So while looking over a copy of the upcoming Tyranid Codex I noticed something. The Hive Tyrant is not an IC, but the Tyrant Guard (who are an Infantry unit) have a special rule allowing a Hive Tyrant to attach "exactly as if it were an Independant Character"

However, nothing changes the fact that you are attaching a Monstrous Creature, to a non Monstrous Creature unit, and thus the Hive Tyrant would still be able to be singled out from his guard with shooting attacks (Page 49 of the core rulebook).

Added to the fact that the Tyrant Guard are no longer a Retinue and thus, the Hive Tyrant can be singled out in melee combat, and you have a "guardian" type of unit which probably could not get any worse at it's job than it is now.

I get the feeling the Hive Tyrant wasn't meant to be able to be picked out with ranged attacks from the Tyrant Guard, but that's most certainly the RAW situation we are left with.

it might be a set up for 6th ed thats one thing as i noticed somethings about not getting cover saves or armor saves in close combat because a setain type of weapon (dont remember which) but main point is, you dont get cover saves in close combat period.

I'm sorry, shinyhelmetman?

Could you elaborate a bit on that, and how it applies to the stuation described in the OP?

Drunkspleen wrote:So while looking over a copy of the upcoming Tyranid Codex I noticed something. The Hive Tyrant is not an IC, but the Tyrant Guard (who are an Infantry unit) have a special rule allowing a Hive Tyrant to attach "exactly as if it were an Independant Character"

However, nothing changes the fact that you are attaching a Monstrous Creature, to a non Monstrous Creature unit, and thus the Hive Tyrant would still be able to be singled out from his guard with shooting attacks (Page 49 of the core rulebook).

Added to the fact that the Tyrant Guard are no longer a Retinue and thus, the Hive Tyrant can be singled out in melee combat, and you have a "guardian" type of unit which probably could not get any worse at it's job than it is now.

I get the feeling the Hive Tyrant wasn't meant to be able to be picked out with ranged attacks from the Tyrant Guard, but that's most certainly the RAW situation we are left with.

Do the Tyrant Guard have a rule similar to Shieldwall? If not, then yeah, the Tyrant Guard do a shade less than sweet feth all.

Please please please have the shieldwall special rule!

Lukus83 wrote:Please please please have the shieldwall special rule!

Take it for what it's worth, but my translation has Shield Wall.

-Yad

They have a new version of Shieldwall, which no longer mentions the anything about MCs.

Actually they have the shieldwall rule in the new dex, but that rule only states that a single hive tyrant may join them as if it were an IC and that a unit with a tyrant can never go to ground.
Hence the OP is right:
TMC-IC in a unit may be shot at and may be seperatley attacked in CC.
Thats one of the things i always state when i talk about the new army being playable but the new dex itself is really bad designed (with lots of things that don't seem right).

shadowtyrant wrote:Actually they have the shieldwall rule in the new dex, but that rule only states that a single hive tyrant may join them as if it were an IC and that a unit with a tyrant can never go to ground.
Hence the OP is right:
TMC-IC in a unit may be shot at and may be seperatley attacked in CC.
Thats one of the things i always state when i talk about the new army being playable but the new dex itself is really bad designed (with lots of things that don't seem right).

while i agree that the tyrant can be singled out in close combat, i don't think you can shoot at it while in the tyrant guard squad. the rule says:

"a single hive tyrant (including a swarmlord) may join a unit of tyrant guard EXACTLY as if it were an independent character." my emphasis

since it's EXACTLY like an independent character, it can't be singled out in shooting but can in close combat.

@warboss:

While I think you're interpretation is most likely what the intention was, there are going to be people who point out the rules on page 49 of the main rules to support a different opinion.

Those people would contend that the allowance for the Tyrant to join the unit "as if" he were an IC is just there to allow the Tyrant to join at all; without this allowance, the Tyrant would not be able to join any unit.

I would think in this case the codex states which set of rulebook rules to apply: MC v. IC. In this case it is IC. Also, the MC would not gain a cover save but since it is a unit, it cannot be picked out.

Overall, they are slightly worse but you can impact them with shooting, just hit it will a lot of shots. It will have to make some saves, every 4th one for a full unit. They might roll some ones!

Homer

Saldiven wrote:@warboss:

While I think you're interpretation is most likely what the intention was, there are going to be people who point out the rules on page 49 of the main rules to support a different opinion.

Those people would contend that the allowance for the Tyrant to join the unit "as if" he were an IC is just there to allow the Tyrant to join at all; without this allowance, the Tyrant would not be able to join any unit.

agreed, it's not explicit but inferred. i suspect the same people that questioned the force org slot use of SW wolfguard "count as troops" in a grimnar army will have a problem with this too. the way i see it, if RAW is unclear you look at FAQs and previous versions of the same thing. tyrant guard have always "hid" tyrants since they were invented in 3rd edition and have zero utility if they can't screen them from shooting. if you can single out a tyrant in every aspect while he is with his guard, what use are they? seriously... i can't think of a single reason to take them.

Homer S wrote:I would think in this case the codex states which set of rulebook rules to apply: MC v. IC. In this case it is IC. Also, the MC would not gain a cover save but since it is a unit, it cannot be picked out.

Then, if it is no longer a MC, does it get MTC and 2d6 armor pen?



Why can it not be both?
Unfortunately.

There is nothing stopping you from being an IC *and* an MC - so it is an IC in order to join the unit, but still counts as an MC.

A tyrant joins the unit as if it were a IC, then where is the problem? If that were the case, just go along like it used to be where you have to chip the little bastards down before getting to the big daddy. So it has a flunky wording, it'll probably be FAQ'd somewhere down the road but until then go with what makes the most sense, not what can be twisted out of context for your benefit.

Because MCs can be picked out unless a rule actually prevents it.

kirsanth wrote:Because MCs can be picked out unless a rule actually prevents it.

read it very closely. It says the Tyrant may join exactly as if he was an IC. Now, let's thumb through the rulebook to the IC page. Page 49, shooting at IC. "In the heat of battle it is often hard to distinguish individuals, and even harder to pick them out as specific targets. IC that have joined a unit are considered part of that unit and so may not be picked out as targets. If the unit they have joined is hit, the controlling player can choose to allocate hits against the characters just like the other members of the unit.

Now you may say "IC that are monstrous creatures can always be picked out as normal" but does the Tyrant actually have IC in their rule statline? If not, for joining a unit for purposes of protection that is the role of the Tyrant Guard, he loses the ability to be picked out because of being a MC.

I understand that.
But since it is joined "exactly as if" it were IC, that would indicate that the downsides of the join are there as much as the good sides.
Not "Partly as if".

Do not get me wrong -- I play Tyranids only, I just have a hard time reading that as a proper exception.

I'd honestly give it to the Nid player as it makes the most sense. Honestly, I'm sure it will be FAQ'd...just hopefully not 6 pages worth

Why not 6 pages or more?
It seems GW needs to get more pages in to actually get to answering the questions we want answered...

Sanctjud wrote:Why not 6 pages or more?
It seems GW needs to get more pages in to actually get to answering the questions we want answered...

they wouldn't need to print a long sentance as a question and/or a short paragraph as an answer if they actually included the 3-10 words that would address these types of problems IN the codex.

Sanctjud wrote:Why not 6 pages or more?
It seems GW needs to get more pages in to actually get to answering the questions we want answered...

I'm currently at 4. Still got more to do. Stay tuned for details

What part of the IC rule causes MCs to lose MC status?

