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.

Well said, Yakface. However, I do have issue with one statement:

yakface wrote:
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.

I don't follow you here. The 'snapshot method' folks, like myself, don't believe that those 3 units all of a sudden get Fortune. For example: Asurmen + Eldrad + Dire Avengers. Eldrad casts fortune on that unit. Then, Asurmen leaves and Eldrad leaves. Asurmen joins another unit of Avengers and Eldrad joins a unit of Harlequins. Now, the affected unit is still only Asurmen, Eldrad and the original Avengers. The units that they joind were not parts of the target unit and so do not get affected. So, if Eldrad and the Harlequins are shot at, the harlequins take normal saves while Eldrad can re-roll his. The same goes for Asurmen and the new unit of Avengers. The Avengers would have to roll normally while Asurmen would get a re-roll. This works in all situations.

Now, since no one has bothered to answer the poster above who asked the question, I'll post it again: Two warbosses are joined together. They get hit with Paroxysm. Now they split and join other units. Where does Paroxysm go and why?

With the 'snapshot method', everything works out and the Warbosses WS and BS are reduced, but it does not effect anyone else. What happens with the 'target-duration' method?

And to use a GW FAQ as a precedent for a ruling is a bit weak in foundation, I think. Reference Eldar Autarchs versus Tyranid Hive Tyrants.

I answered it, and your erroneous "flip" situation.

An IC joining a unit becomes a normal member of that unit. So you declare which IC is joining whcih IC, and do so when you move the IC within 2" of the other IC. (all taken from page 48 and page 49)

This makes one the "parent" unit, and one the child. Using target-duration you then know who retains it (the parent) and who loses it (the child). If they split and join other units, as both are now "child" normal members of the joined-unit (due to page 49 again) both would lose the effects as they are no longer the target unit.

You still havent answered that the IC was *not* the target, the unit they WERE in was. Once they leave that unit they are now a seperate "IC" unit, and no longer count as part of the old unit in anyway, shape or form, and cannot fulfil the requirements of the Paroxysm.

Well I couldn't quote above poster's appended post for some reason, but what I don't understand is why...

when farseer casts fortune on a unit consisting of him and dire avengers and then leaves, he is said to have left the unit but the avengers haven't. They were as much part of the unit as the farseer, so why do they get to keep fortune when he doesn't?

Isn't that the same as with the two warbosses?

What about deciding who "leaves" the unit based on who moves out of coherency? For example, the warboss that first moves out of coherency would lose paroxysm.

Because, as pge 49 states, an IC is a *normal member* of the unit he joins.

The unit, e.g. DA, is joined by an IC. The IC is a member of the DA unit, not the other way around, and when the IC leaves the DA unit still exists.

Oh. I guess that is pretty solid.

However, as has been stated in many other threads, a unit of fire dragons + an IC is considered a unit of fire dragons + IC then when the IC leaves it becomes just a unit of fire dragons (which is different from fd+IC). So then since the original target unit no longer exists then the effect shouldn't effect anyone anymore.
This harkens back to the grey knight discussion as to why when you join a GK chaptermaster to a stormtrooper squad the new unit doesn't benefit from the chaptermaster's immunities. IIRC nosferatu1001 was on the side that an IC joining a unit wasn't the same as just the unit but was a new hybrid unit. So the target of the effect is the hybrid unit. When the IC leaves then the hybrid unit ceases to exist. So the effect should cease to exist as well.

Except, for the 90th time: read page 49.
Note that it states, quite clearly, that the IC is a *normal member of* the unit.

So no, the unit is not "FD + Farseer" but it is a unit of Fire Dragons whcih has, as its composition, 1 - X FD and 1 Farseer

This was a different discussion, as the GK Shrouding requires the unit to be a Grey Knight unit, as in composed of Grey knights. More fully it required you to be a ""Grey Knight" "Grey knights in Power Armour" unit.

One is a descriptor telling you what the contents are (Grey Knights, no matter what armour they wear) and the other is a proper noun telling you the name of the unit. You target one with shooting, Shrouding requires the other.

Try to avoid conflating the two concepts

Just to add on to what Nosferatu is saying, as he is spot on, and actually using rules citations, what a "unit" is is defined by your force organization chart. When you purchase a unit of Dire Avengers from your force org, it remains a unit of Dire Avengers until every Dire Avenger is dead, regardless of how many ICs you attach to it, or whether it's riding in a Falcon or Wave Serpent.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
An IC joining a unit becomes a normal member of that unit. So you declare which IC is joining whcih IC, and do so when you move the IC within 2" of the other IC. (all taken from page 48 and page 49)

This makes one the "parent" unit, and one the child. Using target-duration you then know who retains it (the parent) and who loses it (the child). If they split and join other units, as both are now "child" normal members of the joined-unit (due to page 49 again) both would lose the effects as they are no longer the target unit.

And where is all this "parent" unit, and "child" unit stuff laid out in the rules? Or are you adding in your version of what you think they mean to happen?

nosferatu1001 wrote:You still havent answered that the IC was *not* the target, the unit they WERE in was. Once they leave that unit they are now a seperate "IC" unit, and no longer count as part of the old unit in anyway, shape or form, and cannot fulfil the requirements of the Paroxysm.

I didn't answer it because you and I see the entire situation differently. The requirements were fulfilled for Paroxysm when the 'snapshot' was taken. It doesn't keep getting checked. It's not a Remains in Play spell. It is not being recasted every time the unit swings or shoots a weapon. It was cast once and once only. At the time, the target unit was affected by Paroxysm. That's it. Once they split up, they were still a part of a unit that was affected earlier in the game - in the 'snapshot', when there were actually requirements to fulfill. Did you read Yakface's post at all? Maybe where he explained - rather well, I might add - how my side of the argument sees this situation?

It's like you continue to beat me over the head with your intepretation, knowing I don't agree with it and knowing I won't agree with it. I don't think you or Yakface are right. I think that your way causes more problems than it solves. Occam's Razor (ya know, the Law of Economy) states that "All things being equal, the simplest answer is usually the correct one" or "selecting the competing hypothesis that makes the fewest new assumptions, when the hypotheses are equal in other respects." To make your interpretation work, you've got to make up caveats and inter rules that aren't there. For my interpretation to work, you don't have to do any of that.

Time to agree to disagree.

Sorry for using examples and clarifying language, I'll try to avoid it in the future.

If Target Duration® applied as stated, an IC in the unit is not affected by Paroxism (/Fortune/Doom/etc.) in CC regardless, as they are "always treated as a separate single-model unit, even though they have joined the unit." This does not change until "all attacks have been resolved."

Unless I am missing something again?

puma713 wrote:
I don't follow you here. The 'snapshot method' folks, like myself, don't believe that those 3 units all of a sudden get Fortune. For example: Asurmen + Eldrad + Dire Avengers. Eldrad casts fortune on that unit. Then, Asurmen leaves and Eldrad leaves. Asurmen joins another unit of Avengers and Eldrad joins a unit of Harlequins. Now, the affected unit is still only Asurmen, Eldrad and the original Avengers. The units that they joind were not parts of the target unit and so do not get affected. So, if Eldrad and the Harlequins are shot at, the harlequins take normal saves while Eldrad can re-roll his. The same goes for Asurmen and the new unit of Avengers. The Avengers would have to roll normally while Asurmen would get a re-roll. This works in all situations.

Sorry, I wasn't trying to imply that the 'snapshot' interpretation allowed ICs with a special rule to magically pass it onto a unit they then joined. I was just trying to say that if a unit with two ICs attached was given a power (like Fortune) and then those two characters both split off you'd have three units (IC, IC and original unit) all benfiting from the rule...with the understanding that if the ICs went and joined a different unit ONLY the IC would continue to benefit from the power.

My point was only that, even if the ICs on their own benefit from the power, you can still end up with three separate units benefiting from the power (the two separate ICs and the original unit), when these powers are technically only supposed to be benefiting a single unit.

And of course, to take a worst-case scenario idea: If you're playing with the 'snapshot' interpretation, god forbid there is ever an ability that grants 'stealth', as now you really COULD split off ICs from the unit that is affected by the ability, join those ICs to other units and pass the Stealth ability onto those other units as well!

Now, since no one has bothered to answer the poster above who asked the question, I'll post it again: Two warbosses are joined together. They get hit with Paroxysm. Now they split and join other units. Where does Paroxysm go and why?

With the 'snapshot method', everything works out and the Warbosses WS and BS are reduced, but it does not effect anyone else. What happens with the 'target-duration' method?

I think Nosferatu's answer to you on this one was a little off (IMHO). An IC that ends its move within 2" of another unit is at that point declared to be joining that unit. So if you have Warboss A standing there and Warboss B moves within 2" of Warboss A at that point you'd declare that you are joining Warboss B to Warboss A. So to answer your question (and use Nosferatu's terms) Warboss A would be the 'parent' unit that Warboss B is joining. Therefore Warboss A would retain the effects of any ability used on the 'unit' if the two later split up.

However, unlike Nosferatu I don't think the rules on this matter are explicity clear (as I said in my original post) and this area regarding two ICs joining each other is a perfect example of that. The rules state that ICs joining together 'form a powerful multi-character unit' which definitely has a different connotation to it then the normal IC clearly joining an existing unit and acting as normal member of the unit.

And to use a GW FAQ as a precedent for a ruling is a bit weak in foundation, I think. Reference Eldar Autarchs versus Tyranid Hive Tyrants.

We all know that GW's FAQ rulings are often highly inconsistent and if this was a case of the rules being clear and one ruling from GW seeming to 'override' the rules then I certainly would be agreeing with you. However, I really do see this as being two legitimate ways to interpret the rule, so it really comes down to how your mind interprets what the rules are saying. Are these powers enacted like a 'snapshot' or are they more continuously in effect on their target for the duration listed?

kirsanth wrote:If Target Duration® applied as stated, an IC in the unit is not affected by Paroxism (/Fortune/Doom/etc.) in CC regardless, as they are "always treated as a separate single-model unit, even though they have joined the unit." This does not change until "all attacks have been resolved."

Unless I am missing something again?

I think that is indeed a totally valid interpretation! Although that same interpretation could apply to quite a few rules that are passed onto a character's unit (not just ones with a limited duration), so I don't think you'll find anyone who will actually play with that perticular interpretation regardless of whether they use the 'snapshot' or 'target-duration' concepts (and thanks for the 'reserved' mark, that made me LOL.

Thanks for all the input guys. Hope for sweeping FAQs soon like in fantasy.