Author |
Message |
|
|
|
Advert
|
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. |
|
|
2006/03/28 07:25:55
Subject: Independent Character Status
|
|
Bounding Assault Marine
|
This has been pulled from another thread. I have found nothing in BGB that supports a difference in IC and ICU (other than when they are join with a Special Retinue, Bodyguards and other HQ Units- BGB pg 51)
In fact it says specifically that "Independent characters are represented by individual models, which fight as units in their own right." - BGB 50
An IC is an ICU, even if it is just him.
Premise 1: Only when joining other Units, or having a special retinue, or bodyguards does an IC lose his IC status. This is primarily an argument for the Tau Codex and doesn't reflect all Codexes or IC.
Independent Character:Unless accompanied by a bodyguard, the ________ is an IC....
Premise 2: An IC is a Unit in his own right (BGBpg50)
Premise 3: Drones are not bodyguard, special retinue, or a seperate unit. They are wargear. (They are noted under the wargear section)
Conclusion: There is no difference in an IC and ICU with drones and thus must follow the targetting rules for IC. EDIT: This is my first Premise/Conclusion Argument and so please be gentle.
|
Please note - terms like 'always/never' are carried with the basic understanding that there are exceptions to the rule, and therefore are used to mean generally...
"I do not play people who blatently exploit the rules to their own benefit, in any game. It is disrespectful to the game designers and other players." |
|
|
|
2006/03/28 15:05:37
Subject: RE: Independent Character Status
|
|
[ARTICLE MOD]
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
"Drones must... If he is an independent character then the drones and character form a unit."
|
"I was not making fun of you personally - I was heaping scorn on an inexcusably silly idea - a practice I shall always follow." - Lt. Colonel Dubois, Starship Troopers
Don't settle for the pewter horde! Visit http://www.bkarmypainting.com and find out how you can have a well-painted army quickly at a reasonable price. |
|
|
|
2006/03/28 19:09:00
Subject: RE:Independent Character Status
|
|
Bounding Assault Marine
|
Posted By Centurian99 on 03/28/2006 8:05 PM "Drones must... If he is an independent character then the drones and character form a unit." A unit that can still join other units - IC unit. According to the Independent Character rule in the Tau Codex... Independent Character:Unless accompanied by a bodyguard the commander is an independent character and must follow the independent character rule as described in the Warhammer 40000 rulebook. The only reason thoses lines are there are to mention coherency as a unit. He can still join and leave other units and doesn't need to take a Man Alone test as he still follows the Independent Rules-set in the Warhammer 40000 Rulebook (PG 51)
|
Please note - terms like 'always/never' are carried with the basic understanding that there are exceptions to the rule, and therefore are used to mean generally...
"I do not play people who blatently exploit the rules to their own benefit, in any game. It is disrespectful to the game designers and other players." |
|
|
|
2006/03/29 02:57:14
Subject: RE: Independent Character Status
|
|
Master of the Hunt
|
The targeting rules actually state:
"Characters that are not part of a unit can only be chosen as targets if they are the closest target to the firer." p51 BGB
p1: "Drones must... If he is an independent character then the drones and character form a unit." - The character is in a unit. p2: "Characters that are not part of a unit..." - The characters not in a unit receive the shooting exemption.
c: The character is in a unit and therefore does not receive the shooting exemption. It does not matter what type the unit is, as long as it is a "unit" the shooting exemption does not apply.
As an aside, the Chaos Hounds work in the same manner. If a Lord buys them as wargear, he forms a unit with them and can then be targeted.
|
"It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the seed of Arabica that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains, the stains become a warning. It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion." |
|
|
|
2006/03/29 06:09:49
Subject: RE:Independent Character Status
|
|
Been Around the Block
Hattiesburg, Mississippi
|
Would this also mean, since he is now a unit and not an indepdendant character that he is then a scoring unit? He either is a IC and can't score, or is not an IC and can score.
|
"We have lost the sus-an membrane and betchers gland! Do we bemoan such losses? No! We are the Fists! We Crush our enemies! Teachings of the Rhetoricus |
|
|
|
2006/03/29 06:37:21
Subject: RE: Independent Character Status
|
|
Master of the Hunt
|
He is always an IC, even if he joins a unit of 3,000.
