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.

don_mondo wrote:

Twalks wrote:Except nowhere in the book does it state that a tactical squad is a retinue. If it did I would agree with you but it doesn't so I don't

Yes, it does, if you assume that an upgrade character can have a retinue. Is it a unit that the (upgrade) character cannot leave? If your answer is yes, then it fits the rulebook definition of "retinue". It doesn't have to be called a retinue. It doesn't have to be called a bodyguard. It doesn't have to be a unit that is bought separately from the character. All that is required, per the main rulebook definition of retinue (as you have now been told several times) is that it be a unit that the charactr cannot leave during the game. So if you want to claim that an "upgrade character" (ie the Hive Tyrant and it's upgrade character status due to the FAQ) with a retinue is worth two KP, then declare it for all of them. All or nothing.

Well, since a sergeant isn't an (upgrade) character it isn't then is it? I'm stating that retinue's are only for IC/Units which specifically state they may take a retinue such as a Hive Tyrant.

I understand where you are coming from, and what I said was probably the wrong thing to say, my bad for not reading what was said prior more in depth.

Umm, yes, most sgts are upgrade characters.........

page 47, main rules:
"Upgrade characters are fielded as part of units from the start of the game, representing a squad leader or unit champion, such as a Space Marine Veteran Sergeant.............."

MM nevermind.
I think I got mixed up somewhere in here while studying.
I was wrong on the upgrade character.

FoolWhip wrote:Also, whats this about leaping i hear? it's not supposed to give a 12" assault?

I started a thread on Leaping a while back.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/250164.page

If you do not want to read it a summary goes like this:
Leaping gives Fast charge 12"
Fast Charge is simply not defined, in either the codex or the main rules.

It does not change the unit into Beasts.
As such, the Tyranid unit does not charge through terrain (3)d6x2 inches ANYWAY. (Or fall back extra distance, or have restricted movement in ruins)

So the only part that (unquestionably) works is granting CC attacks for being within 3" of an engaged friendly model, instead of 2".

I have rarely encountered a player that said anything other than "It's fine, they can charge 12" anyway", but I prefer to play the less advantageous side of questionable rules, and otherwise stick to RAW.
Leaping is on my list of questions before any game, now with Tyrant+Guard KP issues - thanks for that.

And now back to your regularly scheduled programing.

Well actually, I would allow a 12" charge by RaW, as it DOES have the words "Charge" and "12"" in it, but you are right, though cover it would just assault as normal as it is infantry

Gwar! wrote:Well actually, I would allow a 12" charge by RaW, as it DOES have the words "Charge" and "12"" in it, but you are right, though cover it would just assault as normal as it is infantry

Pffft.

Hotshot Lasgun has "Lasgun" in it.
Nemisis Force Weapon has "Force Weapon" in it.

I am going to stop there.

kirsanth wrote:

Gwar! wrote:Well actually, I would allow a 12" charge by RaW, as it DOES have the words "Charge" and "12"" in it, but you are right, though cover it would just assault as normal as it is infantry

Pffft.

Hotshot Lasgun has "Lasgun" in it.
Nemisis Force Weapon has "Force Weapon" in it.

I am going to stop there.

Yeah but both those issues rely on names of items, which is not applicable here

Kirsanth wrote:If you do not want to read it a summary goes like this:
Leaping gives Fast charge 12"
Fast Charge is simply not defined, in either the codex or the main rules.

It does not change the unit into Beasts.
As such, the Tyranid unit does not charge through terrain (3)d6x2 inches ANYWAY. (Or fall back extra distance, or have restricted movement in ruins)

So the only part that (unquestionably) works is granting CC attacks for being within 3" of an engaged friendly model, instead of 2".

Taken in context, granting a "fast charge of 12"" is the same as giving the model a 12" charge. Like Gwar! pointed out, it does contain the words "charge" and "12"". See Codex:Tyranids p. 33. Tearing something out of context, finding a single word out of sync with the new edition, and declaring the whole phrase inoperative does not equal RAW.

