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.

Question 1) When an independent character without certain USRs joins a unit, that unit may be forced to lose that USR.

For example, if a haemonculus (no fleet) joins a unit of wyches, the wyches lose fleet.

But when the haemonculus leaves the unit, does it regain fleet of foot?

It seems reasonable to me that they would, but I can think of no reason for it according to strict RAW. So far as I can see, the wyches have lost fleet permanently, even when the haemonculus leaves. Is this correct?


Question 2) What happens when an independent character is in a unit, the entire unit is killed except him, and then he fails his break check?

You can only leave a unit in the movement phase. So the character is still a part of the unit, even if the whole thing save himself has been wiped out, until his next movement phase. So he has to take the break check. No question there.

But what if he fails?

During the next movement phase does he count as no longer a part of the unit, since he can not be within 2 inches of it? (since it's gone)

Or does he remain a part of the unit, since an independent character may not leave a unit that is falling back, forcing him to run off the board? (I'm guessing this is the answer)


Thanks.

For the first part, Pg 48 BRB says that it loses the USR when the IC is joined to the unit. Thats a tricky statement, and could be read either way for what you're saying. But it does specify the example of infiltrators losing the rule if an IC without infiltrate joins. Obviously, the unit cannot infiltrate once the IC leaves, but Fleet? I would think they get fleet back because the IC is no longer in the unit.

Edit: second part, you're absolutely right. Since he was part of that unit when the unit as a whole failed the check, he counts as falling back until he can pass another check.

Doomthumbs wrote:For the first part, Pg 48 BRB says that it loses the USR when the IC is joined to the unit. Thats a tricky statement, and could be read either way for what you're saying. But it does specify the example of infiltrators losing the rule if an IC without infiltrate joins. Obviously, the unit cannot infiltrate once the IC leaves, but Fleet? I would think they get fleet back because the IC is no longer in the unit.

Edit: second part, you're absolutely right. Since he was part of that unit when the unit as a whole failed the check, he counts as falling back until he can pass another check.

Just throwing this quote out there for the ease of interpretation:

BRB Pg. 74 wrote:The special rules marked with an asterisk (*) are automatically lost by an independent character joining a unit that does not have the same special rule. These rules are also lost by a unit that is joined by an independent character that does not have the same special rule.

Thanks for the reply.

Yeah, I know where it is. But see my plethora of closed RAW threads about why what you want to happen doesnt always.

They are lost when that unit is joined by an IC. When the IC leaves, or dies, the unit is "not joined by an IC" and so would get its *USR back. I know theres a FAQ on this. Struggling to find it.

Doomthumbs wrote:Yeah, I know where it is. But see my plethora of closed RAW threads about why what you want to happen doesnt always.

They are lost when that unit is joined by an IC. When the IC leaves, or dies, the unit is "not joined by an IC" and so would get its *USR back. I know theres a FAQ on this. Struggling to find it.

I wasn't arguing, just quoting for others.

Grammatically you can work it either way.

I agree that it goes either way. Its one of the 1000 things that is either innately understood (and is assumed to be) or is something that you have to work out with an opponent beforehand.
Myself, I don't like to make a contract of what is what before a game, I just wanna play.

But in the vein of being read either way, Pg 51 of the BRB says MCs shoot 2 weapons every phase. EVERY phase? Thats how I read it if a questionable topic like this one comes up

Still working on that FAQ search. BTW, your orange sig text is one of my favorite sayings of all time.

Doomthumbs wrote:I agree that it goes either way. Its one of the 1000 things that is either innately understood (and is assumed to be) or is something that you have to work out with an opponent beforehand.
Myself, I don't like to make a contract of what is what before a game, I just wanna play.

But in the vein of being read either way, Pg 51 of the BRB says MCs shoot 2 weapons every phase. EVERY phase? Thats how I read it if a questionable topic like this one comes up

Still working on that FAQ search. BTW, your orange sig text is one of my favorite sayings of all time.

Where's it say that? "every phase"?
"can fire two of their weapons once per Shooting phase." Page 51

You just answered for me? Once per phase, just like psykers are once per turn. Except turn is more restrictive than phase.

You just said every phase... which would include; shooting, assault, movment....

Well then excuse me. Just during the shooting phases then.

whocares wrote:Question 1) When an independent character without certain USRs joins a unit, that unit may be forced to lose that USR.

For example, if a haemonculus (no fleet) joins a unit of wyches, the wyches lose fleet.

But when the haemonculus leaves the unit, does it regain fleet of foot?

It seems reasonable to me that they would, but I can think of no reason for it according to strict RAW. So far as I can see, the wyches have lost fleet permanently, even when the haemonculus leaves. Is this correct?

That isn't entirely correct. Yes, it *can* be interpreted that way, but that isn't the only way to interpret it. For example, if I tell your class that 'when joined by a police offier you gain the ability to enter the police department evidence area' it is understood that this ability only applies when actually joined by a police officer.

Given that it can be understood both ways, within the context of the rules presented it is clear that the IC and/or unit loses the ability only when joined to the other. As soon as they are no longer joined then the criteria for losing/gaining the ability has changed and therefore no longer applies.

Question 2) What happens when an independent character is in a unit, the entire unit is killed except him, and then he fails his break check?

You can only leave a unit in the movement phase. So the character is still a part of the unit, even if the whole thing save himself has been wiped out, until his next movement phase. So he has to take the break check. No question there.

But what if he fails?

During the next movement phase does he count as no longer a part of the unit, since he can not be within 2 inches of it? (since it's gone)

Or does he remain a part of the unit, since an independent character may not leave a unit that is falling back, forcing him to run off the board? (I'm guessing this is the answer)


Thanks.

While a character is not normally allowed to leave a unit that is falling back, if the unit has been destroyed then the character has no other option as any move he takes will have him ending up out of coherency of the unit (as they're gone).

yakface wrote:That isn't entirely correct. Yes, it *can* be interpreted that way, but that isn't the only way to interpret it. For example, if I tell your class that 'when joined by a police offier you gain the ability to enter the police department evidence area' it is understood that this ability only applies when actually joined by a police officer.

Given that it can be understood both ways, within the context of the rules presented it is clear that the IC and/or unit loses the ability only when joined to the other. As soon as they are no longer joined then the criteria for losing/gaining the ability has changed and therefore no longer applies.

This makes sense, and it is certainly the way I would prefer to play. I was just hoping there was a hard and fast argument against that train of thought for when somebody tries to argue it. Context will have to do. Thank you.

yakface wrote:While a character is not normally allowed to leave a unit that is falling back, if the unit has been destroyed then the character has no other option as any move he takes will have him ending up out of coherency of the unit (as they're gone).

This is a bit more confusing to me.

The only wording I can find about leaving a unit is that, "An independent character can leave a unit during the movement phase by moving out of coherency distance with it." (pg. 48) I think the language used there clearly implies that leaving the squad is an active choice. There is no rule that necessitates an independent character to leave a unit if he can not maintain the 2" coherency. For example, if your opponent inflicted casualties on your unit such that the character was out of coherency and you were unable to move him back into coherency during your following movement phase, he would not be forced to leave the squad. He has the option to remain joined to the squad, and simply suffer the disadvantage of your squad being out of coherency, the same as if any other model in the squad had been forced out of coherency.

So, given that, ending his move out of coherency with the rest of the squad does not automatically detach him from it. (at least, from what I can find, but it's why I asked) And he can not actively make a choice to leave it. (the only way I see out of falling back) So he must continue falling back.

Additionally, checks to regroup are taken before the unit moves. "A unit falling back can attempt to regroup by taking a Regroup test in the movement phase just before they move." (pg. 46) And independent characters leave a unit during the move, so the test to regroup has already been failed (presumably the squad is under 50% if only one model remains) before the character even starts his move.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Doomthumbs wrote:BTW, your orange sig text is one of my favorite sayings of all time.

Mine as well!

whocares wrote:

The only wording I can find about leaving a unit is that, "An independent character can leave a unit during the movement phase by moving out of coherency distance with it." (pg. 48) I think the language used there clearly implies that leaving the squad is an active choice. There is no rule that necessitates an independent character to leave a unit if he can not maintain the 2" coherency. For example, if your opponent inflicted casualties on your unit such that the character was out of coherency and you were unable to move him back into coherency during your following movement phase, he would not be forced to leave the squad. He has the option to remain joined to the squad, and simply suffer the disadvantage of your squad being out of coherency, the same as if any other model in the squad had been forced out of coherency.

So, given that, ending his move out of coherency with the rest of the squad does not automatically detach him from it. (at least, from what I can find, but it's why I asked) And he can not actively make a choice to leave it. (the only way I see out of falling back) So he must continue falling back.

Additionally, checks to regroup are taken before the unit moves. "A unit falling back can attempt to regroup by taking a Regroup test in the movement phase just before they move." (pg. 46) And independent characters leave a unit during the move, so the test to regroup has already been failed (presumably the squad is under 50% if only one model remains) before the character even starts his move.

In 5th edition, the entire basis of whether an IC joins or leaves a unit is based on whether or not he ends his move in coherency with a unit or not. That's why, for example, he's not allowed to end his move within 2" of a unit that he is not joining (because doing so would mean he's joining that unit). In essence an IC ending its move within 2" of a unit = joining that unit. Conversely, an IC ending its movement not within 2" of a unit he was previously joined to = leaving the unit.

So the restriction against an IC leaving a unit that if falling back effectively prohibits him from moving out of coherency which would mean he has left the unit.

However, when the rest of the unit has been destroyed, after an IC has finished the fall back move he cannot help but possibly be out of coherency with the unit, as the unit no longer exists. So by the RAW (as I read it) that is when the IC officially leaves the unit.


With that said, everyone I know plays it that the IC counts as having left the unit 'before' making the Fall Back move and gets to attempt a regroup (which is why we ruled that way in the INAT) even if it isn't particularly correct per the strict letter of the rules.

I disagree about the RAW.

But it doesn't particularly matter, common sense makes for a much more enjoyable game.

Thanks.

whocares wrote:I disagree about the RAW.

But it doesn't particularly matter, common sense makes for a much more enjoyable game.

Thanks.

Common sense has no place in the far future, only war. Read the back of the box, it's quite clear on that topic.

spireland wrote:

whocares wrote:I disagree about the RAW.

But it doesn't particularly matter, common sense makes for a much more enjoyable game.

Thanks.

Common sense has no place in the far future, only war. Read the back of the box, it's quite clear on that topic.

There's things besides war in the far future.

I mean, there's grim darkness, for example.

Hmm...I forgot about grim darkness. Thats a big one.

Well, wouldn't the wyches be slowing down for the Haemonculi (A unit will move at the speed of it's slowest member(s))? After he/she/it is gone they can get back to going all Radical Good Speed and stuff right?

I saw this thread and thought this question belonged here:

Tyranids, tyranid prime, attached to a warrior brood (or at least intended to, he deploys along with them)
Hive tyrant uses hive commander to have a FOC troops unit outflank:
Could it be this warrior brood, taking the prime with it? or the presence of this IC rules this brood out of selectable troop units?
Could they deepstrike using a mycetic spore or are still considered more than one unit for transport purposes?

See the nid FAQ for the mycetic spore - stupidly you cannot put a Prime with a unit. Utterly stupid.