IC's are never scoring units. "**..regardless of his unit type." pg 85 BGB bottom of the VP table.
So the real question is, "Are the drones a scoring unit?" Probably not, check the Codex.
|
"It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the seed of Arabica that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains, the stains become a warning. It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion." |
|
|
|
2006/03/29 06:42:04
Subject: RE: Independent Character Status
|
|
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
We may be able to answer that by answering this question: Can you target a Shas'o with drones if a unit of Fire Warriors is closer? I'm still getting familiar with the new dex (picked it up last weekend), but I doubt there are any RAW to coclude this either way. I would guess for consistencies sake that the character can not be targetted and that the drones do not count as a scoring unit.
|
|
|
|
|
2006/03/29 06:59:34
Subject: RE: Independent Character Status
|
|
Master of the Hunt
|
Glaive, reread my earlier post. IC+drones = unit, therefore the unit CAN be targeted. Unless of course my argument gets ripped apart by someone. Unless the Tau Codex explicitly states that wargear drones do not count as scoring, then I believe they do, as they would fall into the general "Non-Vehicle Unit" category.
|
"It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the seed of Arabica that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains, the stains become a warning. It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion." |
|
|
|
2006/03/29 07:14:11
Subject: RE: Independent Character Status
|
|
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
Well that was pretty messed up of me! I usually pride myself in reading the threads before posting, but I completely missed your post. Sorry dude!
Where did you and Centurian99 find your Premise 1 quote? Like I said, I'm still familiarizing myself with the new Tau dex.
|
|
|
|
|
2006/03/29 07:17:18
Subject: RE: Independent Character Status
|
|
Master of the Hunt
|
Thats the clincher. I had to assume that Centurian pulled it out of the Tau Codex, I don't have it here. I hope it's accurate...
|
"It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the seed of Arabica that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains, the stains become a warning. It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion." |
|
|
|
2006/03/29 07:32:47
Subject: RE: Independent Character Status
|
|
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
Well, here's what I got:
Pg 32 Tau dex "Independant Character: Unless accompanied by a Bodyguard, the Commander is an independant character and follows the Independant Character special rules in the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook. If accompanied by drones, he may still join other units as an independant character."
To me, that meant that giving him a bodyguard or joining him to a unit during game were the only ways for him to lose his independant character status. So, the drones are only wargear, not a unit. Of course, who knows how assaults work if that's the case so I guess it's back to the drawing board for me!
|
|
|
|
|
2006/03/29 19:09:32
Subject: RE: Independent Character Status
|
|
Bounding Assault Marine
|
[q=blue loki]p1: "Drones must... If he is an independent character then the drones and character form a unit." - The character is in a unit. p2: "Characters that are not part of a unit..." - The characters not in a unit receive the shooting exemption.
c: The character is in a unit and therefore does not receive the shooting exemption. It does not matter what type the unit is, as long as it is a "unit" the shooting exemption does not apply.[/q]
P1 is incorrect. the character is not 'in' a unit he is a unit. in order for him to be 'in' a unit the unit must be a unit without him, wargear drones are not.
p2 follows suit
conclusion is incorrect due to p1 fallacy. EDIT: Can you ever target a piece of wargear. - NO (generally speaking vindicare and other single model targets excluded) Even if he is 'in' unit you cannot target the IC as you can't target an IC if they are in a unit - you still cannot target a drone (as it is a piece of wargear) The point of GW saying 'form a unit' isn't for him to lose IC status (they even say he can join squads as an IC) it is to set precedence to unit coherency. Posted By blue loki on 03/29/2006 7:57 AM As an aside, the Chaos Hounds work in the same manner. If a Lord buys them as wargear, he forms a unit with them and can then be targeted.