Further, "fast charge" may not be defined, but "charge" sure is. I would argue that since the term "fast" is text with no in-game functionality, it should simply be treated as fluff. They're charging really fast. The rule then goes on to explain that in game terms, that means 12" of charge range. You don't get to throw out the whole phrase just because one word has lost its significance in a new edition, especially when that interpretation would so clearly violate the drafters' intent to give leaping models a 12" charge.

-GK

But you do concede that it has no provision for charging into cover, thus you use the normal rules for infantry (in this case 3D6 pick highest due to MTC)?

Gwar! wrote:But you do concede that it has no provision for charging into cover, thus you use the normal rules for infantry (in this case 3D6 pick highest due to MTC)?

Indeed I do. I believe I quoted that bit of Kirsanth's post unnecessarily as I had no real response to it. Leaping specifically does not make the unit beasts, and nothing that can take leaping is cavalry, and I'm aware of no other rule that causes a 12" charge to have any effect on charging through difficult terrain. Thus, unlike beasts and cavalry, they would not double the highest result among their 3D6.

-GK

Another note on Hive Tyrants:

They are definitely not independent characters, because they are never labeled as so. Also, under "upgrade characters" is the following line

"They do not have an entry of their own and are effectively just another trooper in their unit, with enhanced characteristics and perhaps a wider selection of weapons and wargear choices."

Since a HT has its own entry, they cannot be counted as 'upgrade characters' either.

*waits for gwar to smack down my interpretation again

FoolWhip wrote:Another note on Hive Tyrants:

They are definitely not independent characters, because they are never labeled as so. Also, under "upgrade characters" is the following line

"They do not have an entry of their own and are effectively just another trooper in their unit, with enhanced characteristics and perhaps a wider selection of weapons and wargear choices."

Since a HT has its own entry, they cannot be counted as 'upgrade characters' either.

*waits for gwar to smack down my interpretation again

That is actually a good point. A Little convoluted, but a point nonetheless.

Yep, the only thing that gives them any status as an "upgrade character" is a poorly written FAQ.

FoolWhip wrote:"They do not have an entry of their own and are effectively just another trooper in their unit, with enhanced characteristics and perhaps a wider selection of weapons and wargear choices."

Since a HT has its own entry, they cannot be counted as 'upgrade characters' either.

I agree with this interpretation. The language "They do not have an entry of their own" seems to create a pretty clear condition. We have to interpret the language "an entry of their own" to mean "an entry of its own... in the 'army list' section" not "an entry of its own... in the 'forces of' section" because plenty of upgrade characters have entries in the 'forces' section. If a model has an entry of its own in the army list section then it cannot be an upgrade character.

The Hive Tyrant does indeed have an entry of its own in the army list section, so therefore it cannot be an upgrade character.

Well spotted.

-GK

Q. Is the Hive Tyrant an independent character?
A. No, so it cannot join other units. The only
exception to this is, of course, its retinue of Tyrant
Guard. This unit follows the rules for retinues
(except that the Hive Tyrant counts as an upgrade
character with this unit) until the Guards are all
destroyed, at which point the Hive Tyrant reverts
to the normal rules for monstrous creatures.

That is the worst written explanation imaginable ...
A) Implies the a Tyrant can join another Tyrant's, Tyrant Guards.
B) Follows all the rules for retinues except "counts as an upgrade character" ... it already does count as an upgrade character per the retune rules.
C) Implies that the Tyrant stops being a MC till the unit is destroyed.

Only way any of this makes any sense is if you read it with a 4th edition BGB ...

Tri wrote:Only way any of this makes any sense is if you read it with a 4th edition BGB ...

Even then, it is a horrendous mangling of both the rules and the English language

I believe the most important word of that FAQ answer is the first: "No"

It indicates that the Hive Tyrant is not an independent character, so even if he *does* have a retinue, the unit still doesn't meet the condition created by the annihilation rules: "if a character has a retinue, the character and his unit are worth 1 kill point each." BGB p. 91.

