Switch Theme:

Does a squad gain the benefits of DGs from an IC that joined it with DGs?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Poll
Does a squad gain the benefits of DGs from an IC that joined it with DGs?
Yes
No
I'm not sure

View results
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in ca
Deranged Necron Destroyer




Somewhere Ironic

A squad without defensive grenades is joined by an Independent Character with Defensive Grenades. When an enemy unit assaults the squad, does the squad benefit from the IC's Defensive Grenades.

This is a debated question in this thread: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/375365.page

Since a consensus cannot be achieved, I've created this poll. I want to see what the majority believes. This question has nothing to do with any other wargear. It is a straight forward question. Yes or No, and if you cannot choose either, you can say you're unsure.


My Argument:

Assaulting and attacking are two different terms, and that under DGs, it states that "Models assaulting (verb) units equipped with defensive grenades gain no assault bonus." Furthermore, the assault bonus is gained when a model assaults (verb), and there are two examples where models are said to have gain an extra attack if they were assaulting (verb).

Under Independent Character, it states you may attack it apart from the squad it has joined. However, beyond that, it is a part of the unit in all other cases (example, assaulting (verb) an IC attached to a squad makes the squad locked in combat and react to the assaulting (verb) units). Therefore, assaulting an IC results in assaulting the squad, and vice versa; Thus, you are assaulting a unit with defensive grenades. Even if it is believed that an IC is a separate unit, the moment you assault the squad, you are assaulting the IC as well (ie, an IC reacts to assaults against the squad).

Specifically under DGs, it does not specify if all models must be equipped, only that the unit must be equipped; Plain English tells us that "hiker teams are equipped with first-aid kits" and "hiker teams are entirely equipped with first aid-kits" are two different statements, one more specific than the other; yet the difference is that the former doesn't specify "entirely," and that the true number of kits the team has is unknown; yet, even if there was only 1, it would be grammatically correct to say the former. You can easily say "hiker teams are each equipped with first-aid kits," and it would mean the same as the former, even so far as still being too general to specify if there's 1 or 20 (exageration).

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/06/20 04:58:16


DQ:90S++G++MB++I--Pw40k01+D+A++/hWD-R+++T(D)DM+

Organiser of 40k Montreal
There is only war in Montreal

kronk wrote:The International Programmers Society has twice met to get the world to agree on one methodology for programming dates. Both times they met, the meeting devolved into a giant Unreal Tournament Lan party...
 
   
Made in gb
Guarding Guardian






Sutton-in-Ashfield, Nottinghamshire, England

They count as all being equipped with grenades because imagine the IC trowing them at the enemy. The enemy doesn't care who threw them, just that they were thrown.

Hope this helps

The Stars Themselves Once Lived and Died at Our Command, Yet You Still Dare Oppose Our Will

Jetbike Apocalypse For The Win  
   
Made in ca
Deranged Necron Destroyer




Somewhere Ironic

Bump, I'd like to see more votes on this.

DQ:90S++G++MB++I--Pw40k01+D+A++/hWD-R+++T(D)DM+

Organiser of 40k Montreal
There is only war in Montreal

kronk wrote:The International Programmers Society has twice met to get the world to agree on one methodology for programming dates. Both times they met, the meeting devolved into a giant Unreal Tournament Lan party...
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





The answer is no.

The DG item has to state it extends the benefit to the squad the IC is joined just like the phantasm grenade launcher does.

Also in the case of ICs they are treated as a separate unit in combat so RAW the IC would get the defensive grenades bonus against attacks alloactedto the IC but the squad he or she is joined to is a separate unit without DGs and unless the Wargear that grants DGs specifically states it extends tojoined squads the squad has no DGs.

Given that defensive grenades do not have en effect until units actually are going to roll their number of attacks the IC has already been separated as a different unit for attacks to be allocated, this should be a non arguement.

Same reason you can't have an IC with assault grenades joined to a unit without and give the unit assault grenades

The argument that the enemy doesn't care who threw them also isn't valid because in the case of multi assaults you would have situations where one unit has assault or defensive grenades and another doesn't but they both are reacting to either assailing or being assaulted at the same time in the same combat. They do not get the benefit of the other units grenades.

