Black Templar Command Squad (as Retinue)

[Cent404]

Hello,

 

I feel that the Black Templar Command Squads do act as a retinue and do NOT allow the Marshall or Chaplain who is leading them to be singled out in Close Combat.

 

Here is my reasoning, and I hope I do not cross a forum "law" by posting these rule blurbs from the C:BT and BRB.

 

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"

 

Closing paragraph under "BLACK TEMPLAR CHARACTERS"; "A character who is leading or attached to a squad does not stop being an independent character for the purposes of close combat."

 

BRB pg. 48 under the heading "RETINUES"; "...Where this is the case, the character counts as an upgrade character until all of the other members of the unit are killed, at which point it starts counting as an independent character and will do so for the rest of the game.

 

BRB pg 49. under the heading "INDEPENDENT CHARACTERS AND ASSAULTS"; 1) "If a unit that has been joined by an independent character assaults into close combat..." 2) "...independant characters that have joined the unit must move before other friendly models"

 

Now here comes my stance on the above rules.

 

1] Since BT characters are PURCHASED WITH their command squad (THEY DO NOT JOIN THEM) and CANNOT LEAVE IT they are infact classified as a RETINUE and follow the rules stated on pg. 48 in the BRB

 

2] the closing paragraph listed above in C:BT tells us that BT characters do not stop being an independent character for the purposes of close combat, so we must look at the rules presented on pg. 49 of the BRB which clearly describe and ONLY account for IC's which have JOINED (by the normal joining and leaving rules on pg. 48) a unit. Since BT Characters are "fielded together" with their retinues they do no follow the rules on pg. 49 under these circumstances.

[SeattleDV8]

The specific rule in the BT Codex overturns the BRB general rule.

The BT IC can be in a retinue but are still treated as IC's in CC.

[HiveFleetEzekial]

You didn't need to search... There was a post in the very first page dealing with this issue.

 

http://www.bolterandchainsword.com/index.p...howtopic=168152

[Cent404]

Hey, I'm not jumping on you guys (mostly because your the only ones who took the time to respond) but, could you be more constructive?

 

To SeattleDV8:

Your opinion is well stated, but could you back it with the appropriate rules?

 

To HiveFleetEzekial:

That particular thread you linked is going after a "loop-hole" in the rules for Helbrecht, not an overall rules debate of Black Templar Commanders + Chaplains (with Retinues).

[GTang]

p. 22 applies to all characters, not just special characters.

 

This does still mean that BT characters with retinues probably aren't targetable by weird powers that target only ICs when they have a retinue. So it doesn't completely take away everything about retinue status.

[Cent404]

Hey GTang, thanks for responding.

 

Yes, I am aware of what is printed on page 22 of C:BT. However, my statement above was in regards to another thread about High Marshal Helbrecht. So please let us leave that topic in it's own thread.

 

There would be "zero" positive benefits for a BT character in a retinue if the rules worked as people are suggesting. That is why my stance on the scenario is stated above.

 

Is anyone going to reinforce their opinions with rule citations or is this going to degrade like other threads on the topic?

[GTang]

It says "A character who is leading or attached to a squad does not stop being an independent character for the purposes of close combat" (my emphasis). It would apply whether you think of them as an independent character or upgrade character in the retinue as both are subcategories of "characters" (BRB p. 47, "character types"). As it applies to all Black Templar Characters, as given in the front part of that section, the standard retinue rule doesn't work with them in close combat. They use the regular independent character rules given on page 49 of the BRB.

 

And, as I suggested in my prior post, this doesn't mean that BTs with retinues get zero benefit from them. They aren't, for example, targetable by certain things that affect ICs when they have a retinue unlike a standard IC attached to a unit.

[Cent404]

I see the basis of your belief. And I agree with what you have said so far.

 

Page 49 of the BRB only describes IC's assaulting alone and units which have been joined by an IC. Neither of which is what a BT character with command squad is. I think that's why the small "Retinue" section (pg 48) and the definition of the two character types (pg 47) is there to indicate that there is a diffrent way to handle such situations.

 

Is that clear? or am I stating my "hang-up" incorrectly?

 

Thanks GTang

[SeattleDV8]

Hey, I'm not jumping on you guys (mostly because your the only ones who took the time to respond) but, could you be more constructive?

 

To SeattleDV8:

Your opinion is well stated, but could you back it with the appropriate rules?

 

I didn't need to, your own post had the answer.

In the BT codex you are told how IC's work differently from others in CC.

It is that specific codex rule that trumps the general BRB rule.l

[Cent404]

In the BT codex you are told how IC's work differently from others in CC.

 

I don't understand that, the BT IC's follow all 'standard' IC rules. (Right?)

