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.

Ok so my brother and i were arguing over a the descent of the angels rule, particulary the idea that if you put a priest or character with a jump pack in
a unit of terminators then they also get descent of the angels. Obviously this isnt RAI but he beleives that due to the wording that it can be done whilst i strongly disagree.

So what does dakka think? had this been asked before? and which one of us is wrong?

It all boils down to the wording of the DoA rule, which states:

"A BA unit with this special rule ca re-roll failed reserve rolls if arriving by deep strike. Also due to the precision of their descent, it scatter D6" less (Normally D6" rather than 2D6").

So the unit has to have the rule, how one interprets the Unit having the rule is up to the individual.

Do the terminators have jumppacks? Do they have DoA in their unit entry rules? There is your answer.

Tyr Grimtooth wrote:Do the terminators have jumppacks? Do they have DoA in their unit entry rules? There is your answer.

Does the IC have DoA? Is he part of the unit?

Just playing devil's advocate here. Same goes the other way around what if the unit has DoA and say a termi-IC is attached?

It doesn't matter... Both the IC AND the unit must have DoA (either stated in their profile or because they have jump packs). Terminators do not have JP, nor do they have DoA, thus their unit cannot DoA since it is not explicitly stated that it is conferred to the IC/Unit when they join. Since part of the unit cannot DoA the whole unit can't since the phrasing of DoA is 'the unit' which means the unit in its entirety.

See:
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. In some cases
though, the independent character or the unit may
lose their special rules as a result of the character
joining the unit.

BRB Characters section, Special rules sub-section.

And before anyone goes off on me and says DoA isn't a special rule, I'd like you to open up a BA codex and read the header in the army list where Descent of Angels is listed in the units that have it

DoA is given to a model only when it has a jump pack. Termies cannot take jump packs, and the unit cannot use DoA as by ICs joining/leaving on page 48.

Specifically, here:

"...Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the 'stubborn' special rule), the unit's special rules are not conferred the character, and the character's special rules are not conferred upon the unit..."

Since DoA only applies to units, you cannot DoA Termies as they:

1. Do not have the DoA rule by default.
2. As by page 48, the unit does not gain DoA as only models with jump packs have the rule and Termies cannot take jump packs.

Also look at the last line of the DoA special rule: "Other units in the Blood Angels army that can Deep Strike do so using the normal rules."

WanderingFox wrote:It doesn't matter... Both the IC AND the unit must have DoA (either stated in their profile or because they have jump packs). Terminators do not have JP, nor do they have DoA, thus their unit cannot DoA since it is not explicitly stated that it is conferred to the IC/Unit when they join. Since part of the unit cannot DoA the whole unit can't since the phrasing of DoA is 'the unit' which means the unit in its entirety.

See:
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. In some cases
though, the independent character or the unit may
lose their special rules as a result of the character
joining the unit.

BRB Characters section, Special rules sub-section.

And before anyone goes off on me and says DoA isn't a special rule, I'd like you to open up a BA codex and read the header in the army list where Descent of Angels is listed in the units that have it

Great breakdown.

A prime example of this rule in action are Blood Claws and their Berzerk Charge rule and Ragnar and his Insane Bravado.

Except the "Special Rules" as referenced on Page 74 of the BRB are USR's not just any old special rule, since it does not mention special rules, and only Universal special rules.

It only mentions USRs as an example because that's all that's in the BRB. It's rather hard to give an example of codex specific special rules in a book that isn't a codex.

This is the ENTIRE section. The only time the word universal is used is at the very end in specific reference to Infiltrate, which what a shocker, is a USR. That in no way suddenly invalidates the rest of the section to functioning on special rules in general.

Special Rules
When an independent character joins a unit, it might
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. In some cases
though, the independent character or the unit may
lose their special rules as a result of the character
joining the unit. For example, if an independent
character without the 'infiltrate' special rule joins a
unit of infiltrators during deployment, the unit
cannot infiltrate (see the Universal Special Rules
section for more details).

I've highlighted the one occurrence of the word universal for you. Could you please explain how something in parenthesis that points towards an additional source of information on a specific example makes the whole section about universal special rules in specific?

Exactly, it tells you to see the Universal Special Rules
section for more details, thus it gives reference to what it was referring.

We just get out Solomon's Big Choppa and tell people trying this that, since the one model has the special rule, it gets to use it while the part of the unit without the special rule doesn't. I've always wanted to see a unit scatter away from its attached IC during deep strike.

Didn't this question do the rounds a short while ago?
I seem to remember Lemartes being involved then.