In short the answer without any valid counter argument based on rules is simply no, not at all

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2011/06/23 17:13:30


 
   
Made in ph
Been Around the Block





I think it depends on the wording on the grenades, like the GK special grenades (rad and pyschotroke) it states units, so if an IC joins a squad they form a unit (even then the IC can still be targeted) so if one of the elements of a unit carries a grenade and the grenade entry specifies units then all of them would benefit from the effects of the grenade.
   
Made in us
Stalwart Veteran Guard Sergeant





Correct me if im wrong, but the latest BRB FAQ answered this in saying that yes, if an IC with nades joins a squad, the unit counts as having them for assualt purposes (like having frag to assualt cover and defensive to react to assualts, not hey the IC has krak nades, therefore the whole squad has them, lets go kill some tanks)

This is my Leman Russ. There are many out there like it, but this one is mine. Without it, I am useless. Without me, it is useless.

Obliterators: They've got a gun for that.  
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




No, it does not answer it. It answers it for the 3 specific grenade types that GK have that always affect the ENTIRE enemy unit.

Defensive grenades ONLY affect those models in the unit that are attacking the unit with defensive grenades. And, by the time you get that far, you assaulting unit is attacking a separate unit, the IC.
Attempting to state they are now longer assaulting is incorrect.
   
Made in ca
Deranged Necron Destroyer




Somewhere Ironic

blaktoof wrote:The DG item has to state it extends the benefit to the squad the IC is joined just like the phantasm grenade launcher does.


It already does. Models assaulting units. On page 49, it also states that if a unit that has been joined by an IC assaults (verb), the IC must assault with it because it is part of the unit. If a unit is reacting to being assaulted, ICs that have joined the unit must move [in retaliaton] first. It's pretty evident that during the assaulting action, the IC is part of the unit. During attacking, its certainly able to be targeted seperately, but where does it ever say its no longer part of the unit? It only says "treated as." And Treated As =/= Is.

blaktoof wrote:Also in the case of ICs they are treated as a separate unit in combat so RAW the IC would get the defensive grenades bonus against attacks alloactedto the IC but the squad he or she is joined to is a separate unit without DGs and unless the Wargear that grants DGs specifically states it extends tojoined squads the squad has no DGs.


You cannot assault an IC seperately from the rest of a squad and vice versa; when you assault a squad, you automatically assault the IC (that's why it reacts). They are only treated as seperate units during attacks. Defensive grenades take effect before attacks, when the enemy assaults. If you read the rest of the Assault Phase chapter, you'll notice that assaulting is an action in itself. In the Defensive Grenades section, the assaulting action is employed for trigger effect.

blaktoof wrote:Given that defensive grenades do not have en effect until units actually are going to roll their number of attacks the IC has already been separated as a different unit for attacks to be allocated, this should be a non arguement.


This is wrong, defensive grenades take effect before attacks. Read the Defensive Grenades entry carefully, where does it ever say attack (verb)? However, it does say assault, now doesn't it? If you read the rest of the Assault Phase chapter, you'll notice that assaulting is an action in itself.

blaktoof wrote:Same reason you can't have an IC with assault grenades joined to a unit without and give the unit assault grenades


Worthless statement since, after all, were not talking about assault grenades. There is zero relation besides the word "grenades."

blaktoof wrote:The argument that the enemy doesn't care who threw them also isn't valid because in the case of multi assaults you would have situations where one unit has assault or defensive grenades and another doesn't but they both are reacting to either assailing or being assaulted at the same time in the same combat. They do not get the benefit of the other units grenades.


Give me one situation where you can assault two totally separate units (ie, none attached to the other) at the same time. Oh right, there isn't one.

blaktoof wrote:In short the answer without any valid counter argument based on rules is simply no, not at all


Were not in grade school, so refrain from saying such a childish thing; after all, the validity of an argument is purely opinion based, and you're a judge of nothing. We are currently in the mode of persuasion, and if we both agree, we can both agree that something is true/false; yet that does not necessarily make "something" true/false.

DQ:90S++G++MB++I--Pw40k01+D+A++/hWD-R+++T(D)DM+

Organiser of 40k Montreal
There is only war in Montreal

kronk wrote:The International Programmers Society has twice met to get the world to agree on one methodology for programming dates. Both times they met, the meeting devolved into a giant Unreal Tournament Lan party...
 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran





Yes.

