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.

Wyche unit with archon gets paroxy'd. Incubi roll up and archon leaves parox'd unit. Is the archon still under the effect? TO ruled he wasn't since paroxy stated specifically that it affected the unit and since he left the unit, he is good. What is your guys take on this?

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

RAW - I'd say the TO was correct. I think it's a bit cheesy, but reasonable enough.

TO was right, I suppose although I would rule it diferently as they are 1 unit. Except for casualties etc

TO was correct. The IC was NOT the target unit.

Thanks guys!

The same as a Farseer casting fortune on a unit he is attached to, and then leaving the unit. Since the unit was the target, they keep the Fortune special ability, and the Farseer loses it.

kirsanth wrote:We play that models affected by a rule remain affected until a rule states otherwise.

I agree with Kirsanth for multiple reasons that I won't go into here, since there are other threads detailing this issue.

nosferatu1001 wrote:TO was correct. The IC was NOT the target unit.

I wasn't aware you could pick out the IC to target for an effect. Both Paroxysm and Fortune say "the target unit." When the spell is cast, the IC is a part of the "target unit". It's not a unit + an IC. For all intents and purposes, the unit is one.

Yes, it is one unit. BUt when the IC leaves, he is no longer part of that unit.

Same as Doom and Guide.....

coredump wrote:Yes, it is one unit. BUt when the IC leaves, he is no longer part of that unit.

Same as Doom and Guide.....

It doesn't matter. Where does it say in Doom, Guide, Fortune, Paroxysm or any of those effect-causing powers that it no longer effects a part of the "target unit"?

When the power is cast the IC is as much a part of the unit as is the sergeant. He was a part of the target unit when it was cast - where does it say that it stops affecting part of the target unit? It's not a "Remains in Play" spell. It is something that is cast and then an effect is added to each member of the target unit. If you cast Fortune, each model in the target unit gains the ability to re-roll saves. It's not like the farseer casts Fortune every time one part of the unit takes a wound. He casts it once - at the beginning of the turn - and then every part of the target unit is affected. Hypothetically - what if the IC doesn't leave the unit? What if the unit is Doomed, then the unit is shot to death around him. He didn't leave. He is still a part of the "target unit". Is he not Doomed in the assault phase?

This reading causes more problems than it solves. There are no potential problems if all constituent parts of the "target unit" keep the effects no matter where they go in the turn. If you're allowed to simply sidestep powers by leaving a unit, all sorts of problems arise.

Problem is that most of these affects specifically say target unit. When an IC leaves a unit, he is no longer part of the unit. Unit is still affected. Now the IC has joined another unit and is part of that unit now. The paroxy'd unit is still affected. If the effect stated all models in unit, then yes it sticks even if a model leaves the effected unit. BRB makes distinctions for units and models. I think, as well as the TO that this is worded easily. One example would be if a tervigon castes FNP on a warrior squad with a prime. If the prime left the unit, he would no longer have FNP.

jspyd3rx wrote:Problem is that most of these affects specifically say target unit.

Right, which means each and every part of that unit. When an IC is with a unit, he is much a part of the unit at the missile launcher marine, as the sergeant and as the meltagunner.

jspyd3rx wrote:an IC leaves a unit, he is no longer part of the unit. Unit is still affected.

And he was a part of that unit when it was cast. It's not a Remains in Play spell that all of a sudden stops working. It's something that the IC was affected by at a point in the turn and the effects don't have a caveat in their wording saying anything about not affecting parts of the target unit. People are making up this part of the rules.

jspyd3rx wrote:Now the IC has joined another unit and is part of that unit now. The paroxy'd unit is still affected.

And so is the IC that joined another unit.

jspyd3rx wrote:If the effect stated all models in unit, then yes it sticks even if a model leaves the effected unit.

It doesn't need to say that. It says "target unit". It doesn't need to make a distinction between "every model". If an IC is a part of a unit, he is a part of the target unit. Can you pick out and shoot an IC that is with a unit? No? Why not? Because he is a part of the target unit.

jspyd3rx wrote:One example would be if a tervigon castes FNP on a warrior squad with a prime. If the prime left the unit, he would no longer have FNP.