Here is one (last post seven days ago);

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/394026.page

Here is another (last post 23 days ago);

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/388604.page


While the Search function does have a (deserved) reputation for being bad, it does not mean it shouldn't be tried.
The two above thread showed up after all.



..

Try pulling this at a tournament against me and first I'll laugh, then I'll call a judge over who will rule in my favor, then I will beat you.

WanderingFox wrote:Since part of the unit cannot DoA the whole unit can't since the phrasing of DoA is 'the unit' which means the unit in its entirety.

If we assume that you are correct for a moment then what happens in this scenario:
A Chaplain in terminator armor joins a unit of Death company with Jump Packs

Does the unit have DoA? Why?
Does the unit have Rage? Why?

Bugs_N_Orks wrote:

WanderingFox wrote:Since part of the unit cannot DoA the whole unit can't since the phrasing of DoA is 'the unit' which means the unit in its entirety.

If we assume that you are correct for a moment then what happens in this scenario:
A Chaplain in terminator armor joins a unit of Death company with Jump Packs

Does the unit have DoA? Why?
Does the unit have Rage? Why?

Rage is a USR. The USR rules apply.
DoA is not a USR. Why do you want to apply the USR rules?

solkan wrote:Rage is a USR. The USR rules apply.
DoA is not a USR. Why do you want to apply the USR rules?

I'm doing nothing of the sort. I'm just asking people to think about the scenario and answer the questions I posed, providing an explaination and rules to back up your position.

The Scenario:

A Chaplain in terminator armor joins a unit of Death company with Jump Packs

Does the unit have DoA? Why?
Does the unit have Rage? Why?

It should be obvious to anyone who hasn't stubbornly dug in their heels that these 2 situations are the same rules-wise. Rage is a USR that is not lost by the unit when joined by an IC, but nowhere does it say anything about the IC gaining Rage by being with the unit. While DoA is not a USR, there is nothing in the rules or FAQs to indicate that the unit should lose the rule or that the IC should gain it. So in both cases the unit has the special rule and the IC does not.

However everyone "knows" that they still have Rage, but at the same time they don't have DoA.

Statements Like:

-Since part of the unit cannot DoA the whole unit can't since the phrasing of DoA is 'the unit' which means the unit in its entirety.

Actually have no basis in the rules. Unless someone can provide a rule or FAQ for DoA that specifically says otherwise.

The correct rules answer to the OP's question was actually in the first response. Everything else has just been opinions presented as rules.

IC Special rules... rules on page 48 of the BRB do not care whether the Special rules of the unit/IC are Universal or not. Wandering has the Text quoted and, indeed, the only time the rule discusses USRs is in the example of the Infiltrate USR(which it tells you to se the USR section to explain what Infiltrate does).

The USR rules on page 74 explains that *'d USRs are lost when an IC/Unit with the rule is joined/joins its opposite that lacks the rule.

Here we have DOA where the IC has it and the Termies do not; no one loses the rule, but the termies cannot benefit from it(as it Lacks stealth's beautiful wording).

Kommissar Kel wrote:Here we have DOA where the IC has it and the Termies do not; no one loses the rule, but the termies cannot benefit from it(as it Lacks stealth's beautiful wording).

I'm just curious if you take the same stance (from a RAW perspective mind you) of an IC with Rage joining a non-Raging unit, say a GK Inquisitor with the right Daemon weapon. If I may re-write your quote:

Here we have Rage where the IC has it and the Termies do not; no one loses (or gains) the rule, but the termies cannot "benefit" from it(as it Lacks stealth's beautiful wording).

And then back to my original scenario: A unit with both Rage and DoA being joined by an IC who has neither. How would you handle that with RAW?

(Not trying to be combative here, just wondering if maybe I'm missing something, or if everyone is confusing "how they would play it" with "what the rules say")

@ Drial006

In answer to your original question, and to which I think we can all agree, No, the terminators do not get DoA. According to the Games Workshop BA faq:

Q: If a unit with the Descent of Angels rule Deep Strikes
via a transport, teleport or means other than by jump
pack, can the Descent of Angels rule still be used? (p23)
A: No.

The Terminators are deep striking via teleport. So, no DoA even if a character did/could give it to them. Further debate over 'special rules' and who gives what to whom is superfluous to your question.


(I forget if GW faq is a legitimate source for quoting on this forum. If not, I apologize, resume rules debate )

Phiasco II wrote:(I forget if GW faq is a legitimate source for quoting on this forum. If not, I apologize, resume rules debate )

"2. The only official sources of information are the current rulebooks and the Games Workshop FAQs."

