Apothecaries, Retinues and TDA IC's

[TheTrans]

Ok gang,

Currently having a discussion with my group. 

Now cards on the table I'm going through the formative parts of creating a Wolves 13th Great Company list, using Hvarl Redblade's rules for the War;prd, ideally leading a unit of non Termy Command bros, with Power Spears and hopefully an apothecary to give the 'Wuflen' essentially WS5, S5, I5 (on the charge), Fear and Feel No Pain (which I think is a must for any 'mutated' astartes).

So anyway the issue occurs with the Apothecary and Retinue wording. 

Best example would be (so as not to start getting stuff confused with command squads).

I have a:

Speaker of the Dead in TDA

Deathsworn Squad
Apothecary

I believe they can all join as the apoth joins the squad and is 'locked in' then the TDA IC joins thus not breaking the apoth rules.

Same list of models but in a different build:
Speaker of the Dead in TDA w/ 

Deathsworn Retinue

Apothecary

Now the issue here is the Apoth's wording of:

1. Can't join a unit with the IC or Unique rules (Now I feel RAI here is to stop apoths joining single ICs and buddy-copping it out on the battlefield)

2. Can't join a unit with TDA armour, the unit technically doesn't have it, the IC does. 

I've attached the bits of text below and would be interested in peoples thoughts. I feel we've copped another weird issue of 2.0 being oddly ovelry wordy in an attempt to keep stuff clamped down, but has honestly made it sometimes harder to figure out intenetion and RAW.

 

Anyway would love some thoughts! 

[Brother_Angelus]

I don't think a mandatory attached IC from Retinue blocks the assignment of an Apothecary.

Edited July 18, 2022 by Brother_Angelus

[Slips]

It comes down to order of operation on how the squad is formed. But the main purpose behind the Apothecaries (and techmarines) rule is to prevent you from slapping an Apoth onto a solo IC and just running them as a tag team duo.

 

The important part here is that the Apothecary is attached to the squad BEFORE the first turn AND deployment happen. Ergo:

• You purchase a Retinue Squad for your army
• You buy an Apothecary
• BEFORE the first turn of the game and Deployment happens, the Apothecary is attached to the squad
• The Apothecary gains all the USRs and Sub-Types the squad hes attached to has in addition to his own.

Then, once Deployment happens, the Retinue Squad - and Attached Apothecary - are forced to be deployed with the model selected as leader.

You now have a Leader deployed with Retinue and Apothecary.

Nothing confusing there, just parsing the order of operations in how all the parts come together.

 

[MichaelCarmine]

Although, your example with the Speaker of the Dead/Deathsworn/Apothecary is not ideal (since the Priest already gives FnP), the assessment seems correct.

Apo joins unit before deployment - in deployment, IC must join the Deathsworn. As previously stated by @Slips.

Redblade/Tartaros Comand/Speaker for WS5/S5/I5/Fear/FnP/Hatred would be your way to go - although maybe a bit overkill (pts wise) for its effective use. =]

EDIT: Just make sure, that your Priest comes in Tartaros Armor, so your whole squad can move/run/charge! ;]

Edited July 18, 2022 by MichaelCarmine

[Gorgoff]

You can't join a retinue with an attached IC. That's the only reason why the sentence is in the rules of the Apo.

[MichaelCarmine]

1 hour ago, Gorgoff said:

You can't join a retinue with an attached IC. That's the only reason why the sentence is in the rules of the Apo.

So long as there is no errata, RaW it seems to work =]

However I too do think, that RaI is another story... 

Apothecary has to be assigned to a unit (Retinue without TDA) before the Deployment-phase, at that point, there is no IC in the Unit.

In the deployment-phase, the IC hast to deploy as part of the unit, with the Apothecary then already attached/Assigned.

 

I do think, that that will be erratat, but as of now? Don't see a problem.

[Gorgoff]

42 minutes ago, MichaelCarmine said:

So long as there is no errata, RaW it seems to work =]

However I too do think, that RaI is another story... 

Apothecary has to be assigned to a unit (Retinue without TDA) before the Deployment-phase, at that point, there is no IC in the Unit.

In the deployment-phase, the IC hast to deploy as part of the unit, with the Apothecary then already attached/Assigned.

 

I do think, that that will be erratat, but as of now? Don't see a problem.

It is the exact other way round. The IC is the leader and part of the retinue and that is chosen during list building and the apo is attached during deployment. So no way this is possible RAW.

The retinue rule even says that those have to be deployed together. Which means there is no way to deploy the retinue alone, attach an apoand then attach the IC. 

Edited July 18, 2022 by Gorgoff

[MichaelCarmine]

15 minutes ago, Gorgoff said:

It is the exact other way round. The IC is the leader and part of the retinue and that is chosen during list building and the apo is attached during deployment. So no way this is possible RAW.

