Morticon Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 DoA: A Blood Angel's unit with this special rule can reroll failed reserve rolls if arriving by deepstrike. Also, due to the precision of their descent, it scatters D6"less (normally 2d6"). Two questions: 1. Can you reroll if there is an attached IC from another dex with JP? 2. Do you scatter 2d6 or 1d6? I believe 1d6 (and "yes") on account the subject of the rules being the BA unit. Is there anything to say they lose the rule? or something like that? Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/259826-descent-of-angels-and-allied-ic-jump-packers/ Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acebaur Posted August 30, 2012 Share Posted August 30, 2012 Well, they don't lose the rule, but they can't use it while an IC that doesn't have it is attached. Since he doesn't have the rule, then he can't benefit(unless it specifically says so) So I'd say no to both questions. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/259826-descent-of-angels-and-allied-ic-jump-packers/#findComment-3161608 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marik Posted August 30, 2012 Share Posted August 30, 2012 Per the BA 6th faq the entire unit must be composed of models possessing the DoA rule to benefit from its effects so no to both Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/259826-descent-of-angels-and-allied-ic-jump-packers/#findComment-3161626 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Venemox Posted August 30, 2012 Share Posted August 30, 2012 I'd say no to question number one. BUT, I would say 1d6" to question 2. And here is why: The wording of the FAQ. The first sentence on the FAQ section about the DOA rule clearly states that only units which are 'composed entirely of models with this special rule can re-roll failed reserve rolls if arriving by Deep Strike using it's Jump Packs." Please, note the presence of the period at the end of that statement. It is a Full Stop, and shows that an idea has finished. The next sentence is a new idea, starting fresh, from scratch. The next sentence covers the part about 'the unit scatters D6" rather than 2D6". It DOES NOT contain the caveat that the unit must be composed entirely of models with the DOA rule. It says 'the unit'. Which unit? Well, it's under the DOA heading, so it's the unit with the DOA rule. We cannot apply the previous sentences limitations upon the new sentence as they represent distinct thoughts. The period, by definition, shows the end of a complete thought. The second statement is it's own complete thought, able to stand on it's own two feet without relying upon the first. In summary: The FAQ is quite specific as to which models may re-roll failed reserve rolls. The FAQ places no such limitations on the increased Deep Strike accuracy. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/259826-descent-of-angels-and-allied-ic-jump-packers/#findComment-3161790 Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShinyRhino Posted August 30, 2012 Share Posted August 30, 2012 I'd say no to question number one. BUT, I would say 1d6" to question 2. And here is why: The wording of the FAQ. The first sentence on the FAQ section about the DOA rule clearly states that only units which are 'composed entirely of models with this special rule can re-roll failed reserve rolls if arriving by Deep Strike using it's Jump Packs." Please, note the presence of the period at the end of that statement. It is a Full Stop, and shows that an idea has finished. The next sentence is a new idea, starting fresh, from scratch. The next sentence covers the part about 'the unit scatters D6" rather than 2D6". It DOES NOT contain the caveat that the unit must be composed entirely of models with the DOA rule. It says 'the unit'. Which unit? Well, it's under the DOA heading, so it's the unit with the DOA rule. We cannot apply the previous sentences limitations upon the new sentence as they represent distinct thoughts. The period, by definition, shows the end of a complete thought. The second statement is it's own complete thought, able to stand on it's own two feet without relying upon the first. In summary: The FAQ is quite specific as to which models may re-roll failed reserve rolls. The FAQ places no such limitations on the increased Deep Strike accuracy. That's not how text works. Your thought would be valid if the second sentence started a new paragraph. The full text of the FAQ ruling is: Change this entry to read: "A Blood Angels unit composed entirely of models with this special rule can reroll failed reserve rolls is arriving by Deep Strike using its jump packs. Also, due to the precision of their descent, the unit scatters d6" rather than 2d6"." That's all one paragraph, which means the "Blood Angels unit composed entirely of models with this special rule" is the SAME "the unit" referred to in the second sentence. In order for the second sentence to mean what you presented, the second sentence would have to refer to a different unit (not the "Blood Angels unit composed entirely of..."). Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/259826-descent-of-angels-and-allied-ic-jump-packers/#findComment-3162107 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acebaur Posted August 30, 2012 Share Posted August 30, 2012 +1 to what Shiny said. Also, if that weren't enough, 40K is a permissive ruleset. The IC doesn't have DoA, so unless there is a place that says that he can benefit from the rule that he doesn't have, he can't use it and thus neither can the unit. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/259826-descent-of-angels-and-allied-ic-jump-packers/#findComment-3162151 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Venemox Posted August 30, 2012 Share Posted August 30, 2012 A paragraph is a series of sentences that are organized and coherent, and are all related to a single topic. In this case , the topic is the 'Descent of Angels special rule', not the 'Desent of Angels Special rule if every member of a unit has it'. A sentence is a grammatical unit consisting of one or more words that bear minimal syntactic relation to the words that precede or follow it. The first sentence's subject is 'A Blood Angels unit composed entirely of models with this special'. The second sentences subject is 'the unit'. Given the requirement for minimal relation to the previous sentence, and that the for the entire paragraph is 'Descent of Angels special rule', we cannot logically infer that the second sentence refers to the first sentences subject, since it contains one of it's own. Each of these two sentences contain complete, coherent thoughts that relate to the 'Descent of Angels special rule'. @Acebaur +1 for page quotes. I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm just saying... Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/259826-descent-of-angels-and-allied-ic-jump-packers/#findComment-3162288 Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShinyRhino Posted August 30, 2012 Share Posted August 30, 2012 Given the requirement for minimal relation to the previous sentence, and that the for the entire paragraph is 'Descent of Angels special rule', we cannot logically infer that the second sentence refers to the first sentences subject, since it contains one of it's own. Each of these two sentences contain complete, coherent thoughts that relate to the 'Descent of Angels special rule'. I'm going to go ahead and call BS on this one. We CAN logically infer that the subject of the second sentence is the same as the first. The "also" at the beginning of the second sentence tells us it's an add-on to the prior sentence. It's perfectly a valid and preferred method to avoid a run-on sentence. Are we really arguing middle-school grammar? Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/259826-descent-of-angels-and-allied-ic-jump-packers/#findComment-3162323 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acebaur Posted August 30, 2012 Share Posted August 30, 2012 Given the requirement for minimal relation to the previous sentence, and that the for the entire paragraph is 'Descent of Angels special rule', we cannot logically infer that the second sentence refers to the first sentences subject, since it contains one of it's own. Each of these two sentences contain complete, coherent thoughts that relate to the 'Descent of Angels special rule'. :to: but this sounds like something Sheldon would say on Big Bang Theory :lol: Back on topic, I still agree with ShinyRhino, I think you are trying read too much into it. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/259826-descent-of-angels-and-allied-ic-jump-packers/#findComment-3162344 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morticon Posted September 2, 2012 Author Share Posted September 2, 2012 +1 to what Shiny said. Also, if that weren't enough, 40K is a permissive ruleset. The IC doesn't have DoA, so unless there is a place that says that he can benefit from the rule that he doesn't have, he can't use it and thus neither can the unit. I believe within the permissive rules set we are given permission. The rules all refer to the BA unit having the ability - this is not in contestation at all with an IC joining. Nowhere does it imply that this is lost. We have been given permission for the BA unit to do this, and subsequently permission for an SM IC to join said BA unit with said BA ability, and nothing added since has taken away that permission. In reference to the FAQ - and again in relation to permissive rules set - we are not breaking any rules. The BA unit (which comprises entirely of models from the BA codex, with that special rule) are making use of the ability, the SM IC is just tagging along. This FAQ specifically refers to all models of the BA unit having this ability. Im still not convinced it's lost. Where am I going wrong? Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/259826-descent-of-angels-and-allied-ic-jump-packers/#findComment-3164556 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ideaus Posted September 2, 2012 Share Posted September 2, 2012 a blood angles unit composed entirely of models with this special rule. (quoted from FAQ/errant) so if one model dosen''t have it then they cannot do it. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/259826-descent-of-angels-and-allied-ic-jump-packers/#findComment-3164563 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morticon Posted September 2, 2012 Author Share Posted September 2, 2012 a blood angles unit composed entirely of models with this special rule. (quoted from FAQ/errant) so if one model dosen''t have it then they cannot do it. I got that. But the SM IC is not a Blood Angels unit - hes a codex SM unit. The BA unit is entirely composed of models with that rule. Is that too rules lawyery?? Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/259826-descent-of-angels-and-allied-ic-jump-packers/#findComment-3164727 Share on other sites More sharing options...
cielaq Posted September 2, 2012 Share Posted September 2, 2012 If C:SM IC join the unit it is no longer "Blood Angels unit" - it "BA&SM unit", and as such does not qualify to DoA rule. After all SM IC is not separate entity, he IS part of the unit. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/259826-descent-of-angels-and-allied-ic-jump-packers/#findComment-3164766 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marik Posted September 2, 2012 Share Posted September 2, 2012 BRB pg. 39 while an independent character is part of a unit he counts as part of the unit for all rule purposes Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/259826-descent-of-angels-and-allied-ic-jump-packers/#findComment-3164788 Share on other sites More sharing options...
