[Isiah]

Something recently came up in the DA forum that I hadn't considered before regarding problems around the status of attached ICs in close combat. Trekari raised the issue of the Deathwing Company standard, and this was followed by another issue raised by Davidson regarding the use of the Lion Helm:

 

1. Deathwing Company Standard

 

One of the functions is that "...all models in the standard bearer's unit add 1 to their Attacks characteristic." [DA Codex p43].

 

Problem: By RAW when in cc, an attached IC is always considered a separate unit when resolving attacks so thus would not get the attack bonus as strictly speaking he is no longer at that attack resolution stage in the standard bearer's unit.

 

Preferred outcome: That the attack bonus is conferred to any attached IC and to models in the standard bearer's unit at all times so it's of no consequence that the IC is a separate unit in cc as he has the attack bonus anyway.

 

 

2. Dark Angels Chapter Banner

 

One of the functions is that "...all models in the Standard Bearer's unit add 1 to their Attacks characteristic." [DA Codex p46].

 

Problem and Preferred outcome: As with Deathwing Company Standard above.

 

 

3. Azrael's Lion Helm

 

This confers an [x+] Invulnerable save to "Azrael, and all models in any unit he joins..." [DA Codex p46].

 

Problem: By RAW it is fine to use the conferred inv save against wounds caused by shooting, but again in cc as Azzy is considered a separate until the determining assault results stage, he thus has no-one to confer the saves to when they are made.

 

Preferred outcome: That the Inv saves are conferred at all times to the models in a unit he is attached to so it's of no consequence that Azzy is a separate unit in cc as they get the inv save bonus anyway.

 

------

 

I'd like your views on these to make sure I have them right RAW-wise. Hopefully I'm not missing something so obvious it's been overlooked :D. In all cases the preferred outcome would be that the bonus items were conferred even in cc, but is it right??

 

Similarly – are there any similar close combat IC/unit conferring problems (if the two above are indeed problems) in any other Chapter Codexes?

 

Cheers

I

[Legatus]

It boils down to what "resolving attacks" means, and as far as I see it that refers specifically to the distribution of attacks in close combat, and an IC inside a unit is for no other purpose supposed to be treated separately. IC's can specifically be targeted, and they have to be in BtB contact to make any attacks or be attacked. Perhaps you could put it like this: Allocating attacks and then rolling against WS, that is "resolving attacks". After that you would proceed with "resolving wounds", then "resolving saves".

 

Another instance I could think of would be if a unit had to pass a LD test in order to make attacks or not have it's weapon skill or attack number reduced. Since that LD roll would affect the attacks, one might claim that it is part of "resolving attacks", but as far as I am concerned that is not what the rule is refering to when it presents distinct rules for ICs in close combat.

[Captain Malachi]

I'd have to agree with what Legatus said. It makes sense to me, and makes no sense at all that you would lose the bonus from those items just from some bad wording in the rulebook.

[Isiah]

It boils down to what "resolving attacks" means, and as far as I see it that refers specifically to the distribution of attacks in close combat, and an IC inside a unit is for no other purpose supposed to be treated separately. IC's can specifically be targeted, and they have to be in BtB contact to make any attacks or be attacked. Perhaps you could put it like this: Allocating attacks and then rolling against WS, that is "resolving attacks". After that you would proceed with "resolving wounds", then "resolving saves".

 

Well I'd agree. But the wording in the ICs/assaulting rules [p49 BRB] is quite clear: the IC remains a separate unit until "from determining assault results onwards".

 

Now look on p39 - "Determining assault results" is all about totting up unsaved wounds to see who's won. Only at this stage is the IC again treated as a "normal member of the unit they have joined". Thus by implication whilst making attacks and saves before this stage they were separate.

 

Hence the problem with no conferred bonus attacks or saves. Nutty I know, that's why I want it checked through.