I have not read the rules for this at all, but are they worded the same, or does it say they can be targeted
|
Please note - terms like 'always/never' are carried with the basic understanding that there are exceptions to the rule, and therefore are used to mean generally...
"I do not play people who blatently exploit the rules to their own benefit, in any game. It is disrespectful to the game designers and other players." |
|
|
|
2006/03/29 23:11:58
Subject: RE: Independent Character Status
|
|
Slippery Scout Biker
|
Wow. That many uses of the word 'unit' and not one penis joke. I think the reason that some folks may be confused is that whether or not an IC is a 'unit' at any time is not an issue. He is. All models on the tabletop are 'units', no matter what they are. The issue is whether he has the tag "independent character" anymore, or if he is just part of the squad/bodyguard. Now, don't get me wrong - this post wasn't intended to resolve the issue...it can't be resolved here. The logical incongruity of the RAW makes that impossible. A) IC may always be picked out in HtH per the BGB diagrams. B) Insert standard bodyguard phrasing previously quoted. It's in every codex (save Chaos for some reason), even the ones published after the last edition of the BGB. This says in no uncertain terms that the HQ choice is NO LONGER an independent character. So forget any rule that refers to ICs in any way. Put them out of your head. Really, treat him like any other squad member - cuz he's no longer an IC. C) By the time we get to 'C', you know where this is going. My marine leader chucks his command squad tac marines in the way of your daemon weapon, and responds with his Power Fist. So you're screaming bloody murder, calling over the tourney judge and saying, like "he's a cheesy rules lawyer" and stuff This is exactly the sort of stuff the Word in Yer Ear article in WD315 was talking about, and it is totally GWs fault. They even addressed it in an old FAQ (not ont he web anymore). So the 9/10 of us who know the common custom and convention of treating the sergeant's "hidden power fist" one way and the guy who is NO LONGER AN IC SO JUST FORGET ABOUT THAT DIAGRAM, SERIOUSLY IM GOING TO SHOOT YOU IF YOU REFER TO ANOTHER IC RULE AGAIN WHILE HE IS IN A BODYGUARD SQUAD!....sorry, and the fact that we rule another way for higher pont characters. If you cant tell already, my friends and I can do a wicked "Who's on first?" routine with this ruling when we are in the mood. Unit, heh. [Insert Penis Joke.] EDIT: I know that this was originally a post about shoting rules. On that, I can tell you that the Chaos Hounds form a squad, the space marine familiars don't. Unless they are with an Inquisitor, in which case they are. The servitors for a techmarine are, but grots are not. Unless they are a squad themselves. Nurglings aren't if they're bought as wargear, but chaos spawn is, no matter how you get one (bought as wargear or by spell). So there you have it. Clear precedent.
|
Sons of Generus 2000 pts OdenKorps 3000 pts 2000 pts PlagueMarines
DR:70S+G++M+B++IPw40k86D+++A++/eWD024R++T(D)DM+Gwar! - Hey, don't get pissy at me because GW can't write. A lot of things in the rules don't "make sense". It doesn't matter if the do or don't. Play by the rules or don't play at all. FAQ's are not official, they are GW in house House Rules.
|
|
|
|
2006/03/30 01:09:10
Subject: RE: Independent Character Status
|
|
Land Raider Pilot on Cruise Control
Australia
|
Reading the quote Glaive posted, it seems a Commander with bodyguard in combat doesn't have to be in base to base to make his attacks, and he can't be targetted seperately from enemy attacks. In fact, he's even a scoring unit. Sounds good.
Also it seems drones no longer form a unit with a Commander, so the normal IC targetting restriction still applies.
|
109/20/22 w/d/l
Tournament: 25/5/5 |
|
|
|
2006/03/30 01:19:50
Subject: RE: Independent Character Status
|
|
Master Sergeant
|
blueloki said: He is always an IC, even if he joins a unit of 3,000.