This isn't a character with a retinue, this is a monstrous creature who temporarily puts on an "upgrade character" hat with a retinue. Even that upgrade character hat isn't enough to meet the "if a character has a retinue" condition because "character" here must be interpreted as referring to independent characters, not upgrade characters (seeing as it is well accepted that a sergeant and non-combat-squadded tac squad count as 1kp, not two).

-GK

GK. Exactly what I've been trying to say for three pages now.

If a character has a retinue, the character and his
unit are worth 1 kill point each.

A Monstrous Creature is not a Character as defined in the BRB (pg 51). This invalidates the rule. However, the rest of the unit must be specified as a retinue in order to declare it 2 KPs.

The Tyrant Guard form a retinue with the Hive Tyrant (the unit still deploys as a Monstrous Creature).

Therefore the unit is still described as a Monstrous Creature by RaW. It comes down to an old codex and not being able to defined things accurately. I'm not sure but do Tyranids have IC's at all?

However if you take into account the FAQ by GW it counts as an upgrade character:

No, so it cannot join other units. The only
exception to this is, of course, its retinue of Tyrant
Guard. This unit follows the rules for retinues
(except that the Hive Tyrant counts as an upgrade
character with this unit) until the Guards are all
destroyed, at which point the Hive Tyrant reverts
to the normal rules for monstrous creatures.

This means it actually does satisfy the rules for the 2 KP for the unit. It never states the character must be an independent character - just a character with a retinue. Without the FAQ you will have 1 KP for the unit. It all depends on what you consider to be appropriate for arguing the fact.

I'll play by having them be 2 KPs. 1 KP for the Hive Tyrant and 1 KP for the retinue of Tyrant Guard.

Upgrade characters are not worth a KP seperate from their unit - and still meet the requirement "character".

See above.

rogueeyes wrote:

This means it actually does satisfy the rules for the 2 KP for the unit. It never states the character must be an independent character - just a character with a retinue. Without the FAQ you will have 1 KP for the unit. It all depends on what you consider to be appropriate for arguing the fact.

I'll play by having them be 2 KPs. 1 KP for the Hive Tyrant and 1 KP for the retinue of Tyrant Guard.

So, rogue, do you also count a vet sgt (an upgrade character who is in a unit he cannot leave, ie the rulebook definition of a retinue) and the unit he is with as two KP? If not, then why do you do so for the Tyrant? It's the same situation, an upgrade character with a retinue. Maybe you should read the entire thread and see the several posts covering this particular point.

Upgrade Characters are Characters! A Character with a retinue is all that is stated for 2 KPs.

Character + Retinue = 2 KP
Hive Tyrant + Tyrant Guard Retinue = 2 KP
Sargent + tactical Squad = 1 KP

The Tactical squad is not a retinue therefore does not satisfy the requirements of a character + retinue. Independent Characters and Upgrade character status does not matter. Only Character status matters here by RaW interpretation.

Under the BRB pg. 91. Read the rule:

If a character has a retinue, the character and his unit are worth 1 kill point each.

Saying a character must be an independent character is RaI. I can interpret this as upgrade characters or as independent characters or as characters. RaW it is Characters.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@don_mondo:
I do not count the tactical squad as a retinue because it does not state that it is a retinue. The Tyrant Guard specifically states retinue in the codex.

To lazy to (re)write it myself - reading it was easy enough.

don_mondo wrote:Retinue is defined in the IC Joining and Leaving Units section, page 48. So we have a definiton, and by implication (ie it's location), we can say that it applies only to ICs.
Otherwise, if it applies to ANY character (which includes upgrade characters, per the character definiton on page 47), then we would have to say that every vet sgt etc out there was worth a separate KP. Are they not in a unit that they cannot leave during the game (ie definition of retinue)? Somehow, I don't think anyone agrees with this, so the Tyrant has to be given a pass as well.

The Retinue rules actually state that the unit does not need to be named "retinue".

Sigh.......