cielaq Posted September 2, 2012 Share Posted September 2, 2012 But does he become BA just by joining BA unit? Somehow I don't think so. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/259826-descent-of-angels-and-allied-ic-jump-packers/#findComment-3164801 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morticon Posted September 2, 2012 Author Share Posted September 2, 2012 If C:SM IC join the unit it is no longer "Blood Angels unit" - it "BA&SM unit".... Thats exactly my point. It's a BA + SM unit - the rule states that all models in the BA unit must have the rule, not that all models in the unit must have the rule. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/259826-descent-of-angels-and-allied-ic-jump-packers/#findComment-3164895 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Juan Juarez Posted September 2, 2012 Share Posted September 2, 2012 Thats exactly my point. It's a BA + SM unit - the rule states that all models in the BA unit must have the rule, not that all models in the unit must have the rule. This is going to become incredibly circular I feel but.. There is no BA unit anymore though Mort, it's a BA/SN unit as previously noted. The distinction is that all BA models in the unit have the rule, it's just no longer a BA unit. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/259826-descent-of-angels-and-allied-ic-jump-packers/#findComment-3164934 Share on other sites More sharing options...
cielaq Posted September 3, 2012 Share Posted September 3, 2012 The rule is not "all models in BA unit with this rule" but "BA unit composed entirely of models with this rule". So you must have both: - BA-only unit (as if you join non-BA model the unit is no longer "BA unit", as required by the rule), and - all models must have DoA rule. Combined unit fails on both of this points. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/259826-descent-of-angels-and-allied-ic-jump-packers/#findComment-3165435 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Axagoras Posted September 3, 2012 Share Posted September 3, 2012 The blood angles will scatter 1d6 and the ic will scatter 2d6, sounds fair Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/259826-descent-of-angels-and-allied-ic-jump-packers/#findComment-3165470 Share on other sites More sharing options...
cielaq Posted September 3, 2012 Share Posted September 3, 2012 He is part of the unit - he cannot scatter separately. And the unit cannot scatter separately neither. They have to scatter together, as they are one unit. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/259826-descent-of-angels-and-allied-ic-jump-packers/#findComment-3165477 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acebaur Posted September 3, 2012 Share Posted September 3, 2012 The blood angles will scatter 1d6 and the ic will scatter 2d6, sounds fair And what about the Re-rolls? Show me the page where it says the IC gains a special rule from another codex when he joins a unit. The IC cannot benefit from a rule he does not have, unless the rule specifically says he does. DoA does not say that IC's without the rule can benefit when joining a unit. In fact it says just the opposite "A Blood Angels unit composed entirely of models with this special rule The unit is not composed entirely of models with this special rule. So the unit doesn't lose the rule per say, but they can't use it while a non DoA model is joined with them. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/259826-descent-of-angels-and-allied-ic-jump-packers/#findComment-3165484 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Res Ipsa Loquitur Posted September 3, 2012 Share Posted September 3, 2012 Logic has no place in O.R. Get out. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/259826-descent-of-angels-and-allied-ic-jump-packers/#findComment-3165496 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Axagoras Posted September 3, 2012 Share Posted September 3, 2012 Logic has no place in O.R. Get out. Your profile picture adds so much to that line, and its sad but true... Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/259826-descent-of-angels-and-allied-ic-jump-packers/#findComment-3165498 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raeven Posted September 3, 2012 Share Posted September 3, 2012 Thats exactly my point. It's a BA + SM unit - the rule states that all models in the BA unit must have the rule, not that all models in the unit must have the rule. It doesn't pass the smell test. There are units in the BA army that do not get DoA, such as a jump pack wearing Chaplain. If the unit cannot even benefit from DoA with BA models that don't have the rule attached to the squad, how do you expect anyone to accept the argument that it can be applied to ally units? Also, the entire argument is moot since the rule does not specifically declare that it transfers to IC's that join the unit. Without that, no-one benefits from the rule. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/259826-descent-of-angels-and-allied-ic-jump-packers/#findComment-3165540 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Res Ipsa Loquitur Posted September 3, 2012 Share Posted September 3, 2012 A JP Chaplain gets DoA due to the entry for the JP giving it to him. Any BA with a JP has DoA. See p62 C:BA. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/259826-descent-of-angels-and-allied-ic-jump-packers/#findComment-3165542 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.