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.

While I am almost certain this topic has been brought up before, I have been looking all morning via search and regular browsing and have yet to be able to find it. My apologies on that account. I will try to keep the thread brief however.

Please try to answer this question both in the perspective of official Gamesworkshop Rules AND the context of the INAT FAQ, seperately from eachother if possible. I imagine it may be different based on whether or not people are using INAT.

- In the INAT FAQ, Forces of the Eldar Psychic Powers. .

"Q: If a unit containing a joined Independent Character has 'Doom', 'Fortune' or 'Guide' cast on it and the character subsequently leaves the unit, does the power continue to affect the IC?

A: No, it will only affect the IC while he is joined to that unit. [Clarification]"


Does this follow to mean that an IC who is joined to a unit with Fortune does not benefit from that power if the unit becomes involved in Close Combat, as per the Independent Character and Close Combat rules? Does it also follow that he is unable to cast Fortune or Guide upon himself (and must instead target the unit) at the beginning of the Eldar player's turn, if that unit should still be involved in combat?

An IC joined to a unit counts as a regular member of that unit for nearly all purposes (see page 48). So yes, while joined, the unit would be the target of Fortune; you can't separately target the IC for Fortune while he's joined any more than the enemy can separately target him to shoot him.

The close combat exception is only for the purposes of allocating attacks. He is still a member of the unit for all other purposes in the close combat phase. So while he he joined he still benefits from Fortune.

The INAT FAQ ruling just clarifies what happens when the IC leaves the unit after Fortune (or Guide, or Doom) has been cast on said unit. Since the unit was targeted, and since once he leaves the IC no longer counts as being part of that unit, he no longer benefits/suffers from the effects of the power when he goes.

Page 49 of the BRB

Left side, 5th paragraph.

"When the attacks are resolved, however, independent characters are always treated as a separate single-model unit (as described under Multiple Combats on page 41), even though they have joined the unit. . . .

Once all attacks have been resolved, these characters are once again treated as normal members of the unit they have joined (from determining assault results onwards).

You cannot determine assault results until after saving throws are made. So the IC should not receive Fortuned saves. Or did I miss something?

Boneblade wrote:You cannot determine assault results until after saving throws are made. So the IC should not receive Fortuned saves. Or did I miss something?

You did not miss it, I pointed this out as well a while back.

People rarely play it that way, but they should, apparently.

Good catch! I double-checked the phrasing for Fortune and the Eldar FAQ, and I'm not seeing anything else to contradict the logic. You may well be right. Well, unless I'm missing something, that sucks for the Eldar players.

And it should be pointed out that if your IC's unit is targetted by something like Paroxysm, Weaken Resolve or Murderous Hurricane, all he needs to do is leave the unit to lose those effects!

*shakes head*

I've said it once and I'll say it again - I respect the INAT and the council of folks that rule on it. I respect their logic and how they try to make muddy issues clearer for gamers to wade through. But I feel that they got this one wrong.

I recalled correctly.

This thread was what I was thinking of.

puma713 wrote:And it should be pointed out that if your IC's unit is targetted by something like Paroxysm, Weaken Resolve or Murderous Hurricane, all he needs to do is leave the unit to lose those effects!

*shakes head*

I've said it once and I'll say it again - I respect the INAT and the council of folks that rule on it. I respect their logic and how they try to make muddy issues clearer for gamers to wade through. But I feel that they got this one wrong.

Whereas I completely agree with them. IMO said powers shouldn't be able to affect two units at once if the originally-targeted unit splits in some way.

Which just goes to show why a FAQ is useful and important. Because we can reasonably disagree on what "makes sense", and it's a big help to have a set document so we know ahead of time which way we're going to play it.

kirsanth wrote:I recalled correctly.

This thread was what I was thinking of.

Yes, Yakface does a good job in that thread summing up the two points of view and how they're both valid.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mannahnin wrote:
Whereas I completely agree with them. IMO said powers shouldn't be able to affect two units at once if the originally-targeted unit splits in some way.

I agree with that. However, I also have a firm belief that you shouldn't unecessesarily complicate things, to go against the Law of Economy.

Now, if you have two Warbosses, and they're hit with Paroxysm, then they split - where does it go? And why?

