Indendepent Characters and Morale Tests

[Seahawk]

It doesn't change the BRB wording that he is a part of the unit though :P

[Something Wycked]

The logical question, Seahawk, is what unit is he joined to? The IC is now a unit of 1 model. There's nothing left for the IC to be "part of." Of course he'll still feel the effects of whatever just happened to the unit (he's the sole surviving member of a unit that has to take a Ld test from shooting casualties) but nothing exists for the IC to still be joined to. The BRB says the IC can't leave the unit until the end of his movement phase, but does it address the unit "leaving" (:P) the IC?

 

The BRB defines a unit (basically) as a model or a group of models, right? And the IC rules further refine the concept of units, particularly those that ICs can join and leave. An empty area of board, containing zero friendly models around the IC, does not fit the definition of a unit that the IC can be attached to.

 

To illustrate what I'm trying to say, if the IC has the Fearless rule and doesn't convey it to the unit he joins, as long as there is 1 non-Fearless model attached to the IC, the benefit is not applied. The very moment that the IC is not in a unit with other models (ie, they are all removed as casualties) he will gain the benefits of being Fearless. So in our above example of an IC finding himself suddenly alone after all his buddies are shot down, the IC will not take the Morale test because he is now "in" a unit whose every member is Fearless.

[thade]

(Forgive me if I seem a bit disjointed. I got engaged and then got appendicitis. It's been quite a month.)

 

ICs can only leave or join units during the Movement phase. When the subsequent Movement phase comes up, the IC in question here is no longer attached to any unit (he's alone per the scenario) thus he's a unit in his own right...which is above 50% strength. Seems to me that - since this is the moment we check for unit strength to see if he gets a chance to rally - then he does get a chance to rally because - hey - he's at 50% or better strength. :)

[dswanick]

(Forgive me if I seem a bit disjointed. I got engaged and then got appendicitis. It's been quite a month.)

Congratz, thade (on the engagement, not the appendicitus).

ICs can only leave or join units during the Movement phase. When the subsequent Movement phase comes up, the IC in question here is no longer attached to any unit (he's alone per the scenario) thus he's a unit in his own right...which is above 50% strength. Seems to me that - since this is the moment we check for unit strength to see if he gets a chance to rally - then he does get a chance to rally because - hey - he's at 50% or better strength. :)

But that's the crux of the the problem.

An IC is attached to a unit from it's previous Movement phase.

The unit is shot to pieces during the opponent's Shooting phase, losing all models except the IC.

The unit must immediately make a Leadership test. In this circumstance, the IC fails. The unit is now falling back.

It now comes to the beginning of the next Movement phase. Here's were the problem arises. By RAW the IC can't leave a unit which is falling back. By RAW the IC can't test to rally unless the unit is over half strength. Since, by RAW, he can only leave a unit during his Movement phase and can't leave a unit which is falling back - how does he suddenly "count as" having left the unit while it is falling back by virtue of being the only model left standing? There is no RAW saying that an IC who is the Last Man Standing from a destroyed unit is detached from the unit he was a part of. Yeah, it should be this way. Yeah, it makes perfect sense. And yeah, GW rules are just that similar to swiss cheese. :lol:

 

P.S. Welcome back.

[Seahawk]

Thanks for explaining it dswanick; I couldn't have done it as well.

 

Also, congrats for joining the party, thade.

[falldown]

Per the FAQ i posted, we have precedent for an IC whose unit is destroyed becoming a free IC again. So in that case we do have a RAW where an IC who is the Last Man Standing from a destroyed unit is detached from the unit he was a part of.

[dswanick]

Per the FAQ i posted, we have precedent for an IC whose unit is destroyed becoming a free IC again.

A Tau FAQ, if memory serves. Intones : "FAQs are Codex-specific. It has no bearing on an +OR+ RAW debate." :angry:

 

That said, yes - it is suggestive as is common-sense. But GW really should have actually considered the possibility that an attached IC would be the Last Man Standing, and written their rules accordingly. I don't think anyone is debating the common-sense way of playing it. We're (well I'm) hashing out the Rules As Written. :D

[thade]

Congratz, thade (on the engagement, not the appendicitus).

