Dante + Hit and Run

[JamesI]

Dante's rule give Dante and the unit he is with Hit and Run. There is debate going on on the BA forum as to whether or not that means the unit Hit and Runs at Dante's initiative, the squad's initiative or what ever is the majority (which would usually be the squads, but in the case of only 1 guy left then a tie would go to the highest)

 

For background the debate comes up in this thread.

 

http://www.bolterandchainsword.com/index.p...howtopic=230471

[Chengar Qordath]

I'm pretty sure that RAI is to use the majority characteristic on any characteristic test, but there's not outright statement of that in the rules as written. Since RAW doesn't address the issue one way or the other, I would be inclined to go with RAI + Precedent and use majority Initiative, unless someone can find something explicitly written in the rules on the matter.

[Marshal Wilhelm]

Dante's rule give Dante and the unit he is with Hit and Run. There is debate going on on the BA forum as to whether or not that means the unit Hit and Runs at Dante's initiative, the squad's initiative or what ever is the majority (which would usually be the squads, but in the case of only 1 guy left then a tie would go to the highest)

 

For background the debate comes up in this thread.

 

http://www.bolterandchainsword.com/index.p...howtopic=230471

 

When getting shot, it is majority.

When being attacked, it is majority.

When chasing things down, or being chased down, it is majority.

 

Until you find something that says use the highest I, I think you'd be safer using the majority I and then people won't get offended. Plus, if you find it is Dante's, all you have done is self-deprecating. If you find out it is majority after you have been using Dante's, then you have been taking more than you should.

 

Best to err on the side of caution, imo. :wacko:

[greatcrusade08]

page 40 BRB sweeping advances

both the unit falling back and the winning unit roll a D6 and add thier initiative value to the result. always count the initiative value from the models profile without any modifiers. In a unit with mixed initiative characteristics, count the majority value, or the highest if there is no majority

 

this gives us a set precedent for using majority initiative

 

pg 75 BRB hit and run

Units with this ability that are locked in combat may choose to leave close combat at the end of the assault phase. The unit using the hit and run ability must take an initiative test

 

Dantes hit and run applies to any unit he is with (same as Khan from C:SM), it is the unit as a whole that uses hit and run (whilst dante is attached).. so the unit as a whole must take the test.

The sweeping adavnce rule shows us aprecedent which suggests initiative tests are taken as a majority not the best

[Morollan]

In every other case where majority value is used it is specifically stated in the rules. It is not on this occasion. As I said in the other thread, this is yet another example of poor writing from GW. Hit & Run is not normally conferred from character to unit or vice versa. Dante is a special case and does confer the ability on a unit. GW should have stated whether it uses his own I or that of the unit. RAI I tend to believe it is the unit's I that is used but there is no solid rules argument to state that this is RAW, there are only assumptions and opinions.

[Marshal Wilhelm]

In every other case where majority value is used it is specifically stated in the rules. It is not on this occasion. As I said in the other thread, this is yet another example of poor writing from GW. Hit & Run is not normally conferred from character to unit or vice versa. Dante is a special case and does confer the ability on a unit. GW should have stated whether it uses his own I or that of the unit. RAI I tend to believe it is the unit's I that is used but there is no solid rules argument to state that this is RAW, there are only assumptions and opinions.

 

Perhaps, but are you going to rule in your favour over a murky rule, or against yourself? Unless you can prove the benefit is highest I, it really will leave a sour taste in your friends mouths. You want the benefit, you prove it. It is not up to your foe to disprove your half full hopes.

 

Officer, I knew the speed was something in the sixties, but I couldn't be sure, so I rounded it up to 69. My bad?

 

Baker, your sign said buy a dozen for $20. But you're a baker, so I figured you meant 13. My bad?

 

Delicatessen lady, when you said 'free samples' I wasn't supposed to load the whole tray into my pockets? My bad?

 

Unless the person who wants the benefits of the rule, and is the "owner" of the rule, can clearly show something to be true, it is just better to avoid rounding-up in their own favour. I advocate vigourous play over story telling play, but GW is still supposed to be enjoyed by both sides in a Queensbury fashion, if clear proof cannot be given.

 

That's what I believe, anyway.

[greatcrusade08]

Unless the person who wants the benefits of the rule, and is the "owner" of the rule, can clearly show something to be true, it is just better to avoid rounding-up in their own favour. I advocate vigourous play over story telling play, but GW is still supposed to be enjoyed by both sides in a Queensbury fashion, if clear proof cannot be given.

 

That's what I believe, anyway.

 

damn straight..

 

@Morollan: if you look at the argument i gave above and compare it to the "it doesnt say i cant" argument.. which is more enforceable over the tabletop?

your right it doesnt state you use majority initiative for hit and run, but it does state the unit has to make an initiative test.. and we do have an RAW example of a unit making an initiative test and its done per majority.

the rulebook doesnt state you read the tops of the dice, perhaps with my bad luck i should start arguing i use the bottoms instead..

