Daeghrefn Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 Greetings all! I had a question about interpreting Sweeping Advance when you have troops led by a Terminator IC. The rules state that TDA may not Sweeping Advance, but does this prevent troops with him from doing so? IIRC the two units are considered separate for the duration of the combat, so it seems like they could chase down and scatter the foe, thus separating them from their character. On the other hand, it states elsewhere that IC's may only join or leave a unit during the movement phase. Example: I have 8 CSM with a terminator Chaos Lord in a Land Raider. They move up, disembark and assault the enemy- winning combat by a hefty margin, and the enemy breaks. Can my 8 CSM attempt to overrun the foe, while the Terminator Lord stays where he is? Or do they all stick together and watch the enemy run? *Edit: Clarified example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dswanick Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 Greetings all! I had a question about interpreting Sweeping Advance when you have troops led by a Terminator IC. The rules state that TDA may not Sweeping Advance, but does this prevent troops with him from doing so? IIRC the two units are considered separate for the duration of the combat, so it seems like they could chase down and scatter the foe, thus separating them from their character. On the other hand, it states elsewhere that IC's may only join or leave a unit during the movement phase. Example: I have 8 CSM with a terminator Chaos Lord in a Land Raider. They move up, disembark and assault the enemy- winning combat by a hefty margin, and the enemy breaks. Can my 8 CSM attempt to overrun the foe, while the Terminator Lord stays where he is? Or do they all stick together and watch the enemy run? *Edit: Clarified example. No, because of the TDA model, the unit may not Sweep. The IC is considered "seperate" from the unit only until the attacks are resolved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shatter Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 They disembark with the IC out of coherency, yet they assault the same target. IC is Vulnerable in the shoot phase if the assault finishes your turn. It's an ever present option to get SA enabled on a combat using both TDA & PA elements. I've used Corbulo with a big mess of termies for this purpose with his cheap I5. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greatcrusade08 Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 due to the way IC rules work in assault, shatters idea is a really smart move.. it does have a drawback in that the next turn he could get a lascannon to the face, but for the purpose of this argument it works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frosty the Pyro Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 due to the way IC rules work in assault, shatters idea is a really smart move.. it does have a drawback in that the next turn he could get a lascannon to the face, but for the purpose of this argument it works. It also has a drawback in that in the case of reciving no retreat wounds both the IC and the unit will take the full amount, (aka if you lost by 4, both IC and unit will take 4 wounds, for a total of 8 wounds, if they were joined it would just be 4 wounds between them). Aditionaly you will be unable to use the IC's leadership, or certain special rules (such as a chaplians rerolls to hit). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shatter Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 While maybe not particularly relevant to the OP, I wouldn't separate the unit's ICs if it looked like I'd lose this or next turn assault. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isiah Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 We're straying into tactics now, which is best served elsewhere on the B&C. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.