Ah, but this is the falling down point. He is not always an IC, by any stretch of the rules. And by RAW, he can also never be an IC if the player chooses.
To quote p32 of the Tau Codex: "Independent Character: Unless accompanied by a Bodyguard, the Commander is an independent character and follows the Independent Character special rules in the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook. If accompanied by drones, he may still join other units as an independent character."
Now with the exception of the last sentence (IIRC) this text is copied-and-pasted from the old Tau Codex, which creates a problem. Namely, does the rulebook take precedence over the new Codex or vice versa? IMO, the Codex, being released more recently, takes precedence. This is arguable, however.
Two RAW problems (at least) exist with this paragraph.
Unless accompanied by a Bodyguard, the Commander is an independent character...
So if he is accompanied by a Bodyguard, the Commander is not an IC. But what happens when his Bodyguard dies? There are two trains of thought on this: one, that he reverts to being an IC; and two, that he remains a non-IC part of the unit. The rulebook backs the former up. However, the new Tau Codex text supports the latter. Nowhere in the rulebook, this Codex or any other, are there rules for non-IC characters becoming ICs. If he is not an IC in the first place (due to having a Bodyguard) he can therefore never be an IC (and yes, that makes him a scoring unit provided he meets all the other usual criteria).
This problem was resolved with the release of the 4th edition rulebook but has reared it's ugly little head again due to GW's sloppy editing. (Don't worry, the Tau Codex will be a quick and easy fix, we promise...)
If accompanied by drones, he may still join other units as an independent character.
Hmm... more careless writing. So, if you have a Commander with a Bodyguard, he's no longer an IC. However, if you give him Drones, he reverts to being an IC regardless of his Bodyguard. And what happens to them? Does he leave them? Do they join the unit with him?
|
Green Blow Fly wrote:Arseholes need to be kept in check. They do exist and play 40k.
Ironically, they do. So do cheats. |
|
|
|
2006/03/30 02:53:30
Subject: RE:Independent Character Status
|
|
Master of the Hunt
|
Posted By Harkainos on 03/30/2006 12:09 AM
P1 is incorrect. the character is not 'in' a unit he is a unit. in order for him to be 'in' a unit the unit must be a unit without him, wargear drones are not.
The point of GW saying 'form a unit' isn't for him to lose IC status (they even say he can join squads as an IC) it is to set precedence to unit coherency.
So, you are saying that when an IC forms a unit with drones, that he is not in the unit that he just formed? That logic seems to be a bit flawed. If he is not in the unit, then where is he, next to it? Does he form the unit and send it on its way without ever being a part of it? No, he is either in the unit or not in the unit. If he forms the unit, he is in it. You might be correct about GW's intent when saying 'form a unit', but there is no way to be sure. You are making an assumption, and assumptions don't hold any water in this forum. Just because the new special "IC Unit" can join other units, does not mean that it is not a unit in itself. The special unit simply has characteristics that other units do not have, specifically the ability to join other units. If the IC forms a unit, then he is in that unit. If the IC is in a unit, he can be targeted. Period.
|
"It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the seed of Arabica that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains, the stains become a warning. It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion." |
|
|
|
2006/03/30 03:30:04
Subject: RE: Independent Character Status
|
|
Fresh-Faced New User
|
Wow... this is the most badly written codex ever... sigh...
Having had to play against this massivily buggy Codex on opening day... with my Space Wolves
The way we worked it, using the Spacewolves Fenrisian wolves as a guideline, Drone Controller makes it a unit, that can join other units...
So in shooting, I could shoot at it, in assault I CAN pick off the Leader provided he wasn't with a bodyguard, in which case I had to fight the UNIT.
I guess till GW releases an FAQ (should be the fastest-post codex release one ever) House rules, and work it out with your opponent beforehand...
|
|
|
|
2006/03/30 05:24:49
Subject: RE: Independent Character Status
|
|
[MOD]
Anti-piracy Officer
Somewhere in south-central England.
|
Is the conclusion that an IC taking drones ceases to be an IC?