When you assault (not resolve attacks), you are launching an assault against a unit that is equipped with defensive grenades. It doesn't matter if one model has it, or every model has it; that unit is most definitely equipped with defensive grenades.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Shadelkan wrote:
blaktoof wrote:The argument that the enemy doesn't care who threw them also isn't valid because in the case of multi assaults you would have situations where one unit has assault or defensive grenades and another doesn't but they both are reacting to either assailing or being assaulted at the same time in the same combat. They do not get the benefit of the other units grenades.


Give me one situation where you can assault two totally separate units (ie, none attached to the other) at the same time. Oh right, there isn't one.


I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here. Are you suggesting that one unit can't assault two units simultaneously? Because you would be incorrect.

That brings up an interesting point of how one would resolve a situation where a unit multi-assaulting two units, one with defensive grenades, but that's not what this thread is about.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
blaktoof wrote:Same reason you can't have an IC with assault grenades joined to a unit without and give the unit assault grenades


It isn't at all the same reason. The rules for assault grenades specify that they only give a benefit to models equipped with them.

The rules for defensive grenades give a penalty to enemy units that launch an assault against a unit equipped with them.

One is model-based, and the other is unit-based.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2011/06/24 03:18:00


 
   
Made in ca
Deranged Necron Destroyer




Somewhere Ironic

somerandomdude wrote:Automatically Appended Next Post:
Shadelkan wrote:
blaktoof wrote:The argument that the enemy doesn't care who threw them also isn't valid because in the case of multi assaults you would have situations where one unit has assault or defensive grenades and another doesn't but they both are reacting to either assailing or being assaulted at the same time in the same combat. They do not get the benefit of the other units grenades.


Give me one situation where you can assault two totally separate units (ie, none attached to the other) at the same time. Oh right, there isn't one.


I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here. Are you suggesting that one unit can't assault two units simultaneously? Because you would be incorrect.

That brings up an interesting point of how one would resolve a situation where a unit multi-assaulting two units, one with defensive grenades, but that's not what this thread is about.


For some reason, I had it in my head that you couldn't assault two totally separate units. I musta been confusing it with the "you can't consolidate into another enemy" rule.

DQ:90S++G++MB++I--Pw40k01+D+A++/hWD-R+++T(D)DM+

Organiser of 40k Montreal
There is only war in Montreal

kronk wrote:The International Programmers Society has twice met to get the world to agree on one methodology for programming dates. Both times they met, the meeting devolved into a giant Unreal Tournament Lan party...
 
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




somerandomdude wrote:That brings up an interesting point of how one would resolve a situation where a unit multi-assaulting two units, one with defensive grenades, but that's not what this thread is about.


Only those models assaulting the unit with grenades would be affected.

somerandomdude wrote:It isn't at all the same reason. The rules for assault grenades specify that they only give a benefit to models equipped with them.

The rules for defensive grenades give a penalty to enemy units that launch an assault against a unit equipped with them.

One is model-based, and the other is unit-based.

Incorrect.
BOTH are model based. Please reread the rules for defensive grenades. They affect models assaulting units with the grenades.

And, when you resolve attacks (during the assault) you are assaulting an IC, who IS a separate unit at this point, as this is the point at which you determine the number of attacks you are allocating to which unit.. And yes, "treated as" means "is" to all intents and purposes; you cannot claim that they are not a separate unit for ANY reason, as at that point you are breaking the "treated as" rule.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Springfield, VA

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Only those models assaulting the unit with grenades would be affected.


Since the unit has grenades, then all enemy models are affected, by this logic.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Incorrect.
BOTH are model based. Please reread the rules for defensive grenades. They affect models assaulting units with the grenades.


Yes, they do. And as per the new FAQ, the unit is equipped with defensive grenades, even if it is only one member. So all models assaulting the unit suffer the loss of the charge attack bonus.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
And, when you resolve attacks (during the assault) you are assaulting an IC, who IS a separate unit at this point, as this is the point at which you determine the number of attacks you are allocating to which unit.. And yes, "treated as" means "is" to all intents and purposes; you cannot claim that they are not a separate unit for ANY reason, as at that point you are breaking the "treated as" rule.


When you resolve attacks, you are not assaulting the IC, you are attacking him. You have already assaulted him, and he was not a separate at that point. You must determine the number of attacks before you resolve them, and in the determining of this number is the check for defensive grenades. This is before the IC is singled out, which is only when the attacks resolve.
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




As per the FAQ which only covers the 3 specific types fo grenades?

Sorry, no chance of you getting away with that blatant change to the written rules.
   
