Militis Templum Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 Ok. I play with Vulkan, last night I playing a game in which he was killed. At which point I was informed that "because he is no longer in play I cannot use his twin linked and master crafted rule". Is this correct. I can just imagine that his army is twin linking then he dies, and all of a sudden everything stops working. ( As if it was magically stopped ), it doesn't make sense. If this is true though, can I revert back to the standard combat tactics or am I disallowed from doing that as well. kind regards P.S Sorry about my previous grammar, I was at lunch and typing this post on my Iphone....... Probably not the best idea. It has been edited Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeattleDV8 Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 You were told incorrectly. By selecting Vulkan in this case the entire army gets a special rule, twin linked flamers,etc and master crafted Thunder hammers. These work even if the IC is not on the table. If a rule needs the IC as part of a unit or within X" then of course you lose that rule when he died. The Chapter Tatics rules only need the special character as part of the army at the start of the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legatus Posted August 19, 2009 Share Posted August 19, 2009 Yep. If a Character is "in your army", or if you "include" the Character, then it does not matter whether he is alive, on the board, in reserve or dead. Example: Space Marine Captain, mounted on a bike, page 132. If your army includes a Captain on a Space Marine bike you can use some Bike Squads as Troops. Example: Honour Guard, page 131. You may include one Guard for every Chapter Master in your army. Example: Sicarius, page 85. If the army includes Sicarius then one Tactical Squad gets a special rule. --> Vulkan, page 93. If you include Vulkan then all units are subject to his Chapter Tactics rule (depending on their type). None of those rules are lost when the Character that enabled them dies or is not on the board. Bikes do not revert back to Fast Attack if the Captain on Bike dies (which could retroactively make your army illegal if you used bike squads as your mandatory Troops choices), Honour Guard squads do not have to be removed when the Chapter Master is killed, Chapter Tactics are not lost when the Special Character is killed. What matters is that you build your army and included that Character. An example of how a rule might work differently can be found with Marneus Calgar, page 84. While he is on the table, all his units benefit from his God of War rule. If he is in reserve or is removed as a casualty no one can use that rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gdeathlegion Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 To keep this topic going I would like to ask about TWO special characters. If one dies, can you use the other one's special rules. Lets say Vulkan and Shrike for example... You use Vulkan's special rules to start, but if he is removed from the table can you use the fleet special rule granted by shrike? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander Sasha Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 I would say the key phrase is "While he is on the table". Rules like 'Rites of battle', where the army uses the captain's leadership while he is on the table do lose it when the captain is killed, which makes sense from a fluff point of view (Nooooo, My Lord....), but most of the chapter tactics are about a decision made at the army planning stage, and thus represent a mentality from training, so are inherent even when the leader dies. Re: 2 leaders: by exactly the same argument, when you choose the army, you choose the trait, so no, 2 characters doesn't allow you to change tactics when your favourite dies. I had avoided using characters up to now because Commander Sasha is her own sort of girl, and I didn't want to think of her as a bald fat bloke with scars; since the discussion last week on this site over 4ed Traits vs 5ed Characters, I rethought it, and now that I think of her as paying 25pts for Hit&run and Furious charge, instead of 'Counts As Khan' I am much happier. She has been re-named 'Jemima (counts as) Khan', and Sasha is now a chaplain. Both performed excellently in their first battle, against CSM. For anyone who doesn't like the idea of the 'counts as' concept, view it as purchasing a ruleset, not doing impressions. BTW, smurf players who want Spacehulk, paint the termys blue, and we'll let you say that they 'Count-As' Blood Angels! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
avatar8481 Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 The problem with, "I would say the key phrase is "While he is on the table" is that there's no clear definition in the rules about the various states of models. No simple statement that, "units in vehicles count as 'on the table'" or "units removed from the table for deepstrike or redeployment count as reserved". Anything like that would go a long way to defining states and conditions of models and unifying some of the very inconsistent language. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isiah Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 I agree completely. The "on the table issue" needs sorting – not only in the context of this topic, but for the other reasons suggested too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gdeathlegion Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 "on the table" is pretty straight forward, it literally means ON THE TABLE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandmaster damion Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 Yes but with that litteral interpratation as soon as someone mounts up in a transport they stop being 'on the table' so there rules would stop being in effect as this is clealy nosensical we have to bin this interpritation for somthing more solid as the rules are lacking a defanition of on the table we are left stranded with all the peculiarits that this cause as mentioned above as stated all you need do is include the character in your list to gain the rule it maters not if the model is alive, dead or at home and having to be proxied with a salt shaker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gdeathlegion Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 Yes but with that litteral interpratation as soon as someone mounts up in a transport they stop being 'on the table' so there rules would stop being in effect as this is clealy nosensical we have to bin this interpritation for somthing more solid as the rules are lacking a defanition of on the table we are left stranded with all the peculiarits that this cause as mentioned above as stated all you need do is include the character in your list to gain the rule it maters not if the model is alive, dead or at home and having to be proxied with a salt shaker. I guess it should be called "In play" not "on the table" that would really clear it up for most people. Even though the model is not physically on the table, he is a part of a unit in a tank that is ON the table, so using transitive properties we can establish that Calgar is in fact "on the table". Edit: LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DuncanSpence Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 Yes but with that litteral interpratation as soon as someone mounts up in a transport they stop being 'on the table' so there rules would stop being in effect as this is clealy nosensical we have to bin this interpritation for somthing more solid as the rules are lacking a defanition of on the table we are left stranded with all the peculiarits that this cause as mentioned above Do you mean that if the model is not somehow in contact with the surface of the table, it is not 'on the table'? Then take the advice of the BRB (P.66) and place the character on top of transport to show that they and the unit are embarked. If that doesn't placate your opponent, remove any model on a piece of terrain, inside/on top of buildings and ruins, and finally anything that is not solely on a standard GW base, make sure that they do the same and see how much of a battle they are left with - after all, by their definition, if a model is not 'on the table', it cannot be taking part in the battle and all of its effects are lost. Turning it the other way, the Shooting rules specifically say that any and all of my units can shoot as long as they have line of site, are in range, and they are not disallowed by the non-exclusive list in the Disallowed Shooting paragraph. There is no mention that only units 'on the table' may fire or that units in reserve or already dead are not allowed to fire, so my reserves, positioned on the washing machine next to the table, and my dead missile launcher on the window ledge, will open up as well. There is such a thing as taking litteral interpratation (sic) too far! I have to say that anyone I came across that tried this would have had a wasted journey as I wouldn't even finish the game with them. Sorry, climbing off my soap box now, there are enough real rules questions giving rise to very reasoned arguments on this forum without inventing ones that are not there given any sensible reading of the information given. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legatus Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 I don't see it as that big of an issue either, though I could see some WAAC lawyers point towards the description for entering vehicles and building and how "the unit/models are removed from the tabletop" and try to pull some stunt with that. Vehicles: As the preceeding post points out, the rules suggest that, as a reminder of what is inside the transport, you could place one model on top of that transport. So just take Calgar or Sicarius and put him on the top of the transport. Problem solved. Buildings: While the rules for entering buildings on page 79 do say that these "models are removed from the tabletop", they also point out that "you can either note down where they are on a piece of paper or use another suitable reminder". So while the models are physically removed, they are still considered by the rules to be present. Reserve: I do not think that GW needs to clarify that units that have not been deployed are not considered to be on the table. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandmaster damion Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 This is the problem I understand (I think) that gamesworkshop have used 'on the table' to indacate 'in play' unfortanatly they have not given this as clear interpatation as some talents/rules/abilaties work when in a vehical/off the board or otherwise not 'on the table', and other talents/rules/abilaties with identical wording dont and the real kicker your abilites work in the tank or off the board but you cannot be targeted because you are off the board so how can you be 'on the board' hense we need it cleaning up. PS this has bit me in the ass twice at tournaments I have had my stuff targetable inside vehicals because they are 'on the board' and the same unit not be able to use its ability because they where in a vehical and NOT 'on the board' this from the same judge!!! but this is somewhat off topic if people want to continue discussing this start a new thred and I will join in on the discusion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.