 

Cheers

I

[Legatus]

I guess you will find no satisfactory solution in the rules then. When a Codex author writes a rule such as "grants every model in the unit X" he may not necessarily remember that attached ICs may be treated as a separate unit in a certain instance.

[Trekari]

As I was the one who initially started this argument, I should probably chime in.

 

At first I was sure that Belial would not get the +1A from the Standard Bearer since he is a separate unit at that point during the assault. While at the same time I felt Azrael's wording was sufficient enough to grant the +X Invulnerable save to models in a unit he was joined to during the assault.

 

My rationale was "He's still attached to that unit, even if he's being treated separately right now."

 

However as soon as I said that to myself, I asked "So why isn't Belial granted the +1A? He's still attached to that unit too?"

 

In the end, the argument can be made that Belial is only attached to the Standard Bearer, and not actually a "model in the unit" which would keep with the wording for Azrael (since that wargear explicitly mentions being attached TO a unit, rather than a member of one). On the same note however, I can see arguments for neither bonus being conferred to ICs/attached squads during CC, because someone could in theory just as easily argue that Azrael is NOT attached to that unit during CC.

 

If it were up to me to make a final call on this, I would say the +1A does not transfer, whereas the Invulnerable save DOES, due to the "all models in any unit he joins" phrasing.

 

Of course I wouldn't complain if GW said ICs get that +1A from the Standard Bearer ;)

[DevianID]

Yeah Ill second that the +1 attack banner does not cross to attached IC due to the wording but the 4+ save does.

 

You actually see this more frequently I think with ork nob squads. The painboy gives the squad feel no pain, the waagh banner gives the squad +1 WS. Per the wording neither cross over to attached characters, as they are attached to, not a member of, the nob squad.

 

It may also apply with chaos marks in the chaos space marine book, but I dont have that handy to check--though I think the +1 attack from the icon of khorne does not apply to an IC attached to the unit, for example.

 

It also comes up with SM apothicaries in the command squad section of the new book, I believe, in regards to feel no pain.

[Isiah]

Thanks guys. So looks like being an attached IC in close combat can be a distinct disadvantage – at least by not getting some conferred unit-based bonuses. I wonder if it was thought through properly by GW :D when they were writing it?

 

It's a tricky one to get around. On DW Company Standard and DA Chapter Banner two solutions present themselves:

 

• Rewrite [errata] the codex to say: 'any friendly model within 6" of the standard bearer add 1 to their Attacks characteristic.' But that could mean several units potentially winding up with xtra attacks.... far too powerful and not really RAI I wouldn't think.

 

• Another solution rewrite [errata] the codex to say '... all models including any attached independent characters in the standard bearer's unit add 1 to their Attacks characteristic.'. That way they're covered and probably follow RAI.

 

Cheers for the input so far

I

[Cornishman]

Looking at the Rules, it clearly says under Independent Characters Joining and Leaving Units that 'Independent Characters are allowed to join other units'.

My thinking on this is:

A. If an IC joins the unit they are part of that unit (though any specail abilities are not automatically shared between the 'Base Unit' and IC(s).

 

B. If that unit has a funky bit of equipment that conferres to all members of that unit +1A, Feel no Pain, +1Ws or Infiltrate etc... then any attached IC get it to, as they are part of the unit. Based on the following process

1. The ‘ Base’ Unit doesn’t have the USR/ funky ability it is granted to the unit.

2. IC may join the unit, so is now part the that unit (cpmprising of the 'Base Unit' and an IC)

3. The Unit (which may have IC’s) has a USR/ Funky ability conferred upon it.

 

C. This is different than the 'base' unit having a USR or funky ability listed under their special qualities, and then being joined by an IC. In this case the USR (or other funkiness) may be lost. This is based on the following process:

1. Each member of the ‘Base’ Unit has a USR/ Funky ability (listed under Special Qualities)

2. IC may join the unit, so is now part the that unit (cpmprising of the 'Base Unit' and an IC)

3. The Unit (now with IC) may or may not have the USR/ Funky ability based on the USR/ Funky ability as determined by the USR/ Funky ability.