Made in ca
Deranged Necron Destroyer




Somewhere Ironic

Nos, where does it say you can specifically assault an IC?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/06/24 14:04:44


DQ:90S++G++MB++I--Pw40k01+D+A++/hWD-R+++T(D)DM+

Organiser of 40k Montreal
There is only war in Montreal

kronk wrote:The International Programmers Society has twice met to get the world to agree on one methodology for programming dates. Both times they met, the meeting devolved into a giant Unreal Tournament Lan party...
 
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




Shadelkan - note exactly what I am saying, and note that your "version" is nothing like it.
   
Made in ph
Been Around the Block





@nos
You just don't get it do you...the poll has answered quite correctly....everyone here in our gaming group (around 20) all agree with shadelkan on this and his arguments are all based on facts stated in the rulbook and is consistent across
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




Jupy - yes, I do get it. His argument ignores that you are still assaulting (as in, in the act of an assault) when you resolve attacks.

It also ignores that the FAQ only covers 3 types of grenades, and those three types are worded very, very differently to defensive grenades.
   
Made in ph
Been Around the Block





As far as defensive grenades go as I read it in the rulebook they work as long as a member of the unit has defensive grenades they work against the whole assaulting unit the BRB was very clear in this. models assaulting against units (note in the IC rules the IC that joined the squad counts as one entire unit for the purposes of movement, shooting and assault although he can be targeted separately in hand to hand he is still for all intents and purposes part of the unit and therefore his defensive grenades are treated as if the whole unit has them , as for the assaulting part AFAIK when you resolve attacks you are in the assault phase not exactly assaulting (still) you are now attacking or to put it better fighting a close combat. You count as having assaulted (past tense) and now are fighting a close combat. The book uses the term "assault" as another term for "fighting a close combat" it is stating a situation not an action.

   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran




Commissar Typhus wrote:Correct me if im wrong, but the latest BRB FAQ answered this in saying ...


Help me out. Where is this in the FAQ version 1.3. I'm just not finding it. I even tried ctrl-f type grenades, found two references but neither on this topic.

Edit: Never mind, found it in the Grey Knights FAQ not the BRB FAQ.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/06/24 23:49:18


 
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




Yep, and it is about 3 specific grenades that affect an entire unit. Not about defensive grenades which affect specific models in an assaulting unit.
   
Made in ca
Deranged Necron Destroyer




Somewhere Ironic

So Nos, where's that page/paragraph quote? Where's your evidence that what you say is correct? So far, you've come up short.

DQ:90S++G++MB++I--Pw40k01+D+A++/hWD-R+++T(D)DM+

Organiser of 40k Montreal
There is only war in Montreal

kronk wrote:The International Programmers Society has twice met to get the world to agree on one methodology for programming dates. Both times they met, the meeting devolved into a giant Unreal Tournament Lan party...
 
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




No, I have not.

I repeat: you are still in the act of assaulting when you come to resolve attacks. Have a look at the simple english behind this. There is no assaulting subphase, that is an entirely made up construct on your point.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Well I bowed out of this silly argument. There is a reason that you have to buy defensive or assault grenades for a whole squad and not just 1 member in every codex entry that allows you to buy them, it's in regards to the rules in the brb for defensive grenades. If you can't wrap your head around the whole unit needing the grenades and not just 1 model having to have them I really do not know what to tell you at this point.

I guess what the codex writers really meant I'd defensive grenades cost 1 point per squad because if one member has them then the whole squad counts as equipped and the codex entry states if you wan tot equip a squad with defensive grenades you pay 1 point per model, but if just one needs them then the cost Is just 1 point per squad....

Seriously?

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2011/06/25 23:09:00


 
   
Made in ph
Been Around the Block





blaktoof wrote:Well I bowed out of this silly argument. There is a reason that you have to buy defensive or assault grenades for a whole squad and not just 1 member in every codex entry that allows you to buy them, it's in regards to the rules in the brb for defensive grenades. If you can't wrap your head around the whole unit needing the grenades and not just 1 model having to have them I really do not know what to tell you at this point.

I guess what the codex writers really meant I'd defensive grenades cost 1 point per squad because if one member has them then the whole squad counts as equipped and the codex entry states if you wan tot equip a squad with defensive grenades you pay 1 point per model, but if just one needs them then the cost Is just 1 point per squad....