 

as has been stated, you want it, show me how you can have it

[dswanick]

In favor of GC08 and Marshall Wilhelm's position of using the majority I value, I give you this:

HIT AND RUN

The unit using the hit & run ability must take an initiative test. If the test is failed nothing happens and the models remain locked in the fight. If the test is passed, ...

So we know that the unit must take and pass an Initiative test to benefit from Hit and Run. Next we look at:

CHARACTERISTIC TEST

Duringa battle, a model might have to take a test on one of its characteristics, commonly its Strength, Toughness or Initiative.

So an Initiative test is a Characteristic test. How does a unit take a characteristic test?

In order to take the test, roll a D6. To succeed, you must score equal to or lower than the value of the characteristic involved. Note that if a 6 is rolled, then the model automatically fails the test regardless of the characteristic's value or any other modifier that might apply, and conversely a 1 is always a success.

Of course, if a model has to take a test for one of its characteristics with a value of 0, it automatically fails.

Note it refers to a/the model three times in the rules and never a/the unit. So, strictly by RaW, it looks like each model wishing to use Hit and Run must take and pass an Initiative test on a per model basis since it doesn't say to make a single test against the majority value. What with unit coherency rules being what they are would you rather give your opponent the benefit of the doubt and take the Initiative test on the majority value or have him insist that you play by RaW and take the test for each model on its own value? Statistically your will fail one of your test on a unit of 6 or more and therefore find yourself unable to use the power at all. :D

[timmytool]

In every other case where majority value is used it is specifically stated in the rules. It is not on this occasion. As I said in the other thread, this is yet another example of poor writing from GW. Hit & Run is not normally conferred from character to unit or vice versa. Dante is a special case and does confer the ability on a unit. GW should have stated whether it uses his own I or that of the unit. RAI I tend to believe it is the unit's I that is used but there is no solid rules argument to state that this is RAW, there are only assumptions and opinions.

 

the rules also clearly state when the highest/slowest value is used to.. like the leadership test rules directly below the characteristic test(BRB p8)

 

shooting wounding uses majority(toughness)

cover uses majority(in cover)

Hitting in close combat used majority(weapon skill)

wounding in close combat used majority(toughness)

sweeping advance uses majority(initiative)

 

vs

 

movement uses slowest

leadership test uses highest

 

clearly if it does not have a clear RAI reason it should be basses off of majority as several majority rules say "to keep things simple, roll to wound using the toughness value of the majority of the target unit/engaged foe...." BRB p19 & p38

 

all hit and run is is a modified sweeping advance rule with no drawback, so why not keep its majority statement?

[Morollan]

Unless the person who wants the benefits of the rule, and is the "owner" of the rule, can clearly show something to be true, it is just better to avoid rounding-up in their own favour. I advocate vigourous play over story telling play, but GW is still supposed to be enjoyed by both sides in a Queensbury fashion, if clear proof cannot be given.

 

That's what I believe, anyway.

 

damn straight..

 

@Morollan: if you look at the argument i gave above and compare it to the "it doesnt say i cant" argument.. which is more enforceable over the tabletop?

your right it doesnt state you use majority initiative for hit and run, but it does state the unit has to make an initiative test.. and we do have an RAW example of a unit making an initiative test and its done per majority.

the rulebook doesnt state you read the tops of the dice, perhaps with my bad luck i should start arguing i use the bottoms instead..

 

as has been stated, you want it, show me how you can have it

 

The example you've quoted on a few occasions is flawed. Sweeping Advance is not an Initiative test and does not use the rules for characteristic tests. You roll a dice and add your I. You're not trying to roll under your I.

 

Anyway, as I've said on several occasions. I'm happy with unit I as RAI but please don't try to tell me it's RAW, cos it's not. That's all I'm saying.

[greatcrusade08]

The example you've quoted on a few occasions is flawed. Sweeping Advance is not an Initiative test and does not use the rules for characteristic tests. You roll a dice and add your I. You're not trying to roll under your I.

 

The rules for the sweeping advance is a very good precedent..

always count the initiative value from the models profile without any modifiers. In a unit with mixed initiative characteristics, count the majority value

 

it doesnt limit it to characteristic or initiative test, it says in a unit with mixed initiative use the majority.. whether it is or isnt an initiative test is not really important.. as a precedent it holds alot of weight.

 

Anyway, as I've said on several occasions. I'm happy with unit I as RAI but please don't try to tell me it's RAW, cos it's not. That's all I'm saying.

i never said it was RAW, by simple logic, if there was a simple RAW explanation this discussion wouldnt exist.. what i and others are saying is that this is the only interpretation that holds any weight under scrutiny.. its the only argument supported by the rules..

RAI is silly, theres no such thing unless you personally know the guy who wrote the rules..

 

This isnt RAI, its the only practical use of the rules in order to follow RAW.. which merely states the unit takes an initiative test

because it doesnt explain what value to use, we need to delve into our magical wardrobes and play arond in the land of common sense.