In the previous thread, Nosfertu1001 came up with an explanation using "child units" and "parent units" and all sorts of things that are never mentioned in the rulebook. To make the INAT ruling work, you've got to consider a lot of different situations and make special rules for those situations. Whereas in the 'snapshot' view (as Yakface put it), you don't. The effect simply goes with whoever was with the original unit.

But, we could debate it again until the cows come home. . .

There we go. I knew there had to be a post somewhere with nice smart people braining each other into oblivion over this. Thank you for the link, Kirsanth, and thanks everyone else for the information!

Pretty much seems like it may be done either way in casual play. I almost never hear people bring it up and after having read what I can right now it seems to be a totally polar argument. So I think I will just abdicate to whatever happens to be the house ruling.

On a separate front, this argument is applicable to SoB as well.

If a Canoness joins a squad, she tests with the squad for faith checks. Simple Enough.

What about faith checks made while attacks are being resolved?

"When the attacks are resolved the independent characters are always treated as a single-model unit, even though they have joined the unit."

So for instance:
Canoness flys over and joins some Celestians with Priest attached.

At the start of the phase, they can use Spirit of the Martyr or the Passion (both must be taken at start of phase). They test off of squad size, since the Canoness is part of the unit. They assault an assault terminator squad.

After all units are positioned, the Canoness is no longer part of the unit and loses Spirit of the Martyr and/or the Passion. She also will not be able to reroll failed hits with Fanatical (she is not part of the unit containing the priest anymore).

Before rolling to hit, the unit makes a Hand of the Emperor check or after rolling to hit makes a Divine Guidance check. The Canoness would be able to make a separate check based off her leadership, since she is a separate unit.

Both good and bad. :( Good because if she joins a small unit, they won't be making Hand but she could make it easily. Bad because she loses her Invulnerable and Fanatical.

Or am I extending this too far?

And then, you have to look at someone like Logan (who yakface actually referenced in his post in the other thread as being too powerful with the "snapshot" method).

Logan's Preferred Enemy will only ever affect him now, since they are separate units at the time that you use Preferred Enemy. And I think people could argue that a Chaplain's Liturgies of Blood don't benefit anyone, if you look at it from a "target-duration" standpoint.

This ruling breaks one of the basic fundamentals for FAQs/clarifications (of all kinds): Make it simple.

Good point. The consequences of interpreting the rule in this way seem to go against the intent of the IC rules. Logan is a particularly good example.

Mannahnin wrote:Good point. The consequences of interpreting the rule in this way seem to go against the intent of the IC rules. Logan is a particularly good example.

I think I agree with you, but for a different reason.

It seems that the IC rules intend to make the IC an entirely seperate unit during the CC. They include one of the few things GW is explicit about the timing of (until "all attacks have been resolved").

Which made me re-read the rest of the sections to be sure. After that thread, this came up again and my response is the same as my initial post in the other thread.

"We play that models affected by a rule remain affected until a rule states otherwise"

It seems to be that less (if any) rules are broken that way.

Although it does lead to some annoying situations in its extremity, it leads to less than following the other idea to its (il)logical extreme.

I think.

Mannahnin wrote:Good point. The consequences of interpreting the rule in this way seem to go against the intent of the IC rules. Logan is a particularly good example.

Actually, Logan might be a poor example. They wrote his well/poorly.

"Such is his skill at command that you may chose one of the following special rules at the beginning of the turn: LIST. Logan and any unit he is with have that rule for the duration of that player turn."

Notice that it says any unit he is 'with' and that it lasts the turn. Vague enough to let his unit keep it?

And for funsies too, Wolf Priests give Preferred Enemy to 'he and any squad he joins'. That might hold up since he never 'leaves' the squad, just counts as a separate unit. If it said, 'He and any unit he is part of' it wouldn't work. Same with Chaplains from C:SM.

Different wording for each.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh and I will probably play with Kirsanth's decision. I.e. I won't change much, if anything, about how I play.

puma713 wrote:
Now, if you have two Warbosses, and they're hit with Paroxysm, then they split - where does it go? And why?

It would stay on the warboss who doesn't "Leave" ie the one who didn't cause any conditions on page 48... it seems I thinks~!