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.

I can do that.

Apologies for the wholesale rules, at this point there's not much in the way of options.

Page 48:

"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)."

Emphasis mine.

Does the "Red Thirst" special rule say that it is conferred to the IC when the IC joins the squad with the rule?

No, it does not.

The rest of the section on Independent Characters is filled with bits that mention each of the IC's limitations while he/she is attached to a unit (such as shooting at the same target, assaulting with them, etc), but nothing explicitly says, "The Independent Character is now part of a unit, and shares their rules," or anything to that effect.

liam0404 wrote:And yet you still haven't answered his or my point about units sharing special rules. Care to voice your opinion about that?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Does the red thirst say it affects IC's? No? If they could suffer from it, it'd be in their entry.

My opinion on your point about sharing rules is that it is a straw man argument. I agree with you in the examples you gave. But I don't see how they anything like TRT.

The red thirst does not say it effects ICs. It says it effects the entire squad. The same as liturgies of blood which I think everyone agrees... does effect ICs.

Whether or not "entire squad" cover ICs is unclear. You say it doesn't, I'm inclined to agree, but that is really just personal opinion. When I try to find rules to back up that statement I see none.

The thing that confuses me is why Snikrot would confer his Ambush bonus rule on an IC Warboss.

Both are of the same type of wording - "Snikrot's unit can move in from any table edge"; and "Thirst effects the unit".

I agree that the IC does not get furious charge, but gets fearless, but the other ruling on Snikrot feels similar.

Well when you consider that there isn't a blanket "blood angels" get the red thirst rule, and the codex states whether or not each seperate unit has the rule, I think that the intent is clear.

I've always played it that as long as the squad has it, any IC with that squad has it while the IC is with the squad. If the squad dies off or the IC changes squads, he loses it unless the squad he is moving to has it. Not sure if that is how it is meant to be, but that's how I play it, and no one that I've played against has said anything yet.

To add to the hate and discontent, however, with Blood Chalice, any unit within 6" of a Sanguinary Priest gets FnP and FC. If a squad member is 5" from the priest, but the IC attached to the squad is 7" from the priest, would the IC get the bonuses?

SaintHazard wrote:
Page 48:

"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)."

Emphasis mine.

Thanks, but I've already read the rules on Page 48. No where does it say what you said it says...

SaintHazzard wrote:They say the IC COUNTS AS part of the squad for the purposes of maintaining coherency, shooting, assaulting, and falling back.

Where in that passage you dropped does it say 'counts as' or that it is limited to the things you say. That is what I want you to quote or I just have to assume you are making it up.

The rules do say point 2...

While an Independent character is part of a unit. He must obey the usual coherency rules. The combined unit moves and assaults at the speed of the slowest member

This clearly says that the IC is part or the unit and it is one unit (squad) of troops and IC combined. There is no 'counts as'

Could there be a difference between the regullar and pocket-sized BGB?

No, they are identical.

SaintHazard wrote:Page 48:

"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)."

In that case this is indeed RAW.

liam0404 wrote:Well when you consider that there isn't a blanket "blood angels" get the red thirst rule, and the codex states whether or not each seperate unit has the rule, I think that the intent is clear.

Right - but a Warboss/Ghaz doesn't have the Ambush rule (they don't even have infiltrate) - yet they can Ambush with Snikrot, apparently.

@HoverBoy
You mean it's RaW that the IC gets it? Or he doesn't get it?

WylieX wrote:To add to the hate and discontent, however, with Blood Chalice, any unit within 6" of a Sanguinary Priest gets FnP and FC. If a squad member is 5" from the priest, but the IC attached to the squad is 7" from the priest, would the IC get the bonuses?

I hope there is no hate and discontent

You make a very good point, which is like my liturgies of blood point. IC do frequently seem to count as part of a unit when a rule effects the whole unit. Saying this is any different is kind of a double standard.

FNP is not a special rule of the unit (like Red Thirst), it's a special rule conferred by specific circumstances (being within 6" of a Sanguinary Priest). It's a different scenario.

Also, I hate SmackCakes. He's the worst! I heard he eats children!

Magnalon wrote:@HoverBoy
You mean it's RaW that the IC gets it? Or he doesn't get it?

I mean't thats what is written in the book, i am actually waiting for the professional rules monkeys to resolve this.

Yea - we're talking about Thirst here, which is a Blood Angel's only army rule - not a wargear item like a chalice.

Right - but a Warboss/Ghaz doesn't have the Ambush rule (they don't even have infiltrate) - yet they can Ambush with Snikrot, apparently.

Ambush: Snikot's mastery of guerilla tactics is legendary. If the owning player chooses, Snikot and his unit many be held in Reserve. When Snikot and his unit becomes avaliable from Reserve, they may move on from any table edge.

Snikot alone got the special rule, not the unit.

Not entirely a different scenario because the chalice gives said rule to the unit. I was going off the wording of the rule, not from where the rule was acquired. Both of the rules state the the unit/squad get FC and either Fearless or FnP, so I don't see how they would differ personally (unless squad and unit mean seperate things, such as squad meaning just the original squad and unit meaning squad + IC which it very well might be...)

This thread moves so fast. I'm just going to quote myself from earlier to restate my original point. So people stop arguing with me about things I agree with them on.

SmackCakes wrote:The only grounds I can see for objection would be that TFT is not specific enough. This however would leave a question mark over liturgies of blood.

I do not see how arguing that "IC are not part of the unit" is grounds for objection. The RAW seem very clear that when ICs join units they are "part of a unit", it uses those exact words.

So to clarify...