 

It is that specific codex rule that trumps the general BRB rule.

 

Ok, that could very well be. Which general BRB rule? I've listed all the related sections in the discussion and IMO not one of them imply that my "Characters" should not benefit from the retinue rule on page 48.

 

I don't know how to better explain it maybe a list will help? (see below)

 

1) (BRB) If there is a IC with a retinue, treat IC as a UC until all other members are dead. (ok, see 2)

2) (C:BT) If there is character "leading" or "attached" to a squad, consider it an IC for CC. (ok now I have an IC/UC in CC, see 3)

3) (BRB) If your IC is "alone" or has "joined" a unit proceed as normal. (doesn't apply, see 1)

 

Doesn't the codex tell us how to 'apply' certain rules, not make new ones up?

(I think the worst part is, I emailed GW when I orginally saw this problem and again recently and both times... 'no response')

[nighthawks]

Cent404 - if I follow this correctly, you think that "2" above thus reverts to "1". this is not true. "1" is the general rule for retinues - which are a dying classification but still exist in at least 4 current codicies. one of these, the BT codex, states that characters in BT retinues DO NOT behave as upgrade characters, but as independent ones. as these rules were effectively the same in 4th ed, the logic is well known and sound.

 

to clarify how BT ICs with retinue are treated as ICs not UCs as described in the BRB: as you state above - "consider it an IC" - this does not become circular, it means to use the standard IC in a squad (not retinue) rules instead.

 

hope this helps

[Cent404]

As far as it not being circular, I should take the steps as: 1, 2, :P and just go with 2, instead of going 1-2-3-1

(This is fine, thank you nighthawks)

 

Why do you have to "STOP" being an IC to be "counted" as an upgrade character?

 

Example: A man plays football as a profession, he is a football player. While playing a game of baseball, he is a football and baseball player. After the baseball game, he is still a football player.

 

Translation: A Marshal has a Retinue, he is an upgrade character. During close combat, he is an upgrade and independent character. After the close combat, he is an upgrade character.

[gil galed]

It all seems pretty simple, i don't really understand your translation sentences though.

 

He is an upgrade character however in CC you treat him as following the normal rules for an IC...

 

... seems pretty straight forward?

[Grey Mage]

Ahh but the "Normal Rules" for an IC with a Retinue do not allow them to be singled out.

 

So what hes saying is that he should use the "normal rules" for an IC, wich in turn means the normal rules for an IC with Retinue. I can see what hes saying with this one, but I can also see the argument against it.

[Trekari]

His Codex makes it quite clear that for the purposes of CC, they count as Independent Characters.

 

There is no argument to be had here. Codex>BRB.

 

They can be singled out in CC.

[Cent404]

Hey guys, I've atleast got contact with a GW rules rep and they said they would get back to me in a couple days (via phone, they looked at my emails)...

 

So in the meantime, thank you guys for your help.

 

I must say I think Grey Mage said it the simplest and I agree with his interpretation.

 

To Trekari:

 

You are assuming that the statement "Independent Character for the purposes of close combat" EXPLICITLY means follow the rules on page 49 of the BRB ONLY when quite frankly, it's a vague statement.

 

To gil galed:

 

I apologize for my unclear example/application. Let me try to restate it more directly.

 

A BT character in a retinue during the deployment phase is an independent and an upgrade character due to the rules on page 48. A BT Character in a retinue during the movement phase is an independent character and an upgrade character due to the rules on page 48. A BT Character in a retinue during the shooting phase is an independent character and an upgrade character due to the rules on page 48. A BT Character in a retinue during the assault phase is an independent character and an upgrade character due to the rules on page 48 of the BRB and the rules on page 22 of the codex.

 

Only when a BT Character's retinue is killed does he become "JUST" an independent character.

 

Better or worse?

[Trekari]

There are two types of characters in 40k. One of which is upgrade, the other is Independent. Read the rules on page 47. You cannot be both at the same time because you either have the Independent Character special rule, or you do not. In a Retinue, the IC is NOT an IC until the other members are killed. Here is how your Codex works:

 

For Shooting at the unit, they are an upgrade character.

 

For Close Combat, they are an Independent Character. There is no ASSUMPTION on my part. How do Independent Characters behave during Assaults? As single-model units that can be targeted individually.

 

It's in YOUR Codex and overrides the BRB behavior of the Retinue special rule for the Assault Phase. Deal with it.

[Cent404]

....What's with the "Deal with it." at the end there? Was that necessary? Trying to be forceful, doesn't make your points stand-out any clearer.

 

 

Trekari said, "For Close Combat, they are an Independent Character. There is no ASSUMPTION on my part. How do Independent Characters behave during Assaults? As single-model units that can be targeted individually."