If so, does he gain scoring status?
My brain hurts.
|
|
|
|
|
2006/03/30 05:53:53
Subject: RE: Independent Character Status
|
|
Bounding Assault Marine
|
@blue Loki
You are forgetting that an IC is a unit in its own right. (BGB pg 50) Does that mean he is in a unit since he is a unit? No
So for an IC unit to be 'in' a unit you must have an original unit to begin with. What is trying to be pointed out here is that the ONLY way for a Tau Commander to lose his IC status is by having bodyguards (and joining other squads BGB 51)
I was really hoping not to bring up AMA but I am going to have to. Take writing standards as a whole (Sentence structure/ paragraph structure)
The line "If he is an IC...." is in a paragraph that is solely discussing drone coherency and what happens to a drone when its controller dies. There is no mention of targetting whatsoever (and with this being a HUGE argument in 3rdEd they needed to address it)
Once again this is line is strictly for unit coherency and Deep Strike purposes. I mean what happens to drones if a commander with them deepstrikes? Oh wait they are part of an IC unit and drop with him, keeping coherency. That is what 'forms a unit' means here.
You cannot take a sentence out of a paragraph and hack at it with complete disregard to the entire paragraph.
Side Thought: Since this was such a big deal in 3rdEd they would have clarified it by saying that unless accompanied by a bodyguard or by drones... A clear and simple fix.
You cannot ignore the IC ruleset simply because of an esoteric (sp?) sentence.
|
Please note - terms like 'always/never' are carried with the basic understanding that there are exceptions to the rule, and therefore are used to mean generally...
"I do not play people who blatently exploit the rules to their own benefit, in any game. It is disrespectful to the game designers and other players." |
|
|
|
2006/03/30 07:23:42
Subject: RE: Independent Character Status
|
|
Master of the Hunt
|
Hey, like I said earlier, I had to take the quote at face value from Centurian.
I'm not convinced, but I must bow out of the argument due to the quote possibly being out of context.
My final word is that, "So for an IC unit to be 'in' a unit you must have an original unit to begin with", is not stated in the rules anywhere. In other Codices, when an IC buys minions, and that Codex states that the IC forms a unit with them, the IC can then be shot at even though the IC retains the ability to join other units.
The shooting exemption does not care if the IC is still classified as an IC or not, nor does it care what type of unit it is, it only cares if the IC is "in a unit".
I'm not convinced, but if the Tau Codex is an exemption, and the "unit" only exists for drone coherency purposes, then so be it.
|
"It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the seed of Arabica that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains, the stains become a warning. It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion." |
|
|
|
2006/03/30 07:37:04
Subject: RE: Independent Character Status
|
|
Bounding Assault Marine
|
To bring things into perspective..
Tau Empire: Pg 31
Drones must maintain coherency with the unit their controller is in. If he is an independent character then the drones and character form a unit but the character and drones may still join another unit. If the character with the drone controller is killed then all his drones are removed at the end of the Shooting or Assault phase in which he died.
That is the exact paragraph which is being referenced. While the whole "in order to be 'in' a unit a previous unit must exist" arguement is flawed in its origins (I'll admit) you have to take into account that an independent character IS a unit in his own right. Reiterated from earlier, the only ways for an independent character to 'lose' his IC status is by having bodyguards/special retinue or joining another independent character unit.
In the Tau Empire codex it specifically states that he is an IC unless accompanied by a bodyguard.
You cannot target an IC, even if he is 'in' a unit. You could target the unit and hope do wound enoough to hurt the IC, but you cannot target the IC (BGB 51).
So the real question is... Are wargear drones considered a unit? - No they are wargear If it isn't possible to target an IC 'in' a unit, and not possible to target his wargear, then it isn't possible to target him (Unless he is the closest model)
NOTE: You can still cause wounds to him if he joins a unit and that unit takes enough fire.
