RUN! ICs & their rules.

[shatter]

If an IC chooses to run!, Can it cross the 2" threshold with another friendly unit?

[Legatus]

Yes. It only has to be more than 2" away from friendly units at the end of the movement phase. During movement, and during the later phases there are no such restrictions. The IC can move closer to friendly units via running or an assault move (like when assaulting the same enemy another friendly unit is fighting).

[shatter]

And if he stops there and the friendly unit doesn't run or assault anything, is the IC considered attached in the enemy move, shoot and assault phases?

 

...At the beginning of their next move phase?

[greatcrusade08]

nope the test are only done at the end of the movement phase

[shatter]

Soo, despite being or 'staying' in coherency, it would be immune to the slowest model rule if at the end of that following movement phase it was still within 2"?

[greatcrusade08]

yes becuase they arent part of the same unit

[shatter]

So, if one used run! previous turn and had left the IC within 2" of a friendly unit, it's never attached unless it's still within 2" at the end of the movement phase and therefore was never affected by the slowest model rule as it was never 'with' the unit during said movement phase.

 

Hehe... I'm going to enjoy this. Not.

 

I know folks will balk.

 

Thanks, guys; for walking and jumping through it with me. :)

[Dan VK]

So, if one used run! previous turn and had left the IC within 2" of a friendly unit, it's never attached unless it's still within 2" at the end of the movement phase and therefore was never affected by the slowest model rule as it was never 'with' the unit during said movement phase.

 

I do not see a problem with this. It allows a player to keep a unit and IC separate by carefully monitoring distance moved, but the IC is not protected from Shooting or granting USL benefits to the unit. What is the benefit of this tactic?

[Sparhawk]

Wouldn't it be better from a survivability standpoint to try and leapfrog the IC from squad to squad every turn so he benefits from hiding in a group? The only way that I see this as being tactically valuable is if a JP unit has his squad shot out from under him and needs to get to the other side of the board for some reason.

 

Edit: Sorry, I just checked the thread on ICs leaving a unit and I can see where this could come up.

[greatcrusade08]

RAW is pretty clear that the test is done at the end of movement.. if movement happens after this then it has no bearing on being attached to units

[shatter]

So, if one used run! previous turn and had left the IC within 2" of a friendly unit, it's never attached unless it's still within 2" at the end of the movement phase and therefore was never affected by the slowest model rule as it was never 'with' the unit during said movement phase.

 

I do not see a problem with this. It allows a player to keep a unit and IC separate by carefully monitoring distance moved, but the IC is not protected from Shooting or granting USL benefits to the unit. What is the benefit of this tactic?

 

Any bubble IC really. But a cheap example is the BA JP Priest (or multiples) from stormravens (disembark/skies of blood) (+run!) or DS (+run!) or simply leave a unit (+run). 2 units could 'swap' priests.

Cover save and can't be assaulted if surrounded/screened by friendly. If the unit or the SR was going to be shot, the reduction in damage incoming can be significant. What to shoot? Certainly the priests new cover save is nice and overkill wont hurt the unit. If the unit is shot, wrap around wont get the priest.

blahblahblah

 

Generally not a big deal, but every small increase in a scenario's options adds up.

 

My real problem is that it's not 'keeping it simple', which is an intention of GW rule design.

[Dan VK]

Any bubble IC really. But a cheap example is the BA JP Priest (or multiples) from stormravens (disembark/skies of blood) (+run!) or DS (+run!) or simply leave a unit (+run). 2 units could 'swap' priests.

Cover save and can't be assaulted if surrounded/screened by friendly. If the unit or the SR was going to be shot, the reduction in damage incoming can be significant. What to shoot? Certainly the priests new cover save is nice and overkill wont hurt the unit. If the unit is shot, wrap around wont get the priest.

blahblahblah

Oh yeah. Obviously. Right. I knew that. :) Apparently my flash to bang time is not too good today. :blush:

 

My real problem is that it's not 'keeping it simple', which is an intention of GW rule design.

Sorry for the :to: about to follow.

 

I agree, but unfortunately while 5th Edition is significantly less complex than 4th Edition (example: close combat kill zones), it is still rather complex. It is not very well written either, although that is not much of a change from previous editions. The fact a player must consult multiple unrelated sections of the BRB to read all the rules relevant to a given situation makes me :cry:. The fact the BRB lacks a glossary that defines terms like 'casualty' and 'movement' makes me ;).

[Isiah]

The fact the BRB lacks a glossary that defines terms like 'casualty' and 'movement' makes me ;).

 

I agree and think this will no doubt be in the 6th Ed book – remember it was only 4th edition that we got an index in the back !!

[Algesan]

I agree, but unfortunately while 5th Edition is significantly less complex than 4th Edition (example: close combat kill zones), it is still rather complex. It is not very well written either, although that is not much of a change from previous editions. The fact a player must consult multiple unrelated sections of the BRB to read all the rules relevant to a given situation makes me :P. The fact the BRB lacks a glossary that defines terms like 'casualty' and 'movement' makes me :).