No worries, you are spot on.

Bugs_N_Orks wrote:

Kommissar Kel wrote:Here we have DOA where the IC has it and the Termies do not; no one loses the rule, but the termies cannot benefit from it(as it Lacks stealth's beautiful wording).

I'm just curious if you take the same stance (from a RAW perspective mind you) of an IC with Rage joining a non-Raging unit, say a GK Inquisitor with the right Daemon weapon. If I may re-write your quote:

Here we have Rage where the IC has it and the Termies do not; no one loses (or gains) the rule, but the termies cannot "benefit" from it(as it Lacks stealth's beautiful wording).

And then back to my original scenario: A unit with both Rage and DoA being joined by an IC who has neither. How would you handle that with RAW?

(Not trying to be combative here, just wondering if maybe I'm missing something, or if everyone is confusing "how they would play it" with "what the rules say")

The last sentence of DoA states "Other units in the Blood Angels army that can arrive by Deep Strike do so using the normal rules" This clearly states that ONLY units with DoA can use the special rule. Since the IC does not gain the DoA rule (see special rules section quoted earlier), it cannot make use of the DoA rules. Also, since the IC cannot leave the unit it is reserved with on the turn it arrives (see quoted FAQ entry below), and if it deep strikes it MUST deep strike using the normal deep strike rules then this subsequently
forces the rest of his unit to do the same regardless of DoA since it has to move as a single unit.

Q: If an Independent Character is joined to a unit that
is outflanking, when can he leave the unit? (p94)
A: If an independent character is arriving from reserve
together with a unit, whether it is outflanking or not,
he cannot leave the unit during the turn it arrives. He
can, of course, leave it as normal from the following
turn.

Similarly with Rage, since the IC does not gain Rage, nor does the Unit lose rage. The unit will still be subject to the rage rules. What this means is that the unit must move towards the nearest enemy, while the IC does not. However, if you wish to keep the IC with that unit, it will need to move with the unit (to maintain coherency), and as such is effectively bound by the rage rules. By that I mean if you wish to keep the IC in coherency with the unit it will need to obviously follow the unit, and since the unit has a restriction that the IC does not remove (as per the special rules section I quoted earlier and the lack of explicit ruling in the rage USR) that unit must still abide by Rage. This also means that that the IC is not forced to make the Rage movement since the IC has not gained rage from the unit either, so if you wished it the IC could move in a completely different direction or not move at all for that matter. However, this of course would take the IC out of coherency.

Seems pretty straight forward to me. The unit may DoA if the IC is not attached to it. If it is attached it may not DoA since units without DoA arrive as normal and the IC cannot leave the unit on the turn it arrives. Similarly, the unit must abide by Rage since the IC does not remove it from the unit. Also the IC does not need to follow the Rage rules, but it must move with the unit if it wishes to remain a part of it.

WanderingFox wrote:Seems pretty straight forward to me. The unit may DoA if the IC is not attached to it. If it is attached it may not DoA since units without DoA arrive as normal and the IC cannot leave the unit on the turn it arrives. Similarly, the unit must abide by Rage since the IC does not remove it from the unit. Also the IC does not need to follow the Rage rules, but it must move with the unit if it wishes to remain a part of it.

This seems like a blatant double standard to me.

In both cases we have a special rule that works at the unit level. DoA and Rage affect units not individual models.

In one case (DoA) you assert that if all models do not have it, then none are affected by it.
In the other (Rage) you assert that those models that have it are affected by it, and those that do not have it are not.

This is clearly inconsistent.

How so? You're so hung up on the special rules applying/not applying that you completely missed what I said

IC without DoA = cannot DoA
Unit with DoA = Can DoA

Unit + IC = cannot DoA because a unit cannot move one way (DoA) while the IC moves another (normal deepstrike). Since the unit can enter via a normal deepstrike (as per the general jump pack rules) then you have a movement that some of the unit can't follow, and a movement that the entire unit can follow. Since the IC cannot leave the unit, you must take the movement that the entire unit can follow, or you don't take the movement.

In the same line of thinking, you have a movement that you must take (rage) and an IC that can move how it wishes. Since the IC can leave the unit, it does not have to adhere to the rage rule as the IC does not have it. However, in order to stay in the unit it must stay in coherency.

If, for the purpose of this debate, ignore the fact that the IC can leave the unit. The IC would be forced to go along with all of the Rage movements in the exact same way that the unit in the previous example is forced to go along with the ICs normal deep strike.

