Problems of conferred bonuses in cc...

[angronn]

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

 

Why so? For the purposes of the close combat at the time they would gain the attacks, the rules state that the IC is "treated as a separate, single model unit". If the IC cannot benefit from said unit, how can the unit benefit from the IC? Unfortunately, this all hinges on what "joins/joined" (or even "attached" for DA) means vs. "treated as separate", and as I said above, the simplest (and least RAW-bending) explanation is that they are completely functionally separate for that short but crucial period of the assault.

 

Would you argue that a Chaplain confers his Liturgies of Hate to the Deathwing Standard Bearer whilst failing to gain +1A, Isiah? (Interested question, not confrontational)

[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

 

Why so? For the purposes of the close combat at the time they would gain the attacks, the rules state that the IC is "treated as a separate, single model unit". If the IC cannot benefit from said unit, how can the unit benefit from the IC? Unfortunately, this all hinges on what "joins/joined" (or even "attached" for DA) means vs. "treated as separate", and as I said above, the simplest (and least RAW-bending) explanation is that they are completely functionally separate for that short but crucial period of the assault.

 

Would you argue that a Chaplain confers his Liturgies of Hate to the Deathwing Standard Bearer whilst failing to gain +1A, Isiah? (Interested question, not confrontational)

 

Because Codex overrides BRB. The Codexes have explicit instructions that Litanies works for any units he joins. In the DA case any unit he leads or is attached to too (for good measure). It's a far clearer instruction in the DA dex for sure, but I think the SM dex just about holds up in this specific instance too.

 

Cheers

I

[Trekari]

Something to consider when dealing with rules questions is that you should ask yourself "Does the rule WORK?"

 

Before I go into that, let me state again my opinion in regards to angronn's question.

 

Yes, the bonus from Azrael and the Chaplain works to the squad, but the Banner does not work for the ICs. For one, the language is specific enough with Azzy and the Chaplain to allow it to confer to the attached unit.

 

Secondly however, and this relates to my first sentence, when you ask yourself if the rule WORKS, the answer is yes.

 

Does the Banner still provide a bonus if it doesn't apply to attached ICs? Yes - four other Terminators and the Banner guy himself all get +1A. The rule is functional as it reads.

 

With the Chaplain, for instance, the entire second half of the text is obviously directing it to benefit an attached unit. If you restrict the unit from getting the re-rolls, then the rule itself is a complete failure and the text is completely pointless.

 

In short, if it isn't broke: don't fix it. The rules work exactly as read and within the rules for CC with attached ICs, so in my view everything comes out the way it is supposed to.

[angronn]

Because Codex overrides BRB. The Codexes have explicit instructions that Litanies works for any units he joins. In the DA case any unit he leads or is attached to too (for good measure). It's a far clearer instruction in the DA dex for sure, but I think the SM dex just about holds up in this specific instance too.

 

The Codex has no rule that trumps the BRB in this case, because it has no rule that is in direct contradiction with a BRB rule. It is merely supplementary. It has no rule that specifically overrides "IC is treated as a separate unit..."

 

However, if you wish to accept the soft interpretation of "treated as separate" (i.e. that the character is still 'attached' or 'joined') and thus benefits from and gives bonuses to the unit, you do end up with Azrael's bonus being transferred, and I don't see why you shouldn't continue to take the Deathwing Standard bonus too. 'Joined' is the same as "part of the unit", is it not?

 

Something to consider when dealing with rules questions is that you should ask yourself "Does the rule WORK?"

 

Before I go into that, let me state again my opinion in regards to angronn's question.

 

Yes, the bonus from Azrael and the Chaplain works to the squad, but the Banner does not work for the ICs. For one, the language is specific enough with Azzy and the Chaplain to allow it to confer to the attached unit.

 

Secondly however, and this relates to my first sentence, when you ask yourself if the rule WORKS, the answer is yes.

 

Does the Banner still provide a bonus if it doesn't apply to attached ICs? Yes - four other Terminators and the Banner guy himself all get +1A. The rule is functional as it reads.