It's the exact same example as all the other examples. And it makes (or doesn't make) just as much sense as the other examples.

So, what happens when an IC that wasn't affected by Paroxysm joins a unit that it was cast on? He suddenly gets Paroxysm, even though he wasn't part of the target unit when it was cast?

The problem here is people are looking at these powers as if they somehow are continually in effect. But they're not. They're cast once and then the effects of the one-time cast are what is in play. There is a distinction to be made between the two. Paroxysm isn't getting cast every time someone swings a weapon or shoots a gun - it was cast once and the effects are tagged to everyone that is/was in the target unit.

Puma - the target unit was, for example "Dire Avengers" with a Farseer

The IC is a part of the unit, so while with the unit the IC suffers the effects.

When the IC leaves, the IC is no longer part of the "Dire Avengers" unit, and is now part of (the entirety of) the "Farseer" unit.

Was the Farseer unit the target of Paroxysm? No, only the Dire Avenger unit. Therefore the IC cannot suffer its effects.

This causes no issues, and requires no breaking of rules (in fact, it follows them precisely)

(Paroxysm definitely has a target, as it's psychic shooting)

nosferatu1001 wrote:Puma - the target unit was, for example "Dire Avengers" with a Farseer

The IC is a part of the unit, so while with the unit the IC suffers the effects.

When the IC leaves, the IC is no longer part of the "Dire Avengers" unit, and is now part of (the entirety of) the "Farseer" unit.

True, but there is nothing in rules that even come close to addressing this. When the power was cast - as in, when you're told who is affected - the IC is a part of the target unit. It is cast once and then you are affected. Sort of like a pinning weapon. You're shot once, then everyone in the target unit is pinned. It is an effect of an action that remains, not the action itself.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Was the Farseer unit the target of Paroxysm? No, only the Dire Avenger unit. Therefore the IC cannot suffer its effects.

There is no 'Farseer unit' when it is attached to the Dire Avengers. There is a new unit that is a 'Dire Avengers and Farseer' unit. There isn't a distinction between the two until Combat Resolution in Melee.

nosferatu1001 wrote:This causes no issues, and requires no breaking of rules (in fact, it follows them precisely)

I don't agree that it causes no issues. I don't agree that you can cast Fortune and Guide on a single IC, then he can join a unit and suddenly that entire unit gets the benefits of that power. Because it has to work that way too. To flip your example a bit:

Someone casts Fortune and Guide on the Farseer. The Farseer joins the Dire Avengers. Now they're a part of the "target unit"? And they all have Fortune and Guide, even though they had nothing to do with the casting?

Why would it have to work that if you cast fortune or guide on a lone IC, and it joins a unit after that it has to share it with the unit too?

The IC could easily only re-roll his to-hits, and any saving throws allocated to him.

willydstyle wrote:Why would it have to work that if you cast fortune or guide on a lone IC, and it joins a unit after that it has to share it with the unit too?

The IC could easily only re-roll his to-hits, and any saving throws allocated to him.

Because the other unit is now a part of the "target unit" that it was cast on. People are looking at this as an active power that affects whoever is in the "target unit". If the target unit is Dire Avengers and someone joins them, they're now affected by the power as well, since they're a part of the "target unit". If they're suggesting that once a Farseer leaves the unit, he is no longer a part of the "target unit", then once another Farseer joins, he must be a part of the "target unit". What they're suggesting is that being a part of the target unit is the only qualifier, not when the power was cast. If the timing of the power was the qualifier (as I think it is), then all parts of the unit would be affected, even when they leave or join other units.

If what they're suggesting is true, then all these scenarios must be true:

1) Dire Avengers and Farseer have Fortune. Farseer leaves unit. Dire Avengers still have the power, Farseer doesn't get it.

2) Another Farseer joins the "target unit". Now, that Farseer has Fortune, because he is a part of the target unit, just as much as the other Farseer is not a part of the target unit.

3) Therefore, if a lone IC has it cast upon them, they are the target unit. They join a unit of Dire Avengers, now the Dire Avengers are a part of "the target unit".

If an IC can become "not a part of the target unit" when he leaves, then he must become "a part of the target unit" when he joins.