 

Your doing it again. Independent Characters who are alone or who have joined a unit (after the game has started) are treated as single-model units that can be targeted individually. Black Templar Characters with a retinue do not meet those criteria.

 

I understand your point, you feel the codex rules on page 22. supercede the retinue rules on page 48. So by default you look to page 49. Obviously I disagree (that's why this thread is here).

 

I feel that the codex rules on page 22. don't supercede anything. Those rules which are stated in the first post show there is no direct conflict between the codex and the BRB. However there is conflict between the rules on BRB pg 48 and 49, under these circumstances. And as I have stated many times over, the rules on 48 are a much better fit for this situation and the rules on pg 49 don't provide criteria other than "alone" and "joined"...

[JamesI]

Simple question.

 

If a Black Templar IC with a command squad is not a seperate unit for purposes of close combat, what is the purpose of the sentace saying to treat him as one on page 22?

 

The character would count as an upgrade character in a command squad without that being written. So why write it? Why the extra text that serves no purpose unless it is to make him an IC in close and therefore targetable.

[Brother Gothard]

Simple question.

 

If a Black Templar IC with a command squad is not a seperate unit for purposes of close combat, what is the purpose of the sentace saying to treat him as one on page 22?

 

The character would count as an upgrade character in a command squad without that being written. So why write it? Why the extra text that serves no purpose unless it is to make him an IC in close and therefore targetable.

Bingo. Exactly. "Treat the IC as an IC in close combat, otherwise treat him as an UC" is what the codex says in, perhaps, not so many words (I dont own the BT codex).

 

Why would they make mention of that? If it is not clear to you that it is to tell you to treat him as a separate unit in CC, then certainly it cannot be clear that it is to NOT treat him as a separate unit? What else could you interpret it as?

 

It tells you to treat it as an Independent Character in combat so that you will not treat it as an upgrade character. If the BT character is, in fact, an upgrade character in a retinue, then this extra instruction would not be necessary, would it?

 

A BT character in a retinue during the deployment phase is an independent and an upgrade character due to the rules on page 48. A BT Character in a retinue during the movement phase is an independent character and an upgrade character due to the rules on page 48. A BT Character in a retinue during the shooting phase is an independent character and an upgrade character due to the rules on page 48. A BT Character in a retinue during the assault phase is an independent character and an upgrade character due to the rules on page 48 of the BRB and the rules on page 22 of the codex.

Give a better argument for why this is the case. The BT character is an upgrade character in a retinue, but they make extra special sure to tell you that during the CC phase? I dont think so.

[Trekari]

Your doing it again. Independent Characters who are alone or who have joined a unit (after the game has started) are treated as single-model units that can be targeted individually. Black Templar Characters with a retinue do not meet those criteria.

 

I understand your point, you feel the codex rules on page 22. supercede the retinue rules on page 48. So by default you look to page 49. Obviously I disagree (that's why this thread is here).

 

I feel that the codex rules on page 22. don't supercede anything. Those rules which are stated in the first post show there is no direct conflict between the codex and the BRB. However there is conflict between the rules on BRB pg 48 and 49, under these circumstances. And as I have stated many times over, the rules on 48 are a much better fit for this situation and the rules on pg 49 don't provide criteria other than "alone" and "joined"...

 

This entire thread is a prime example of someone (you) not wanting the rules to read the way they do, so you dispute them. For the purpose of this discussion, a character is either independent or an upgrade character. You, by definition, CANNOT be both. Read the rulebook on page 47 as I previously mentioned (which you ignored).

 

Codex>BRB.

 

BRB: If you are in a Retinue, you are an upgrade character until they die and cannot be targeted in CC.

Codex: You are in a Retinue, but in CC you are treated as an IC.

BRB: ICs in CC can be targeted.

 

Here's a shock for you, by stating that you are an IC for CC, the rules on page 49 fit EXACTLY what your Codex says - an IC joined to a unit.

 

If you don't like the BT rules, then find a different army to play. But don't sit here and tell everyone that plain English does not say what it most certainly and obviously says.

[Cent404]

You, by definition, CANNOT be both. Read the rulebook on page 47 as I previously mentioned (which you ignored).

 

What's your problem? You've obviously ignored quite a bit on pg 47, because the "rules" your conjuring up don't exist anywhere on that page.

 

Codex>BRB.

BRB: If you are in a Retinue, you are an upgrade character until they die and cannot be targeted in CC.

Codex: You are in a Retinue, but in CC you are treated as an IC.

BRB: ICs in CC can be targeted.

 

How many times do I have to explain this to you? The words, attached and joined are very different in this scenario. The rules on page 49 don't have a condition describing how an IC is to "act" when he has been ATTACHED to a unit. (I am going to provide additional refrences, so you may better understand this concept)

 

BRB

The first sentence on the top of page 48: "Independent characters are allowed to join other units.