 

With the Chaplain, for instance, the entire second half of the text is obviously directing it to benefit an attached unit. If you restrict the unit from getting the re-rolls, then the rule itself is a complete failure and the text is completely pointless.

 

In short, if it isn't broke: don't fix it. The rules work exactly as read and within the rules for CC with attached ICs, so in my view everything comes out the way it is supposed to.

 

I don't see how a character can be functionally still attached to the unit for some rules and not for others. That seems to be an addition to the rules as stated. For me, it plays out like this:

 

IC + unit join (movement phase).

IC + unit assault (start of assault phase)

IC + unit become separate units (resolving attacks) - BRB indicates using rules for multiple unit combats

IC + unit rejoin (combat resolution)

 

There are unfortunately no rules for what "being attached" mean when being "treated as" separate units. Indeed, "being attached" and "being separate" are logically contradictory states - they cannot co-exist, and since the rules give no way to resolve that we surely have to go with what the rules say: at this point, the IC and the unit are separate, to all intents and purposes. Hence no bonuses, either way.

 

 

As to the rules working, I fully agree that this RAW makes a nonsense of the way in which Liturgies of Hate is worded. However, it's still useful for the Chaplain, just as the 4+ Lion Helm save is useful for shooting. They do not suddenly become useless (just less useful). Reading for the most utility as you have done means applying the RAW principle inconsistently, as far as I can see.

 

 

To reiterate, I will play RAI. But by RAW, I just don't see where you're getting the ability to treat the IC as separate for some purposes and not for others. The rules are all or nothing, black and white, on the issue.

[Trekari]

Because the rules say they are both a separate unit, while at the same time attached to the unit.

 

Thus bonuses that claim to work for attached units still work, while those that make no mention of it and instead say "members of the unit" or similar, do not work.

[angronn]

Because the rules say they are both a separate unit, while at the same time attached to the unit.

 

Thus bonuses that claim to work for attached units still work, while those that make no mention of it and instead say "members of the unit" or similar, do not work.

 

When the attacks are resolved, however, independent characters are always treated as a separate single-model unit (as described under Multiple Combats on p.41), even though they have joined the unit.

 

Note that they HAVE joined the unit (referring to the previous act of joining), rather than they ARE joined to the unit.

 

The rules state what we already know (they previously joined the unit), how to treat them now (treat them as a separate unit, as per p.41) and how to get them back into the unit again afterwards (treated as normal at combat resolution). I don't see where the both attached and unattached complexity comes into it.

 

For me, assuming that bonuses from the unit to the IC (and vice versa) still work means you're not treating them as a separate unit (because if you were doing so, they wouldn't work). It's crazy RAW, yes, but it's absolutely correct RAW.

[nighthawks]

I want to start by stating that I HATE grammatic and semantic discussions with regard to RAW - the simple fact is that historic evidence from FAQs and Errata almost always defaults to the "simple" reading over the nuanced one.

 

with regard to the "soft" interpretation of the term "treated as" and to continue angron's quote:

"...even though they have joined the unit... it means that they have to be in base contact with the enemy to be able to attack."

 

they say what it means - it means that ICs must follow the rules for attacks as if they were a single unit, but they are not a single unit as they are joined to another - and any effect that one unit bestows upon the other continues to be in effect. no where does it say that they ARE a separate unit or count as a separate unit or are even treated AS a separate unit PERIOD - only "when the attacks are resolved". afterwards they become "normal members of the unit again" as if to imply that they were "abnormal MEMBERS" for a time.

 

there are times when RAW does not have the answers or can easily be read to arrive at more than one sound conclusion. who among you would actually rule in favor of "IS A SEPARATE UNIT IN ALL RESPECTS" based on this reading without a tinge of hesitation?

[SeattleDV8]

I agree Nighthawks.

Also most posters are only quoting the first part of the sentence. BRB pg. 49 "...independent characters are always treated as a seperate single model unit (*) even though they have joined the unit."

So although we treat the IC as a seperate unit in assault it is still part of the unit.

The IC gains the bonuses and penalties of both.

