Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

This topic came up in another thread, thought I would post it here for proper discussion.

How exactly does the IG order "Get back in the fight" interact with allied ICs that are attached to the unit?

IG orders only affect Guard units. So if a unit with an attached allied IC goes to ground, and subsequently has GBitF used on it, what happens to the attached IC? Does he get up with the rest? Force the rest to stay down? How about if the character has ATSKNF?

I have a feeling that this is not covered by the rules and will break the game, so if it turns out that way we should probably go to how you would play it if it came up.

You would have one model out of the unit that is still gone to ground. The test of the unit may act normally, however, the IC would still be subject to the stipulations (cannot move, fire snap shots, etc.).

I believe Happyjew has it. The IC rules on page 39 seem to allow for the character to be in a Gone to Ground status while the unit is not and vice-versa.

Wouldn't the character get up as well due to the rule saying that IC's joined to squad are considered a part of the squad for all rules purposes? It's the same logic that allows a Dark Eldar Archon to benefit from Fortune cast on an eldar squad while he is attached even though normally he wouldn't be able to have it cast on him.

However that logic you just mentioned does not work.


is it an Eldar Unit?

No, its a Dark Eldar and Eldar unit. Therefore. Cannot use Fortune.

 Bloodhorror wrote:
However that logic you just mentioned does not work.


is it an Eldar Unit?

No, its a Dark Eldar and Eldar unit. Therefore. Cannot use Fortune.

Wrong. It's an Eldar unit.

But it isn't...

If it has a Dark Eldar archon in it, its considered to be a Dark Eldar and Eldar Unit.

 Bloodhorror wrote:
But it isn't...

If it has a Dark Eldar archon in it, its considered to be a Dark Eldar and Eldar Unit.

Citation required.

Well, its considered a mixed unit. Just as Hive Tyrant and a Tyrant guard is. The Hive Tyrant claims cover saves just as a normal MC would, where as the Tyrant Guard claims them as Infantry would.

A Dark eldar Archon in an eldar unit is a mixed unit. The Farseer treats the Eldar Members of the unit as such, and the Dark Eldar Archon as a dark eldar. Making it a Dark Eldar and Eldar Mixed unit.

 Bloodhorror wrote:
Well, its considered a mixed unit. Just as Hive Tyrant and a Tyrant guard is. The Hive Tyrant claims cover saves just as a normal MC would, where as the Tyrant Guard claims them as Infantry would.

Considering they claim cover saves the same way now, that's irrelevant.
Cover is model based - and even in 5th you determined cover by the model and applied the majority result meaning that a Tyrant could be in the open if there was a Guard in cover.

A Dark eldar Archon in an eldar unit is a mixed unit. The Farseer treats the Eldar Members of the unit as such, and the Dark Eldar Archon as a dark eldar. Making it a Dark Eldar and Eldar Mixed unit.

And not a single actual rule to be found.
If you're treating the unit as anything other than an Eldar unit, you are not treating the IC as a normal member of the unit for all rules purposes as the IC rules require.

but it is not an elder model...

 Bloodhorror wrote:
but it is not an elder model...

Cite a rule saying that matters.

It doesn't matter what the model is it only matters what unit they are attached to. An IC attached to a squad is simply counted as a particularly special sergeant for that squad until they decide to leave.

 Mannahnin wrote:
I believe Happyjew has it. The IC rules on page 39 seem to allow for the character to be in a Gone to Ground status while the unit is not and vice-versa.

I see nothing in those rules that would make an IC remain GTG while the unit GBITF. Cite what you think applies here that would overrule the IC acting as part of the unit.

 Bloodhorror wrote:
but it is not an elder model...

Which is irrelevant, reread the IC rules, note "ALL PURPOSES", and come back with a rule that allows you to not treat them as an Eldar unit for THIS purpose

Similarly a BB IC in a guard unit would GBitF and NOT be pinned

From the IG FAQ:
Can an allied Independent Character benefit from Imperial Guard Orders if they have joined an Imperial Guard Squad that successfully receives an order?
No.

OK, apart from that they could have benefited

Good Lord, you two seriously need to stop bickering.

It's in the FAQ.

Q: Can an allied Independent Character benefit from Imperial Guard Orders if they have joined an Imperial Guard Squad that successfully receives an order? (p29)
A: No.

I'm just gonna quote myself from the thread that this come from, since EVERYONE seems to be assuming that GBITF is only going to be used on GTG. That's the EASIEST situation.

 Enigwolf wrote:

 Griddlelol wrote:

Corollax wrote:


It's more an issue for units that have gone to ground.

Sorry I don't follow.

This is the order of events I have in my head (please point out if I'm wrong here long day -_-) :

Unit with IC goes to ground
My turn I GBITF the unit at the sergeant's Ld allowing it to act as usual, the IC with ATSKNF regroups automatically.
The unit can fire normally, the IC can only fire snap shots.