The difference, and what you're seeing as a double standard, is that the IC CAN leave a unit with rage, but the IC CANNOT leave the unit it arrives from reserve with.

If you need more of a reason, think about this. If a unit with deep strike joins an IC without deep strike, can it deep strike? The answer is obviously no. Same thing applies here. You have part of a unit that can take a movement, and part that can't. Since the IC cannot leave (in the case of DoA due to reserve), you must take the movement they can all take. In the case of rage, the IC can leave the unit, and thus you have the option to not make the IC follow the unit.

Bugs_N_Orks wrote:

Kommissar Kel wrote:Here we have DOA where the IC has it and the Termies do not; no one loses the rule, but the termies cannot benefit from it(as it Lacks stealth's beautiful wording).

I'm just curious if you take the same stance (from a RAW perspective mind you) of an IC with Rage joining a non-Raging unit, say a GK Inquisitor with the right Daemon weapon. If I may re-write your quote:

Here we have Rage where the IC has it and the Termies do not; no one loses (or gains) the rule, but the termies cannot "benefit" from it(as it Lacks stealth's beautiful wording).

And then back to my original scenario: A unit with both Rage and DoA being joined by an IC who has neither. How would you handle that with RAW?

(Not trying to be combative here, just wondering if maybe I'm missing something, or if everyone is confusing "how they would play it" with "what the rules say")

Yes I would have exactly the same stance, excepting instead of the phrase "the termies cannot benefit from it" I would replace: "the termies would not suffer from it".

Technically by RAW; Rage does not effect a unit that is not entirely comprised of models with Rage. The rage USR discusses "units subject to rage", not units with models subject to rage: either the unit has it(as in all models have it) or it doesn't.

I don't know of any IC's offhand that have the Rage USR, but attaching said IC would not force the uit to move under the rage demands, and attaching an IC to a unit with rage would have said unit cease to follow Rages edicts.

Wandering fox: you would be correct if Random and Compulsory movement, or the IC rules had anything to be said about ICs joining units subject to the R&C movement; or if the Rage rule itself actually said anything at all about ICs(with or without the rule) in the same way that Fearless does.

What you're missing is that rage is not marked as one of the USRs that is gained/lost by ICs joining a unit.

Thus your entire argument is invalidated by the special rules section as i've stated several times at this point.

The IC would not have rage, the Unit does have rage. The unit can still make its rage move without the IC because the IC can choose to go along with it to remain in the unit, or it can choose to not move with the unit and go a different direction, whether this makes him leave the unit or not.

By that I mean that the unit at point A must move as close as possible to the enemy at point B, but the IC can move any way it wants. This includes moving perpendicular to the AB move and remaining in coherency with the unit at point C (where C is some point that is not as close to the unit as possible).


What all this boils down to is the difference between can and cannot.

If you CAN do something it means having the ability to do something. If you CANNOT do something it denies the ability to do so something. If a unit full of cans is added to a model of can't then the whole thing can't because one of them can't.

In the case of rage, there is no can't. There is a must, and a can.

To abstract this...

DoA is like this:

You and I are in a plane. We must stay together. We can either sky dive out of the plane, or we can take the plane ride back to the ground. I do not know how to sky dive but you do.

In that scenario sky diving would be DoA, while taking the plane back would be a normal deep strike. Since we must stay together in this case (IC cannot leave the unit it arrives from reserves in), we must both pick the same method of travel. Since we both can take the plane back, and I cannot sky dive. That leaves a single option.

Similarly, rage would be the same scenario, but in reverse. The rage movement would be taking the plane ride (since both the IC and the raging unit can move as close as possible to the enemy), while the option of sky diving is normal movement (being that only the IC can take it).

However, in the case of rage we have a situation where we are not required to remain together (since it's not happening the turn the IC arrives from reserve.

Back on point, if the IC could leave the unit during deep strike, i would have no problem and completely agree with you. However, it is explicitly stated that it cannot. Thus, the unit has a member that cannot make the movement you want to make. Unlike in rage where the entire unit (ic included) has the ability to make the movement, only the unit itself is forced to do so.

For your edification I just dug through 48 pages of my old posts, all the way back to a question I answered on 2/14 of this year; it was a list of every USR, which ones are model-by-model, which ones are conferred, and which ones become ineffective:

if the unit is granted a USR(via any method); then the whole unit gains said USR.

Most USRs are on a per-model basis.

The only USR I can think of that grants unit-wide bonuses from 1 model having it is stealth; all others are either model-by-model, or completely ineffective unless the whole unit has it.