Edit: To be clear, this is not the way I that believe it works. I think that every part of the constituent unit gains the effects of a power because of when it was cast and on whom, not simply because of who it was cast upon. To allow ICs to simply shrug off psychic powers is not the way I believe it is supposed to work. Now, this is my opinion and there have been multiple threads on this, so I'd really rather agree to disagree here, because I know we're not going to get anywhere.

To get hit with Weaken Resolve from a PBS and have your Ld lowered to 2, but then leave the unit and simply to have it return to 10 is not the way I believe powers were intended to work.

You're thinking with D&D spell duration logic.

willydstyle wrote:You're thinking with D&D spell duration logic.

No, I'm not. That's what everyone else is thinking. My logic is that it is cast once and the effects of the cast are in play. If you cast Fortune, then the effects of Fortune blanket the entire "target unit" for the entire turn. Now, if parts of the target unit go elsewhere, that effect is still upon them because of when it was cast.

Everyone else is saying that there is a "spell duration" that lasts throughout the turn. If you leave a unit, the spell's effects somehow fade off of you, as if it wasn't cast at the beginning of the turn, but is updated anytime you check the qualifier. That works like a Remains in Play spell. But these aren't Remains in Play spells. These are a one-time cast that affect a target unit for an entire turn.

I didn't make up the duration. GW did.

puma713 wrote:And he was a part of that unit when it was cast. It's not a Remains in Play spell that all of a sudden stops working. It's something that the IC was affected by at a point in the turn and the effects don't have a caveat in their wording saying anything about not affecting parts of the target unit. People are making up this part of the rules.

+1 to that, I think leaving a unit doesn't "heal" any altered state similar to that stated.

How about other alterations? (leadership , WS, BS...)

it says unit, therefore how could it affect units?

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:it says unit, therefore how could it affect units?

This is the crux of the entire problem. Everyone keeps thinking that it is "affecting" something. It's not. It already affected the target. It's not something that continues to affect the unit/units. That's why I keep on and keep on about when it was cast. When it was cast, the Dire Avengers and the Farseer were 1 unit. It was cast on them. They were affected. Now, the power has run its course. It is not still in play. It is not "affecting" the unit. The effects of the power are still in play. Again, like being shot and being pinned. You only get shot once, but you're pinned the entire turn. You only get a power cast on you once, but the effects last the rest of the turn.

And when it was cast, you were 1 unit. Therefore, when you split up, you are still under effects of the power because when it was cast, you were a part of the target. Leaving doesn't suddenly make it to where you weren't a part of that unit two phases ago.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Puma - the target unit was, for example "Dire Avengers" with a Farseer

The IC is a part of the unit, so while with the unit the IC suffers the effects.

When the IC leaves, the IC is no longer part of the "Dire Avengers" unit, and is now part of (the entirety of) the "Farseer" unit.

Was the Farseer unit the target of Paroxysm? No, only the Dire Avenger unit. Therefore the IC cannot suffer its effects.

This causes no issues, and requires no breaking of rules (in fact, it follows them precisely)

(Paroxysm definitely has a target, as it's psychic shooting)

Two Warboss's can join together to make a single unit. If this unit of two models is targeted and paroxy'ed, then the 2 Warboss's split apart during movement phase, becoming two separate units, do they both lose the affect?

^*brain exploding*

I try and see paroxism as a hangover, a unit takes too much booze, then good ol' sarge leaves the unit and goes anywhere else (to have some more, presumably) the headache is still there, rather than staying at the barracks with his squad...
That is, leaving a unit won't "undrink" all that bad alcohol he took last night, as well as leaving a unit doesn't deny having being hit by paroxism last tyranid shooting phase, and it will last till the beginning of tyranid's next turn, whether you are now in targeted unit, left it or are the last one standing. (that's another possibility, isn't it?)

No, as you declare which IC is joining which unit, whether that unit is a "traditional" unit or another IC. The IC rules then state the IC is a "Normal" member of that unit.

Puma - your flip about doesnt work, at all. The Dire Avengers are not part of the target unit - the target unit no longer exists, as the IC is "a normal member of the unit" and not a seperate unit. They arent even a seperate unit then, just treated as one. So th Farseer loses the ability, strictly (unless it affects ASsault, when they would be treated as the farseer unit again)

You also have your target wrong - the Target of the PSA is "the Dire Avenger unit". While the unit contains an IC, you are told the IC is a normal member of the unit - although typically this is at the end of the assault section. So the power is never targeted at the IC, just the unit he is a member of. When the IC leaves, he is no longer the unit that was affected, but a different one.

This seems like a good a place as any to comment on this topic (since someone already brought it up).

puma713 actually contacted me a while ago expressing his concern with how we ruled in the INAT on this topic and I thought that his points had a lot of validity so I spent a lot of time thinking about the issue and eventually we discussed it for the INAT in the latest updated and decided to stick with the ruling we already had, but I'll go into more detail as to why I think one method is more correct (IMHO) then the other:


There are two ways to interpret this type of issue in 40K, and honestly I believe either is a valid interpretation to play with as long as your opponent is on the same page as you.

1) The first interpretation is what I call the 'snapshot' method, and what players like puma713 (and others) believes to be correct...that at a time a special rule that has a duration is activated you essentially take a 'snapshot' of the affected target at that exact point and time. You then assume that the affected target remains affected regardless of whether parts of it later split off from the unit or the model generating the special rule subsequently dies...it doesn't matter since whatever was affected at the 'snapshot' remains affected for the listed duration.

I think in most ways this interpretation seems to be more 'realistic' (as far as you can use that term for 40K) because it seems pretty silly that a guy (an IC) affected by a psychic power can somehow avoid it just by leaving his unit...in 'real world' terms that doesn't make a whole lot of sense (generally).


2) The second interpretation is what I call the 'target-duration' method and this is the method that players like nosferatu (and others, including myself) believe to be correct. In this case you look at the rule, it will have a target listed and a duration listed. Under this interpretation you say that the target is what is affected for the duration listed. Since a unit is generally the target listed for a power (for example), if an IC leaves the unit he is no longer part of the unit and therefore no longer affected by the power. This same interpretation also tends to mean that the source of the 'power' has to remain in play or else that rule is no longer in effect...which means if the Farseer casting Fortune is killed (for example) then the effects of Fortune would immediately end (which would not be the case for the 'snapshot' method).

Now, while the 'target-duration' interpretation may not make as much 'real world' sense as the 'snapshot' method, I do think it follows the rules of the game more closely and therefore is probably more correct if you think of yourself more of a 'RAW' gamer.



So what are the 'problems' with the 'snapshot' interpretation vs. the 'target-duration' interpretation?

Well, when you're going with the 'snapshot' interpretation it allows players who are using duration special abilities on their own units to activate them and then split off the IC joined to the unit to then have two units operating under the special rule. Examples of this would be a Farseer with a unit casting Fortune on his unit and then splitting off with it thereby effectively having two separate units with Fortune. Even worse would be ANOTHER IC joined to the same unit thereby allowing the Eldar player to have 3 separate units all benefiting from Fortune for a turn. This same scenario plays out with Logan Grimnar giving his unit a special rule at the start of the turn and then leaving the unit to go fight elsewhere. It also means that these abilities would remain affecting these units for the allotted duration even if the character providing them dies.

The problem with the 'target-duration' interpretation is naturally the opposite issue. If the ENEMY activates a power on a unit containing an IC in the next turn the IC can simply leave the target unit to avoid the affects of the power...something very handy if the unit is hit with Tyranid Paroxysm, for example. This interpretation also means that the power/ability really should immediately end if the model generating it dies...something that can feel 'wrong' to some players (although seems 'right' to others).

The one issue puma you brought up about the 'target-duration' interpretation I don't think is correct is the idea that an IC joining a unit would pass the ability onto that unit. So for example, a Farseer on his own casting Fortune on himself and then joining a unit...does the unit then 'gain' the Fortune? I do not think this is a problem because ICs JOIN units. So when an IC joins a unit his unit essentially ceases to exist and he is then part of the unit he has joined. This is why when something like the Doom of Malan'tai's power affects all units within a certain range you don't roll twice, once for a unit and once for an IC joined to the unit because the IC is now part of that unit. So if a Farseer casts Fortune on himself and then joins a unit, since his unit essentially no longer exists (until he leaves the unit again in the future) the 'target' of Fortune is no longer present on the table and the power is effectively useless.