Hive Tyrant can join Tyrant Guard units as an IC. --> associated benefits

IC rules don't take away other special rule classifications except for Move Through Cover; Shrike still moves as jump infantry and Skulltaker still enters play by Daemonic Assault. MCs are still MCs.

Drunkspleen wrote:So while looking over a copy of the upcoming Tyranid Codex I noticed something. The Hive Tyrant is not an IC, but the Tyrant Guard (who are an Infantry unit) have a special rule allowing a Hive Tyrant to attach "exactly as if it were an Independant Character"

However, nothing changes the fact that you are attaching a Monstrous Creature, to a non Monstrous Creature unit, and thus the Hive Tyrant would still be able to be singled out from his guard with shooting attacks (Page 49 of the core rulebook).

Added to the fact that the Tyrant Guard are no longer a Retinue and thus, the Hive Tyrant can be singled out in melee combat, and you have a "guardian" type of unit which probably could not get any worse at it's job than it is now.

I get the feeling the Hive Tyrant wasn't meant to be able to be picked out with ranged attacks from the Tyrant Guard, but that's most certainly the RAW situation we are left with.

Pretty much what has happened, things have not been clearly defined in this codex it seems, and when the codex is widely released there will be many of these inconsistencies. The 4th edition codex seems to be much better written rules wise, there are arguments starting on what constitutes special close combat weapons (bonesword and lashwhips and scything talons and/or scything talons and rending weapons), and there will be a few more questions like this. We won't get a FAQ until months down the line, if we are lucky, and they will not actually answer Frequently Asked Questions.

If i can paraphrase Kanye West, Games Workshop doesn't care about gamers.

But yes looking at the Shieldwall rule it looks as if the Tyrant can join the Tyrant Guard as if it was and IC, which does absolutely nothing because they can still be picked out because of the actual rules in the BRB.

sourclams wrote:What part of the IC rule causes MCs to lose MC status?

Hive Tyrant can join Tyrant Guard units as an IC. --> associated benefits

IC rules don't take away other special rule classifications except for Move Through Cover; Shrike still moves as jump infantry and Skulltaker still enters play by Daemonic Assault. MCs are still MCs.

don't IC and MC both grant move through cover?

sourclams wrote:What part of the IC rule causes MCs to lose MC status?

Hive Tyrant can join Tyrant Guard units as an IC. --> associated benefits

IC rules don't take away other special rule classifications except for Move Through Cover; Shrike still moves as jump infantry and Skulltaker still enters play by Daemonic Assault. MCs are still MCs.

What associated benefits are received by having an MC attached to a unit as an IC?

BTW, page 51 of the BRB does not state that they can always be targetted. It just says they must be obscured at least 50% to claim cover.

Homer

The problem arises that they JOIN EXACTLY like an IC, it says nothing (if this is the correct translation) that the MC is treated like an IC in ANY other way, it is just that they may join the squad, nothing more.

Honestly, if you do have to go through the dudes first, then ill fire blast weapons at you and watch you squirm under than just as hard and I can dedicate my lascannons and other one shot weapons to your carnifexes, tervigons, and trygons.

Either way, It becomes a waste of points because if I really have to go through the dudes to get to the tyrant, he is still going down, he is just using up my medusa shots =/

Guard are a waste anyways because the blast weapons that i would should at a tyrant/guard squad just become a better target than firing my blast to hit a carni or some other MC only once. If I fire on your squad, I really get to do some damage all around and since he joines as a IC, I get 2 killpoints as well for doing this.

Anyways, the wording in this guy's translation just lets the tyrant join as an IC, not be treated like one because if he does, then he loses all abilities of being a MC IMO.

Homer S wrote:BTW, page 51 of the BRB does not state that they can always be targetted. It just says they must be obscured at least 50% to claim cover.

Homer

No, but page 49 does.

Independent characters that are monstrous creatures can always be picked out as separate targets, unless they've joined a unit of monstrous creatures or a unit with special rules that offer them protection.

Tyrant Guard are neither Monstrous Creature, nor do they have a rule negating this one, so they are useless.

Actually nothin g on page 51 states that an MC can always be shot at - I wonder if this is a 4th ed hangover we all have in our heads?

nosferatu1001 wrote:Actually nothin g on page 51 states that an MC can always be shot at - I wonder if this is a 4th ed hangover we all have in our heads?

PAGE 49!

Everyone's forgetting that the SW FAQ has shown that "exactly as if" means exactly what GW wants it to mean, rather than what any reasonable or unreasonable person might expect it to mean.

So "Join a unit exactly as if it were an IC" may or may not mean that it gets treated as an IC while a part of the unit.

Ah yes - but that states that "are" an IC, whereas the MC joins "as if" they were an IC - in exactly the same way a Winged DP "moves as" Jump Infantry

After SW equating "joins as" to meaning "not truly an IC" is not the safest thing however...

I think it is an oversight and am fine w/ my local nid players using guards as actual guards.

That being said, it seems to me that the rules don't allow for guards to soak shooting or melee wounds. He joins as an IC, but that just allows him to hold hands with his guard while running over the battlefield. p.49 is very clear about shooting at monstrous independent characters.

I think this issue, as well as the whole two weapons thing, will see people continue to use them as they have been unless GW specifically states they no longer work the way you would expect them to.

Isn't that what a new codex is for? To let people know how things work now.
Carrying preconceptions from older rules does not clarify things.

But such poorly worded constructs such as this hardly count as clear rules change.

Aduro wrote:But such poorly worded constructs such as this hardly count as clear rules change.

Except it is clear. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it isn't clear.

Clear that's he Not an IC, and therefor can't be picked out and shot, right?

Is an IC MC joined allowed to be picked out?

re: the HT joins exactly as one.

He follows the rules for joining it, not being a member of it.

I must have missed that part.

Aduro wrote:He follows the rules for joining it, not being a member of it.

That is complete BS and you know it.

So is Tyrant Guard not Guarding the Tyrant.

And the termagants are not violent women?
Your point?

Wraiths move like Jetbikes. Does that mean once they move, they are now and forever Jetbikes? No.

Hive Tyrants use the IC rules for how to join a unit of Tyrant Guard. Does that make them ICs? No.

Aduro wrote:So is Tyrant Guard not Guarding the Tyrant.

Sure, the nightbringer will solo more or less anything that you can throw at him.

O wai-

Aduro wrote:So is Tyrant Guard not Guarding the Tyrant.

As much as it seems counter-intuitive, no, they are not.

The rules are very clear in this regard.

So once it joins it is no longer joined? Or perhaps may "join exactly as" stops being true once it joins . . . so it cannot stay joined?

I think I am missing something here.

When joined as an IC it should be treated as joined as an IC. A joined IC can be picked out.

I think it stinks, and hope it gets a FAQ. But the arbitrary reposts are not helping.

Gwar! wrote:

Aduro wrote:So is Tyrant Guard not Guarding the Tyrant.

As much as it seems counter-intuitive, no, they are not.

The rules are very clear in this regard.

They are indeed. He uses the rules on how to Join the unit, but he does not magically become an IC, and therefor can not be picked out.

Hmm, now I re-read it, I can actually see where the argument is coming from...

TO THE BATCAVE!

-Starts his GWARNALASIS!-

That is roughly what I said on another thread, Gwar!. LOL

Still, the certainty on either side is questionable.

So, the codex states that the tyrant can join a unit of guard exactly as if he were an IC? (is that the english text?)
Now, if he joins them like an IC, can he also leave it like one? I would say no.
Also the rulebook says that "independent characters that have joined a unit are considered part of that unit and so may not be picked out as targets." If they just join a unit as an IC but are still MCs, this sentence shouldn't apply. Sadly, they would be targetable again...