TY, very kind. :angry:

 

It now comes to the beginning of the next Movement phase. Here's were the problem arises. By RAW the IC can't leave a unit which is falling back.

Yep, it's the Movement phase. Recall that - in the past - we determined that it's not specificed when during the Movement phase an IC becomes attached or detached..just that it happens during that phase. (Sorry I can't find the specific posts, but you were there, I recall. :D ) So, it's the Movement phase, what unit is he in coherency with? None. He's by himself, per the scenario. So...here's the crux, as I see it.

 

Do we determine that he's no longer in coherency with a unit and by himself before or after we make the Morale check (which takes place during the Movement phase, no?)?

 

If we determine it before, then he gets to rally.

 

If we determine it after, then he does not.

 

Timing and ordering are ever against us in this rule set.

[dswanick]

Congratz, thade (on the engagement, not the appendicitus).

TY, very kind. :angry:

 

It now comes to the beginning of the next Movement phase. Here's were the problem arises. By RAW the IC can't leave a unit which is falling back.

Yep, it's the Movement phase. Recall that - in the past - we determined that it's not specificed when during the Movement phase an IC becomes attached or detached..just that it happens during that phase. (Sorry I can't find the specific posts, but you were there, I recall. :D ) So, it's the Movement phase, what unit is he in coherency with? None. He's by himself, per the scenario. So...here's the crux, as I see it.

 

Do we determine that he's no longer in coherency with a unit and by himself before or after we make the Morale check (which takes place during the Movement phase, no?)?

 

If we determine it before, then he gets to rally.

 

If we determine it after, then he does not.

 

Timing and ordering are ever against us in this rule set.

But timing doesn't matter. The IC is a part of the unit for all purposes until he detaches. He was a part of the unit when they took shooting casualties. He was a part of the unit when the Leadership test was failed. He was a part of the unit when the unit was forced to fall back. At no time was he afforded an opportunity to legally detach. He can't move to detach (outside of 2" coherency) because the unit is already broken and falling back. So the timing of when we test to see if he has detached is irrelevant.

 

There are only two really valid interpretations of this situation.

1. The IC is a part of the unit, takes the Leadership test for casualties, fails the leadership test, falls back, and can never legally "leave" the unit because he is prevented by the rules about leaving a unit which is falling back, and can't test to regroup because the unit (of which he is a member until he detached) is under half strength.

2. The IC stops being a part of the unit as soon as he is the Last Man Standing and the unit has been annihilated. In which case he is not required to take a leadership test because he is now a unit of one model and that unit has not taken any shooting casualties. This is not supported by RAW, but it is the only other logical solution if one assumes that an attached IC which loses his unit is no longer attached to the dead unit.

Waiting until the next Movement phase to decide he is the Last Man Standing is not a logical approach in either case. Personally I like option #2. If the unit had one survivor besides the IC, the unit would fail its test and fall back. I can imagine the IC chasing after the trooper, trying to convince him to stay in the fight. If the IC is the Last Man Standing, he glances over his shoulder as the whole squad is wiped out by withering firepower, shrugs his shoulders (or whatever), and procedes to move forward laying down a hail of shooting/charges into assault. Now that's heroic.

[thade]

But timing doesn't matter. The IC is a part of the unit for all purposes until he detaches. He was a part of the unit when they took shooting casualties. He was a part of the unit when the Leadership test was failed. He was a part of the unit when the unit was forced to fall back.

I mean, the unit is gone. He is forced to fallback, there's no question. But there is no more unit. It's some theoretical construct now.

 

At no time was he afforded an opportunity to legally detach. He can't move to detach (outside of 2" coherency) because the unit is already broken and falling back. So the timing of when we test to see if he has detached is irrelevant.