The first sentence of the second paragraph on pg 48: "In order to join a unit, an independent character..."

 

C:BT

Page 22., under Black Templar Characters, paragraph #3: "The attached character is a member of the unit and not leave it"

Page 32., under the Chaplain entry, under the heading unmatched zeal, "They, and all members of any Black Templars unit they have joined, lead or are attached to are Fearless..."

Page 32., under the Chaplain entry, under the heading litanies of hate, "...and all members of any Black Templars Space Marine squad he has joined, leads or is attached to, ..."

Page 33., under the Command Squad entry, introduction paragraph, "...Independent Characters in Terminator armor may not lead or be attached to a Command Squad, they may join it during the course of play, however."

 

Look it's undeniable that attached means purchased with and deployed with, in a permanent fashion.

It is also equally undeniable that joined means temporarly acting as one unit.

 

Just read the above statements, if what you suggest is true there would be NOT ONE REASON to list the words joined and attached in the same sentence to desribe a relationship. Additionally, the last quote is simply a perfect example of the use of the words attached and joined.

 

Here's a shock for you, by stating that you are an IC for CC, the rules on page 49 fit EXACTLY what your Codex says - an IC joined to a unit.

 

See above I already explained it.

 

If you don't like the BT rules, then find a different army to play. But don't sit here and tell everyone that plain English does not say what it most certainly and obviously says.

 

Unfortunetly I'm the only one using plain english and quoting the relevant sections of the rules in our debate here. I play more armies than just BT and I certainly would allow my BT opponents to play correctly as well, this is not a favoritism thing - so please knock it off Trekari.

[Cent404]

If a Black Templar IC with a command squad is not a seperate unit for purposes of close combat, what is the purpose of the sentace saying to treat him as one on page 22?

Hey JamesI,

 

I'm sorry I missed your comment before. I will do my best to clarify.

The exact rule, which has already been stated in my first post is: "A character who is leading or attached to a squad does not stop being an independent character for the purposes of close combat"

 

The character would count as an upgrade character in a command squad without that being written. So why write it? Why the extra text that serves no purpose unless it is to

make him an IC in close and therefore targetable.

 

The Codex: Black Templar was written for the 4th edition of the rulebook. Which I will have to dig out of my attic for you if you need any other direct information.

[Grey Mage]

The reason Im willing to listen to the argument is at the time, in 4rth edition, all characters were ICs.... and targettable in CC. However, they have "attached" characters in the BT codex, who could not leave those units. They even have squad upgrade chaplains.

 

It also in that paragraph states the character cannot leave the unit, unless it is destroyed in wich case they can operate independantly. This sounds like a modern retinue.

 

So it would appear to me to state that the character, wether it is the HQ you bought the command squad for OR the Chaplain that was put in the command squad used the normal rules at the time.

 

Thus it would make sense that they now use the normal rules for a character in this situation at this time- wich is, that since they cannot leave the squad they are considered upgrade characters in all respects, save that should the squad be destroyed they become Idependant characters.

 

Of course, I can also see that you can interpret it that as an IC, they must be targettable.

 

Now, something to note: A character that is part of a Retinue does NOT lose the independant character special rule. It merely "counts as" an upgrade character until all of the other members of the unit are killed. Once those models are killed they "count as" an independent character forf the rest of the game.

[Trekari]

This is growing tiresome.

 

Where this is the case, the

character counts as an upgrade character until all of

the other members of this unit are killed, at which

point it starts counting as an independent character

and it will do so for the rest of the game.

 

You cannot be both an upgrade character and an independent character at the same time. They are two different types of characters, as described on page 47.

 

Independent Characters may be targeted individually in CC.

 

BT characters do not count as upgrade characters for the purposes of CC. They count as ICs, because they have the IC RULE and you cannot, by the very definition given in the BRB, be BOTH at the same time. It makes ZERO difference that the Codex was written for 4th edition. What is written is what the rule IS. It is not an obsolete rule, as it does not reference something that doesn't exist in the game anymore.

 

For all purposes except CC, BT characters 'count as' upgrade characters, just like the BRB retinue rules. The BT Codex however, CONTRADICTS the BRB Retinue rule by saying that they do not lose the IC special rule for CC, thus they can be targeted separately just like EVERY OTHER IC.

 

The semantics argument about joins/leads/attached to is a load of crap that does absolutely nothing to circumvent the very BASIC 5th edition rule: If you are an Independent Character, you can be targeted individually in combat. As you cannot be both types of characters at the same time, and the BT Codex makes it explicitly clear that you have the IC special rule for CC, you can be targeted individually.

 

How's that for a concept to understand?