 

I'm actually finding the rules less complex than I'd been led to believe for years and years. Yes, they could have been better written, but they don't read any worse than many other games rules and are more coherent than I thought.

 

If there is no glossary, then you use a dictionary since the words do not have special definitions. Not sure that it matters since "model" and "unit" are clearly defined and I've seen people who think try to interpret rules like units and models are different categories of things.

 

If there is any big issue it is that GW has perpetuated the myth that their various games are a single "hobby". Which means you have modelers who think they are experienced gamers. They like to indulge in counting the number of Sisters of Battle who can dance on the head of a pin and consider convoluted thinking some kind of special hidden knowledge.

[SeattleDV8]

Nice.

The rules must be judged in context, the dictionary lacks that.

It is no better than using fluff or real life examples to prove rules. It doesn't work very well.

 

Units and models are two different things and are treated so by the rules.

Models make up units, but they are treated differently.

IC's can join units but not if they are always one model.

If a unit is the target of a shooting attack models are assigned the wounds, unless it is targeted by a Vindicare assassin, Jaws of the Wolf World or Sgt. Telion in which case the model is singled out.

IC's that are part of a unit cannot be targeted as a single IC could.

If a unit moves though dangerous terrain only the models that move within it are tested.

If one model in a unit moves the entire unit counts as moving.

In close combat IC's are counted as a single model unit until the attacks have been resolved.

Units can be of several types, with different rules and there own FOC slots. Artillery units have a mix of vehicle-like models with infantry models.

They are related but each are unique.

The idea that there is no difference has no basis in the rules.

[Algesan]

Nice.

The rules must be judged in context, the dictionary lacks that.

It is no better than using fluff or real life examples to prove rules. It doesn't work very well.

 

Units and models are two different things and are treated so by the rules.

Models make up units, but they are treated differently.

IC's can join units but not if they are always one model.

If a unit is the target of a shooting attack models are assigned the wounds, unless it is targeted by a Vindicare assassin, Jaws of the Wolf World or Sgt. Telion in which case the model is singled out.

IC's that are part of a unit cannot be targeted as a single IC could.

If a unit moves though dangerous terrain only the models that move within it are tested.

If one model in a unit moves the entire unit counts as moving.

In close combat IC's are counted as a single model unit until the attacks have been resolved.

Units can be of several types, with different rules and there own FOC slots. Artillery units have a mix of vehicle-like models with infantry models.

They are related but each are unique.

The idea that there is no difference has no basis in the rules.

 

You cannot force a definition by limiting scope to rules only. Either there is a special definition (in which case it will be in the rules) or there is not a special definition (in which case the standard English dictionary definition applies, otherwise it degenerates in what the meaning of is is). Calling some rules "fluff" to justify a "rules" definition is forcing a definition that disregards RAW, since as soon as they are defined as "fluff" it signals that they are not considered "real rules". Might as well get a marker and darken out the inconvenient words in the rules. That makes them RAE(dited) and not RAW.

 

One model units are not treated differently, the model is the unit and all references to "model" or "unit" are treated exactly the same. Therefore a unit is a group of models that must operate in a certain fashion as outlined in the rules.

 

In those special cases, the special attack specifically allows a specific model to be targeted rather than all the models in the unit as a whole.

 

Well duh. If the IC is part of another unit, then it is just another model in the unit. If the IC is acting independently then it is its own unit and can be targeted as such.

 

If one model is in or wants to enter difficult terrain then the every model in the unit is affected, if it is also dangerous terrain, then yes, only those that actually enter the dangerous terrain must test if they become a casualty. Related but not different.

 

One model moves makes the entire unit to be considered moving. Yep, the relationship is there just as I outlined.

 

And the rules explain why that is so, unless you consider the explanatory rules "fluff".

 

Not relevant, it is inherent in the definitions of model, unit and unit types given in the rules.

 

Doesn't make sense, if they are related, how are they unique or as previously discussed distinct. All models are in units and all units are composed of models.

 

Not that there is no difference, but that there is not such a difference that when a rule refers to "model" (since it affects individual models in a unit) it is not contradicted, overruled or otherwise made void by a rule that says "unit" (since it affects all of the models in the unit). Perfect examples given above about unit and model movement.

[greatcrusade08]

units and models are obviously two seperate things, although it is possible to have single model units as outlined in the BRB.

 

certain rules affect models. others affect units..

 

there is no confusion

[Dan VK]

...

 

:to:

 

I apologize for opening this can of angry sand worms. I have opened a new topic for it.

 

 

[EDIT: I wish there was an Off-Topic! emoticon that did not look so angry. My posts look like I am throwing an exasperated fit when I use it :lol:]

[Isiah]

No apologies needed Dan VK – this is often the way of the +OR+.