Seriously?



you are referring to codices pre 5th edition, all 5th edition codices do not have that 1pt per grenade upgrade option. So you are citing upgrades from previous editions
   
Made in us
Plaguelord Titan Princeps of Nurgle




Alabama

blaktoof wrote:Well I bowed out of this silly argument. There is a reason that you have to buy defensive or assault grenades for a whole squad and not just 1 member in every codex entry that allows you to buy them, it's in regards to the rules in the brb for defensive grenades. If you can't wrap your head around the whole unit needing the grenades and not just 1 model having to have them I really do not know what to tell you at this point.

I guess what the codex writers really meant I'd defensive grenades cost 1 point per squad because if one member has them then the whole squad counts as equipped and the codex entry states if you wan tot equip a squad with defensive grenades you pay 1 point per model, but if just one needs them then the cost Is just 1 point per squad....

Seriously?



If you are assaulting a Tactical Squad with 2 meltaguns in it, aren't you assaulting a squad "equipped with meltaguns"? To say no is blatantly false. Just because the entire squad isn't equipped with meltaguns doesn't mean you didn't assault a squad equipped with meltaguns. Now, replace 'meltaguns' with 'defensive grenades'.

For the thousandth time, especially in my thread, this isn't about everyone being equipped with defensive grenades, it's about, is one person being equipped with defensive grenades enough to affect the entire assaulting unit.

Conversations in the other thread and this poll make it clear that most people were thinking like I was, in that you've assaulted a 'unit equipped with defensive grenades' and so, you follow the rules for defensive grenades.

WH40K
Death Guard 5100 pts.
Daemons 3000 pts.

DT:70+S++G+M-B-I--Pw40K90-D++A++/eWD?R++T(D)DM+

28 successful trades in the Dakka Swap Shop! Check out my latest auction here!
 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran





nosferatu1001 wrote:No, I have not.

I repeat: you are still in the act of assaulting when you come to resolve attacks. Have a look at the simple english behind this. There is no assaulting subphase, that is an entirely made up construct on your point.


Page 33 - Assault Phase Summary:

"Declare which enemy unit [your unit] is going to assault."

Page 33 - Disallowed Assaults:

"Units are not allowed to assault if... They are already locked in close combat."

"... a unit that fired in the Shooting phase can only assault the unit that it shot at"

Page 34 - Move Assaulting Units:

"Assaulting units must now move into close combat with the unit they have declared an assault against."

Page 37 - Number of Attacks:

"Engaged models who assaulted this turn get +1 attack."

The point of all of this is that, on the turn they assault (there it is again! ), a unit is considered assaulting when they move, and they are considered to have assaulted after that move is complete (and are otherwise known as "engaged"). You are not still assaulting after the moves have been completed, so the entire time that assaulting is occurring, ICs are not separate from the units they are attached to.
   
Made in ca
Deranged Necron Destroyer




Somewhere Ironic

nosferatu1001 wrote:No, I have not.

I repeat: you are still in the act of assaulting when you come to resolve attacks. Have a look at the simple english behind this. There is no assaulting subphase, that is an entirely made up construct on your point.


Page number please. You're still short until you get that.

@somerandomdude; that is correct.

DQ:90S++G++MB++I--Pw40k01+D+A++/hWD-R+++T(D)DM+

Organiser of 40k Montreal
There is only war in Montreal

kronk wrote:The International Programmers Society has twice met to get the world to agree on one methodology for programming dates. Both times they met, the meeting devolved into a giant Unreal Tournament Lan party...
 
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




Shadelkan - and yet again youre missing the simple English meaning of "assaulting"

Done here, too much time on something hideously unimportant
   
Made in ca
Deranged Necron Destroyer




Somewhere Ironic

Yea, alright, go ahead and leave instead of giving a page number. I suppose that makes all your arguments totally worthless. You want to argue about the english language, when all I want is a page number.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/06/27 17:57:10


DQ:90S++G++MB++I--Pw40k01+D+A++/hWD-R+++T(D)DM+

Organiser of 40k Montreal
There is only war in Montreal

kronk wrote:The International Programmers Society has twice met to get the world to agree on one methodology for programming dates. Both times they met, the meeting devolved into a giant Unreal Tournament Lan party...
 
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




No, it really doesnt.

I have shown my argument, which is that you cannot stop calling them "assaulting"

Your reliance on the book being completely internally defined is naive. Please provide a page number for the 40k definition of "the"

If you cannot all of your arguments are worthless.
   
 
Forum Index » 40K You Make Da Call
Go to: