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.

Except the rule ISNT ambiguous, people are just seeing the word "IC" and thinking it applies to more than the rule specificially states it does.

He JOINS the unit, and does this exactly AS IF an IC. Not an IC then!

Lack of reading comphrension for the loss..

Exactly. He uses one part of the IC section, joining a unit of Guard. That's it.

I feel he would be a separate KP, as the guard are "basically" a "retinue" as no rules allow him to leave it.

It depends - if he joins the unit of TG before the game starts (as part of IC joining is the abilty to start the game deployed) then it is only worth 1KP - there is a single unit at the start that is NOT a retinue.

A retinue is something an IC can have - the HT is not an IC.

Hence the quotation marks, he can not be targeted in HtH, just like if it were a retinue, or he was an upgrade char.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Except the rule ISNT ambiguous, people are just seeing the word "IC" and thinking it applies to more than the rule specificially states it does.

He JOINS the unit, and does this exactly AS IF an IC. Not an IC then!

Lack of reading comphrension for the loss..

IMO, I would call 3 pages of 20 different people all arguing their own interpretation of the same rule pretty damn ambiguous. At the very least, it would suggest that the rule needs tightening somewhat. The very fact that these type of threads keep popping up would suggest that rule is not as clear cut as it could be. The fact that you think that you are correct is irrelevant and so is everyone else opinion for that matter - this debate is going to keep going on and on until such time as a FAQ exists.

What makes it even worse is that in no way am I remotely a WAAC gamer and can quite happily agree to a house rule or chat about rules with friends when discrepancies occur just for the sake of keeping the game moving and enjoyable but I have to say that this is really quite a bad example and what is more frustrating is that it needn't be so. Why leave in all this guff about the HT joining a guard unit and leave it open to debate when you could easily clarify the rule by stating baldly whether it can be picked out or not? All it needs is a little forethought by the author, something that seems to be sadly lacking.

IMO, I would call 3 pages of 20 different people all arguing their own interpretation of the same rule pretty damn ambiguous. At the very least, it would suggest that the rule needs tightening somewhat.

People think it is OP so want it to work differently. The rules are very clear as to why they didn't labour the point as you suggest? Well the codex is only so big and if they have to re-print every rule from the BRB that applies to every model the codex would be near endless.

The rule is consice and clear. He joins exactly as an IC he doesn't become and IC and he doesn't do anything else as an IC just joins, plain as day right there in the text.

People think it is OP so want it to work differently. The rules are very clear as to why they didn't labour the point as you suggest? Well the codex is only so big and if they have to re-print every rule from the BRB that applies to every model the codex would be near endless.

The rule is consice and clear. He joins exactly as an IC he doesn't become and IC and he doesn't do anything else as an IC just joins, plain as day right there in the text.

I'm going to have to disagree there; I don't find the rule concise & clear. IIRC in the previous Nids codex, the shieldwall special rule stated explicitly that the tyrant guard protected the tyrant from being picked out - so I could see at first glance of that rule what it meant and whether taking tyrant guard was a good idea or not. With the new rule, I now have to cross reference it back to the BRB rules for MC and IC and then make a judgement call on whether I think that the tyrant counts as an MC, IC, separate unit or whatever when it comes to shooting, assaulting etc. As it happens, as I read the rule I agree with you that he only joins the unit as an IC but that doesn't change the fact that it is poorly worded and unclear when, if we are being honest, it didnt need to be.

I'm going to have to disagree there; I don't find the rule concise & clear. IIRC in the previous Nids codex, the shieldwall special rule stated explicitly that the tyrant guard protected the tyrant from being picked out - so I could see at first glance of that rule what it meant and whether taking tyrant guard was a good idea or not. With the new rule, I now have to cross reference it back to the BRB rules for MC and IC and then make a judgement call on whether I think that the tyrant counts as an MC, IC, separate unit or whatever when it comes to shooting, assaulting etc. As it happens, as I read the rule I agree with you that he only joins the unit as an IC but that doesn't change the fact that it is poorly worded and unclear when, if we are being honest, it didnt need to be.

No judgement call is required, he counts as part of the unit is an MC but not an IC. You don't have to reference the book at all except to find out how an IC joins a unit. For shooting etc you justy use the normal rules that you have to "look up" in the BRB anyway. You should know or hacve access to the rules in the BRB the codexes shouldn't have to repeat ad infinitum.

So are you now saying that all shooting weapons shoul dhave the entire shooting section from the BRB in their rules so you don't have to cross reference? Same for all ICs? Same for everything else?

It states one rule that you have to "look up" with regards to how and IC joins a unit. It is completely clear.

No judgement call is required, he counts as part of the unit is an MC but not an IC. You don't have to reference the book at all except to find out how an IC joins a unit. For shooting etc you justy use the normal rules that you have to "look up" in the BRB anyway. You should know or hacve access to the rules in the BRB the codexes shouldn't have to repeat ad infinitum.

So are you now saying that all shooting weapons shoul dhave the entire shooting section from the BRB in their rules so you don't have to cross reference? Same for all ICs? Same for everything else?

It states one rule that you have to "look up" with regards to how and IC joins a unit. It is completely clear.

Clearly we are not going to come to an agreement here whatever either of us say but look at it this way - if the rule was as clear and as precise as you say, why are these threads appearing? I don't believe you can just put it down to people arguing the toss over rules they feel should / shouldn't work differently otherwise we would see the same level of debate over every special rule. This goes beyond simple rules lawyering I feel. Anyway, would be nice to see what the 'official' stance is if and when a FAQ is produced.

I don't believe you can just put it down to people arguing the toss over rules they feel should / shouldn't work differently otherwise we would see the same level of debate over every special rule.

We practically have for this codex, certainly every special rule of value has been argued over even when clear. Even really obvious and pointless things like people claiming winged Tyrants don't get to DS despite the rule being very clear in this.

Some of it is badly written rules and things left unclear (Terror from the deep, Tyranid close combat weapons) some of it is people trying to find a loop whole to spanner the new army...

nosferatu1001 wrote:Except the rule ISNT ambiguous, people are just seeing the word "IC" and thinking it applies to more than the rule specificially states it does.

He JOINS the unit, and does this exactly AS IF an IC. Not an IC then!

The question is to what extent the "as if" goes.

Does he not have to stay in coherency?
Does he not have to assault if the unit does?
Can he be picked out by shooting/assault?
Can he leave the unit?
Does the unit move at the speed of the slowest model?

ALL of these are rules for ICs joining units. Do we just pick which ones since it only says "as if" or do we use all of them?

1) Does he not have to stay in coherency? He has joined the unit and is part of the unit. Is there any unit that doesnt have to stay in coherency? Just follow the general rules for coherency, there are no exceptions granted either way.

2) Does he not have to assault if the unit does? Again, he is part of the unit. no question under any interpretation.

3) Can he be picked out by shooting/ assault? If he is an IC then we have special rules for ICs in an assault. His rule says he joins the unit exactly as if he were an IC, this means that he is not actually an IC however. The assault rules dont deal in any way with him joining the unit, so he isnt treated as an IC for assault.

4) Can he leave the unit? How would he leave the unit? There are no provisions in any way for him to do so.

5) Does the unit move at the speed of the slowest model? Again, he is part of the unit, ALL units have to follow this rule.


Number 3 is the one question that has some room for discussion, the other rules are all open and shut. Because the only time we use the IC rules are for the JOINING part, we cant use them for anything else here.



Sliggoth

nosferatu1001 wrote:A retinue is something an IC can have - the HT is not an IC.

It is something any character can have. People keep reading "independent" without the word being there. In fact it is easily argued that the Swarmlord becomes an IC if the Tyrant Guard die.

Nurgleboy77 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Except the rule ISNT ambiguous, people are just seeing the word "IC" and thinking it applies to more than the rule specificially states it does.

He JOINS the unit, and does this exactly AS IF an IC. Not an IC then!

The question is to what extent the "as if" goes.

Does he not have to stay in coherency?
Does he not have to assault if the unit does?
Can he be picked out by shooting/assault?
Can he leave the unit?
Does the unit move at the speed of the slowest model?

ALL of these are rules for ICs joining units. Do we just pick which ones since it only says "as if" or do we use all of them?

Incorrect, all of your questions are about how to treat an an Independent Character/Upgrade Character (P.47-48) after it has joined a unit. The Tyrant/Swarmlord is not, and does not become, either of these.

I think questions regarding 'as if' have been sufficiently answered. Just look to the debates surrounding FC and CA. Being treated as if you were something, does not in fact make you that thing. The Tyrant's Unit Type is Monstrous Creature. Despite being treated as an IC for the purposes of joining the Tyrant Guard, it's Type never changes.

-Yad


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Naughty kirsanth.

If you accept that at no point prior to the destruction of the Tyrant Guard is the Tyrant/Swarmlord ever considered a Character, then for you to say that the Tyrant/Swarmlord becomes an Independent Character upon the Tyrant Guard's destruction you would have to invent a new game mechanic.

Only Independent Characters reclaim their Type once the special unit (i.e., retinue, bodyguard, etc) is destroyed.

-Yad

kirsanth wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:A retinue is something an IC can have - the HT is not an IC.

It is something any character can have. People keep reading "independent" without the word being there. In fact it is easily argued that the Swarmlord becomes an IC if the Tyrant Guard die.

Except that, you know, the fact that he's not. Does Telion become an IC once the rest of his scout squad are dead?

I have to agree with FlingitNow on this one, this is such an easy rule to interpret that it boggles the mind that people are getting it wrong. He joins the unit like an IC, no other IC rules apply because he's not an IC.

Think of the Hive Tyrant as an upgrade character, like Telion or Creed. All the same rules apply except you can choose whether he becomes part of the squad or not. If that doesn't help, think of the Hive Tyrant as a Wolf Guard joining a squad of Blood Claws. All the same rules apply except that you can choose when he joins the unit, and once the Hive Guard are dead I suppose the Hive Tyrant could conceivably join a different unit of Hive Guard mid-battle.

Come on guys, it's one special rule, and it seems like everyone is freaking out and thinking all these other basic rules don't apply because it looks slightly different.

unbeliever87 wrote:

Think of the Hive Tyrant as an upgrade character, like Telion or Creed. All the same rules apply except you can choose whether he becomes part of the squad or not. If that doesn't help, think of the Hive Tyrant as a Wolf Guard joining a squad of Blood Claws. All the same rules apply except that you can choose when he joins the unit, and once the Hive Guard are dead I suppose the Hive Tyrant could conceivably join a different unit of Hive Guard mid-battle.

Come on guys, it's one special rule, and it seems like everyone is freaking out and thinking all these other basic rules don't apply because it looks slightly different.

Yes, because of the Shieldwall rule the Hive Tyrant could join another unit of Hive Guard if that unit's Tyrant was dead. It couldn't however join any other unit, as it's not an IC.

-Yad

Yeah, none of the books are written for a lawyers ear,

People need to be lighter on the interpretations,

Yad wrote:Automatically Appended Next Post:
Naughty kirsanth.

If you accept that at no point prior to the destruction of the Tyrant Guard is the Tyrant/Swarmlord ever considered a Character, then for you to say that the Tyrant/Swarmlord becomes an Independent Character upon the Tyrant Guard's destruction you would have to invent a new game mechanic.

-Yad

First, I do not accept that. Look up "Unique" in the BRB. Also read page 85 in the Tyranid codex about legendary creatures.
Then actually read the retinue rules.

They already have a mechanic for making a character into an Independent Character.

First, I do not accept that. Look up "Unique" in the BRB.

How do these rules apply to the Swarmlord their is no mention of a "unique" model that is not a Character it requires you to be either an upgrade character (which he isn't but he doesn't fit that definition) or an IC which again he isn't. If you're using this argument then Deathleaper can join units as an IC as can the Doom and all other unique Tyranid models.

The Swarmlord is not and never becomes an IC he performs exactly 1 act like an IC which is joining the unit. Otherwise none o fthe IC rules apply to him. I don't see why this is causing anyone a problem are you just that desperate to be able to target him in CC or at range? Have you that little confidence in your gaming ability you have to desperately claim a ludicrous position to try to stop a special rule working?