[angronn]

I want to start by stating that I HATE grammatic and semantic discussions with regard to RAW - the simple fact is that historic evidence from FAQs and Errata almost always defaults to the "simple" reading over the nuanced one.

 

with regard to the "soft" interpretation of the term "treated as" and to continue angron's quote:

"...even though they have joined the unit... it means that they have to be in base contact with the enemy to be able to attack."

 

they say what it means - it means that ICs must follow the rules for attacks as if they were a single unit, but they are not a single unit as they are joined to another - and any effect that one unit bestows upon the other continues to be in effect. no where does it say that they ARE a separate unit or count as a separate unit or are even treated AS a separate unit PERIOD - only "when the attacks are resolved". afterwards they become "normal members of the unit again" as if to imply that they were "abnormal MEMBERS" for a time.

 

there are times when RAW does not have the answers or can easily be read to arrive at more than one sound conclusion. who among you would actually rule in favor of "IS A SEPARATE UNIT IN ALL RESPECTS" based on this reading without a tinge of hesitation?

 

What does "treated as" mean except "count as"?

 

Anyway, for me the section about being in base-to-base combat and targeting is simply a clarification or reminder of how the p.41 Multiple Combat rules affect this situation, rather than a limiter for the clause "treated as a separate single-model unit". It just doesn't seem to be phrased as that - the section you covered by ellipses in your quote states: "This is to make them stand out in the fight, as befits heroic individuals, and it means that...", which just reads as clarification.

 

 

Anyway, I'm quite eager to be persuaded otherwise in this argument (I want my Azrael save, Deathwing Standard attacks and Chaplain re-rolls!), but against full-on RAW I don't feel any of these arguments for keeping the bonuses really stack up. Additionally, I'm wanting to maintain consistency between all those bonuses - what works for one should work for the other, in my eyes.

 

 

I really think the simplest reading of the rules here is that the IC 'simply' becomes, in effect, a separate, single-model unit. Being separate and yet still attached is where the complexity starts to come in, and seems to add a layer of interpretation that isn't there (i.e. separate for the purposes of targeting and being targeted).

[DevianID]

I think that there is too much reading into an IC counting as a seperate squad, and the solution may actually be easier.

 

IE... the deathwing banner says the squad gets +1 attack. What squad gets +1 attack? The Deathwing terminator squad... and who is in the deathwing terminator squad in the codex? 5 Deathwing terminators. Is belial a member of the deathwing terminator squad? No--but he can be attached to the deathwing terminator squad, and he makes the 6th model in the unit, the unit containing 5 deathwing terminators and belial.

 

Or for a rules quote, pg 48, special rules section, 'Unless specified in the rule itself, the units special rules are not conferred upon the character [and vice versa].' So the banner will never apply to attached characters, but azzy's helm and the chaplain's reroll will apply to attached members of the unit, as they specifically say that both the character and the squad he joined gain the abilities.

[SeattleDV8]

DevianID the banner is wargear and not a special rule.

Those are found in the Army List Entries under 'special rules'.

The exact wording is C:DA pg43, 45 and 46. "..all models in the Standard Bearer's unit add 1 to their Attacks characteristic."

So any model in the unit gets the bonus, if an IC joins that unit he will also gain the bonus.

Although the IC is treated as a single model unit during one part of the assault phase he is still joined to the unit.

[DevianID]

DevianID the banner is wargear and not a special rule

+1 attack to the whole unit IS A special rule! If the banner did not add a special rule, then it would just be a pretty looking banner with no attached rules!

 

Also, 'wargear' is not a kind of bonus ability. There are individual model's special rules (Pedro Kantor's +1 attack bubble), squad special rules (apothicary, ect all), and army special rules (ATSKNF). The fact that a special rule is granted by a Waaaghh banner (+1 ws) or just a skill of the unit (infiltrate) makes no difference when looking at the rules that tell us how to apply said special rules. And those rules say that the unit's special rules DO NOT cross over to attached characters in those units, and vice versa, unless the special rule mentions it.

[SeattleDV8]

Then why does the Army List entry has a section called 'special rules' and another called 'wargear'?

