Deathwing Company Standard

[CoyoteGospel]

As per the DA codex...

 

"In addition, all models in the standard bearer's unit add 1 to their Attacks characteristic"

 

Is this saying that

 

A. During the game, as long as the standard bearer model is alive, everyone gets +1 A

-or-

B. By purchasing the standard bearer "upgrade" everyone in the unit adds +1 to their attacks profile before the start of the battle (ie- once upgraded everyone gets the +1 A even if he lives or dies)

 

 

A would certainly be the most logical assumption, but the wording is rather ambiguous as it says "all models in the standard bearers unit add 1 to their attacks" - even if the standard bearer dies, the rest of the unit was still the unit that he was attached to. I've been working off the assumption that A is correct, but boy would it be a huge boost if B is correct!

[Freman Bloodglaive]

After the apothecary dies, can you still claim feel no pain for the squad?

 

No?

 

If the company standard dies, can you still claim the +1 attack bonus?

 

...

[CoyoteGospel]

After the apothecary dies, can you still claim feel no pain for the squad?

 

No?

 

If the company standard dies, can you still claim the +1 attack bonus?

 

...

 

The difference is that the FAQ specifically revised the Apothecary to read:

 

“As long as the Apothecary is alive, all models

in his squad have the Feel No Pain special rule."

 

The FAQ did not clear up the ambiguity of the way the Company Standard upgrade was worded to say "As long as the Standard Bearer is alive....".

The question is whether or not that was intentional or an oversight.

 

Edit:

For the record, I'm not arguing that I think they should still get the +1 A, just pointing out that there's an argument to be made that they should.

[shortysl]

It would state that the Standard Bearer had to remain alive if a) was the case. Unlike the Apothecary, who has special training to gain his ability, you could argue that if the Standard Bearer falls, another brother would pick it up. The squad isn't going to leave the physical representation of the company's honour lying on the ground just because the 'designated' banner bearer is killed.

 

If that doesn't work for you then you could argue that the sight of the banner bearer falling enrages the remaining squad members so much that the +1 attack now represents their righteous wrath

[EPK]

Heh, I never questioned the wording and just assumed it meant A... but now? I'd like to hear what the Vets on here have to say.

 

By the way Shortysl, fluffy explanation #1 is perfect. However it raises another gaming question with it, if it is actually B, than how could we count the banner bearer separate in wound allocation.

[shortysl]

Heh, I never questioned the wording and just assumed it meant A... but now? I'd like to hear what the Vets on here have to say.

 

By the way Shortysl, fluffy explanation #1 is perfect. However it raises another gaming question with it, if it is actually B, than how could we count the banner bearer separate in wound allocation.

 

No it isn't perfect. As per the fluff, no battle brother would ever allow the Standard to fall (hence why Brother Bethor charged alone into a brood of genestealers in order to recover his standard). As to wound allocation, you wouldn't treat him any differently for wound allocation unless he's armed differently to other members of the squad. To think that a squad of 1st Company veterans would suddenly become LESS aggressive at the sight of their standard hitting the dirt is laughable.

[EPK]

Heh, I never questioned the wording and just assumed it meant A... but now? I'd like to hear what the Vets on here have to say.

 

By the way Shortysl, fluffy explanation #1 is perfect. However it raises another gaming question with it, if it is actually B, than how could we count the banner bearer separate in wound allocation.

 

No it isn't perfect. As per the fluff, no battle brother would ever allow the Standard to fall (hence why Brother Bethor charged alone into a brood of genestealers in order to recover his standard). As to wound allocation, you wouldn't treat him any differently for wound allocation unless he's armed differently to other members of the squad. To think that a squad of 1st Company veterans would suddenly become LESS aggressive at the sight of their standard hitting the dirt is laughable.

 

I mean YOUR fluffy explanation of another brother picking up the banner is perfect - of course that is what would happen. In other words, I was agreeing with you.

 

As for wound allocation - He is armed different. The banner is a physical upgrade, it says he carries it, just like the Apothecary has his wargear. For wound allocation, I always have them separate even with the same waepons as everyone else (your second fluffy explanation circumvents this of course).

[shortysl]

Heh, I never questioned the wording and just assumed it meant A... but now? I'd like to hear what the Vets on here have to say.

 

By the way Shortysl, fluffy explanation #1 is perfect. However it raises another gaming question with it, if it is actually B, than how could we count the banner bearer separate in wound allocation.

