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.

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.