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.

Had an interesting debate revolving around the hit and run special rule. The scenario was this, I was playing BA, Dante was HQ and paired with a squad of Sanguinary Guard. We were locked in combat with a squad of DA terminators. I was down to just Dante and one member of the Sanguinary guard unit. I wanted to employ Dante's hit and run maneuver so I could shoot his terminator squad next turn and then get the assault bonus again. Rolled for the characteristic test and scored a 5. Dante's I is 6 which in my mind passes but it was argued that you use the I value of the majority which in this case was a 50/50 mix anyways. I know there are other things in the rules that dictate that you need to use the majority stats but when it comes to this situation specially since Dante is the one inferring the rule onto the unit I guess I assumed that it was Dante's "I" value I would use not the unit he was joined with. We did spend some time searching the rules without much luck. If anyone has suggestions or knows in the rule book where a clear cut answer to this question might be hiding it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks

This is a really great question. I would be inclined to suggest the unit use the majority initiative or the highest if there is a tie but....

I cannot find any backing in the rules to support this. In fact, Hit and Run calls for the unit to make a 'Characteristic Test' but as far as I can tell only models have rules for them....

I think that if there is "1 and 1", then you should get to take the BEST inititive. When rolling to wound a unit with multiple toughness values, you're supposed to use majority toughness, and the highest in the case of a tie - I don't see any reason why it wouldn't be the same here.

liam0404 wrote:When rolling to wound a unit with multiple toughness values, you're supposed to use majority toughness, and the highest in the case of a tie - I don't see any reason why it wouldn't be the same here.

Seconded. It's the only example we have so we might as well use it until GW manages to clarify it one way or the other.

The rules break because they don't tell you what to do, so you have to make a house rule, there is no RaW answer.

I'm pretty sure for WS if there's no "majority value", you use the highest, right?

I'd house rule that to work for Initiative.

Magnalon wrote:I'm pretty sure for WS if there's no "majority value", you use the highest, right? I'd house rule that to work for Initiative.

You'd be wrong - WS is majority rule also.


There is no RAW for the OP's question. Hit&Run requires the unit to take an initiative test (P75). Characteristic tests are taken by models, not by units (P8), so Hit&Run fails to function for multi-model units.

Majority initiative seems to be the most sensible house rule.

im pretty sure it is stated in the rule book, this is about WS, but im pretty sure it works on all charatistic checks.... if there is 50/50 mix.... the highest is used

the.deathjester wrote:im pretty sure it is stated in the rule book, this is about WS, but im pretty sure it works on all charatistic checks.... if there is 50/50 mix.... the highest is used

You are incorrect, mainly because:
a) There are no rules allowing a unit to make a Characteristic test, only models.
b) Sweeping Advance, Hit and Run etc are not Characteristic tests.
c) There is no rule saying what you are saying at all.

Scott-S6 wrote:

Magnalon wrote:I'm pretty sure for WS if there's no "majority value", you use the highest, right? I'd house rule that to work for Initiative.

You'd be wrong - WS is majority rule also.


There is no RAW for the OP's question. Hit&Run requires the unit to take an initiative test (P75). Characteristic tests are taken by models, not by units (P8), so Hit&Run fails to function for multi-model units.

Majority initiative seems to be the most sensible house rule.

I meant that if you have one model with WS5, and one model with WS6, you'd use WS6.

You said "WS is majority rule also". Well, there's no majority there, with one 5, and one 6.

My apologies - I missed the "if" in your post. (read it as "I'm pretty sure for WS there's no majority value")

liam0404 wrote:I think that if there is "1 and 1", then you should get to take the BEST inititive. When rolling to wound a unit with multiple toughness values, you're supposed to use majority toughness, and the highest in the case of a tie - I don't see any reason why it wouldn't be the same here.

You also take the highest I for sweeping advances where there's no majority as well. I'd definitely let you take the highest as its the general way it seems to work for other cases.

A few things, first regarding using the WS, this only applies when a unit is being attacked not attacking (pg 37). When attacking you still seperate (using weapons skill as an example) for resolving combat against your opponent. Second this case specifies for a characteristic test which does not fit the criteria for attacking and or being attacked. I would agree with Scott-S6 that hit and run would be taken against the unit and not the character. In this case being a 50/50 split seems reasonable to assume that you would use Dante's I value. In any case shout out to this forum for providing accurate references and solid discussion. Needless to say I've not had objective orientated responses on other forums so thank you.

Realistically, you would take the lowest base initative, but if you based it off rules, it would be highest.

EDIT: That being said, there are clearly no rules for this, but based of OTHER rules, who use highest if no common value is found, you would take the highest. Im sure a sanguinary guard would be able to keep up with dante

First of all tsk tsk! The Hit and Run rule calls for the unit to make the test, so there goes the whole blather about units not being able to take tests. Seriously, how many of you looked at the rule before you posted? Secondly, I do agree there is no specific instance where there is a "majority rule" in the BRB, but there can be a good case for consistency showing that there is a majority rule works.

Well as there is no rule for this, the only logical thing to do is to look at the other examples of split characteristics in a unit (as many have already done), to see what we do:

Toughness: Use majority, in case of a tie use the highest

WS: Attacker uses own weapon skill. When attacking a unit, compare against majority. If a tie, use the highest (unless its an IC, which is a road we best not go down for this thread)

Inititive: Use the highest for Sweeping Advance

Leadership: Use the highest in the unit

It just makes sense to use the highest based on these precedents in the absence of a solid rule.

KP - except, as was posted, the rules only tell you how models take the tests. Not what happens when units take the tests. Which is what everyone has been saying.

Hate to point this out to you but the second paragraph, under the characteristic tests, has no mention of models. It does however tell you how to take a characterisitic test.

So again, no you guys saying the game breaks are infering things.

Hate to point this out to you, but all 3 paragraphs mention models.

The very first sentence even states that models take tests. Nothing allows units to do so.

So again, no, you are wrong. Again.

Kapitalist-Pig wrote:Hate to point this out to you but the second paragraph, under the characteristic tests, has no mention of models. It does however tell you how to take a characterisitic test.

But it says nothing about what to do when that unit contains models with different stats, which is what people have been thinking about. The closest found so far is Sweeping Advance.

So, Dante passes the test and gains hit and run , but since he is attached to the sang priest he then immediately loses hit and run as the sang priest does not have this special rule . SO, say that Dante is not in the same unit and he can use hit and run , but the sang priest cant .

There you go.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Hate to point this out to you, but all 3 paragraphs mention models.

The very first sentence even states that models take tests. Nothing allows units to do so.

So again, no, you are wrong. Again.

Yes now that I look back they all do mention models. Here is the problem though, does the paragraph say that in order for the model to take the test roll a D6? Does it even state that only models can take characteristic tests?
All it says is "In order to take the test roll a D6. To succeed, you must score equal to or lower than the value of the characteristic involved."
Does that mean that nothing can take a characterisitc test?

This does present, as I have agreed with, a problem. How do you determine the characteristic of a unit? That is best left for another discussion, or you can house rule it, since there seems to be a common practice of majority rule.

No, because the VERY first sentence tells you that models can take tests. So models CAN take tests.

Nothing tells you how a) units take tests (do you roll once? once for each model?) and b) what happens when you have mixed stat units. Technically units *cannot* take tests as only models are given permission in the characteristic test rules.

So yes, the game does break, as has been pointed out. So you were wrong in your assertion that the game doesnt break. Again.

I'm looking in the (little) BGB from AoBR, and page 48 describes in relating to independent characters "When an independent charachter joins a unit, it may have different special rules from those of the unit. Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the stubborn special rule) the unit's special rules are not conferred upon the character, and the character's special rules are not conferred upon the unit."
I proceed to Universal special rules, which makes no mention of said required confirmation of conferrence.
However, it also doesn't say your BA IC loses it, so therefore, IC leaves assault, attached unit stays.

Not what you wanted, but that's about as RAW as you'll get it.

Hallowed_Da'Credo wrote:I'm looking in the (little) BGB from AoBR, and page 48 describes in relating to independent characters "When an independent charachter joins a unit, it may have different special rules from those of the unit. Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the stubborn special rule) the unit's special rules are not conferred upon the character, and the character's special rules are not conferred upon the unit."

Now look at Commander Dante in the BA codex, page 53. "Surgical Strike": He (and any squad he has joined) gains a certain rule.

Ah ok, my bad, Don't own the C:BA

Not to mention that this is not how H&R works at all. If an IC joined to a unit with H&R, the unit cannot H&R out of combat and strand the character, nor can the character with H&R leave the unit stranded in combat. They are one unit, the entire unit needs the rule in order to execute the maneuver.

Spetulhu wrote:

Hallowed_Da'Credo wrote:I'm looking in the (little) BGB from AoBR, and page 48 describes in relating to independent characters "When an independent charachter joins a unit, it may have different special rules from those of the unit. Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the stubborn special rule) the unit's special rules are not conferred upon the character, and the character's special rules are not conferred upon the unit."

Now look at Commander Dante in the BA codex, page 53. "Surgical Strike": He (and any squad he has joined) gains a certain rule.

In which case the codex takes precedence and his unit is treated the same as a lone model since the whole unit has gained the rule as one. It's confusing as all get out, and without that rule this is a very cut and dried situation. But with that rule, it would appear that the whole unit takes the test.

In the case of mixed units taking a test, the test is taken against the value in the majority. If there is no majority, the highest value is used. The expcetion is leadership tests, but that test is taken compelety differently and can be discounted.

SO, in the case described, Dante's UNIT takes the test. In his unit, there is a mixed value, and so the majority takes precedence. Since there is no majority, the highest value is used, which is Dante's. So the, as rediculous as this sounds, Dante makes the priest go faster than he is, and the ability is successful.

At least that's the way I would play it.

Freelancer48 wrote:In which case the codex takes precedence and his unit is treated the same as a lone model since the whole unit has gained the rule as one. It's confusing as all get out, and without that rule this is a very cut and dried situation. But with that rule, it would appear that the whole unit takes the test.

In the case of mixed units taking a test, the test is taken against the value in the majority. If there is no majority, the highest value is used. The expcetion is leadership tests, but that test is taken compelety differently and can be discounted.

SO, in the case described, Dante's UNIT takes the test. In his unit, there is a mixed value, and so the majority takes precedence. Since there is no majority, the highest value is used, which is Dante's. So the, as rediculous as this sounds, Dante makes the priest go faster than he is, and the ability is successful.

At least that's the way I would play it.

But, there's no rules for a unit taking a test and no precedent in this regard as to what value to use. That's why the game breaks.

Ultimately, I agree with you as to how to practically play it, but RAW there's no clear answer.

nosferatu1001 wrote:No, because the VERY first sentence tells you that models can take tests. So models CAN take tests.

Nothing tells you how a) units take tests (do you roll once? once for each model?) and b) what happens when you have mixed stat units. Technically units *cannot* take tests as only models are given permission in the characteristic test rules.

So yes, the game does break, as has been pointed out. So you were wrong in your assertion that the game doesnt break. Again.

No, again, you are wrong!!!!. The first paragraph, all it is doing is setting up a situation. It does not say this is how the model takes the test, all it says is a model might have to take a test. It does not say only models can take the test. It is fluff really. There is no rule in that paragraph, or an introduction to the next paragraph, or an example of how one might work. So saying that, that is RAW on how a model takes a test is wrong. Also, it is wrong to say that any part of that paragraph is a rule.

So again NOS you are WRONG!