The retinue rule even says that those have to be deployed together. Which means there is no way to deploy the retinue alone, attach an apoand then attach the IC. 

No, the Apo is explicitely assigned before Deployment, not during.

But, i missed the part, where it mentioned - "...is considered part of the same unit as the model selected as its leader. So i think you are right! =]

Wouldn't it be for this part, then the IC would first be a part of the Unit during deployment, when the Apothecary would have already been in the unit.

Because the unit entries in the Force-org. are still seperate up to the point of deployment. (thus i understand the misinterpretation)

[Slips]

58 minutes ago, MichaelCarmine said:

No, the Apo is explicitely assigned before Deployment, not during.

But, i missed the part, where it mentioned - "...is considered part of the same unit as the model selected as its leader. So i think you are right! =]

Wouldn't it be for this part, then the IC would first be a part of the Unit during deployment, when the Apothecary would have already been in the unit.

Because the unit entries in the Force-org. are still seperate up to the point of deployment. (thus i understand the misinterpretation)

Well, heres an example for what the wording "considered" means for this: "I consider you a part of my family" does that make you part of my blood-related family?

Similarly we have "Is considered to have remained stationary".

Just because the Model you bought for the retinue is "Considered part of the same unit" when purchased, they arent part of the same unit until deployment when, per the retinue rule, they are forced to be deployed together otherwise, why not just use the same wording as the Apothecary and Techmarine entry?

[MichaelCarmine]

Well, he is considered as the Squad leader, as soon as you "purchase" the squad and as of this point, they share the same HQ-Slot.

So when the time comes to assign the Apothecary,  you have to consider, that there is a Squadleader with the IC Special rule, that is already part of the squad.

"...but is currently in the mess-hall and joins the Squad, when they embark their Transport" xD

 

EDIT: "Just because the Model you bought for the retinue is "Considered part of the same unit" when purchased, they arent part of the same unit until deployment when, per the retinue rule, they are forced to be deployed together otherwise, why not just use the same wording as the Apothecary and Techmarine entry?"

-because the apothecary does not have the IC rule, that normally allows him, to Join/Leave units and therefore has to be mentioned, that he definately has to be part of the Unit and cannot leave it.

But when he is the sole surviver, then he is free to join another unit, other than the Apothecary!?

Edited July 18, 2022 by MichaelCarmine

[ShadowCore67]

I'm glad this came up because the DA Storm of War rite has a similar problem where you can purchase a Centurion to be apart of your 20 man squads. But then doing that seems to prevent you from putting an apothecary in those squads. This case seems to be better well defined since the Centurion is purchased as a part of the unit instead of being a separate unit added on during deployment.

[Slips]

37 minutes ago, MichaelCarmine said:

Well, he is considered as the Squad leader, as soon as you "purchase" the squad and as of this point, they share the same HQ-Slot.

So when the time comes to assign the Apothecary,  you have to consider, that there is a Squadleader with the IC Special rule, that is already part of the squad.

"...but is currently in the mess-hall and joins the Squad, when they embark their Transport" xD

 

EDIT: "Just because the Model you bought for the retinue is "Considered part of the same unit" when purchased, they arent part of the same unit until deployment when, per the retinue rule, they are forced to be deployed together otherwise, why not just use the same wording as the Apothecary and Techmarine entry?"

-because the apothecary does not have the IC rule, that normally allows him, to Join/Leave units and therefore has to be mentioned, that he definately has to be part of the Unit and cannot leave it.

But when he is the sole surviver, then he is free to join another unit, other than the Apothecary!?

The thing is, they are only ever explicitly part of the same unit when deployment happens; which happens after an apothecary would be attached to a squad. Before that point, its basically the Leader unit buying a dedicated transport for himself - its just a squad of 3-10 dudes instead.

For the edit bit: then you have to wonder: why did they use such specific wording to say the apothecary is explicitly joined to, and part of, the squad before deployment instead of just saying "Apothecaries purchased for an army must be deployed with a unit and cannot voluntarily leave it during play" in the exact same way the Retinue rule works and prevents the IC from leaving the unit.

[TheTrans]

Wooo '5 rounds of playtesting' haha. 

Obviously I'm biased to agree with Slips as their interpretation is how I read it also. Its just another case of the rules writers for 2.0 using too many words to try and circumvent issues and just muddying the waters worse in the attempt. 

If they didn't want Apothecaries joining certain units it should have been:
Apothecaries can join any unit with the infantry keyword (make another paragraph for jump packs and bikes etc) with the below exceptions:

-Legion Cataphractii Squads

-Legion blah blah blah

But instead we get this weird half-in-half-out written paragraph which then starts butting heads with another one with similar but not the same wording in relation to bits and as always we have to argue RAI vs RAW vs non-GW logic. 

