Apothecaries and Kill points/First blood/Attrition

[OmegaAlpharius]

Hi,

 

Quick one that came up the other night.

I buy 3 apothacaries as a unit and dish them out to 3 different squads. Do you get a kill point for each one killed or is it all 3 for the point?

Also applies for counting units for attrition, first blood and last man standing.

 

Any help and opinions appreciated.

[Harrowmaster]

I'd say it's probably kill point per apothecary because like dread talons they are purchased as one but wander off separately (so to speak).

[Dhar'Neth]

I always played that they become a part of the unit they joined and thus give no additional VPs.

[Nusquam]

They're still separate entities. They just have additional rules that force you to attach them to a different unit and stay there.

[Caillum]

"Each Apothecary must be assigned to one of your squads during your deployment and may not voluntarily leave it during the game."

 

This to me makes it part of the unit it has joined. If the unit dies, including the attached Apothecary, then you get 1 Kill Point. 3 Apothecaries attached to 3 units nets 3 Kill Points.

 

Kill Point per Apothecary would make them a very unattractive choice, and getting a Kill Point for the entire Apothecarion Detachment is awkward and unwieldy.

[Lord Blackwood]

I dunno if im missing something here , but  Apothecaries are not Independent Characters  why would they give up a killpoint?

[Nusquam]

Apothecaries are still a separate unit entity. Being an IC or not has no bearing on that.

 

The apothecary rules also do not state it becomes a part of the unit for all purposes. It technically doesn't even say it joins the unit, but we can infer that's the intention considering the context of the rule. Just like Dread Talons deploy together during deployment, Apoths are split up into different squads during deployment. They still count as an elite choice too. Them using the verbiage 'assign' might be their attempt to make it clear that they are still a separate entity but there's no way of knowing without asking the source.

 

When its your turn to deploy you have three units. The Apoth rules tell you to assign it to a suitable unit at this time, you choose the tac squad. The apothecary joins the unit and may not leave. That's it, nothing more, nothing less. It's still an elites choice attached to a troop choice and is still occupying the elites slot you bought it in. It may form one unit and follow the in-game rules for one with movement, shooting, etc, but it's still two entities.

 

Later that entire unit dies. Your opponent has killed a troops choice and an elites choice, netting two kill points if relevant. The apoth entry would have to explicitly say it does not give up an additional VP or that it becomes a part of that unit, note: not just join, for all purposes: This would effectively blend it with the tac squad and no longer be an elites choice. Otherwise as it is now: It's still an Apothecarian Detachment, just part of it is stuck in another unit.

[Lord Blackwood]

Interesting  

So I guess that means like dreadnoughts they  would each give up a VP  then  , if im understanding correct? 

[Nusquam]

Now this is the only truly ambiguous point here is that if you took three, do you have to kill all three to get 1VP? Even the Dread Talon doesn't say that they each count as a separate unit for the purposes of VPs. They're still one unit, but has special rules that allow them to operate independently of each other and aren't treated like a squadron. So they can run off separately, shoot/charge different things, and when attacking them you don't hit the closest and damage doesn't spill over. But it doesn't actually say they count as a different unit or become different units. The talon rule effectively alters how they function without changing what they are beyond not being a squadron. I would say that technically they are still one 'unit' but with greater freedoms and would count as one VP if destroyed where relevant. But trying to glean intention I would say it is possible that it was intended to treat them separately for the purpose of VPs.

 

The Dread RoW counts each Dread as a VP, but that has no bearing on missions. So if it were kill points it would be two VP per dread. So that's no help to figure it out.

 

Based off that and applied to the Apothecarian Detachment I would say that technically you would need to kill all three. It too does not have rules for becoming explicitly separate entries, just that they are 'assigned' to different units.

 

To be fair, it's very strange situation. It's very easy to try to cross-apply other seemingly logical conclusions based off other rules to try to glean intention. But being a ruleset, only rules that are directly a part of it apply. We would need a direct comparison to infer intent. The Auxilia Medicae Detachment is the closest thing and it's different; It says an Orderly cannot leave the unit unless that unit is destroyed. This suggests that the Orderly is indeed a different entity for the sake of determining VPs. But it's not technically the same rule.

 

Another sub unit is the Solar Aux Tercio, but they explicitly have rules saying the count separately for VPs but deploy together and such. Unlike the Talon and Apoth/Medicae Detachments should you take multiple dreads/apothecaries/orderlies. They just have rules for for they work.

 

Personally, I would rule in favor of Dread and Apoths being treated as different units when considering VPs. This is based on my own cross-examination of things like units and their dedicated transports counting as two for VPs and the Solar Aux Medicaes being alluded to being separate. But I do believe that RAW is you have to kill the entire Talon/Detachment.

 

Really we should ask FW.

[Withershadow]

Not sure about that dreadnought interpretation, the rules say they are not treated as a squadron, which is what you call a unit of vehicles.

 

There is a number of times I have seen this "for the purpose of rules".

