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.

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...