Apparently we won't be seeing any FAQs until all the Liber books have hit as well which is a worry. 

Edited July 18, 2022 by TheTrans

[Calshan]

Hilariously, this issue of what does "counts as" count as is also the crux of the confusion with Bolt Pistols and Basic Close Combat Weapons; another topic here.  GW certainly could have worded things better.

I can't even begin to tell what RAI is, in this case, as it is certainly possible GW wrote this rule in this manner to prevent Apothecaries joining Retinue Squads, which, with their attached HQ, are fairly powerful units even without everyone getting a Fee No Pain.  On the other hand, I can't say I've seen GW do this with Apothecaries in previous editions (of HH and of 40k) before.

Admittedly, it does seem weird not to allow Apothecaries to join a Retinue.

[MichaelCarmine]

16 hours ago, Slips said:

The thing is, they are only ever explicitly part of the same unit when deployment happens; which happens after an apothecary would be attached to a squad. Before that point, its basically the Leader unit buying a dedicated transport for himself - its just a squad of 3-10 dudes instead.

For the edit bit: then you have to wonder: why did they use such specific wording to say the apothecary is explicitly joined to, and part of, the squad before deployment instead of just saying "Apothecaries purchased for an army must be deployed with a unit and cannot voluntarily leave it during play" in the exact same way the Retinue rule works and prevents the IC from leaving the unit.

Because then you could assign the Apothecary to different Units, after you see, where your opponent deploys their stuff. You could've bought an Apothecary for your tacticals, but because of what units your opponent plays, or where he has them deployed, decide to attach him to another unit. That's why you have to assign him before that can happen.

I'll give you one better - Why not just write "...cannot be assigned to units only consisting of Independent Charachters, or Units with TDA".

Because the Apothecary has no IC rule and therefore has no choice. Whereas a model with the Master of the Legion USR has the IC Unit Type and so has to be specifically told, that he has to be deployed with the unit, otherwise one could just purchase another model with the IC rule, like a Librarian Consul and just exchange him with his Praetor during deployment.

[MichaelCarmine]

5 hours ago, Calshan said:

Hilariously, this issue of what does "counts as" count as is also the crux of the confusion with Bolt Pistols and Basic Close Combat Weapons; another topic here.  GW certainly could have worded things better.

I can't even begin to tell what RAI is, in this case, as it is certainly possible GW wrote this rule in this manner to prevent Apothecaries joining Retinue Squads, which, with their attached HQ, are fairly powerful units even without everyone getting a Fee No Pain.  On the other hand, I can't say I've seen GW do this with Apothecaries in previous editions (of HH and of 40k) before.

Admittedly, it does seem weird not to allow Apothecaries to join a Retinue.

There is alot that doesn't make sense, when it comes to GW Rules xD

Why deny an apothecary to be assigned to a Terminator Unit, when he can be assigned to other units with 2+ 5/4++...

Why give Raven Guard Jetbikes a 6+ Shrouded through their LA Rule, when they already get a 5+ because of their Wargear...

Why give Deathshroud Terminators a BS5, when the only weapon they can use is a Template weapon...

Why let Suzeiran and Preatorian Breachers share the same Force-Org-slot, when the Suzeiran outshine them in every way possible? (though i think, we'll se a RoW making Preatorians Troops in the Future)

Why, why, why,... the list goes on... xD

[darkseren1ty]

Guys, I’m sorry for reviving this topic- but I didn’t want to create a new one for a single question.

how can I add an apothecary to my Phoenix terminator squad (EC)?

I was told the apothecarion detachment doesn’t allow for attachments to terminators.

[Brother_Angelus]

26 minutes ago, darkseren1ty said:

Guys, I’m sorry for reviving this topic- but I didn’t want to create a new one for a single question.

how can I add an apothecary to my Phoenix terminator squad (EC)?

I was told the apothecarion detachment doesn’t allow for attachments to terminators.

You need the Primus Medicae Centurion, in whichever armour you like. He's an Independent Character and can join them like any other IC.

[Cleon]

26 minutes ago, darkseren1ty said:

Guys, I’m sorry for reviving this topic- but I didn’t want to create a new one for a single question.

how can I add an apothecary to my Phoenix terminator squad (EC)?

I was told the apothecarion detachment doesn’t allow for attachments to terminators.

The simple answer is 'you can't, that's what the rule is for, to stop terminators having apothecaries.', the more complicated answer is 'you have to take a consul Primaris Medicae as an HQ, you can't use the normal one'

[The Unseen]

I would say that the "intent" seems to be that the apothecary rule is to prevent independent IC's forming a tag team or terminator squads from getting the fnp. It doesn't seem like the intent would be to keep retinue squads from having an apothecary, in old-school command squads they were MANDATORY. These are the best warriors their Legion has, led by their commander, them not being able to request an apothecary would be... weird. And for balance reasons, I don't see a 6+ fnp breaking any unit, especially since retinue squads are generally stuck at no more than 9 dudes.

