Skilled/Lethal fire teams

[Calyptra]

When a fire team advances, you roll on the chart and apply the result to the whole team. The Skilled and Lethal results both present a choice. Do you make that choice before applying the result to the team, or is that choice part of the result which is applied to the team? So if you rolled Lethal, could some members of the fire team reroll 1s in the shooting phase and others reroll them in the fight phase, or does the whole fire team have to take the same choice?

 

My gut feeling is that they all have to take the same choice, but the more I look at it, the more it seems like making that choice is part of the result you apply to everybody. But maybe I'm just trying to convince myself, because it would be better for my newly Lethal fire team.

 

I am overthinking this. Please halp.

[MasterDeath]

Gutfeeling here: One choice for the whole team. S.204 "all members of the fireteam gain this advance" and "Choose one" in the table seem to support this. With other words: Its not made 100% clear, but there are hints for one chouice for all, but no hints at individual choice.

[Panzer]

Yeah I'd go with one choice for the whole team as well. Feels like that's the intend and I don't see much RAW room to argue otherwise either.

[Calyptra]

Yeah.

 

I think the biggest hint to the contrary (beyond the wording that created the ambiguity in the first place) is based on presumed intent - the choice is there so you don't get a useless upgrade, but some fire teams will find either choice useless on some models. In my case, Wyches with hydra gauntlets already reroll failed wounds, so those models would become a point more expensive for nothing, but the alternative is a shooting upgrade for a melee fire team who don't all have guns (but do all have grenades).

 

Intent doesn't count for much in rules though. If I don't find a consensus I'll just go with the interpretation that benefits me the least.

[Panzer]

Eh if you go by that then you're better of taking fresh recruits most of the time anyway. Just because there's a unit that doesn't benefit much from either (note: they DO benefit from one of the options due grenades tho) it doesn't change the intend of having a choice in the first place.

[Calyptra]

Eh if you go by that then you're better of taking fresh recruits most of the time anyway. Just because there's a unit that doesn't benefit much from either (note: they DO benefit from one of the options due grenades tho) it doesn't change the intend of having a choice in the first place.

Yeah, I mentioned the grenades in order to be clear that there was some limited use.

 

I am not disbanding my Die-hard Wyches because some of them don't benefit from Lethal. More importantly than that, I am not disbanding them because they all have names and backgrounds and are precious to me.

 

Intent is guesswork which can be argued from either direction though, and isn't part of rules. Which is good, because I don't think we agree on intent here.

 

But if most people are doing it as a single choice for the fire team, that's what I'll do.

[Panzer]

Yeah obviously or else there wouldn't be any RAW vs RAI arguments lol

 

I just think it's weird to say "yeah RAI is pretty clear, however my one unit doesn't get much from the result I rolled on a random table because of their special rule so I just go with the other interpretation anyway even tho it's barely if at all supported by RAW". Definitely not something we'd allow in our group.

[Calyptra]

Yeah obviously or else there wouldn't be any RAW vs RAI arguments lol

 

I just think it's weird to say "yeah RAI is pretty clear, however my one unit doesn't get much from the result I rolled on a random table because of their special rule so I just go with the other interpretation anyway even tho it's barely if at all supported by RAW". Definitely not something we'd allow in our group.

Hey, I'm being sincere about this. And RAI isn't clear.

 

I think the intent is to ensure models generate upgrades they can use. In 1st ed Necromunda you rolled to see if (among other things) your WS or BS improved. It created situations where snipers kept getting WS or close combat fighters kept generating BS, and it was basically awful. Then in Mordheim, they changed it so that you got to choose if your WS or BS improved, and as far as I'm aware GW games have stuck to that advancement mechanic ever since. Mordheim also had groups of models leveling up together, but they all had to be equipped the same way. Obviously none of these games are Kill Team, but the progression seems to indicate design intent.

 

There are also things that feel like they indicate otherwise - which text is in bold, the upgrade retaining the same name regardless of which option is chosen - but I'm unable to articulate why they feel that way. That's the gut feeling. Gut feelings are even less trustworthy than perceived intent.

 

What do you see as the intent?

 

At this point I'm just wondering about perspective; unless somebody else jumps in with a different interpretation, I'm content to play it as a single choice.

[Panzer]

Yeah or to give all those results on a simple 1d6 roll. Again you're working with an exception there. It's an exception because it's outside of the things the rules have to work usually with.

 

But you can argue as much about perspective as you want. What matters is whether you find people to play with that agree with your interpretation or not. That's not us since we only interact on a forum with eachother.

[RandyB]

Yeah or to give all those results on a simple 1d6 roll. Again you're working with an exception there. It's an exception because it's outside of the things the rules have to work usually with.

 

But you can argue as much about perspective as you want. What matters is whether you find people to play with that agree with your interpretation or not. That's not us since we only interact on a forum with eachother.

Yep. And pointing to a forum as evidence to convince your local group isn't a good tactic.

 

For myself, I'd prefer "best fit for the datasheet" advancement over "waste of points so disband the fire team" advancement. *Maybe*, if in a tournament, a stricter interpretation would be appropriate. That's a tournament organizer call, though.