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.

When fielding an HQ choice with retinue does the unit and the hq count as 2 seperate units while in close combat?  I know that alone, the HQ by himself would be an independent character, but when fielded as the lord of a squad does he count towards the 2 inch kill radius from close combat?

Example: A dark eldar Dracon and 5 incubi are assaulted by 16 khorne berzerkers.  The Dracon is out of base to base contact.  Would the Dracon still get to attack even though she isn't in base to base contact? 

The Dracon didn't technically JOIN the squad, the squad was built around the HQ so the rules are gray there. Page 51 of the rulebook has 2 seperate sections where I am confused. The 1st confusing part is where they speak of the retinue because it says to refer to the army book, and the 2nd is where it actually states Characters in Assault.
_______________________________________

Page 51, "Characters are treated as a separate unit for resolving close combat."

The statement of the rule above isn't restricted only to characters who have joined a unit, the word "joined" only appears in examples that illustrate one way that characters are treated as separate. There's no exception for retinues.

Yup he always has to be base to base with everything. There is one exception and thats the Inquisitor. Makes him well worth haveing.

OTOH, I am pretty sure that not all HQ single units, are considered IC's.

It's very straightforward: if it's an independent character, it says "independent character " in the unit description.

I understand that, I was only commenting because the OP mentioned 'HQ Choice'; and then states that the HQ alone would be an IC. I was just clariftying (perhaps unnecessarily) that not all HQ choices are IC's, even when alone.

Some armies even have tanks, dreadnoughts, and other weirdness as HQs. If it's an IC, it will have Independent Characer in its rules. I think coredump, Flavius and I are all on the same page, though.

Posted By 5thelement on 03/23/2007 1:55 PM
Yup he always has to be base to base with everything. There is one exception and thats the Inquisitor. Makes him well worth haveing.

Can you expand on that?  I've been treating my WH inquisitors as normal ICs in CC.  Have I been messing this up?

okay, so my buddy also tried telling me that sergeant's, Aspiring champions, and all other unit leaders could then be considered characters. Is this true? If that is true then that would mean I would have to make sure they are in base to base to have them get their attacks. This is probably a stupid question but I just wanted a clarification. I have always played that they are just part of the squad, and not a character but I guess I could be wrong.

Thanks for your posts!

Look in their description in the codex. If it says they are an Independent Character,then they are. If it doesn't say that, then they are not.

Hint: It doesn't say that, so they are not.

Posted By XxRVNGRDxX on 03/25/2007 12:45 PM
okay, so my buddy also tried telling me that sergeant's, Aspiring champions, and all other unit leaders could then be considered characters. Is this true? If that is true then that would mean I would have to make sure they are in base to base to have them get their attacks. This is probably a stupid question but I just wanted a clarification. I have always played that they are just part of the squad, and not a character but I guess I could be wrong.

Thanks for your posts!

You are both right.

There are Upgrade Characters which are squad leaders, sergeants and so on. And there are Independent Characters. Only ICs use the rules presented on pp.50-52.

well that a bad example with DE says in there codex that even with in a retine the Hq acts as a indepent character., but character need too be in base too base to get there attacks, that why Drazar is a blessing too a lot of DE players and a bane( hes a upgrade and not a characater)

The same goes for the deathwatch librian. He is a squad upgrade, not an IC therefore untargetable.

That should be amended as its just an oversight

In answer to the Inquisitor his retinue and his wargear are all considered his. So in other words you can give one of his lackies a storm shield and they can take the damage in hand to hand. The storm shield is his wargear but somoene else dies for the failed roll. :thumbs up:

Not....really, his lackies don't count against his wargear limit in any way.  The storm shield is THEIR wargear, they use it when they use the special rules to take wounds for the inquisitor.

And the inquisitor lord IS, I believe, an independent character right?  Regardless of his retinue, I can still single him out in hth, he'll just pass the wounds onto others due to a different rule. 

If that's not the case, then when his retinue is shot out from under him I'm just going to lascannon him freely.  If he's not an IC, then he's a unit, and I can just blast him even once he's by himself.

But as far as I know, he's IC just comes with a retinue - in CC he must be in btb just like every other IC.

And for the record Lucius doesn't have to be in btb either, nor anyone else using the Lash of Torment daemon weapon, as per its rules.

Unfortunately they still have to charge into btb to make an assault, unless they're part of a unit.

An Inquisitor (at least WH version, I don't own DH) is only an Independent Character if he doesn't have a retinue or if his retinue dies. It's specifically written that way in his entry. The other thing he has going is that Acolytes in his retinue can always take hits for him, that's their own special rule. If only these neat little exceptions that Inquisitors have added up to making a decent unit... *sigh*

Nope. That has been clarified by the main rulebook. An Indepedent Character, even with a retinue, still fights separately from any unit he has joined or is a part of.

Posted By Spellbound on 03/31/2007 7:42 PM

Not....really, his lackies don't count against his wargear limit in any way.  The storm shield is THEIR wargear, they use it when they use the special rules to take wounds for the inquisitor.

According to the (DH) inquisitor rules, you can model the inquisitor's wargear on a lackey and the inquisitor is the one who is considered to have it, even if the lackey is removed.

Posted By Ghaz on 04/01/2007 12:17 PM

An Inquisitor (at least WH version, I don't own DH) is only an Independent Character if he doesn't have a retinue or if his retinue dies.

Nope. That has been clarified by the main rulebook. An Indepedent Character, even with a retinue, still fights separately from any unit he has joined or is a part of.

It does say that in the rules for independant characters. However, some armies, such as Orks, have entries like this:

"Unless accompanied by his bodyguard the Painboss is an independant character..."

If he is accompanied by a bodyguard, he is in fact NOT an independant character, and so none of the rules for independant characters would apply, including the part about retinues (which only applies to armies like Marines, whose characters remain ICs despite retinues). At least by the RAW...

And again, that has been changed by the main rules.

Posted By Ghaz on 04/01/2007 2:51 PM
And again, that has been changed by the main rules.

Where? I don't see anything that says someone who isn't an IC becomes an IC. And in anycase, Codex rules supercede the main rulebook, with the sole exception of the Universal Special Rules, no?

I agree with you 100% about the way it should be played, but this place seems intent on discussing the RAW, not intent.

Then explain why they discuss retinues in the section of the rulebook dealing with Independent Characters if you're not one if you have a retinue?

I'm going to have to go with Ghaz on this one. While what Sir Drake points out is valid to a degree...

"And in anycase, Codex rules supercede the main rulebook, with the sole exception of the Universal Special Rules, no?" The problem here is still a case where there are more 'old' 3rd Edition codex still trying to 'get by' under 4th Edition rules than there are current updated 4th Edition codex in play. There are specific cases where I would clearly point out that the newer 'core rules' supersede an older 3rd Edition codex rule, and even some of the 'official' updated FAQs from GW. I would readily accept the notion that a 4th Edition codex would supersede the 4th Edition core rules in many cases, but the Orks codex obviously isn't one of those.

Another good example of this is the HTH 'Cover' rules on page 39 which discuss who goes first in HTH. It talks about how psychic abilities or weird force fields are of no benefit if the unit itself charges. This is clearly written towards toning down the Space Wolves 'Storm Caller' psychic ability and the Ork 'Custom Forcefield' stuff. Yet the Space Wolves FAQ apparently contradicts this, but one of the GW designers - Jervis? - was saying that the goal was to tone down storm caller in a GW forum. It looks like they still have a lot of work to do to bring the old codex inline with the new core rules. Inevitably there's bound to be a few bumps in the road.