So now that I've blathered on about these two interpretations, why do I think the 'target-duration' is the better way to play?

It may sound funny, but GW's ruling on how Furious Charge works when provided by a special character (in their Blood Angel FAQ) is really what sold me. Up until that point, I had always played Furious Charge like a 'snapshot' effect. If the unit was in range of the wargear providing Furious Charge when they assaulted, then they would benefit from this ability for that round of combat.

However, GW's ruling on the matter was actually that you check range to the thing providing furious charge right before each model is about to swing. Now, this doesn't make 'sense' to me from a 'real world' perspective...obviously if a unit was within range of said artifact WHEN CHARGING, then they would be 'FURIOUS'! It seemed weird to me that the unit could start fighting in combat and be 'FURIOUS' but then lose the one model in range of the artifact and the remaining models would suddenly lose that 'FURIOUS' feeling.

But this ruling tells me (personally) that GW thinks of these duration rules in the matter of 'target-duration'. You are picking a target for these abilities and then this target is affected for the duration listed. If a joined IC leaves the target, then he is no longer part of the target and therefore is no longer affected.


The other reason I think 'target-duration' is the correct way to play is from a gameplay perspective. While it may seem cheesy to allow an IC to leave a unit in order to escape paroxysm (for example) I think this is a far lesser evil then allowing players to cast an ability on a friendly unit and then split off the ICs effectively giving them several different units benefiting from a power that is supposed to only affect one target unit.

Since the 'snapshot' method allows players to pick an army with those powers and then set their army up to abuse those situations, it is (by far) the more abusable interpretation. Whereas the 'target-duration' interpretation's negative is that it allows ENEMY ICs to leave negatively affected units, but the player casting the ability has to know that this can happen and can therefore still choose (or not choose) to affect that unit knowing that the IC can (and probably will) leave the affected unit.



So to recap: I really do think both interpretations are valid to play by, and I would gladly play either way personally, but if having to pick I think the 'target-duration' interpretation is the better way to play, even if it doesn't always make the most 'real world' sense.

So a different unit = a NEW unit?

Does it count as if IC was not in the game before it left the unit?
Or is a unit composed of regular troops & an IC just that, ONE unit that WAS/WILL BE two units before/after assembled/disassembled?
What happens with combat squads, which squad would retain the effect if split in two after paroxized (nice kick to the dictionary, I'm afraid) and which would lose it?
Or has it to do just with IC's?

I think any model in target unit "put paroxism effect in their backpack" and it is there wherever they go until its effects dissapear (next tyranid's turn beginning phase) thus IC's in a unit that was hit by paroxism "puts its effect in his/her backpack" as well, because it was a model part of the unit when it was hit.

The IC is a normal member of the unit it is joined to. Page 49

Given you cannot combat squad after being Paroxised, that will never occur. Generally this only happens with ICs, as all other split / combine is at deployment (combat squad, wolf guard) , not during the game.

Touché.
My mistake.

So, I have a question. If you have an IC + Unit get doomed and the IC leaves why doesn't he keep the doom and the unit get to be free? It seems to me that the same logic applies that the target was IC + unit if there is nothing called that anymore then why should one side be affected but not the other? So it has to be one of the following answers using the basis of the INAT FAQ logic:
1) The IC is unaffected because he is no longer part of the targeted unit (unit + IC was original target),
2) The unit is unaffected because it is no longer part of the targeted unit or,
3) Neither the IC nor the unit is affected since the original target no longer exists.
There is no logical reason to give one part of the original unit an advantage over the other part since the same logic applies to them both. It seems to me that only 3 can be the correct answer using the basis of the logic.

Apologies if I misunderstood the logic but that's the way I see it.

The unit was the original target (Page 49, an IC is " a normal member of the unit"while joined, handily tucked away in the ASsaults section) so when an IC leaves Doom stays on the unit because the unit is still a "Dire Avenger" unit.