OK, rogueeyes, step by step (again). What is a retinue? Main rules, page 48, under ICs joining/leaving units, a retinue is a "unit that they cannot leave during the game".
Also note that in the description of the retinue it states that the retinue can be called "retinue, bodyguard, or similar". In other words, there is no requirement that it be called a retinue. It can be called a tac squad, an infantry squad, whatever. All that is required is that it fit the description as laid out in the rule, a unit that the character cannot leave.

So, since you insist that an upgrade character counts for KP (ala Hive Tyrant), what is an upgrade character? Page 47:
Upgrade characters are fielded as part of units from the start of the game, representing a squad leader or unit champion, such as a Space Marine Veteran Sergeant.

So in a Marine tac squad, IG Infantry squad, etc, you have an upgrade character (sgt) in a unit he cannot leave during the game (ie a retinue). Yet you insist that the Marine example is only worth one KP while the Nid Tyrant (an upgrade character) with Tyrant Guard (a unit he cannot leave, retinue) is worth two KP. To me there is a lack of consistency in that line of reasoning, in that both examples are basically the same thing (ie an upgrade character in a unit it cannot leave-aka retinue).

See the problem?
But I see that you do at least agree that regardless of RAW, RAI is character = IC. I can live with that.

Ok I see the problem. But there is also a flaw that all codexes that contain a retinue list the retinue separately from the character that is attached to the retinue regardless of what the retinue is called. For Tau bodyguards are listed separately from the commander. The Hive Tyrant and Tyrant Guards are listed separately.

The Space Marine Sergeant is NOT listed separately. This is where my problem comes into place with this comparison. I accept that it is a valid argument to say that upgrade characters can add a kill point to all units that include them. However, I do not accept that a Space Marine Sergeant with tactical squad is the same as a Hive Tyrant with a Tyrant Guard.

That's all I ask, that you see the problem.

rogueeyes wrote: However, I do not accept that a Space Marine Sergeant with tactical squad is the same as a Hive Tyrant with a Tyrant Guard.

By your own argument, that is what you are saying.

A retinue is a separate entry from the unit that is taking the retinue. The Hive Tyrant specifically states it may take a retinue. For the Tau (since I am more familiar with them) a firewarrior squad takes a Shas'Ui as an upgrade. This is the overall unit taking an upgrade character. This is how I view the Space Marine Tactical Squad.

Now if you view the Hive Tyrant takes a Tyrant Guard as an upgrade. This is the Character taking the upgrade - not the unit taking the character as an upgrade. You can take a hive tyrant by its self. You cannot have a Sergeant by himself or a Shas'Ui Firewarrior by its self unless you have the entire unit destroyed first.

This is what I was trying to state beforehand.

1. Hive Tyrant takes the Tyrant Guard
2. Firewarrior Squad takes the Shas'Ui
3. Tactical Squad takes the Sergeant
4. Tau Commander Takes the Bodyguard

In other terms
1. Character takes the Squad
2. Squad takes the Character
3. Squad takes the Character
4. Character takes the Squad

In Kill Point Terms
1. 2 KP
2. 1 KP
3. 1 KP
4. 2 KP

This is my point in the argument. It is a matter of logic and the stating of the words and how you take things when setting up an army. Does the unit come along with the character or does the character come along with the unit?

Except the rules for retinues do not take any notice of your orderering: it just requires that the unit is one the character cannot leave.

You also ignore the "reverts back to IC" part for HT; it does not do so and therefore is not a retinue (BRB definition) but a retinue (Tyranid Codex)

Just because they share the same name does not necessarily mean they are exactly the same, see the Stormshield fun and games between codices.

The BGB states the retinue rule under the Independent Character Rules section. No independent Character = no retinue. Codexes make exceptions to the standard rules however and override the BGB since they are more specific thus allowing a retinue for a MC. MC takes the place of IC in this case. When the retinue is killed the MC reverts back to a MC.

By reverting back to MC status I mean it is no longer an upgrade character but is once again the MC and loses the upgrade character status.