angry man Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 assuming i have followed the thread correctly, this seems to be the hypothetical scenario... --an independent character (lets say its an eldar farseer) joins a small squad (well say, a 5man dire avenger unit) --in the opposing players turn, the farseer and his squad are shot, resulting in the dire avengers being wiped out and leaving the farseer alone --due to his unit having taken more than 25% casualties, the farseer must take a morale check, which he fails and begins to fall back from here there seem to be several differing viewpoints: 1. as the rules dont allow for the farseer to leave the unit (as they are falling back), he can never regroup due to the unit being below 50% starting strength (and can also never leave the unit 2. the farseer falls back as his unit has suffered 25% casualties, but is then a lone IC and can attempt to regroup as normal 3. once the dire avengers are dead, the IC is its own unit which has suffered 0 casualties and therefore never need test for flling back in the first place i think we can all agree that 3 is silly. who knows personally i tend to side with number 2 for those that feel 1 is correct i would ask your opinion on this hypothetical scenario... --a space marine independent character (lets say its a librarian) joins a small squad (well say, a tactical marine combat squad) --in the opposing players turn, the librarian and his squad are shot, resulting in the combat squad being wiped out and leaving the librarian alone --due to his unit having taken more than 25% casualties, the librarian must take a morale check, which he fails and begins to fall back now, normally space marine units hav ATSKNF, meaning that they can ignore the below 50% starting strength for regrouping thing. however, if by falling back, the librarian is still a part of the combat squad is he able to test to regroup?? he isnt in unit coherency with the rest of his unit... AM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dukal Posted March 5, 2012 Author Share Posted March 5, 2012 Angry man, your three examples sum up the three different positions as I seem them as well. Very few people seem to advocate #3 - the debate is mainly between #1 and #2. Your 'feeling' for #2 is what a lot of people argue, and yet no one has been able to say why you can ignore the rule that an IC cannot leave a unit while falling back. I would love to ignore it in this situation, and I think that would produce the most 'fair' results, but the BRB does not give a lot of guidance except the plain text of the rules. Regarding your hypothetical situation, every squad is 'out of coherency' with the dead members of the squad if you look at it that way. Would you say one surviving Space Marine is out of coherency with 9 dead members of his tactical squad? Of course not, as you don't check coherency for models removed from the table. Your supposition would render all unit who flee unable to regroup at any time, as they would always be out of coherency with their dead members. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dswanick Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 Now see, for me, #1 or#3 are the most valid choices. Either the IC can't leave the falling back unit (#1) , or the IC is immediately, involuntarily forced out of the unit the moment he is on his own (#3). Saying that the IC reverts to a single model unit, but only after some undefined period of time is both not RAW, and also subjective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawk Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 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.That, was in response to this: 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? It would be the same argument. If there are 4 dudes, one being an IC, and he gets pasted, the above argument would say you don't test for morale to begin with because the IC counts for nothing. This is wrong. The IC counts for everything except for being over half for rally purposes. Therefore, he either counts both ways, or as angry man puts it, option 1, or he doesn't count at all for anything (option 3). He can't be somewhere in the middle, as for option 2. Can't gain the benefits but ignore the drawbacks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timmytool Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 see for me it is a none of the 1-3 it is four.... Four is close to 3 except.... the IC still counts the starting strength of him and the squad at the start of the phase for 25% losses.... he still needs to take the moral test as "his" unit started at x+IC and ended as IC in that phase. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angry man Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 Regarding your hypothetical situation, every squad is 'out of coherency' with the dead members of the squad if you look at it that way. Would you say one surviving Space Marine is out of coherency with 9 dead members of his tactical squad? Of course not, as you don't check coherency for models removed from the table. Your supposition would render all unit who flee unable to regroup at any time, as they would always be out of coherency with their dead members. the ridiculousness is exactly my point. If you can't be either in or out of coherency with models because they no longer exist, then neither can you be a part of their unit. This is just another example of a question without a solid RAW answer. You can't leave a falling back unit. You can't join/be part of a dead one this is simply a scenario that isn't covered adequately by the rules, which means that either you use "the most important" crock of turd, or you houserule it per individual gaming group/ask a tourney judge AM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
falldown Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 As a note, ICs are not counted for morale purposes when determining if a squad is below 50%. Does the BRB specifically say that an IC is considered for morale purposes when determining if a squad lost 25% of its models in the shooting phase? Sorry I don't have my BRB at work or I would look it up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Something Wycked Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 the ridiculousness is exactly my point. If you can't be either in or out of coherency with models because they no longer exist, then neither can you be a part of their unit. This is just another example of a question without a solid RAW answer. You can't leave a falling back unit. You can't join/be part of a dead one Bravo, sir :P As thade so excellently pointed out (and once again, congratulations and welcome back!), the argument that the lone IC is below 50% unit strength is using the dead unit as a theoretical construct. No unit exists for the IC to be attached to; no unit exists for the IC to leave in the Movement phase. Even though RAW doesn't address the situation, what is being argued for in the name of RAW is absurd. :) Logical, yes. Absurd, yes. The Absurdity and Injustice Canon Do not interpret a rule in such a way that would create an absurd or unjust or extremely inconvenient result. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gentlemanloser Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 While they no longer exist as current Codexes, I'd like to make a nod towards the old Inquisitor Retinue rules form the DH/WH Codex. If an Inquisitor took a Retinue, he could take a Transport. An Elite slot Inquisitor (not the HQ Inquisitor Lord) had the option to purchase a retinue of size 0-something. The option to purchase a retinue of size zero was a legal option. :P LoL. So he could purchase a transport, and be subject ot the funky retinue rules, while being on his own. As for the current question, which it seems obvious to everyone that a lone IC should revert back to being a lone IC (the moment the last member of the squad dies, and much like Mordrak does...), that isn't unfortuneatly the rules. The IC can't leave the unit, which *still exists* purely becuase the IC is still a part of the unit. Circular logic at its best! It's yet another area where the rules just aren't good enough with regards to ICs (I've mentioned this a few times before!). It needs ot be ruled that an IC reverts back to being a solo charcater the minute the last member of any unit they are attached to is killed. Until then, they're still part of the unit. Becuase they're part of the unit, and can't leave the unit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Something Wycked Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 Until then, they're still part of the unit. Becuase they're part of the unit, and can't leave the unit. :P There was this "rule" that thade used to quote a lot that went by the name: "What? Are you daft!?" ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.