Examples of model-by-model:
Relentless
feel no pain
Eternal warrior
Furious charge
Preferred enemy
Tank hunters
Skilled rider


Ineffective:
Stubborn(we do not know how to handle partial stubborn units)
Fearless(we do not know how to handle partial fearless units)
Counter-attack(the USR itself says the whole unit needs it; or at least it only deals with the assumption that the whole unit has it)
Fleet(if you have some models that are not fleet they will prevent your unit from assaulting if you run)
Hit and run(whole unit must have it to use it)
Infiltrate(whole unit must have it to use it)
move through cover(You must move at the speed of the slowest model so you never get to use the ability)
Night vision/acute senses(the rule assumes the whole unit has the ability)
Rage(the rule assumes the whole unit has the ability)
Swarms(the rule assumes the whole unit has the ability)
Vulnerable to blasts/templates(the rule assumes the whole unit has the ability)

Conferred(at least effectively):
Slow and purposeful
Stealth

The thread is Here if you want to peruse it, just don't post in it since it is soo old.

The problem there is that it 'implies' and the 40k rules never set precedent XD It has to be explicitly stated, otherwise it would function as if under the special rules subsection in the characters rules

As an aside, swarms and vuln to blasts do not assume they effect the whole unit Vulnerable to blasts only effects the models that are vulnerable to blast (that is to say any wound allocated to a model that is vulnerable will cause 2 wounds instead of 1). This is covered in the necron faq

Q. How does a Tomb Spyder with Scarab Swarms
work with the vulnerable to blasts/templates and
stealth special rules?
A. Since this is a complex unit (see page 25 of the
Warhammer 40,000 rulebook), all wounds are
allocated to specific models. Only the wounds
allocated to the Scarabs are doubled for
vulnerable to blasts/templates and gain the +1
cover save bonus for stealth

Though in the case of stealth, this has later been changed by the more recent 40k general FAQ

Q: If only some of the models in a unit have the Stealth
special rule, does the whole unit benefit from the +1
cover save? (p76)
A: Yes. In effect the ones with the Stealth special rule
ensure their colleagues also find good places to hide.

WanderingFox wrote:The problem there is that it 'implies' and the 40k rules never set precedent XD It has to be explicitly stated, otherwise it would function as if under the special rules subsection in the characters rules

Exactly, which means that no effect is required: Rage does not specify either the rest of the unit nor the IC getting it if the rest has it, therefor it is not conferred and no effect is ever given(no rage movement for anybody, because not everybody is required to make said movement).

In the same manner with DOA, or any other special ability, unless said ability specifies that everybody gets it, it only effects those that have it; if said ability references a "unit" with the ability that it has no effect on anybody in the unit unless everybody in the unit has the special rule.

See my previous post where I have proven that things like swarm and vuln to blast only apply to the models that have them.

Regardless, I disagree with you. In a friendly game I would just roll off for it, or in a tournament ask a TO. It's a gray area as there is no explicit FAQ entry and there is no hard-and-fast ruling one way or the other. Hence it's all purely opinion at this point

WanderingFox wrote:See my previous post where I have proven that things like swarm and vuln to blast only apply to the models that have them.

Regardless, I disagree with you. In a friendly game I would just roll off for it, or in a tournament ask a TO. It's a gray area as there is no explicit FAQ entry and there is no hard-and-fast ruling one way or the other. Hence it's all purely opinion at this point

Yeah. The Necron FAQ only effects Necrons, and More specifically only Tomb Spyders that have released Scarabs. A Necron Lord that attaches himself to a Scarab Swarm unit Causes the interaction conflict with the Swarms rule. In the same manner A Tyranid Prime joining a unit of rippers will cause a conflict.

All that you have proven is that a single FAQ actually answers what happens to a Monstrous creature that has the ability to add Swarms to it's unit.

You may also want to double check Vulnerable to blasts/template, or I can just type it out for you: "Some units are especially vulnerable to blast weapons and template weapons. If the unit is a vehicle, then each hit counts as two hits. If it is not a vehicle, each unsaved wound is doubled to two wounds."

See how they only ever used the word "unit" and when they were talking about non-vehicles they used the article "it", which could only be talking about "units" since they never once said "model"; That would be why I said the rule assumes the whole unit has the USR... because the rule assumes the whole unit has the USR.

You would have been correct to point out that "Swarms" does not assume the whole unit has it; but then Swarms just conveys Stealth and vulnerable to blasts, and since vulnerable to blasts assumes the whole unit has it, then a single Swarm model in a non-swarm unit will generally have the warm rule screwing everything up.