He doesn't have to move to detach from the unit; he only needs to be out of coherency with it. As it so happens he is out of coherency with it (as it's gone) at the very start of the Movement phase we're saying he can or cannot attempt to rally in. He wasn't afforded a choice, but he was certainly afforded the chance.

 

IC attachment is determined during the Movement phase; from the beginning to the end of the Movement phase in this scenario, he is utterly alone, in coherency with nothing, and thus not attached.

 

ADDENDUM: Note that by your interpretation there, if a unit moves out of coherency with an IC but the IC does not move at all, he is still attached to that unit. I think we both agree that is not the case.

[dswanick]

I mean, the unit is gone. He is forced to fallback, there's no question. But there is no more unit. It's some theoretical construct now.

But how was he forced to fall back? By failing a Leadership test forced by taking casualties. If he is detached the instant there is no "unit", then he took no casualties and shouldn't take the test in the first place.

He doesn't have to move to detach from the unit; he only needs to be out of coherency with it. As it so happens he is out of coherency with it (as it's gone) at the very start of the Movement phase we're saying he can or cannot attempt to rally in. He wasn't afforded a choice, but he was certainly afforded the chance.

 

IC attachment is determined during the Movement phase; from the beginning to the end of the Movement phase in this scenario, he is utterly alone, in coherency with nothing, and thus not attached.

Let's consider this from a slightly different view. An IC is attached to a unit which is falling back. The IC is positioned on one end of the unit 2" away from only one other model. The unit takes additional casualties. Can I remove the one model 2" away from the IC, and claim that the IC is now detached in my next movement phase because he is out of coherency with the unit? Because that's what you're arguing for in the highlighted bit.

[thade]

Okay, this may seem to digress a bit but I *promise* it has a point. :angry:

 

But how was he forced to fall back? By failing a Leadership test forced by taking casualties. If he is detached the instant there is no "unit", then he took no casualties and shouldn't take the test in the first place.

I mean, let's not be silly. His unit did take casualties, hence the check. There's a question here which I've tried to avoid asking as it's literally impossible to answer...but perhaps asking it is important as it may demonstrate where I'm at. When the IC's unit falls below 50% and breaks, he undergoes a state change to Broken Morale. Is it the case that this stage change persists once his state is examined at the beginning of the subsequent Movement phase? The italics are annoying, for which I apologize. Those are terms we do not have, representing a level of rigor the rule set is lacking. We have no true method to define his state; only an idea. Your assertions have an underlying assumption: which are that this state change persists. My assertions assume the opposite: that it does not. I wish very strongly that GW's rules team looked at it this way. Often I think they look at it this way: either he's still freaked out about losing his squad, or he was just sticking with them, trying helplessly to talk them into staying. If it's the former, he's gone; the latter, he may attempt to rally.

 

All bologna, of course; no way to really know wth they were thinking. The one assumption that both you and I have made to this point (many of us, really) as I stated there is this: that there is some state to keep track of. Let's drop that assumption and instead recalculate the state each time we're asked to consider it. Suddenly it gets super simple:

 

• We check at the end of the Shooting Phase: sure enough, his unit is below half strength (he can't detach in his opponent's Shooting phase) so he tests, he fails, he's running. That he is below 50% at this point is irrelevant.
  
• We check at the start of the Movement phase. Units that are below 50% strength cannot rally. However, his unit is not below 50% strength; his unit is just him, because he's not attached to any unit...it's the start of the Movement phase and he is alone.
  

Two checks, few assumptions, result: he may attempt to rally. I don't assume anything persists here, and that's the key. We check fresh, each time, as if state isn't maintained but is instead re-computed each time. It's a brute force approach but it's the simplest one. Occam and all that.

 

Let's consider this from a slightly different view. An IC is attached to a unit which is falling back. The IC is positioned on one end of the unit 2" away from only one other model. The unit takes additional casualties. Can I remove the one model 2" away from the IC, and claim that the IC is now detached in my next movement phase because he is out of coherency with the unit? Because that's what you're arguing for in the highlighted bit.

You misunderstand. In general if an IC is no longer within 2" of a unit, he's not attached to it. You cannot elect to move the IC out of coherency for this purpose if he's falling back. That's not what I'm saying, and nor is it what the player did; he didn't choose to move the IC out of coherency. Coherency was simply negated by this pocket case, where the unit was wiped out except for him.

[dswanick]

You misunderstand. In general if an IC is no longer within 2" of a unit, he's not attached to it. You cannot elect to move the IC out of coherency for this purpose if he's falling back. That's not what I'm saying, and nor is it what the player did; he didn't choose to move the IC out of coherency. Coherency was simply negated by this pocket case, where the unit was wiped out except for him.

And in my example, I didn't elect to move the IC out of coherency. :cuss

 

But as to the rest. I'm not assuming anything. I'm simply following each possible logic path and finding that each one is not supported by the Rules As Written. I'm pretty sure I've mentioned that in a few of my previous posts. :angry:

[thade]

So, what's wrong with my bullet-by-bullet analysis there?

 

ADDENDUM: Maaaaybe you didn't read it. Skip everything and examine the bullet points and two surrounding paragraphs. The bullet points are pure RAW. Assuming that the IC's state of being in a unit persists beyond his unit's survival is not RAW...it is the assumption I'm really challenging here.

 

EDIT: Removed some confusing stuff that I thought was not confusing.

[dswanick]

So, what's wrong with my bullet-by-bullet analysis there?

 

ADDENDUM: Maaaaybe you didn't read it. Skip everything and examine the bullet points and two surrounding paragraphs. The bullet points are pure RAW. Assuming that the IC's state of being in a unit persists beyond his unit's survival is not RAW...it is the assumption I'm really challenging here.

 

EDIT: Removed some confusing stuff that I thought was not confusing.

Your bullet point analysis only works based on the assumption that the state is evaluated at the moment and does not persist from its earlier state. An equal assumption on your part to my assumption that it does persist from the previous state. But thade, the arguments about slingshotting ICs uses the same assumption that the state does not carry, but is evaluated at each moment - and we both agreed there that it was not a proper evaluation method.

[Morollan]

Per the FAQ i posted, we have precedent for an IC whose unit is destroyed becoming a free IC again.

A Tau FAQ, if memory serves. Intones : "FAQs are Codex-specific. It has no bearing on an +OR+ RAW debate." :confused:

 

Just out of interest (genuinely), where is this stated? I often see it referred to on forums etc but I've never actually seen it written by GW.

[SeattleDV8]

Since you didn't like the Tau FAQ from Falldown, we go to the source of that ruling

BRB pg. 48 Retinue

Some Codex books allow you to field characters together with a special unit that they cannot leave during the game......<snip>.......the character counts as an upgrade character until all of the other members of this unit are killed, at which point it starts counting as an Independent character...

 

So there is a support for Thade's 'state change' when the joined unit is destroyed.

We also see this 'state change' in the Necron RP rules and the interaction with Everliving.

 

Congrat's and hope you have recovered well, Thade.

 

@Morollan: it doesn't exist, but is a point often used in rules debate.

Sometimes it is valid, but in this case the general rules do back the FAQ and it could be used game wide.

[Seahawk]

Just out of interest (genuinely), where is this stated?

Right front and center on the FAQs before you enter them.

 

What's the difference between Errata and FAQs?

As it is rather obvious from their name, these documents include two separate elements - the Errata and the FAQs. In case you were wondering, 'Errata' is a posh (Latin!) way to say 'Errors', and 'FAQs' stands for 'Frequently Asked Questions'. It is important to understand the distinction between the two, because they are very different.

 

The Errata are simply a list of the corrections we plan to make on the next reprint of the book to fix the mistakes that managed to slip into the text (no matter how many times you check a book, there are always some!). These are obviously errors, for example a model that has WS3 in the book's bestiary and WS4 in the book's army list. The Errata would say something like: 'Page 96. Replace WS3 with WS4 in the profile of the so-and-so model'.

 

The Errata have the same level of 'authority' as the main rules, as they effectively modify the published material. They are 'hard' material. It is a good idea to read them and be aware of their existence, but luckily there are very few of them for each book.

 

The FAQs on the other hand are very much 'soft' material. They deal with more of a grey area, where often there is no right and wrong answer - in a way, they are our own 'Studio House Rules'. They are, of course, useful when you play a pick-up game against someone you don't know, or at tournaments (i.e. when you don't have a set of common 'house rules' with the other player). However, if you disagree with some answers and prefer to change them in your games and make your own house rules with your friends, that's fine. In fact we encourage you to shape the game around your needs and your taste. We firmly believe that wargaming is about two (or more!) people creating a gaming experience they are both going to enjoy. In other words, you might prefer to skip the FAQs altogether and instead always apply the good old 'roll a dice' rule whenever you meet a problematic situation.

 

So there is a support for Thade's 'state change' when the joined unit is destroyed.

Unfortunately, that's only for Upgrade characters at the moment.

[Morollan]

Yeah, I read that bit but it doesn't actually say what people often (mis)quote it as saying. A FAQ ruling is 'unofficial' but there is nothing stated that it doesn't apply cross codex. So you can certainly argue that even if it says it in a FAQ it doesn't mean anything but you can't, to my mind, argue that a FAQ for one codex has no validity in another codex if you accept it's validity for the initial codex.

[SeattleDV8]

Yes, it is somewhat different, but it does show (as well as the RP rules from the Necrons) that an IC reverts to his own unit when the joined unit is destroyed.

[timmytool]

Going by the "he cant leave the unit so he is always below 50%":

for "annihilation" you wont be able to clam kill points for the unit as it still exist and the IC is part of it.

if the unit is a troop choice and is close to an objective then the "unit" can also clam it.always forget the removial of failing back units... to much deathwing

 

My believe on the falling back scenario is ....

during the shooting phase...

The IC takes the test as the "unit" lost 25%+ i.e. he started out in a X/X+IC unit and at the end of the shooting phase it was only a

IC strong he was a part of the attached unit at the start of the phase so he is due for the test. the unit has morphed into a IC unit (not attached anymore) but it has lost 25% of the models from the start of the phase.

 

I'm not saying its a new unit or it has left the attached unit it just morphed due to the attached unit disappearing. a 0/X+IC unit stops being a unit with attached IC and morphs into a single IC unit, it does not lose the starting unit strength at the start of the phase ether.

 

/rant

 

 

 

on the reverting to a "single" from a squad is the squadron rules for vehicles (unrelated to this but shows dynamic changes)

 

BRB p64 "DAMAGE RESULTS AGAINST SQUADRONS"

"To represent this, treat all immobilised results as destroyed (wrecked) and all stunned results as shaken. if a squadron consists of a single vehicle when an enemy unit fires at it, it reverts to the normal rules for vehicle damage results."

 

 

on the FAQ cant be used as precedence for another codex.... I believe it started in a old edition/GW-ruling and has "passed" on to all new ones despite not being reprinted, but this shows intent:

 

BRB FAQ p8 very last question

"Q: Am I able to gain the benefits of any of my

opponent’s wargear or special rules, such as Teleport

Homers, Chaos Icons, Tyranid Synapse, Necron

Resurrection Orbs etc?

A: In most occasions this is clear, as the rules use the

words ‘friendly’ or ‘own’ to indicate your units, and

‘enemy’ for the opponent’s. On the other hand, some

rules clearly specify that they affect ‘friend and foe’. A

few rules are, however, slightly ambiguous as they

don’t clearly specify this distinction. As a general

principle, we recommend that you cannot use or gain

the benefits from any of the wargear or special rules of

your opponent’s army, unless specifically stated in the

rule itself (‘friend or foe’) or in an official FAQ."

[dswanick]

Going by the "he cant leave the unit so he is always below 50%":

for "annihilation" you wont be able to clam kill points for the unit as it still exist and the IC is part of it.

if the unit is a troop choice and is close to an objective then the "unit" can also clam it.