 

With regards to IC and assualts the IC yes, for the purposes of resolving attacks they are treated as a seperate unit, but critically they are still a part of the unit (so will benifit from any funkiness, if any).

[Isiah]

With regards to IC and assualts the IC yes, for the purposes of resolving attacks they are treated as a seperate unit, but critically they are still a part of the unit (so will benifit from any funkiness, if any).

 

Yep that's one way of looking at it. But that's just it - if they are separate when resolving attacks does that make them separate too with regards unit-based bonuses at that attack stage? I think yes. They are either separate or not, as they can't be both a separate unit and part of the attached unit too can they?

[Ming]

My read of the wording is that unless otherwise excluded, the IC benefits from the upgrade caused by the upgrading wargear, as he is a part of the unit. Banner bearers are typically part of a HQ/leader's retinue (such as command squad, VAS, etc.). The banner is meant to be there as a force enhancer/multiplier. In the case of orks, the IC caries his own banner; in the case of SMs, the unit has a designated banner carrier. A SM captain with command squad will benefit from the Apothecary. A Captain and command squad benefit from adding a chaplain. And so forth...

 

I noticed reading last night the interesting variations in the wording for various wargear force enghancers. Some apply to the unit, some apply to friendly models within 2d6 inches, some in 12 inches, and so forth.

[Ramora]

Here's a question that arised for me while reading your OP. since an IC is a different unit in cc when making a sweeping advance initiative test does the IC get a separate roll (usually at a higher initiative then the squad). Or is this covered some where is the rule book(I don't have mine on me).

[jubei124]

Can someone lay out a few arguements as to why IC's wouldn't benefit from these standards?

 

IMO just because he's counted as a seperate unit during CC does not mean that he isn't part of the 'unit' any longer, he still has to move at the same speed as the unit during a sweeping advance or charging, would fall back with the unit if possible, still has to remain within coherency of the unit suring CC. Then there is this quote form the rulebook P. 49,

 

If a unit that has been joined by an independent character assaults into close combat, the character assaults too, as it is part of the unit. When the attacks are resolved, however, independent characters are always treated as a separate single-model unit (as described under Multiple Combats on page 41), even though they have joined the unit. This is to make them stand out in the fight, as befits such heroic individuals, and it means that they have to be in base contact with the enemy to be able to attack.

[angronn]

Would these arguments work equally well against Chaplains and their HTH re-rolls?

[jubei124]

Would these arguments work equally well against Chaplains and their HTH re-rolls?

 

Thats what I want to know. If they would every army would be affected by this I believe, since they pretty much have something (either wargear or some special rule) that is worded similar to this.

 

 

edit: cause I suck at typing fast

[angronn]

On a player turn in which he assaults, a Chaplain and all members of any squad he has joined can re-roll failed rolls to hit

 

As per the IC rules in the context given above, I don't see how Chaplains allow re-rolls either. For the purposes of re-rolling attacks, at the time the Chaplain is able to give the bonus he is not counted as part of the squad.

[angronn]

I would also note that I don't agree with Trekari's reasoning about the Deathwing Standard. It is specifically phrased as "models in the unit", but if an independent character joins, then he IS part of that unit (what else does 'joining' mean?). It is phrased that way vs. IC rules (like Azrael's and a Chaplain's) because units cannot join other units, but ICs can - hence the authors of the rules recognised the need to be more specific about ICs granting bonuses.

 

 

The reason the IC doesn't gain the +1A is that he isn't treated as part of the unit at the time the +1A is granted (as per the IC special rules). At least by RAW. If anyone tries to tell me that my Chaplain doesn't grant re-rolls due to this, they'll find the "BRB attack" grants a far greater attack bonus... :lol:

[nighthawks]

I could see all sorts of arguments for this, but if enough of them are posted, then eventually someone will get ticked and go off about how "we all know how they are supposed to work." so I'll save them the trouble...