Am I missing something?

Greets
Schepp himself

I'd be happy with the argument that he joins as if he were an IC, but doesn't become an IC. So aside from being able to join the unit, he doesn't follow any of the rules for an IC. He's just a part of the unit from the time he's joined.

So, if he's not following the IC rules, and the MC rules don't include anything that would allow him to be picked out, the Guards work just fine.

kirsanth wrote:I understand that.
But since it is joined "exactly as if" it were IC, that would indicate that the downsides of the join are there as much as the good sides.
Not "Partly as if".

Well, traditionally, we have interpretted "exactly as if" to not mean "the same as." For example in regards to countercharge.

all models in the unit get the +1 assault bonus to their attacks, exactly as if they too had assaulted that turn

Traditionally, this has been interpretted that "exactly as if" does not infer that counter attack is a true assault. You just get the +1 assault bonus. Therefore, rules such as true grit, furious charge, berzerk charge, and defensive grenades did not interact with CA.

The SW FAQ ruled two differnet ways in regards to the meaning of "counter-attack":

Q. Does Ragnar Blackmane’s Insane Bravado
work if his unit Counter-attacks?
A. No, Insane Bravado only works when Ragnar
Blackmane assaults.

Which states that CA is not an assault, which BTW is how historically it was interpretted, or as Gwar! will put it, is RaW

Q. Picture this: My Grey Hunters unit including
Ragnar Blackmane is assaulted and makes a
successful Leadership test to Counter-attack. Do
they then benefit from his Furious Charge ability
(+1 S and +1 I)? Also, can the original assaulter
then deploy defensive grenades to rob the Space
Wolves of their Counter-attack bonus?
A. The Counter-attack special rule states ‘all
models in the unit get the +1 assault bonus to
their attacks, exactly as if they too had assaulted
that turn.’ Therefore Ragnar’s unit does indeed
benefit from Furious Charge.

Which implies that FC does work with CA due the the language of CA...my head now bears a great pain.

So given this, I don't believe that Tyrants who join TG become IC. IMO, they just benefit from the specific ability to join a unit they otherwise would not be able to do, therefore creating a complex unit. Therefore, if I am right, pg 49 would not apply. If it is just a complex unit, then you would not be able to "pick out" the HT in either shooting or CC.

TBH, that was my initial reading as well.

The SW issue, and ensuing debates have made me question the issue.

Despite my statements here, I am still ambivalent. A fair portion of it can go either way.

As my previous post said, it is more the certainty that I question than the position. I would love to have more time to figure this out, or even a FAQ(lol).

Until then, it falls into the group that I put Leaping from the previous (upcoming?) codex into. Admittedly, no one else apparently went that way, but . . . /shrug

Editing to add:
Maybe in the next thread where this comes up I will take the other side, just because I think it could work too. I am taking the weaker side generally in reflex as the only Tyranid player in my usual gaming circle.

insaniak wrote:I'd be happy with the argument that he joins as if he were an IC, but doesn't become an IC. So aside from being able to join the unit, he doesn't follow any of the rules for an IC. He's just a part of the unit from the time he's joined.

So, if he's not following the IC rules, and the MC rules don't include anything that would allow him to be picked out, the Guards work just fine.

What i don't understand is why GW didn't take the 4e Tyrant Guard rules and plop them right over, making them a retinue for the Hive Tyrant and/or Swarmlord. The current wording seems to be ambiguous as far as if the Tyrant does or does not gain the IC status, it could be read either way.

Whats the over/under on this becoming a Deff Rolla type question?

Maxus wrote:Whats the over/under on this becoming a Deff Rolla type question?

The bookies stopped takin' bets on it long ago son, they have families to feed too ya know!

Is this really up for debate? Even if you can rules-lawyer some argument for the Tyrant to be picked out, you know the intended purpose of the guards, and you know any loopholes will be covered in a FAQ.

Pointing out a possible problem with wording is one thing, but taking advantage of one possible interpretation just screams bad sportsmanship. Even if you are correct, you know it will only be for the moment, and yet you run the risk of turning off possible opponents forever.

Why is it that this game so frequently brings out the worst in people?

Nyhil wrote:Pointing out a possible problem with wording is one thing, but taking advantage of one possible interpretation just screams bad sportsmanship.

This is why I generally side with the weakest interpretation for my army. See above.

Nyhil wrote:you know the intended purpose of the guards,

Sorry, but unless the world was recently repopulated with clones of Robin Cruddace, we don't.

Nyhil wrote:Is this really up for debate?

Yes. Pointing out these sorts of flaws in the rules is one of the purposes of this forum.

Not to encourage people to play this way. But simply so that people are aware of it, and so can make an informed judgement on how to choose to play it, and how to respond when the guy on the other side of the table pulls something like this out in the middle of a game.

You are right. What could a Tyrant Guard possible exist for? If only their name, or their purpose in last edition could help.

I know! They must be a worthless point-sink!

Gwar, I respect you. I respect your knowledge of the rules, too. But seriously... you have got to see the absurdity of this.

Nyhil wrote:You are right. What could a Tyrant Guard possible exist for? If only their name, or their purpose in last edition could help.

A Name means nothing. Pink Horrors don't have to be pink. Grey Hunters do not have to be Grey. A Honour Guard doesn't actually have to guard anything.

And what about people who didn't play "last edition". How would they know what it's "intended" purpose was?

I know! They must be a worthless point-sink!

Possibly. Unless you are Robin Cruddace, you do not know.

Gwar, I respect you.

That's a first.

But seriously... you have got to see the absurdity of this.

I do. However, rules are rules. I personally think it's absurd that Power Weapons have no bonus of any kind against vehicles but I don't try and change the rules to suit me.

Assuming the arguments for this are accurate, which I cannot vouch for yet as the codex is not out and I won't be buying it anyway, I think the problem is that people expect units to always do exactly the same thing as they did in the last edition. The only reason so many people feel that Tyrant Guard stop you from attacking the Tyrant is because that's how it used to be (or is for a few days). If it weren't for that codex, we probably wouldn't be having this discussion, except maybe to find a use for them in the Tactics board.

thebetter1 wrote:Assuming the arguments for this are accurate, which I cannot vouch for yet as the codex is not out and I won't be buying it anyway, I think the problem is that people expect units to always do exactly the same thing as they did in the last edition. The only reason so many people feel that Tyrant Guard stop you from attacking the Tyrant is because that's how it used to be (or is for a few days). If it weren't for that codex, we probably wouldn't be having this discussion, except maybe to find a use for them in the Tactics board.

Actually alot of people have the codex, FYI. And I full-heartedly disagree that their ability to Guard the Tyrant in the last Codex is irrelevent to this Codex. I never played the last codex, and I can see that there is something fishy about guard not being able to guard...it's common sense.

Anywho...

My argument is simple,

"As if" does not equate to "Is"

You can act exactly as if you are a Tyrannosaurus-Rex, but that does not make you a fraking dinosaur. Cops act exactly as if they are criminals in infiltration jobs, but they are not criminals. A Hive Tyrant can join a unit of Guard exactly as if it was an IC, but it is not and IC.

If it's not an IC then it can't be targeted in shooting or assault. I think the argument is overall, rather silly. It may be a technicality, but that doesn't mean it's untrue.

Darth Bob wrote: It may be a technicality, but that doesn't mean it's untrue.

Technicalities are exactly what rules disputes should hinge on. Specifically, the exact wording used is what should determine the way the rule works.