I am not trying to kick a dead horse. You eluded to needing to see the text, so I gave it to you. Then put more thoughts up.
|
Please note - terms like 'always/never' are carried with the basic understanding that there are exceptions to the rule, and therefore are used to mean generally...
"I do not play people who blatently exploit the rules to their own benefit, in any game. It is disrespectful to the game designers and other players." |
|
|
|
2006/03/30 08:48:46
Subject: RE:Independent Character Status
|
|
Fresh-Faced New User
|
Im assuming that you are referring to the discussion that started on tauonline.org? I dont know why it was brought here as the evidence clearly shows that anyone using drones + commanders as a IC is cheating. Let me get the relevant qutoe from tauonline. This is amazing.... three pages of rules lawyering...
Go to the bottom for the simple, straight forward version -- otherwise:
Page 52 of the Rule Book has everything you need to know. Page 31 of the Tau Empire Codex has the rest. Literally.
First, we know this:
1 - All units may be fired upon if they are a valid target. 2 - All units are valid targets so long as we can (A) draw line of sight, (B) pass a priority test. 3 - Special Rules will alter that, accordingly (and in this case!).
So let's be clear that an independent character is already a valid target, and that we have rules regarding shooting him to stop it. The point is--he is targetable without the following rules:
Shooting at Characters (Page 52) - "... Characters < img]a underline[ TEXT-DECORATION:>can only be chosen targets <>
It's very clear. You may target characters, who are not part of a unit, if they are the closest target to the firer. It's the unit, which prevents them forming being targeted normally.
Drones (Page 31) - "... Drones and character < underline[ TEXT-DECORATION: img]another>."
Characters do not lose their independent character status, ever. It doesn't matter. Independent Characters may not be targeted if they're not part of a unit subject to how close they are to a firing unit. Drones, even as wargear, specifically state that they form a unit and that they may also join other units. They just hit you twice that the character is part of a unit. Characters that are not part of units can still be fired upon--unless they're close to the firer. Characters part of a unit, cannot be picked out specifically--but the unit can still be shot at!
You may always target the character, unless he's not the closest target to the firer. You may always target a legal unit, if it meets the criteria for selecting it as a target. A Commander with attached Drones are a unit. Only a commander that is not part of a unit may not be targeted based on his location.
It's quite clear.
And another relevant quote: <TABLE style="TABLE-LAYOUT: fixed" height="100%" cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=5 width="100%" > Well now, if he is always an IC with drones, why do they need to clarify that with drones he can still join other units as an IC.
BGB pg.51 "Characters that are not part of a unit can only be chosen as targets if they are the closest target..." Well guess what he is a character that is part of a unit, therefore can not benefit from the above rule. </TD></TR> <TBODY> <TR> The way you want the rules to work drones would be magically gaining IC status because they joined with a commander..... that does not make any sense. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
|
|
|
|
2006/03/30 09:05:05
Subject: RE: Independent Character Status
|
|
Master of the Hunt
|
Thanks repent, thats what I was trying to get across. The IC can always be targeted unless the special rule kicks in. The special rule kicks in when the IC is NOT in a unit. Not "joined", not "attached", only "in". It doesn't matter WHY the IC is in a unit, or what purpose that unit serves. As long as he is "in" it, the special rule does not apply.
|
"It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the seed of Arabica that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains, the stains become a warning. It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion." |
|
|
|
2006/03/30 09:45:48
Subject: RE: Independent Character Status
|
|
Bounding Assault Marine
|
First repent, this is strictly a discussion from dakkadakka forums, nothing was pulled from elsewere.
Secondly an IC can lose his IC status. If you read BGB on pg 51 it gives you 3 examples on how an IC loses that status. 1. Having Bodyguards 2. Special Retinue 3. Joining with another IC unit.
The Tau Empire Codex states that if a Commander has bodyguards he isn't an IC. Once the guards are gone he reverts to the IC rules, but while they are with him he isn't an IC.