What I meant before was that that's assuming that the IC has ATSKNF and the GBITF is used to recover from a Go to Ground action. Assume that it's an IG squad with IC without ATSKNF that's falling back, with GBITF issued on them, thus causing the IG squad to regroup, but not the IC. What if the unit wishes to move (assuming no separation between IC and unit), shoot, or run after? What if they want to charge (for whatever reason IG might charge into CC for... )? Would these actions then be denied?

Technically the IC is still "falling back", but cannot separate from the IG squad because that can only happen by voluntary action in the controlling player's Movement Phase (as previously cited earlier - BRB pg. 39).

 plus1jeremy wrote:
Good Lord, you two seriously need to stop bickering.

It's in the FAQ.

Q: Can an allied Independent Character benefit from Imperial Guard Orders if they have joined an Imperial Guard Squad that successfully receives an order? (p29)
A: No.

There was no bickering....

What I meant before was that that's assuming that the IC has ATSKNF and the GBITF is used to recover from a Go to Ground action. Assume that it's an IG squad with IC without ATSKNF that's falling back, with GBITF issued on them, thus causing the IG squad to regroup, but not the IC. What if the unit wishes to move (assuming no separation between IC and unit), shoot, or run after? What if they want to charge (for whatever reason IG might charge into CC for... )? Would these actions then be denied?

Technically the IC is still "falling back", but cannot separate from the IG squad because that can only happen by voluntary action in the controlling player's Movement Phase (as previously cited earlier - BRB pg. 39).

Ugly. I see your point, and definitely suggest writing it up carefully and emailing to the GW rules inquiries address for hopeful inclusion the next time they get around to updating the FAQs. For now, based on the existing FAQ ruling and the IC rules, I would tend to say that the character would most likely have to make his normal LD check to Rally, and if he failed, would fall back. I believe the unit would be forced to move to restore coherency if he fell back out of coherency, as the rules forbid leaving while either he or the unit is falling back (p39). It also appears that the whole unit would be lost if the IC reaches the table edge, per page 30, as he's "even one model".

Fragile wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:
I believe Happyjew has it. The IC rules on page 39 seem to allow for the character to be in a Gone to Ground status while the unit is not and vice-versa.

I see nothing in those rules that would make an IC remain GTG while the unit GBITF. Cite what you think applies here that would overrule the IC acting as part of the unit.

Pardon; I should have cited the IG FAQ ruling as well.

HappyJew wrote:From the IG FAQ:
Can an allied Independent Character benefit from Imperial Guard Orders if they have joined an Imperial Guard Squad that successfully receives an order?
No.

Tha rules, Cahptain! She cannae take nae more!

In all seriousness, there's no precedent I can find, and the FAQ doesn't cover it. There's two options I see:

1) If the IC is falling back while the unit is not, the two separate automatically.

2) While the unit is rallied, it must maintain coherency to the falling back IC. If the IC runs, the unit has to follow until you can split them at the start of your next Movement Phase.

I prefer #1. The FAQ suggests that orders should still work, even if the IC can't benefit. Forcing the unit to retreat with the IC would work against that principle.

But seriously, it's just interpretation at that point. If you're running allies in a Guard list, might want to talk it over with your opponent before the game starts.

The issue with 1, though, is that it breaks the specific prohibition in the IC rules of joining or leaving if either or both are falling bacl.

 Mannahnin wrote:
The issue with 1, though, is that it breaks the specific prohibition in the IC rules of joining or leaving if either or both are falling bacl.

This.

I prefer Mannahnin's previous interpretation. Since it's a permissive ruleset and no permission is given for your IC and squad to override the rule stating that a split can only be made in the beginning of the movement phase (and not while falling back), you can't split them up. Furthermore, it makes sense rules-wise that a squad will move to stay in coherency, as that's a specific rule in the BRB that units need to stay in 2" coherency of one another. In all circumstances, like post-assault and pile-in, coherency has always been the number one attempt that you are needed to take.

Doesn't ATSKNF auto rally the ig anyways? If one model has that rule they auto rally unless an faq stopped this.

Example page 24 space wolves codex where it states only one space marine is needed.

Another oddball situation is Creed giving the order that gives fearless and furious charge.
If the unit with attached allied IC charge in and lose combat, what happens?

-Matt

If one model in the unit is Fearless, the while unit benefits.

 Tomb King wrote:
Doesn't ATSKNF auto rally the ig anyways?

The question was for an IC that does not have ATSKNF.

 Enigwolf wrote:

 Tomb King wrote:
Doesn't ATSKNF auto rally the ig anyways?

The question was for an IC that does not have ATSKNF.

Well the only non space marine ally that can join imperial guard units is sisters of battle. So this unique situation would need a rare codex to even happen. If the entire unit gets back in the fight then I believe the character would as well. I think the faq was more or so directed towards twin-linking weapons etc...

By the RAW, Mannahnin has it. I'd rather if the two just separated, but given the rules available the IC would fall back as normal, and the rest of the unit would have to try and maintain coherency until they could separate. Hope the IC doesn't run off the table.