In most miniature games, that comes down to precise wording and the use of defined keywords. GW makes it hard by writing their rules in a much looser style, which forces us to interpret more... but that doesn't mean that the actual meaning of the rules as written should just be ignored.


For what it's worth (and as I already mentioned) I agree with this interpretation. Although I'll obviously have to hold off final judgement until I see the actual codex...

This argument which I keep seeing which says "he only uses the IC rules to join and thus does not follow the IC rules that say MCs can still be picked out" is absolutely ridiculous.

The part of rules which say ICs joined to a squad can't be targetted seperately is in the same section as the bit that says MCs still can be, if he doesn't follow normal IC rules for being attached, you can still pick him out, because the IC rules saying you can't pick him out don't apply.

what people make of the RAI in this instance is obviously up to them, but the RAW is abundantly clear, there is absolutely no support in the RAW for not being able to pick the Hive Tyrant out seperate to his Guards.

Drunkspleen wrote:This argument which I keep seeing which says "he only uses the IC rules to join and thus does not follow the IC rules that say MCs can still be picked out" is absolutely ridiculous.

The part of rules which say ICs joined to a squad can't be targetted seperately is in the same section as the bit that says MCs still can be, if he doesn't follow normal IC rules for being attached, you can still pick him out, because the IC rules saying you can't pick him out don't apply.

what people make of the RAI in this instance is obviously up to them, but the RAW is abundantly clear, there is absolutely no support in the RAW for not being able to pick the Hive Tyrant out seperate to his Guards.

Wrong. What you just said is that he still follows the rules for being an IC even if he is not an IC. Which is asinine.

Big Red Book page 49 wrote:Independent characters that are Monstrous Creatures can always be picked out as separate targets, unless they've joined a unit of monstrous creatures or a unit with special rules that offers them protection.

For him to be picked out he must be an Independent Character AND a Monstrous Creature. Since he is not an IC, he does not follow this rule. RAW is abundantly clear that he is indeed protected. He is not following the rules for being an IC in the way he joins a unit, he is simply joining a unit in his own special way. The closest way to equate the way he joins a unit is to compare it to how an IC joins a unit.

For the last time, the Hive Tyrant is not an IC joining a unit. He is a normal MC that is able to join a unit (like or as if he were an IC) through a special rule known as "Shield Wall".

warboss wrote: the rule says:

"a single hive tyrant (including a swarmlord) may join a unit of tyrant guard EXACTLY as if it were an independent character." my emphasis

since it's EXACTLY like an independent character, it can't be singled out in shooting but can in close combat.

The word "exactly" modifies the action of joining, it does not modify the tyrant into an IC. For example, this car drives exactly like a boat when it rains. the car is not a boat, but it performs like one when it is raining. It is really unfortunate that we only have language to convey rules; it is more unfortunate that GW does not have a good command of the language. GW should be FAQing the hell out of the game books that they produce. In my opinion, they don't because they don't care all that much. They are a miniature/models company that produces rules as a marketing device to increase sales of their models.

Marcus Iago Geruasius wrote:They are a miniature/models company that produces rules as a marketing device to increase sales of their models.

QFT

Drunkspleen wrote:The part of rules which say ICs joined to a squad can't be targetted seperately is in the same section as the bit that says MCs still can be, if he doesn't follow normal IC rules for being attached, you can still pick him out, because the IC rules saying you can't pick him out don't apply.

You've got it a little twisted around there.

The IC rules state that an IC can't be picked out.
They go on to state that an IC who is also an MC can be picked out.
There is no rule that says that MC's in any other situation can be picked out.

So, the only way an MC could be picked out of a unit is if it is also an IC.

Darth Bob wrote:Wrong. What you just said is that he still follows the rules for being an IC even if he is not an IC. Which is asinine.

No I didn't. While I do believe "exactly as if" is sufficient for him to not only join the squad like an IC, but use all the IC rules WHILE joined to it, I'm not even necessarily claiming that.

What I am saying is this, there are rules for ICs which prevent them from being targetted seperately to units they have joined, these rules appear on page 49, NOT with the rules about joining units, the only way the Tyrant can effectively have access to those rules, is if he is using all the IC rules.

The rules that prevent ICs from being targetted when joined to a squad say such things as "Independent characters that have joined a unit are considered part of that unit and so may not be picked out as targets" so the only way the Hive Tyrant could benefit from this rule, is if we are considering the Hive Tyrant to BE an Independent Character.

If we are considering the Hive Tyrant to be an Independent Character, thus giving him access to the aforementioned protective rule, then we must also consider him to be one for the purposes of the rule saying a Monstrous Creature joined to non-Monstrous Creatures does NOT get that protection.

The alternative to accepting he must be considered an Independent Character is to totally reject that, which means he is allowed to join the squad, but then the rules saying he can't be picked out never kick in (because he is not a true IC) and thus, he can still be targetted seperately.

Darth Bob wrote:

Big Red Book page 49 wrote:Independent characters that are Monstrous Creatures can always be picked out as separate targets, unless they've joined a unit of monstrous creatures or a unit with special rules that offers them protection.

For him to be picked out he must be an Independent Character AND a Monstrous Creature. Since he is not an IC, he does not follow this rule. RAW is abundantly clear that he is indeed protected. He is not following the rules for being an IC in the way he joins a unit, he is simply joining a unit in his own special way. The closest way to equate the way he joins a unit is to compare it to how an IC joins a unit.

For the last time, the Hive Tyrant is not an IC joining a unit. He is a normal MC that is able to join a unit (like or as if he were an IC) through a special rule known as "Shield Wall".

Although not directed at me I felt I should include this in my post as it clearly demonstrates you subscribe to the idea he is NOT an IC at all, and thus should also believe he does NOT benefit from the rule saying he can't be picked out seperate from his squad.

Drunkspleen wrote:

Darth Bob wrote:Wrong. What you just said is that he still follows the rules for being an IC even if he is not an IC. Which is asinine.

No I didn't. While I do believe "exactly as if" is sufficient for him to not only join the squad like an IC, but use all the IC rules WHILE joined to it, I'm not even necessarily claiming that.

So let's use that logic. I am going to act exactly as if I am a Tyrannosaurus-Rex. Am I a Tyrannosaurus-Rex? Unless you can fullheartedly say that I am a Tyrannosaurus-rex (completely ridiculous, though awesome) then the phrase "exactly as if" is by no means sufficient in that it can equate to the phrase "is".

Drunkspleen wrote:
The rules that prevent ICs from being targetted when joined to a squad say such things as "Independent characters that have joined a unit are considered part of that unit and so may not be picked out as targets" so the only way the Hive Tyrant could benefit from this rule, is if we are considering the Hive Tyrant to BE an Independent Character.

He's not getting the rule. He's getting a rule that functions in a similar (like or as if) fashion. This ability is called Shield Wall.

Drunkspleen wrote:
If we are considering the Hive Tyrant to be an Independent Character, thus giving him access to the aforementioned protective rule, then we must also consider him to be one for the purposes of the rule saying a Monstrous Creature joined to non-Monstrous Creatures does NOT get that protection.

RAW says he is not an Independent Character, so that point is moot.

Drunkspleen wrote:
The alternative to accepting he must be considered an Independent Character is to totally reject that, which means he is allowed to join the squad, but then the rules saying he can't be picked out never kick in (because he is not a true IC) and thus, he can still be targetted seperately.

Sorry, mate, but this makes no sense whatsoever. You're saying he's not an IC, so he does not get the IC rules, and because he is not an IC he automatically defaults to being targetable. No, that is a fallacy. He is becoming a part of the unit, and is not targetable because he is no longer a seperate unit whilst he is attached to the guard (redundancy asside). Think of him almost as an upgrade character for the unit.