 

I've seen people argue Jump Infantry are not really infantry, they just follow the rules for them. I've seen people argue Alpharius doesn't grant preferred enemy while embarked, because he must be deployed on the table and a model in a transport is not on the table. On the other hand, other embarked models can impact the battlefield and we're somehow supposed to be able to target the non-existent embarked dreadnought in a pod.

[OmegaAlpharius]

Wow! Thank you very much for the detailed replies, especially Nusquam.

 

In my group we have been playing it as if you kill all the Apothecaries then you have killed the unit therefore giving you the kill point or equivalent. Which is RAW I suppose?

[Nusquam]

The ruleset is strange.

 

I went back to check the unit composition but its 1-3 dreads with no inclination that they effectively seperate.

 

It says not to treat them as a squadron but not that the unit subdivides into seperate units. My own thinking is thats the intention but these things usually should have additional clarification if they do. But that's not a guarantee.

 

This relates to the apothecary detachment because of the similarities. But it's still not clear. The Medicaebas some language that suggests theyre different but...

 

With some 30k rules you can easily an suggest agreeable a fix; like with the funky interceptor on the augery scanner to just agree it functions like normal. But here is a matter of several potential VPs.

 

FW hasn't been answering my rules questions recently. Dont know if they were lost in the shuffle, are being debated among the team(which to be fair they have bigger fish to fry so that cpuld account for time), or they've given up on me ha. But that's my suggestion, email FW and/or discuss it with your group in the meantime. Forbwhat its worth I've already talked it over with my group, we're going with a VP each for now, but I cant speak for others.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

I play it 1 KP per Apothecary .

[Harvest545]

So if apothecaries aren't part of a unit, just attached to them, then they can fire at different targets than the rest of the unit and throw an extra grenade too?

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

Of course not.

[Nusquam]

Theres a difference between blending a unit and joining one.

 

Thats the basis of the question. Just joining it, which appears to be the case at hand, does not change its identity for the purpose of things like kill points. Its still an apothecarian detachmeny occupying and elite slot. It doesnt essentially become an upgrade to the unit it joins, thus becoming the same entity for determining kill points.

 

This where perhaps FWs use of the word "assign" may come into play. Did they use that with the intention it becomes blended with the unit it joins? We dont know.

 

We do know that ICs xount seperate because it tells use. The apoths being bought as a different unit makes it an additonal point since it doesn't have explicit rules telling us it becomes partbof the unit, a fusion, a blend, rather than just joining it.

[Dhar'Neth]

I can see the argument go either way because of how the rules are written. For me the logic is that the aphotecary is part of the unit not a separate unit joining unit because only independent characters are exception to the rule. However, let's open another can of worms - The Praevian. Does he give VPs? Or do you have to kill whole unit to get those. The rules state explictly that he becomes part of the unit. He is independent character still though. The rules conflict each other imho. Any thoughts?

 

Theres a difference between blending a unit and joining one.

Thats the basis of the question. Just joining it, which appears to be the case at hand, does not change its identity for the purpose of things like kill points. Its still an apothecarian detachmeny occupying and elite slot. It doesnt essentially become an upgrade to the unit it joins, thus becoming the same entity for determining kill points.

This where perhaps FWs use cf the word "assign". Did they use that woth the intention it becomes blended withr the unit it joins? We dont know

I get the argument, but I belive that the rules make them a single unit for as long as at least two models are alive (Unit rules from rulebook). Am I right? And Attrition for example cares for unit being killed. Killing a single model (aphotecary)=/= killing unit imho.

[Nusquam]

Yes, but again, there is still difference between being one unit on the table and being considered one unit for VPs.

 

Some other examples are some of the 40k formations that join entire units together. They still count as different and it tells us as such.

 

While the apoth detachment doesnt tell us explicitly they count seperatly, they dont tell us if the other way is true either. Which is a problem in a permissive ruleset. As is they still count as an elites choice and draw from the apothecarian detachment datasheet which is a seperate unit.

 

Likeni said before, FW could be trying to tell us that "assign" means they fuse with the unit they join, rather than staying a seperate entiry thats just attached to another.

 

Oh an example i thought of is Kaedes Nexs Chosen Prey rule. He can hunt an HQ or Elite and deploy out of LoS of them within 18". Apothecaries as theey are now are a legal target for this because they are still an Elites unit when taken in consideration of the army, like VPs, but just joined to a unit during the game.

 

Edit 2: Now lets assume that the apoths are intended to fuse witht the unit. Would this grant them things like Fury of the Legion, Fatal Strike, Sudden Stike? Some rules are "Modelsbwith this special rule..." but some are unit wide effects. We know that ICs dont usually get them but this is a different interaction. A whole mess of one ha

[Dhar'Neth]

But force org choice =/= unit in-game (I mean on the battlefield). Unit is definied as group of models that must be in coherency.

BUT As I said I can find argument for both rulings. Basically - the Rules are a mess.

[Nusquam]

It really could go both ways, especially considering its FW.

 

I'd personally be fine with either way in a pickup game. I both use and hunt apothecaries so it's all the same to me.