Also you may NEVER target an IC unless he is the closest model. BGB pg 51 is quite clear on that, saying that if he joins up with a squad he is harder to pick out (not saying you can't wound him, you just can't target him) - not worded exactly, since I am now at school but not hacked up to prove a point.
An IC is a unit in his own right - BGB pg 50 Does that mean you can target him since he is in a unit (without drones/behind the front line)? Absolutely not he is an IC.
I completely understand what you and Loki are pointing out. The rules are quite clear. You cannot target(behind the front lines) an IC unless he JOINS a IC unit, HAS bodyguards, or HAS a special retinue.
Just because he is 'in' a unit doesn't allow you to bypass the IC rule. He HAS TO JOIN A UNIT. Meaning that there HAS to be a pre-existing unit. He cannot join a unit that doesn't exist without his presence.
This arguement will never get solved for very simple reasons. You are going to ignore what the entire paragraph in Codex Tau Empire says about coherency and drone removal, simply because the word unit is in it. That is what the paragraph is about, not targetting rules. You will not acknowledge the difference between being 'in a unit' and 'joining a unit' mean.
|
Please note - terms like 'always/never' are carried with the basic understanding that there are exceptions to the rule, and therefore are used to mean generally...
"I do not play people who blatently exploit the rules to their own benefit, in any game. It is disrespectful to the game designers and other players." |
|
|
|
2006/03/30 10:19:08
Subject: RE:Independent Character Status
|
|
Fresh-Faced New User
|
This is the thing though, the way I interpret the rules, there are no discrepencies nothing goes against the rules as written. The way you are interpretting it, the drones are GAINING IC status.... or else how am I not able to shoot at the drones? Your logic amounts to drones gain IC status because the commander that bought them had it. In addition, what then would be the point of having the extra kine saying when the IC takes drones he can still join a unit? After all this extra addition would NOT be needed if this unit was somehow gaining IC on everyone.
|
|
|
|
2006/03/30 11:25:08
Subject: RE:Independent Character Status
|
|
Bounding Assault Marine
|
We are not talking about a squad of drones, nor a command squad. We are talking about wargear - they are hardly models. The only reason why they are there is because the commander is there. The issue of them 'gaining' an IC status is simply because the type of infantry they are. They are the same as their controller. You can look at it that way, but it is rather half full, considering - once again - they are just wargear, you cannot buy them in squads and they do not act in their own right. The reason they mention that an IC with drones can still join a unit is because of the discussion of unit coherency in the previous sentence. If an IC never lost their IC status they certainly wouldn't need that sentence there. So which is it. He is a targettable unit, but still an IC - making the sentence simple retoric or He is IC unit, non targettable (behind front lines) - making the sentence simple retoric
|
Please note - terms like 'always/never' are carried with the basic understanding that there are exceptions to the rule, and therefore are used to mean generally...
"I do not play people who blatently exploit the rules to their own benefit, in any game. It is disrespectful to the game designers and other players." |
|
|
|
2006/03/30 12:02:12
Subject: RE:Independent Character Status
|
|
Fresh-Faced New User
|
Wrong, the drones are not "just wargear" they are models, with statlines, etc. And form a UNIT. This unit does not have any ability that makes me unable to shoot them. What exactly do they inherit from the purchaser of the wargear that makes it so I cannot target this unit? Again you failed to address the issue. Why is it I cant shoot the unit of drones + commander? IC status only applies to shooting if he is a single lone model..... The rules simply do not support what you are saying.
|
|
|
|
2006/03/30 12:40:31
Subject: RE:Independent Character Status
|
|
Bounding Assault Marine
|
Posted By r3p3nt on 03/30/2006 5:02 PMWrong, the drones are not "just wargear" they are models, with statlines, etc. And form a UNIT. This unit does not have any ability that makes me unable to shoot them. What exactly do they inherit from the purchaser of the wargear that makes it so I cannot target this unit? Again you failed to address the issue. Why is it I cant shoot the unit of drones + commander? IC status only applies to shooting if he is a single lone model..... The rules simply do not support what you are saying.