Cheers

Darth Bob wrote:So let's use that logic. I am going to act exactly as if I am a Tyrannosaurus-Rex. Am I a Tyrannosaurus-Rex? Unless you can fullheartedly say that I am a Tyrannosaurus-rex (completely ridiculous, though awesome) then the phrase "exactly as if" is by no means sufficient in that it can equate to the phrase "is".

No you are not a Tyrannosaurus-Rex, but so long as you are acting like one you must follow all the rules of a Tyrannosaurus-Rex.

Darth Bob wrote:

Drunkspleen wrote:
The rules that prevent ICs from being targetted when joined to a squad say such things as "Independent characters that have joined a unit are considered part of that unit and so may not be picked out as targets" so the only way the Hive Tyrant could benefit from this rule, is if we are considering the Hive Tyrant to BE an Independent Character.

He's not getting the rule. He's getting a rule that functions in a similar (like or as if) fashion. This ability is called Shield Wall.

And why does this rule function similarly for part of the IC rules, but not similarly for another part which pertains to Monstrous Creatures.

Darth Bob wrote:

Drunkspleen wrote:
If we are considering the Hive Tyrant to be an Independent Character, thus giving him access to the aforementioned protective rule, then we must also consider him to be one for the purposes of the rule saying a Monstrous Creature joined to non-Monstrous Creatures does NOT get that protection.

RAW says he is not an Independent Character, so that point is moot.

So then why can't he be picked out from his squad, because the rule which says things joined to units can't be picked out specifically mentions ICs.

Darth Bob wrote:

Drunkspleen wrote:
The alternative to accepting he must be considered an Independent Character is to totally reject that, which means he is allowed to join the squad, but then the rules saying he can't be picked out never kick in (because he is not a true IC) and thus, he can still be targetted seperately.

Sorry, mate, but this makes no sense whatsoever. You're saying he's not an IC, so he does not get the IC rules, and because he is not an IC he automatically defaults to being targetable. No, that is a fallacy. He is becoming a part of the unit, and is not targetable because he is no longer a seperate unit whilst he is attached to the guard (redundancy asside). Think of him almost as an upgrade character for the unit.

No I am saying that there is no rule saying that a Hive Tyrant joined to a Tyrant Guard squad is not a seperate target, normally they would be seperate targets before you utilize the Shield Wall special rule, and nothing in that special rule says this ceases to be the case, the only place such a rule appears is in the IC rules, which he either is 100% following, or is not 100% following, and either way the end RAW result is that he can be picked out as a seperate unit despite having joined another unit.

Darth Bob wrote:RAW says he is not an Independent Character, so that point is moot.

This is correct. It is moot.Thus the discussion. It is also wrong. Nowhere does it say a Hive Tyrant is NOT an IC.

kirsanth wrote:

Darth Bob wrote:RAW says he is not an Independent Character, so that point is moot.

This is correct. It is moot.Thus the discussion. It is also wrong. Nowhere does it say a Hive Tyrant is NOT an IC.

Damnit you beat me to it!

I am too lazy to do the quoting thing over so I'm going to do bullets for each.

- You are missing the point. The point is just because something acts "as if" it is something else, does not mean it becomes the something else. Another example would be if a replica gun looks exactly like it is real, that does not mean it is real. Just because it looks like a real gun doesn't mean it is going to fire bullets.

- Because the entry explicitly states "he joins" as if he were an IC. It does not say "he functions" as if he were an IC.

- Again, doesn't matter, he's not an IC. It does not say he is an IC...so by how his rules are written (and they are written with nothing telling us he is an IC) we can find nothing that says he is an IC, so therefore he isn't an IC. It either is or it isn't; there's nothing saying he is, so therefore, he isn't.

-

Tyranid Codex, page 35 wrote:A single Hive Tyrant (including the Swarmlord) may join a unit of Tyrant Guard exactly as if it were an independent character.

It says he joins the unit, and is therefore no longer a seperate unit. They have become a single unit. He is not follwing the rules for an IC because he is not an IC. He is simply joining the unit because he is able to through the use of Shield Wall. If he is not an IC (which he isn't), he is not targetable. End of story.


Edit: Perhaps I need to find a different word than moot, as I do not think it was the right word...the word I was looking for is "irrelevent." Funny that's about the opposite of what it means . . .

Darth Bob wrote: Moot

I think this word can mean something other than what you think it means. . .

But I agree with it, technically.
This issue is subject to debate.

kirsanth wrote:

Darth Bob wrote: Moot

I think this word can mean something other than what you think it means. . .

But I agree with it, technically.
This issue is subject to debate.

I forgot the meaning of moot.... Disregard any comments where I used moot and replace them with irrelevent.

3 Pages lol. Yea I have to agree if you don't know what there purpose is then yea gl in life. Any one that is a big enough jerk to try and rule otherwise will just not get a game with me. And the way I read it, is they just made it so they can attach and detach which to me makes them slightly, maybe not really, more useful. On a side note I doubt I will ever waste points on them. They are just so darn expensive three of them almost buys you a Tervigon.

Except Darth Bob has a better grasp on what the written sentence reads in proper english. The term "as if" or its modified term "exactly as if" does not denote a state of being in the english language.

For example, if I said that John was running around exactly as if he were possessed, I would not be denoting that John was possessed (state of being) but that his action "running around" was similar to what a possessed person would do. Nor am I inferring that John shares any other traits of a possessed.

I think what some people are argueing is that the rules state "HT may join HG and become IC" or "HT that join a HG count as an IC". But it is obviously not written that way.

Now you may say that it is GW intentions that HT that join HG become IC, and GW may even rule this way in thier upcoming FAQ. GW has clearly proven in the past that they do not have the soundest grasp on technical writing. But one must still admit that this is a RaI arguement, not a RaW arguement as some are claiming.

Darth Bob wrote:It says he joins the unit, and is therefore no longer a seperate unit. They have become a single unit. He is not follwing the rules for an IC because he is not an IC. He is simply joining the unit because he is able to through the use of Shield Wall. If he is not an IC (which he isn't), he is not targetable. End of story.

I continue to maintain that a Model who is normally targetted seperately to the tyrant guard, who has no special rule saying he cannot be targetted seperately to the tyrant guard, can still be targetted seperately to the tyrant guard.

Drunkspleen wrote:

Darth Bob wrote:It says he joins the unit, and is therefore no longer a seperate unit. They have become a single unit. He is not follwing the rules for an IC because he is not an IC. He is simply joining the unit because he is able to through the use of Shield Wall. If he is not an IC (which he isn't), he is not targetable. End of story.

I continue to maintain that a Model who is normally targetted seperately to the tyrant guard, who has no special rule saying he cannot be targetted seperately to the tyrant guard, can still be targetted seperately to the tyrant guard.

There is no rule (that I know of) in the BRB that states that to be the case, so that doesn't really fly that well RAI or RAW since there's no rule to be interpereted as such.

So if it said, counts as an IC when joining tyrant guard, would that change this at all?

Yes, because at that point the unit would take on all characteristics of an IC.

As it stands, shield wall only lets a HT join a unit of TG; it doesn't transfer any other attributes of IC onto the HT.

If a model is joined to a unit like it were an independent character, how could the unit be shot at except using the independent character rules, which allow MCs to be singled out? Where is the provision for models that aren't independent characters to be joined to units?

Darth Bob wrote:

Drunkspleen wrote:

Darth Bob wrote:It says he joins the unit, and is therefore no longer a seperate unit. They have become a single unit. He is not follwing the rules for an IC because he is not an IC. He is simply joining the unit because he is able to through the use of Shield Wall. If he is not an IC (which he isn't), he is not targetable. End of story.

I continue to maintain that a Model who is normally targetted seperately to the tyrant guard, who has no special rule saying he cannot be targetted seperately to the tyrant guard, can still be targetted seperately to the tyrant guard.

There is no rule (that I know of) in the BRB that states that to be the case, so that doesn't really fly that well RAI or RAW since there's no rule to be interpereted as such.

My thoughts exactly. Excluding the rule for MC that are also IC, there are no BRB rules that allow you to target separate models within a complex unit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

thebetter1 wrote:Where is the provision for models that aren't independent characters to be joined to units?

The rules for shield wall are the provision.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

thebetter1 wrote:If a model is joined to a unit like it were an independent character, how could the unit be shot at except using the independent character rules

IMO, by using the normal rules for shooting at a unit, with defender being able to allocate shots.

wyomingfox wrote:

Darth Bob wrote:There is no rule (that I know of) in the BRB that states that to be the case, so that doesn't really fly that well RAI or RAW since there's no rule to be interpereted as such.

My thoughts exactly. Excluding the rule for MC that are also IC, there are no BRB rules that allow you to target separate models within a complex unit.

but the IC rules for joining units list very specific things that is involved in that joining process, none of which is the loss of the ability to target the IC as a standalone unit, that is why you still can (unless the later IC rules also apply as they do with most ICs).

I don't play nids, and ruling against Tyrants getting any real advantage from using guards would be in my favor.

That said, I would slap the hell out of anybody that tried to tell a guy that the 180 points of models he spent on subpar two-wound attackers is absolutely useless in protecting his tyrant. I know that the idea of taking any initiative and imagination of a unit that is named tyrant guard (as in, they are meant to guard the tyrant) protecting the tyrant is hard for people, but seriously. This isn't like trying to use a 5 point mortar to make a Master of Ordinance amazingly accurate, this is simply making it so a 60 point unit that is explicitly meant to protect a tyrant can do their job.

Seriously, this is why we can't have nice things.

Lets turn this problem on it's side a little bit. Can the Hive Tyrant leave a squad of Hive Guard? I'm certain if this can be answered we will have our answer to the previous question.

I don't believe it can.

Drunkspleen wrote:

wyomingfox wrote:

Darth Bob wrote:There is no rule (that I know of) in the BRB that states that to be the case, so that doesn't really fly that well RAI or RAW since there's no rule to be interpereted as such.

My thoughts exactly. Excluding the rule for MC that are also IC, there are no BRB rules that allow you to target separate models within a complex unit.

but the IC rules for joining units list very specific things that is involved in that joining process, none of which is the loss of the ability to target the IC as a standalone unit, that is why you still can (unless the later IC rules also apply as they do with most ICs).

For beslubbering grot's sake...it's not an IC, so you cannot use the rules for if it was one! You can't default to using them just because there's nothing in the BRB concerning what exactly a Tyrant and his Guard is (which is a complex unit, not an IC joining a unit).

You can't keep going back to the IC rules because he is not an IC.

Sirslamb wrote:Lets turn this problem on it's side a little bit. Can the Hive Tyrant leave a squad of Hive Guard? I'm certain if this can be answered we will have our answer to the previous question.

No, it cannot. It can only join.

Gwar! wrote:

Sirslamb wrote:Lets turn this problem on it's side a little bit. Can the Hive Tyrant leave a squad of Hive Guard? I'm certain if this can be answered we will have our answer to the previous question.

No, it cannot. It can only join.

Then I would believe that would remove any sort of Classifcation of IC status on the HT, anyone up for Fish and Chips?

Darth Bob wrote:

Drunkspleen wrote:

wyomingfox wrote:

Darth Bob wrote:There is no rule (that I know of) in the BRB that states that to be the case, so that doesn't really fly that well RAI or RAW since there's no rule to be interpereted as such.

My thoughts exactly. Excluding the rule for MC that are also IC, there are no BRB rules that allow you to target separate models within a complex unit.

but the IC rules for joining units list very specific things that is involved in that joining process, none of which is the loss of the ability to target the IC as a standalone unit, that is why you still can (unless the later IC rules also apply as they do with most ICs).

For beslubbering grot's sake...it's not an IC, so you cannot use the rules for if it was one! You can't default to using them just because there's nothing in the BRB concerning what exactly a Tyrant and his Guard is (which is a complex unit, not an IC joining a unit).

You can't keep going back to the IC rules because he is not an IC.

I'm not saying the IC rules have to apply, I'm saying without applying the IC rules, there is no rule which the Tyrant is following which says "you can no longer target the tyrant seperately once it joines the Tyrant Guard unit", which is why the fact that you can normally target them seperately never changes.

Lets assume the guard works like we think it's meant to work; not being able to single out the HT. I assume the Hive Tyrant is still an MC.

What if a unit of 1 Hive Tyrant and 1 Hive Guard is on the table. The Hive Guard is in area terrain, but the MC HT is almost fully visible. Does the unit get a cover save?

No, the Ordo Jervisium comes and takes you on "holiday".

I would say that the whole unit benefits from the save.

What is allowing you can pick the tyrant out of the unit?

The Genral Consensus (while still debated) is that the Tyrant does not have IC status as it cannot leave a unit of Hive guard once it joins, as the provision for the HT is that it is an IC for joining, therefore it would not be able to leave. So if it were an IC while joined with the Hive Guard it would be able to leave. So unless there is a tenant that Im missing. I am still unsure how a HT that is not an IC (Even for the purposes for joining a unit of Hive guard) Can be picked out by shooting.

Drunkspleen wrote:

wyomingfox wrote:

Darth Bob wrote:There is no rule (that I know of) in the BRB that states that to be the case, so that doesn't really fly that well RAI or RAW since there's no rule to be interpereted as such.

My thoughts exactly. Excluding the rule for MC that are also IC, there are no BRB rules that allow you to target separate models within a complex unit.

but the IC rules for joining units list very specific things that is involved in that joining process, none of which is the loss of the ability to target the IC as a standalone unit, that is why you still can (unless the later IC rules also apply as they do with most ICs).

But again, the HT is not an IC, so it doesn't follow any of those rules beyond being able to join a HG unit. For example, as another poster pointed out, once joined, unlike an IC, the HT cannot leave the unit.

He (HT) is not an IC
He is an MC
He can join the TG
He can not disjoin/unattach
He can not be picked out by shooting if joined
He loses MTC unless TG has MTC
He and the TG can not go to ground
He does not get cover unless 50% of his body is behind cover

Correct where wrong with Pg # and reference.
Add to as necessary


If GW were serious, really serious about creating a playable, concrete set of rules, they would 'hire' a bunch of dakkas on as play testers to find these problems and correct them prior to publication. I am sure having their name in the credits is more then enough payment for this service.

As long as 50% of the unit is in cover, the entire unit will get a cover save. So as long as one HG is in cover, the HT will benefit from a cover save.

Gwar! wrote:

Homer S wrote:BTW, page 51 of the BRB does not state that they can always be targetted. It just says they must be obscured at least 50% to claim cover.

Homer

No, but page 49 does.

Independent characters that are monstrous creatures can always be picked out as separate targets, unless they've joined a unit of monstrous creatures or a unit with special rules that offer them protection.

Tyrant Guard are neither Monstrous Creature, nor do they have a rule negating this one, so they are useless.