The extent of this rule is that the HT is able to join only one unit in the entire army, rather than giving him the IC special rule and allowing him to join broods of carnifexes (or any other brood).

This comes down to RAI for the time being, so follow your precedents, the intention of a guard for a Tyrant, and god (or any other mystical being) forbid, we use a little common sense on why the unit would be put into this codex.

It honestly infuriates me that someone would enforce a rule that does not allow a guard to jump in the way of its synaptic controller. Finding the intent of rules should be the first question we ask about rules "crudely" written

The notion that a tyrant guard cannot guard a tyrant is ludacris and absolutely rediculous and goes beyond bad sportsmanship.

FlingitNow wrote:

First, I do not accept that. Look up "Unique" in the BRB.

How do these rules apply to the Swarmlord their is no mention of a "unique" model that is not a Character it requires you to be either an upgrade character (which he isn't but he doesn't fit that definition) or an IC which again he isn't. If you're using this argument then Deathleaper can join units as an IC as can the Doom and all other unique Tyranid models.

Wrong in many ways.
Unique = special character.
Special character is a character.
Characters in a unit they cannot leave is the definition of a retinue.
Retinue being killed causes the character to become an IC.

Deathleaper is a special character, not an IC.

kirsanth wrote:

Yad wrote:Automatically Appended Next Post:
Naughty kirsanth.

If you accept that at no point prior to the destruction of the Tyrant Guard is the Tyrant/Swarmlord ever considered a Character, then for you to say that the Tyrant/Swarmlord becomes an Independent Character upon the Tyrant Guard's destruction you would have to invent a new game mechanic.

-Yad

First, I do not accept that. Look up "Unique" in the BRB. Also read page 85 in the Tyranid codex about legendary creatures.
Then actually read the retinue rules.

They already have a mechanic for making a character into an Independent Character.

Incorrect. Hive Guard are also never strictly called a Retinue. The Shieldwall rule says the Hive Tyrant may join a unit as if it were an IC, nothing about it leaving the unit.

The "Unique" and "Legenday Creatures" rules have nothing to do with this either.

Edit: Let's leave the personal insults out of this, k guys?

Nothing needs to be called a retinue to be treated as one. Please read the sections I referenced.

kirsanth wrote:Nothing needs to be called a retinue to be treated as one. Please read the sections I referenced.

I did, very thoroughly. I can see where you're coming from, I really can, but it just doesn't work.

A Retinue definitely needs to be called a Retinue to be a Retinue. Just because it looks like a retinue doesn't make it one. Shieldwall bypasses the entire Retinue rule.

Ok then, from the section you read on page 48 "(which is normally called a 'retinue', 'bodyguard' or similar)".
Emphasis mine.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The actual description that needs to be met for the retinue rules to apply is immediately preceding it, "Some Codex books allow you to field characters together with a special unit that they cannot leave during the game"

Since we have established the HT cannot leave his brood then they are pretty much a true retinue for all practical purposes and such I would play he can't be singled out as such.

G

Does it make sense for a unit to have a special rule to invalidate their one and only real use? If they can't be used to protect the HT they're useless.

Using the same string of logic I could easily argue that Telion also becomes an IC when his scout squad dies.

Unique = special character.
Special character is a character.
Characters in a unit they cannot leave is the definition of a retinue.
Retinue being killed causes the character to become an IC.

Telion is "Unique". Unique = special character.
Therefore Telion is a character.
As a squad upgrade, Telion cannot leave his unit. Characters in a unit they cannot leave is the definition of a retinue.
Retinue being killed causes the character to become an IC.

Therefore Telion becomes an IC.

Your logic just doesn't hold up.

Why not?
I agree about Telion.

Because the Retinue rule is part of a larger set of rules called "Independent Characters Joining & Leaving Units", so it only applies to Independent Characters. Which neither Telion nor Hive Tyrants are, hence the flaw in your logic.

The Retinue section of the rule set (or atleast the part you're trying to argue) only applies to when the IC leaves the retinue, not when it joins.