 

No it isn't perfect. As per the fluff, no battle brother would ever allow the Standard to fall (hence why Brother Bethor charged alone into a brood of genestealers in order to recover his standard). As to wound allocation, you wouldn't treat him any differently for wound allocation unless he's armed differently to other members of the squad. To think that a squad of 1st Company veterans would suddenly become LESS aggressive at the sight of their standard hitting the dirt is laughable.

 

I mean YOUR fluffy explanation of another brother picking up the banner is perfect - of course that is what would happen. In other words, I was agreeing with you.

 

As for wound allocation - He is armed different. The banner is a physical upgrade, it says he carries it, just like the Apothecary has his wargear. For wound allocation, I always have them separate even with the same waepons as everyone else (your second fluffy explanation circumvents this of course).

 

Oops, many apologies in that case, i thought you were referring to the OP's fluff. I genuinely apologise brother

[EPK]

Oops, many apologies in that case, i thought you were referring to the OP's fluff. I genuinely apologise brother

 

No apology needed. I figured as much. The OP used A and B, that's why I used a number instead. :P

[Isiah]

As per the DA codex...

 

"In addition, all models in the standard bearer's unit add 1 to their Attacks characteristic"

 

Well if the standard bearer gets removed from the table, then the unit remaining is no longer "the standard bearer's unit" as he isn't there anymore :P.

 

Seriously, the banner has to be present to confer the morale pinning/boost, the "In addition" of the next sentence is just adding something else that the standard can do too – it does not change the basic requirement of requiring its presence to work.

 

Cheers

I

[shortysl]

As per the DA codex...

 

"In addition, all models in the standard bearer's unit add 1 to their Attacks characteristic"

 

Well if the standard bearer gets removed from the table, then the unit remaining is no longer "the standard bearer's unit" as he isn't there anymore :P.

 

Seriously, the banner has to be present to confer the morale pinning/boost, the "In addition" of the next sentence is just adding something else that the standard can do too – it does not change the basic requirement of requiring its presence to work.

 

Cheers

I

 

I disagree. I do respect the fact that people are entitled to their opinion but i won't be changing the way i use the unit intil it's made official.

[Isiah]

I disagree. I do respect the fact that people are entitled to their opinion but i won't be changing the way i use the unit intil it's made official.

 

As you are entitled.

 

Wargear [usually] only works when its on the table unless an express rule tells us otherwise. I see no rule expressly telling me I can use it even though it isn't on the table – especially as the previous sentence tells us it must be present to work.

[Brother-Captain Sharp]

I disagree. I do respect the fact that people are entitled to their opinion but i won't be changing the way i use the unit intil it's made official.

 

As you are entitled.

 

Wargear [usually] only works when its on the table unless an express rule tells us otherwise. I see no rule expressly telling me I can use it even though it isn't on the table – especially as the previous sentence tells us it must be present to work.

I think there might be an argument in there about the fact they get an attack added to their Characteristic. I'm separated from my books right now, but what is the wording on Pedro's ability? Does that add an attack or add an attack to the effected model's Characteristic?

[Lord_Edgimus]

whilst i agree with isiah in terms of thats how i feel it should be played, i hadn't thought about the exact wording of it i read this thread.

upon which it becomes RAW vs RAI, the rules as written to me says they get to keep the +1

however the rules as intended i can only assume from what the normal marine codex says on page 53 is that it only gives the benefit "whilst the standard bearer is alive"

[shabbadoo]

Wargear specific to a model doesn't get passed along. If the Standard Bearer is killed the banner goes with him, as does its effects. A unit can't be within 12" of a standard to gain its benefits if it isn't there any longer. Similarly, the squad that had it cannot gain its benefits either if the banner is no longer there. So, try and keep him alive. Same with the Apothecary- you don't get to use the narthecium/reductor if the Apothecary is dead.

[Chaplain Lucifer]

I have same opinion, if standard bearer ceases to exist, then any bonuses are lost.

[Frater Uriah]

I have same opinion, if standard bearer ceases to exist, then any bonuses are lost.

That's how I played it two days ago. In the absence of my Standard Bearer, my +1 A went away, which was detrimental, but the breaks.

[EPK]

I have same opinion, if standard bearer ceases to exist, then any bonuses are lost.

That's how I played it two days ago. In the absence of my Standard Bearer, my +1 A went away, which was detrimental, but the breaks.