OOPS! Gwar, as usual, you have it by the sensitive bits now. Since TG are missing this part of the protective rule, they are nearly useless.

HOmer

HOmer, what we have been discussing in the past 2 pages is that HT may join a HG unit "exactly as if" it was an IC. That does not infer that the HT "is" an IC. If it is not a IC then pg 49 does not apply.

well on the PLUS side tyrant guard can get the berserk bonuses easier if the tyrant can be picked out

It is not an IC, but uses the IC rules for joining a unit.
OK.
Why can it not be picked out?
Because it has joined a unit exactly like it was an IC.
Why can it be picked out?
Because it has joined a unit exactly like it was an IC.



Why does furious charge work with counter-attack?
Because counter-attack works exactly as if the unit was assaulting.
Why does furious charge not work with counter-attack?
Because counter-attack works exactly as if the unit was assaulting.

I think that summarizes my issue, but I am still uncertain.
Editing to add:
I think the unable to leave bit leans me more towards first part of my examples. Which I think is funny.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Err. . . wait.

At least for the Swarmlord (although probably with the Hive Tyrant) would joining not actually make the Tyrant Guard a retinue and helping resolve this?
As retinues do not require an Independent Character . . . just a character.

It cant be picked out as it is part of the unit - and there are no rules stating you can pick out individual members of a unit, except when that member is an MC AND an IC.

Once it is joined to the unit it is exactly that - joined to a unit.

Homer S wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

Homer S wrote:BTW, page 51 of the BRB does not state that they can always be targetted. It just says they must be obscured at least 50% to claim cover.

Homer

No, but page 49 does.

Independent characters that are monstrous creatures can always be picked out as separate targets, unless they've joined a unit of monstrous creatures or a unit with special rules that offer them protection.

Tyrant Guard are neither Monstrous Creature, nor do they have a rule negating this one, so they are useless.

OOPS! Gwar, as usual, you have it by the sensitive bits now. Since TG are missing this part of the protective rule, they are nearly useless.

HOmer

Might I suggest actually reading the last 3 pages? Kthxbai.

Drunkspleen wrote:I'm not saying the IC rules have to apply, I'm saying without applying the IC rules, there is no rule which the Tyrant is following which says "you can no longer target the tyrant seperately once it joines the Tyrant Guard unit", which is why the fact that you can normally target them seperately never changes.

Yes there is...oh my god. It says there clear as day, under the rule "Shield Wall", that the Hive Tyrant may join the unit of Guard. He is thereby becoming a part of the unit. You can't say "oh I'm going to target that Tactical Marine with the lascannon". Why? Because he is part of the unit.

I think this concept has been beaten to death with a stick. Then beat some more. Most things are pointing to the fact that he is indeed protected, but we cannot get a 100% confirmation until GW comes out with an official FAQ. Until then, however, I will be going with what logic, the rules as written in the book, common understanding of proper english, and Gwar's FAQ tells me: The Tyrant Guard give protection to the Tyrant from being singled out in Assault and Shooting.

So the assumption then is that the Shield Wall rule removes the Tyrant/Swarmlord's MC status for purposes of being shot at or that it never gains IC status?

Homer

Homer - no, that is not the assumption. the actual rule is that the HT joins "as if" an IC, but never becomes an IC. As such the rule about an IC MC still being able to be picked out *never comes into play*

Homer S wrote:So the assumption then is that the Shield Wall rule removes the Tyrant/Swarmlord's MC status for purposes of being shot at or that it never gains IC status?

Homer

It never gains IC status but still becomes part of the unit. There is absolutely nothing aluding to the fact that it could lose its MC status.

kirsanth wrote:
Err. . . wait.

At least for the Swarmlord (although probably with the Hive Tyrant) would joining not actually make the Tyrant Guard a retinue and helping resolve this?
As retinues do not require an Independent Character . . . just a character.

I don't know Kirsanth. All I know is this is making my head hurt...hmmm maybe GW's poorly written rules cause cancer...I mean everything else does. Anyone else feeling up for a class action suit

Because of GW wording, an argument can, and has been, made that Tyrant Guard allows a Tyrant to join them as a unit but does not allow the Tyrant to become an IC (and in my opinion the effect is that the Guard become a retinue for the Tyrant).

An argument can, and has been, made that the Tyrant Guard allows a Tyrant to join them as a unit, but the Tyrant has to follow all of the rules of and IC even though the model never becomes and IC. This effectively makes the Guard totally useless as you can pick out ICs that are MCs in shooting, but would allow the Tyrant to be also picked out as an IC in melee. Being picked out in melee I do not have a problem with tbh, its the shooting where the problem lies.

Both in my opinion have valid arguments behind them.

How should it be played in my opinion? Play it so that the Tyrant Guard are not a useless model and treat the Tyrant as allowed to join the unit, (treating them as a retinue) but doesn't have to follow the IC rules. Play it this way until GW hopefully comes out with a confirmation of this when they have to FAQ this codex.

Maxus wrote:
An argument can, and has been, made that the Tyrant Guard allows a Tyrant to join them as a unit, but the Tyrant has to follow all of the rules of and IC even though the model never becomes and IC.

Sorry, but I fail to see the validity in that argument. You're saying it has to follow the rules for something that it is not. That is complete fallacy.

It does follow the IC rules for joining a unit. It is not hard to see why it would use those rules for remaining in them.
If it does not, then the rules for retinue should apply. This could actually result in the MC becoming an IC.

kirsanth wrote:It does follow the IC rules for joining a unit. It is not hard to see why it would use those rules for remaining in them.
If it does not, then the rules for retinue should apply. This could actually result in the MC becoming an IC.

Sorry, but I've already explained why this is untrue, and I don't feel like repeating myself another time.

Edit: If we're suddenly calling it a retinue now, it's not targetable regardless.

You have stated why you think it is untrue.

I am not trying to debate it but if that is the case, then the Tyrant Guard are indeed falling into the realm of retinue.

kirsanth wrote:You have stated why you think it is untrue.

I am not trying to debate it but if that is the case, then the Tyrant Guard are indeed falling into the realm of retinue.

Alright, but even if it is a retinue, he's still not targetable.

They're not a Retinue, because he's not an IC. They're just a unit. He's the serge, they're the troops.

Darth Bob wrote:Alright, but even if it is a retinue, he's still not targetable.

Correct, as that would make the MC an upgrade character. The odd part that I was trying to point out (apparently unsuccessfully) is that if the Tyrant Guard all die, the MC actually becomes an IC.

Which allows it to join with Carnifex, et al.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Aduro wrote:They're not a Retinue, because he's not an IC. They're just a unit. He's the serge, they're the troops.

False.
Retinues do not require an Independent Character.

kirsanth wrote:The odd part that I was trying to point out (apparently unsuccessfully) is that if the Tyrant Guard all die, the MC actually becomes an IC.

Which allows it to join with Carnifex, et al.

Ah, okay I misunderstood the point you were trying to make. It makes sense that after losing his guard, he becomes "independent" and thus becomes an IC.

Regardless, though, all factors seem to be pointing to the fact that he is indeed not targetable in most spectrums.

Darth Bob wrote:

Maxus wrote:
An argument can, and has been, made that the Tyrant Guard allows a Tyrant to join them as a unit, but the Tyrant has to follow all of the rules of and IC even though the model never becomes and IC.

Sorry, but I fail to see the validity in that argument. You're saying it has to follow the rules for something that it is not. That is complete fallacy.