If your in terminator armor though, grab a Primus Medicae. That makes some sense, a guy in basic, or even artificer, power armor following a squad of terminators would realistically be really really dangerous for the guy in PA, terminators both lorewise and game can soak a hellish amount of firepower that would absolutely vaporize a dude in PA, and lorewise you don't get an omniscient overlord that gets to decide who takes all that plasma/shrapnel. So you call for the Primus who is trained/worthy of a suit of terminator armor and off you go.

[Xenith]

Seems cut and dry - the IC and retinue form a unit at the army creation stage, before deployment the Apoc must be attached to a unit that doesn't have an IC - that can no longer be the retinue. I guess it's to make sure you only have a Primus guarding your Senior officers. 

[LameBeard]

On 7/19/2022 at 12:01 AM, TheTrans said:

Its just another case of the rules writers for 2.0 using too many words to try and circumvent issues and just muddying the waters worse in the attempt. 

Please can I just say I agree with this completely but I think it’s unfair to single out HH 2.0. This is now practically the GW “House Style” and applies to nearly all their games.  

[Claws and Effect]

Can't put an Apothecary with a Retinue unit. 

1 very simple reason why:

You can't even select a Retinue until after you have chosen a character with the Master of the Legion rule for them to go with. The MotL character is a prerequisite for taking a Retinue, and they immediately become a single unit on the Force Org chart. There is never any point where the character is not attached to the Retinue because you have to have the character first. 

However, you can burn another HQ slot and select a Primus Medicae and attach him to the Character/Retinue unit. As an Independent Character himself, the Apothecary rule doesn't apply at all. 

 

Edit for clarity: It's disallowed because the MotL and Retinue become 1 unit during army creation and not during deployment. (I suspect this is to stop you from having multiple MotL characters and deciding which one gets the bodyguard after you've seen your opponents deployment)

Edited September 20, 2022 by Claws and Effect

[MichaelCarmine]

1 hour ago, Claws and Effect said:

Can't put an Apothecary with a Retinue unit. 

1 very simple reason why:

You can't even select a Retinue until after you have chosen a character with the Master of the Legion rule for them to go with. The MotL character is a prerequisite for taking a Retinue, and they immediately become a single unit on the Force Org chart. There is never any point where the character is not attached to the Retinue because you have to have the character first. 

However, you can burn another HQ slot and select a Primus Medicae and attach him to the Character/Retinue unit. As an Independent Character himself, the Apothecary rule doesn't apply at all. 

 

Edit for clarity: It's disallowed because the MotL and Retinue become 1 unit during army creation and not during deployment. (I suspect this is to stop you from having multiple MotL characters and deciding which one gets the bodyguard after you've seen your opponents deployment)

Though that is how i see the RaW, i#ve been informed, from a guy i know, who is a translater for GW germany, that that is one thing, the errata clarifies in really only being a big ol' chunk of miswording, when they just could have written - don't stick em in a unit consiting only of ICs.

So apothecary in a (non terminator) retinue seems to be an official go with the errata (WHEN it finally arrives...).

 

[Mandragola]

To me this is an issue that requires a FAQ. Hopefully it'll appear soon. I wanted to add a couple of thoughts on this. 

On 7/18/2022 at 3:37 PM, Slips said:

Well, heres an example for what the wording "considered" means for this: "I consider you a part of my family" does that make you part of my blood-related family?

Similarly we have "Is considered to have remained stationary".

Just because the Model you bought for the retinue is "Considered part of the same unit" when purchased, they arent part of the same unit until deployment when, per the retinue rule, they are forced to be deployed together otherwise, why not just use the same wording as the Apothecary and Techmarine entry?

I think the reasoning here isn't right I'm afraid. My own understanding of how they use "considered" is closer to "treated exactly as if they were". So for example a unit that is considered to have remained fires in the shooting phase using the rules for models that have remained stationary.

If my interpretation is correct then it would not allow apothecaries to join the unit because an IC is considered to be part of it. This clause always seems to be active rather than starting from deployment. This would therefore mean that when you came to try and attach an apothecary to a retinue you couldn't, because it would already be considered to contain an IC.

I also think it would be impossible to join due to even one model in the unit having terminator armour, currently. The rule currently seems to assume that the whole unit will be in the same kind of armour, which is a fair assumption till you start adding ICs.

I get the very strong impression that this is a mistake in the apothecary rules and not how it's intended to work. Parts of the way it's written, such as assuming everyone's wearing the same armour, tend to imply that they hadn't considered ICs already being in the unit before deployment. I do hope the FAQ is with us soon.