 

That's also how I played it this past weekend. Unfortunately wound allocation worked against me, and the banner bearer fell. I think my opponents may have a problem if I played it the OP's option A way.

 

On a side note Frater Uriah, I'm sorry, but every time I see your name I think of "Urea". Thank goodness it's at least spelled different. Of course the urea compound has much more significance than the part that gives me a chuckle.

[Bartali]

A question about the apothecary. Now that our's works in cc, I take it doesn't grant FNP to any ICs in cc ?

 

If Belial is attached to his command squad, he'll gain the benifit of FNP from shooting. However as he's always a seperate unit in cc, this benefit is lost ? This would also apply to ICs not getting +1A in cc from the standard ?

[shabbadoo]

The separate unit thing for IC's is only for determining what can attack what. Belial is still a member of the unit and so does get FNP and the +1 Att. Join an Interrogator-Chaplain to them and they get rather nasty on the charge; especially with lightning claws on everything but the chappy- 36 power weapon attacks, all of which re-roll to hit, and 31 of which also re-roll to wound. Expensive, but foul.

 

@EPK: It is pronounced "yur-I-uh" with a long "i" sound, not "yur-E-uh" with a long "e" sound.

 

And yes, wound allocation can get you, but when can it not on a 5-man squad with all sorts of goodies in it. :rolleyes:

[Frater Uriah]

On a side note Frater Uriah, I'm sorry, but every time I see your name I think of "Urea". Thank goodness it's at least spelled different. Of course the urea compound has much more significance than the part that gives me a chuckle.

You know, "Frater Urea" was my original thought for a name, but I decided "Uriah" was more DA at the last minute.... :rolleyes:

[Slim]

I think that fluff-wise the standard would confer the plus one attack regardless of if the bearer fell (as already said, others would pick it up) - however, in game terms, I have to agree that the plus-one goes if the bearer falls.

[EPK]

The separate unit thing for IC's is only for determining what can attack what. Belial is still a member of the unit and so does get FNP and the +1 Att. Join an Interrogator-Chaplain to them and they get rather nasty on the charge; especially with lightning claws on everything but the chappy- 36 power weapon attacks, all of which re-roll to hit, and 31 of which also re-roll to wound. Expensive, but foul.

 

@EPK: It is pronounced "yur-I-uh" with a long "i" sound, not "yur-E-uh" with a long "e" sound.

 

And yes, wound allocation can get you, but when can it not on a 5-man squad with all sorts of goodies in it. ;)

 

Even without the Chaplain, all claws can be nasty when they work as intended. I recall destroying a whole squad of ork boys with one along with some heavy flamer action (well killed enough for them to be stuck falling back).

 

Yur-I-uh, of course. Sorry, I just can't keep the little kid in me from escaping sometimes. We are a forum dedicated to playing a game with little army men after all. :P

 

 

On a side note Frater Uriah, I'm sorry, but every time I see your name I think of "Urea". Thank goodness it's at least spelled different. Of course the urea compound has much more significance than the part that gives me a chuckle.

You know, "Frater Urea" was my original thought for a name, but I decided "Uriah" was more DA at the last minute.... :D

 

Heheh.

 

 

I think that fluff-wise the standard would confer the plus one attack regardless of if the bearer fell (as already said, others would pick it up) - however, in game terms, I have to agree that the plus-one goes if the bearer falls.

 

Yes, just another case where fluff simply has to be set aside in favor of game balance/mechanics. We all know we could field one DW squad in a 2000 point game, if it was all based on fluff, and still be victorious.

[shortysl]

I've been giving this a lot of thought overnight and although i'm very much a narrative player (i name my squads and vehicles, i feel guilty when my 3rd Company force has more Terminators than Tactical Marines etc) i am willing to go with the majority verdict here. As i've stated before i think it's ridiculous that Fearless Terminators become more timid and less aggressive if their banner falls, but i'm hoping to start tournament play fairly soon and i will be attending my local GW in the half term to fight for Armageddon. In home games i'll discuss it with my regular opponent (who's also a narrative player) but for the sake of consensus i'll relent. Lose the Standard Bearer, lose the attack :huh:

[pueriexdeus]

I vaguely remember some Standard Bearer rules from the past where the Wounded SB would stay on the table till some other model good or bad, could recover the Standard. Even though its not in the current rules I think it would be more in line with the concept of having one in the first place.