Where this argument comes from is the wording, if the model joins the unit "exactly as if it were an IC" (I believe that is the quote in the shieldwall rule), where does it preclude it from following ALL the rules for an IC? This is why I said that there is validity to that argument.

I believe that it can be argued both ways, because of the way the rule for the guard is worded.

I'm not saying that one is more valid over the other, I'm saying there are valid points on both sides.

What I am saying is if you apply all the rules for the IC on the Tyrant the Guard become absolutely useless for what its role seems to be, and this is not how it should be played. My argument may not be valid because it makes the most sense.

We have to wait until GW clarifies what they intended. Did they intend them to be like retinue, like it was in the 4th ed. Did they intend the Tyrant to be able to be picked out like an IC in assaults, but didn't want them to be shot at? Did they intend the guard to be useless? Did an editor change the wording to save money on printing? We don't know!

I also believe it has been pointed out earlier in the thread that GW has mentioned in another FAQ where "as if" was used, and this should also be applied to this wording, but that is opinion

I've got the answer. Shieldwall prevents Guard players from using bring it down on the tyrant

Maxus wrote:
Where this argument comes from is the wording, if the model joins the unit "exactly as if it were an IC" (I believe that is the quote in the shieldwall rule), where does it preclude it from following ALL the rules for an IC? This is why I said that there is validity to that argument.

"Exactly as if" does not denote a state of being, therefore, since it is not in the action of being an IC, it has no reason to follow the rules of an IC. It precludes it because it does not include it. If it is not stated as being something, then it cannot be that something.

All you need to do is take proper english into account, and the wording cannot be questioned at all.

And thus I repeat myself again, in this never-ending cycle of people not understanding the concept that I can act exactly as if I'm a fraking dinosaur, but not be a fraking dinosaur.

/sigh


EDIT: What exactly is your standing on the subject? I'm getting mixed opinions that you believe he is an IC but then you think that is not how it should be played?

As I said before, my Necron Destroyers "Move Like" Jetbikes. They don't start following all the Jetbike rules once they've moved, they're still Infantry (to my disdain) and follow the Jetbike rules only when they move.

Likewise, the Tyrant only follows the IC rules for JOINING the Guard. He doesn't become an IC after joining them, and doesn't follow any of the other IC rules other than those telling you how one joins a unit. As far as how you target the unit and members in it with shooting or assaulting, it's a "complex unit" as described in the rules. You can't pick any individual figs out, Tyrant or Guard as with no IC, they're simple a single solid unit now. A good comparison would be a Necron Tomb Spider with Scarabs,.

Aduro wrote:As I said before, my Necron Destroyers "Move Like" Jetbikes. They don't start following all the Jetbike rules once they've moved, they're still Infantry (to my disdain) and follow the Jetbike rules only when they move.

Likewise, the Tyrant only follows the IC rules for JOINING the Guard. He doesn't become an IC after joining them, and doesn't follow any of the other IC rules other than those telling you how one joins a unit. As far as how you target the unit and members in it with shooting or assaulting, it's a "complex unit" as described in the rules. You can't pick any individual figs out, Tyrant or Guard as with no IC, they're simple a single solid unit now. A good comparison would be a Necron Tomb Spider with Scarabs,.

Anyone arguing that the HT is an IC will be directed to this post.

Maxus wrote:Where this argument comes from is the wording, if the model joins the unit "exactly as if it were an IC" (I believe that is the quote in the shieldwall rule),

Agree with you there in part, but it's more of an inability of some folks to grasp proper grammar.

Maxus wrote:where does it preclude it from following ALL the rules for an IC? This is why I said that there is validity to that argument.

I believe that it can be argued both ways, because of the way the rule for the guard is worded.

I'm not saying that one is more valid over the other, I'm saying there are valid points on both sides.

You really shouldn't. There is no way to read the Shield Wall rule and think that the Tyrant, which is classified as a Monstrous Creature (not an IC), suddenly becomes an IC the moment is joins a unit of Tyrant Guard.

Maxus wrote:What I am saying is if you apply all the rules for the IC on the Tyrant the Guard become absolutely useless for what its role seems to be, and this is not how it should be played. My argument may not be valid because it makes the most sense.

We have to wait until GW clarifies what they intended. Did they intend them to be like retinue, like it was in the 4th ed. Did they intend the Tyrant to be able to be picked out like an IC in assaults, but didn't want them to be shot at? Did they intend the guard to be useless? Did an editor change the wording to save money on printing? We don't know!

It's actually quite simple and I think Darth Bob has done an exemplary job trying to explain it. The use of 'exactly as if it were an IC' directly refers to the the act of joining a Tyrant to a unit of Tyrant Guard. In no way shape or form can you construe this to mean that the Unit Type of the Tyrant has changed to IC. Because the Tyrant is not classified as an IC, and it's Type is not changed upon joining the Tyrant Guard, it is not both a MC and IC. It is a Monstrous Creature that is allowed to join a specific unit, in a specific way, via a specific rule. Furthermore, because the Tyrant never becomes an IC, it cannot leave the Tyrant Guard unit once it joins. If the Tyrant Guard unit is wiped out, the Tyrant simply carries on as a Monstrous Creature. In the unlikely event that there is another unit of Tyrant Guard near by that does not include a Tyrant, the surviving Tyrant can make use of the Shield Wall rule to join it.

I also believe it has been pointed out earlier in the thread that GW has mentioned in another FAQ where "as if" was used, and this should also be applied to this wording, but that is opinion

Yad wrote:
A. The actual codex entry regarding Shield Wall

Tyranid Codex, page 35 wrote:A single Hive Tyrant (including the Swarmlord) may join a unit of Tyrant Guard exactly as if it were an independent character.

Word-for-word entry for the Shield Wall rule.


Cheers

Yad wrote: Furthermore, because the Tyrant never becomes an IC, it cannot leave the Tyrant Guard unit once it joins. If the Tyrant Guard unit is wiped out, the Tyrant simply carries on as a Monstrous Creature.
. . .
It cannot become an IC, and cannot leave the Guard unit.

I will again point out that the quotes above are incorrect.
e.g. Assuming it does not follow rules for being an IC, a Swarmlord that joins a unit of Tyrant Guard can indeed become an IC if the Guard die. (This should apply to the Tyrant, as well)

kirsanth wrote:

Yad wrote: Furthermore, because the Tyrant never becomes an IC, it cannot leave the Tyrant Guard unit once it joins. If the Tyrant Guard unit is wiped out, the Tyrant simply carries on as a Monstrous Creature.
. . .
It cannot become an IC, and cannot leave the Guard unit.

I will again point out that the quotes above are incorrect.
e.g. Assuming it does not follow rules for being an IC, a Swarmlord that joins a unit of Tyrant Guard can indeed become an IC if the Guard die. (This should apply to the Tyrant, as well)

Well that's a pretty neat trick, do you need to wave a wand for that to work?

First, we're not, or at least I'm not, talking about the Swarmlord. I had thought the focus of this discussion was with regards to a regular old Tyrant. If the Swarmlord is Typed as and Monstrous Creature and IC, the points moot and we have to live with the consequences. If it's just a MC, then all my arguments hold true. It seems to me that your grammar-fu is weak and unless you've got a specific rule from the main rule book I don't see how you can justify your position.

Second, all snarkiness aside (apologies if it offends), how do you justify the Tyrant 'becoming' an IC if the Guard unit it has joined ('as if' it were an IC, not an actual IC) is wiped out. I would like to see some page numbers/quotes to back that up.

So, anyone dizzy yet?

Until someone comes up with something new to add to this one, I think it's best to let it lie for a while...