Cedric Posted May 10, 2009 Share Posted May 10, 2009 Reading the BT codex, I can't figure this one out. In Helbrecht's entry, he can take a command sqad that will count as a retinue, making him untargettable in CC. On p. 22 of the codex, it says all characters are targetable in CC. Which interpretation is correct, and why? The FAQ gives no guidance, sadly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maligoare Posted May 10, 2009 Share Posted May 10, 2009 Simple - can he choose to leave this 'retinue' at any point during the game? If so, then he can be targeted in CC. If not, then he can't (at least until they are all killed). BRB, P48 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cedric Posted May 10, 2009 Author Share Posted May 10, 2009 The BT Codex says characters don't stop being IC's for the purpose of CC, when leading or attached to a squad. Classic BRB v.s. Codex issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Souchan Posted May 10, 2009 Share Posted May 10, 2009 The reason why Helbrecht can be considered exempt is because he isn't listed in the"Black Templar Characters" section. I find it silly, as he is as obviously a Commander(in fact THE commander) as much as Grimaldus is a chaplain and that rules oversight is mostly existant due to the mentioned differing editions. Though when one goes into the RAW of he isn't a BT character by the dexes admission, in one of the clear examples why Strict RAW can be silly, GW simply doesn't write dexes that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maligoare Posted May 10, 2009 Share Posted May 10, 2009 I just spotted that part of your original post... :tu: In this case, I don't think it's actually a case of rule book vs. codex, as both rules sort of complement each other. The BRB says that if an IC can not leave his retinue unit, he counts as an upgrade character for that unit until they are killed. The BT codex states that ICs are targetable in CC. In this case, you will have Helbrecht counting as an upgrade character for the unit, who just happens to be targetable in CC. (Note that this works because the rules for Retinues simply have the IC count as an upgrade character, rather than stating that they can not be picked out in CC). Hope that helps! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cent404 Posted May 15, 2009 Share Posted May 15, 2009 Hey Cedric, In Helbrecht's entry, he can take a command sqad that will count as a retinue, making him untargettable in CC. IMO, Helbrecht as well as commanders and chaplains, while taking a command squad (which they CANNOT LEAVE) strictly makes them a retinue. The BT Characters, including Grimaldus and Helbrecht fully play by regular "upgrade" character rules. They can be found on page 48 of the BRB. On p. 22 of the codex, it says all characters are targetable in CC. Strictly speaking, THERE IS NO SUCH STATEMENT at all in the BT codex. What there is however is, "...do not stop being independent characters for the purposes of close combat." To figure out what the benefits and penalties are for this statement you must consult the BRB on page 49. Where you will find "not one" circumstance or rule detailing how to use an independant character in his retinue. Only about how an IC resolves assaults individually and when he "joins" a unit, which BT characters with RETINUES do not have the option of doing. So, to summarize, as I just posted in a thread in this very forum, Enjoy your untargetable characters in CC, however when numerous wounds carry over onto him because he is the same unit, you can't complain. ^_^ Hope that helps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cedric Posted May 19, 2009 Author Share Posted May 19, 2009 Awesome, I will take this info and have my LC Marshal crush his enemies, drive them before him and hear the lamentations of their women. :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trekari Posted May 20, 2009 Share Posted May 20, 2009 BT characters are able to be targeted independently in CC. They are NOT part of a "Retinue" during CC. The BT Codex says so in rather plain language. Cent404, you are absolutely and irrefutably wrong in your statement. When the attacksare 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. It does not matter that the IC did not "join" the unit. From your other post: C:BT pg. 22 under the heading "BLACK TEMPLAR CHARACTERS"; 2) "...The character is a member of the unit and may not leave it. If the squad is destroyed the character my operate independently" 3) "...The attached character is a member of the unit and may not leave it. If the unit is destroyed, the attached character and leading character may operate independently" Attached=Joined. BT Characters can be targeted just fine in CC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cent404 Posted May 20, 2009 Share Posted May 20, 2009 The following is conjecture: They are NOT part of a "Retinue" during CC. The BT Codex says so in rather plain language. Codex: Black Templar does not specify what a retinue is, nor does it EVER claim they are not part of one during CC. (You must consult the BRB) Cent404, you are absolutely and irrefutably wrong in your statement.When the attacksare 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. You missed the ENITRE preface to that condition; on pg. 49 where it says: "If a unit that has been joined by an independent character assaults into close combat..." If A=B and B>C then A>C; How could you possibly say A>C without first resolving A=B and B>C? It does not matter that the IC did not "join" the unit. From your other post: C:BT pg. 22 under the heading "BLACK TEMPLAR CHARACTERS"; 2) "...The character is a member of the unit and may not leave it. If the squad is destroyed the character my operate independently" 3) "...The attached character is a member of the unit and may not leave it. If the unit is destroyed, the attached character and leading character may operate independently" Attached=Joined. BT Characters can be targeted just fine in CC. Attached and Joined are two different words which are "sometimes" synonymous, and I believe they have vital differences when applied here. To enhance the current discussion I could also point out; the opening description for an IC "Independent Characters are represented by individual models, which fight as units in their own right" vs. the opening description for an UC "Upgrade Characters are fielded as part of units from the start of the game..." in combination with "Some Codex books allow you to field characters together with a special unit that they cannot leave..." All three statements clearly define the category in which BT Characters with "Retinues" fit and it's not "Independant" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trekari Posted May 20, 2009 Share Posted May 20, 2009 Your own quote from the BT Codex says that they count as IC's for the purposes of Close Combat. It is irrefutable that they are therefore subject to the IC CC rules, which specify that they can be targeted independently. You are WRONG. Codex > BRB, and your Codex happens to say that for the purposes of CC, they are Independent Characters. You are immune from ranged attacks that target ICs such as Zogwort's Curse as long as you are with the Command Squad "Retinue," but for purposes of CC, you have a unit, and an IC. PERIOD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cedric Posted May 20, 2009 Author Share Posted May 20, 2009 Please use the other BT retinue thread for that discussion, I made this thread for Helbrecht himself, as I've seen some ppl rolling with him in a retinue and wanted to clear out the rules behind. There should be no need to have the same discussion in 2 different threads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cent404 Posted May 20, 2009 Share Posted May 20, 2009 Sorry Cedric, I didn't mean to muck up your thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cedric Posted May 20, 2009 Author Share Posted May 20, 2009 No harm done, I know from experience how rules arguments tend to spread and decided that a post in time saves nine. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.