No, because in the example given the IC can't rally, the unit is Broken and Falling Back and would be removed from play at the end of the game so could not contest or hold objectives and the unit and the IC would be counted as destroyed and counting Kill Points.

My believe on the falling back scenario is ....

during the shooting phase...

The IC takes the test as the "unit" lost 25%+ i.e. he started out in a X/X+IC unit and at the end of the shooting phase it was only a

IC strong he was a part of the attached unit at the start of the phase so he is due for the test. the unit has morphed into a IC unit (not attached anymore) but it has lost 25% of the models from the start of the phase.

 

I'm not saying its a new unit or it has left the attached unit it just morphed due to the attached unit disappearing. a 0/X+IC unit stops being a unit with attached IC and morphs into a single IC unit, it does not lose the starting unit strength at the start of the phase ether.

 

/rant

I agree with your general view on how it should work - but it's not backed up by written rules. Thus the debate. GW should have told us when exactly this "morphing" happens instead of making us decypher the point in the flow of the game when different rules take effect.

on the reverting to a "single" from a squad is the squadron rules for vehicles (unrelated to this but shows dynamic changes)

 

BRB p64 "DAMAGE RESULTS AGAINST SQUADRONS"

"To represent this, treat all immobilised results as destroyed (wrecked) and all stunned results as shaken. if a squadron consists of a single vehicle when an enemy unit fires at it, it reverts to the normal rules for vehicle damage results."

Unrelated being the operative word. And here we have an example of GW actually taking a sentence out of their massive publication to explain the timing involved in the change.

on the FAQ cant be used as precedence for another codex.... I believe it started in a old edition/GW-ruling and has "passed" on to all new ones despite not being reprinted, but this shows intent:

 

BRB FAQ p8 very last question

"Q: Am I able to gain the benefits of any of my

opponent’s wargear or special rules, such as Teleport

Homers, Chaos Icons, Tyranid Synapse, Necron

Resurrection Orbs etc?

A: In most occasions this is clear, as the rules use the

words ‘friendly’ or ‘own’ to indicate your units, and

‘enemy’ for the opponent’s. On the other hand, some

rules clearly specify that they affect ‘friend and foe’. A

few rules are, however, slightly ambiguous as they

don’t clearly specify this distinction. As a general

principle, we recommend that you cannot use or gain

the benefits from any of the wargear or special rules of

your opponent’s army, unless specifically stated in the

rule itself (‘friend or foe’) or in an official FAQ."

I think it has more to do with :

1. To play Warhammer 40,000 you need the Rulebook and your Codex for the army you wish to play. Someone elses Codex is irrelevant to how you play the units from your Codex (otherwise I would be able to argue for 12-man Drop Pods for my Wolves when playing against Codex: Space Marines. or 10-man Pods for him).

2. FAQs are specific to each Codex for which they are published. GW feels it necessary to reprint identical FAQ rulings in multiple FAQs for identically worded rules (see the Combat Squads FAQ in C:SM, C:BA, C:GK) so by extension any ruling which is not carried over does not apply.

3. If FAQ were universal, there is no need to publish FAQs for individual books - GW would just have to publish a twenty-some page FAQ document covering all books.

[Hiro_Protagonist]

The crux of this seems to be peoples' insistence that an IC can't leave a unit except during their movement phase. While I agree that they can't voluntarily leave the unit there are a number of things that could force the seperation.

 

Being removed as a casualty is of course the most obvious.

 

If an IC eats a Lascannon shot in the shooting phase he would be removed despite his inability to detatch from the unit, correct?

 

The unit is no longer X+IC, it is just X.

 

Why is it so difficult for people to accept that if X+IC loses X then we are just left with IC?

[Seahawk]

If there was IC + 3 man unit, and the IC ate the lascannon round, the squad would still have to test for morale. That's why.

[Grey Mage]

If there was IC + 3 man unit, and the IC ate the lascannon round, the squad would still have to test for morale. That's why.

I dont see how that is compelling. Elaborate please?