Just because an item of wargear can give special abilites to a squad does not mean it is the same as 'special rules'.

The Rules affected are from that section and are generally also USRs.

[Isiah]

Just because an item of wargear can give special abilites to a squad does not mean it is the same as 'special rules'.

The Rules affected are from that section and are generally also USRs.

That's correct and as I read it.

 

Besides the DW banner isn't counted as a 'special rule' anywhere – it's just an option for Belial. It's listed as his wargear on his own page [p43] but only as an upgrade option in the Army List section in the back [p79] :D.

 

Same for the Lion Helm and DA Chapter banner – both listed as Azzy's wargear on his own page, the banner as an option for him in the Army List section.

 

But this is just a sidetrack from the issue as it doesn't change how they might work.

[DevianID]

So the army list has a heading called wargear, which the rule book does not mention. Are we advocating that the 'uniquely different' rules provided by wargear, such as the squad getting +1 attack, are not 'special' rules?

 

What about wargear that grants a univeral special rule, such as feel no pain? I am pretty sure the feel no pain is a 'special' rule, thus follows the rules for special rules in the rule book, not a 'uniquely different' rule that gets around the rules for special rule because the source is wargear.

 

I guess my conclusion is this: if you treat wargear's rules as special rules then the book solves all problems about whether a character in a unit gets the unit's rule or not, and vice versa. If you treat a wargear's rules as something other than a special rule, then there is nothing in the rule book telling you how to handle the wargear rules in mixed units--because GW does not make a distinction of wargear rules versus all other special rules in the rulebook.

 

PS

Besides the DW banner isn't counted as a 'special rule' anywhere

The benefits of the DW banner fit nicely in the description of what a special rule does in the main rulebook.

[nighthawks]

all are special rules, the USRs are just "universal". the problem in application is that the USR section lists which are gained or lost by joining an IC to a unit where only one has the USR. wargear-bestowed abilities don't have this simple asterisk to point us one way or the other - they have descriptions like "all models in the squad" which, apparently, can be read to include or not include the attached IC. I can see little reason why the IC would not benefit under such an inclusionary statement.

 

a USR may be because of the genetics or other inate abilities of the unit (i.e. plague bearers) or it might be from the appothecary's kit. an IC attached to nurglings is not going to recieve the USR Feel No Pain - and checking the USR section you will see that that is the case - however, an IC attached to a command squad with apoth is certainly going to benefit from the medic as he is part of the squad (while joined). in one case, the USR is bestowed to the unit, including attached characters, by the wargear. the USR that is innate is something the models in the unit have. it's a subtle destinction but it's very important.

 

to blanket all special rules as following the USR conventions for attached characters is not really very playable.

[DevianID]

all are special rules, the USRs are just "universal". the problem in application is that the USR section lists which are gained or lost by joining an IC to a unit where only one has the USR

to blanket all special rules as following the USR conventions for attached characters is not really very playable

 

Actually, there is on page 46, the rules for 'special rules' and attached characters completely independant of USRs and their application. 'Universal Special Rules' were never discussed, and I never used any USR conventions in my posts. I do understand how it could seem that way, as the two are related. So, the rules I quoted are very playable, as that is how they were designed.

 

THUS, the +1 attack to squad banner, as a special rule, would not confer +1 attack to attached characters--but the chaplins rerolls would apply to the squad he is attached to. Rejoice, however, because the +1 WS and FnP abilities of nob bikers DO NOT get confered to warbosses leading the nob bikers.

[nighthawks]

but all of this begs the question "is the IC part of the squad?"

[DevianID]

but all of this begs the question "is the IC part of the squad?"

 

If the question is does the character count as the squad, then no--IE a chaplian is not a deathwing terminator when attached to deathwing terminators. If the question is does the character and attached squad count as the same unit, then yes.

 

IE, a power armor captain attached to terminators can not use the squad's special rule to teleport by virtue of being attached to the squad. He must have his own special rule that allows him to teleport in order for the combined unit to teleport.

 

In regards to special rules (not just USR), an attached character does not get the squad's special rules, and vice versa, unless the special rule says otherwise.