 

we all know how these are supposed to work.

 

the chaplain's rule makes it clear that all models in the unit he is attached to benefit from liturgies (or your specialist codex equivalent) - there's absolutely no use for this rule if this cannot extend to joined models in CC.

 

the invulnerable save from azreal and the banners are possibly different. the IC would certainly get the banner bonus as the number of attacks he may use is determined before those attack are allocated and then "resolved", no? and the save is for members of the unit, they are still a unit.

 

in the end, though - the IC is not another unit and does not "count as" another unit - he is "treated as" a seperate unit for the purposes of determining who may be attacked and who may attack back - as these rules had already been explained for multiple units, it saves ink and paper. that's how I see it, and it's RAW, more or less. so anything that would benefit the unit and attached ICs (or vise versa) and that does not specifically restrict use in CC would still work whilst "treating" the IC as a seperate unit for the puroses of determining attack allocations and resolutions.

[Trekari]

1. At the time of the attacks, an IC is treated as a "separate, single-model unit." They are still joined to that unit, but they are no longer members OF that unit until the resolution phase of Assaults.

2. The Standard grants a +1A to models of that unit, which the rules make clear an IC is NOT at that point in time.

3. The Chaplain and Azrael both have bonuses that apply to members of a unit the IC has joined. The rules once again make it clear that the IC is still JOINED to that unit, but is not a part of that unit.

[nighthawks]

1. At the time of the attacks, an IC is treated as a "separate, single-model unit." They are still joined to that unit, but they are no longer members OF that unit until the resolution phase of Assaults.

the IC is most certainly a member of the unit at all times - only the mechanicsm for employing attacks to and from the IC is changed.

 

2. The Standard grants a +1A to models of that unit, which the rules make clear an IC is NOT at that point in time.

same answer

 

3. The Chaplain and Azrael both have bonuses that apply to members of a unit the IC has joined. The rules once again make it clear that the IC is still JOINED to that unit, but is not a part of that unit.

while I agree with your conclusion about the special rules, I still disagree with your conclusion regarding what is "joined".

[Trekari]

You cannot be treated as both a separate unit, and a member of another unit, at the same time.

 

The IC goes back to being a normal member of the unit after attacks have been resolved and saves taken.

[angronn]

I can see what you're trying to do, but you're using a very soft interpretation of "treated" that I don't see being tenable. Particularly, nighthawks, you've had to add in the interpretation of "who attacks and is attacked back" to fit your ideas into the RAW, and unfortunately those words just aren't there. It states pretty baldly that the IC is, from when attacks are resolved until combat resolution, treated as a separate, single model unit.

 

Now, we know the IC isn't actually separate from the unit, but the rules say to treat them as such, and doesn't make any exceptions. Thus, I don't see how one can argue (from RAW) that any of these bonuses are transferable, as they wouldn't transfer between separate units in a multiple combat.

 

 

Now, let me also state that I have played, and will continue to play, this as RAI. I'm just concerned to keep consistency in a RAW debate.

[Trekari]

The BRB says they are joined to that unit, but are being treated separately. I believe this distinction is enough to disallow the Standard, while keeping Azrael and the Chaplain's bonuses.

[Isiah]

Can I just add that regards Chaplain's Liturgies, the Codex SM states:

 

"...and all members of any squad he has joined can re-roll failed rolls to hit."

 

While the DA Codex states:

 

"...and all members of any Dark Angels squad he has joined, leads or is attached to can re-roll failed rolls to hit."

 

so as far as Chappies go they are OK to confer Liturgies as per RAW of those Codexes ;) so no worries there.

 

Cheers

I

[angronn]

But then how is the IC being treated separately? To get the bonus, they must be treated as members of the same unit, something that the rules explicitly state as not being the case. It seems like a semantic distinction that makes things more complex and actually mitigates against the actual wording of the rules (however much sympathy I might have with the results!).