I have failed nothing. Your only argument is that an IC with drones form a unit, by pulling from a paragraph that that isn't discussing targetting, they are discussing unit coherency. The only way to target a unit is if it is a unit by itself. (This is supported by the simple fact that you still cannot target an IC even if he is in a unit BGB 51) Wargear drones are not units, they CANNOT exist without a controller (save Gun Drones) I have also pointed out that all drones inherit a model class of their controller. If their controller is an IC jump pack model, they are an IC jump pack model. The line of them forming a unit is simply - for a third time - unit coherency (Simply base on the topic of the paragraph they are in).
|
Please note - terms like 'always/never' are carried with the basic understanding that there are exceptions to the rule, and therefore are used to mean generally...
"I do not play people who blatently exploit the rules to their own benefit, in any game. It is disrespectful to the game designers and other players." |
|
|
|
2006/03/30 15:25:33
Subject: RE: Independent Character Status
|
|
Fresh-Faced New User
|
I have also pointed out that all drones inherit a model class of their controller. If their controller is an IC jump pack model, they are an IC jump pack model. The line of them forming a unit is simply - for a third time - unit coherency (Simply base on the topic of the paragraph they are in).
Interesting considering no where in the rules does it say that the drones actually do this.... making up rules does not make them so. Show me the line that says that drones inherit a model class of their controller. The fact that the drones cannot excist without their controller does not make them a "non-unit" what logic is this? You yourself said above: If he is an independent character then the drones and character form a unit
But wait, didnt you just say that they aren't a unit? The drones with the commander are a UNIT -any way you look at it- and this unit can be shot out as the unit does not have any special rules pointing to otherwise. The commander is an IC but the drones aren't and even if they were they would be nothing more then a unit of mixed ICS which then dont get the IC targetting bonus ayway. Please see the targetting rules: "Characters that are not part of a unit can only be chosen as targets if they are the closest target to the firer." p51 BGB
|
|
|
|
2006/03/30 16:16:07
Subject: RE:Independent Character Status
|
|
Bounding Assault Marine
|
Interesting considering no where in the rules does it say that the drones actually do this.... making up rules does not make them so. Show me the line that says that drones inherit a model class of their controller. The fact that the drones cannot excist without their controller does not make them a "non-unit" what logic is this? You yourself said above: If he is an independent character then the drones and character form a unit
But wait, didnt you just say that they aren't a unit? The drones with the commander are a UNIT -any way you look at it- and this unit can be shot out as the unit does not have any special rules pointing to otherwise. The commander is an IC but the drones aren't and even if they were they would be nothing more then a unit of mixed ICS which then dont get the IC targetting bonus ayway. Please see the targetting rules: "Characters that are not part of a unit can only be chosen as targets if they are the closest target to the firer." p51 BGB
O will not make this personal, as I am an adult. Nice calling me a liar when clearly in the drones profile it says Unit Type: As owner I never said they didn't form a unit. The rulebook says they do. Independent Characters are units in their own right (BGB pg 50) Man read all the posts before you make accusations and again on pg 51(BGB) Characters who've joined a unit are considered part of that unit and so may not normally be picked out as targets. There are only 3 ways an IC loses his IC status (Retinue bodyguard, or joining another IC unit) He is still an IC an CANNOT be targetted. and since wargear drones are wargear and not a unit, you CANNOT target them. Once again in the Tau Empire Codex it briefly mentions the word unit, in a paragraph discussing coherency and drone removal. You are trying to butcher this into saying that he isn't an IC unit and make him targettable. That is cheating Unless you have anything other than this to Prove my premise/conclusion wrong (without personal insult or 'i disagree'), the argument is over.
|
Please note - terms like 'always/never' are carried with the basic understanding that there are exceptions to the rule, and therefore are used to mean generally...
"I do not play people who blatently exploit the rules to their own benefit, in any game. It is disrespectful to the game designers and other players." |
|
|
|
|