1. You may object to ICs being effected by TRT on the grounds that TRT rules do not explicitly say ICs are effected.

2. You may not object to ICs being effected on the grounds that ICs are not part of the squad, as this is not supported by RAW.

3. You may also object to liturgies of blood and numerous other event driven powers being transferred to ICs on the same grounds as point 1. Which the shocking hole in this whole argument.

~! What about Painboyz "He conferrs FNP to his unit".

Wait, What?

Are you saying those are the objections.

Because I am saying that IC's join squads, and that rules that effect entire squads effect all models in the squad which the IC is one of them.

ChrisCP wrote:~! What about Painboyz "He conferrs FNP to his unit".

Painboys also are not ICs.

But if they were, their rules specifically state they give FNP to their unit, or, if they were ICs, to the unit to which they were attached.

Oops, didn't mean that, what I was saying is the rules for a Painboy say 'conferres to the unit, so if an IC was attached then no FNP for them. In keeping with this line of reasoning.

The only reason I can see for an IC to not succumb to the Red Thirst like the rest of the squad is if they didn't have ATSKNF as then it can't be used in the replacement effect.

ChrisCP wrote:Oops, didn't mean that, what I was saying is the rules for a Painboy say 'conferres to the unit, so if an IC was attached then no FNP for them. In keeping with this line of reasoning.

The only reason I can see for an IC to not succumb to the Red Thirst like the rest of the squad is if they didn't have ATSKNF as then it can't be used in the replacement effect.

Oddly enough that is my point exactly. There are two conditions that need to be meet. First, is the IC part of a squad that rolled a one on TRT? Second, does he have ATSKNF?

Yes, Yes, and we rolled '1' - Succumb!!!!

SmackCakes wrote:This thread moves so fast. I'm just going to quote myself from earlier to restate my original point. So people stop arguing with me about things I agree with them on.

SmackCakes wrote:The only grounds I can see for objection would be that TFT is not specific enough. This however would leave a question mark over liturgies of blood.

I do not see how arguing that "IC are not part of the unit" is grounds for objection. The RAW seem very clear that when ICs join units they are "part of a unit", it uses those exact words.

So to clarify...

1. You may object to ICs being effected by TRT on the grounds that TRT rules do not explicitly say ICs are effected.

2. You may not object to ICs being effected on the grounds that ICs are not part of the squad, as this is not supported by RAW.

3. You may also object to liturgies of blood and numerous other event driven powers being transferred to ICs on the same grounds as point 1. Which the shocking hole in this whole argument.

I think the key to this argument is the difference between the terms "unit" and "squad".

1. ICs are not affected by TRT because the rule specifically states that the "squad" benefits. The squad is the group of units in the "assault squad" or "tactical squad" etc. The IC can join them and the "unit" would then consist of a squad, and an IC.

2. ICs are NOT part of the "squad", but rather the "unit".

3. I guess RaW the ICs attached to squads with liturgies of blood do not get the bonus, unless they themselves have the liturgies of blood special rule. However, things like the blood chalice confer their abilities to "units" and not "squads"

By the logic that "squads" and "units" are the same, a 9 man squad of tac marines could split up into combat squads if an IC joined them before deployment, as he is part of their "squad". This is not the case, he is part of their "unit", and therefore does not count towards the "squad's" model count.

Rephistorch wrote:

SmackCakes wrote:This thread moves so fast. I'm just going to quote myself from earlier to restate my original point. So people stop arguing with me about things I agree with them on.

SmackCakes wrote:The only grounds I can see for objection would be that TFT is not specific enough. This however would leave a question mark over liturgies of blood.

I do not see how arguing that "IC are not part of the unit" is grounds for objection. The RAW seem very clear that when ICs join units they are "part of a unit", it uses those exact words.

So to clarify...

1. You may object to ICs being effected by TRT on the grounds that TRT rules do not explicitly say ICs are effected.

2. You may not object to ICs being effected on the grounds that ICs are not part of the squad, as this is not supported by RAW.

3. You may also object to liturgies of blood and numerous other event driven powers being transferred to ICs on the same grounds as point 1. Which the shocking hole in this whole argument.

I think the key to this argument is the difference between the terms "unit" and "squad".

1. ICs are not affected by TRT because the rule specifically states that the "squad" benefits. The squad is the group of units in the "assault squad" or "tactical squad" etc. The IC can join them and the "unit" would then consist of a squad, and an IC.

2. ICs are NOT part of the "squad", but rather the "unit".

3. I guess RaW the ICs attached to squads with liturgies of blood do not get the bonus, unless they themselves have the liturgies of blood special rule. However, things like the blood chalice confer their abilities to "units" and not "squads"

By the logic that "squads" and "units" are the same, a 9 man squad of tac marines could split up into combat squads if an IC joined them before deployment, as he is part of their "squad". This is not the case, he is part of their "unit", and therefore does not count towards the "squad's" model count.

I think I know where you are trying to come up with the terminology for your example, the only problem is that they say that squads are units. It is on page 3 of the BRB. " Warriors tend to band together to fight in squads... In Warhammer 40k, we represent this by grouping models together in units."

So to say squads and units are not the same is in direct contradiction of the RAW.

Addtionally, that is the last reference I can find without going over every page in full detail, where it refers to squads.

Kapitalist-Pig wrote:
I think I know where you are trying to come up with the terminology for your example, the only problem is that they say that squads are units. It is on page 3 of the BRB. " Warriors tend to band together to fight in squads... In Warhammer 40k, we represent this by grouping models together in units."

So to say squads and units are not the same is in direct contradiction of the RAW.

Addtionally, that is the last reference I can find without going over every page in full detail, where it refers to squads.

The reference on page does say that, but it is more of a fluff reference than a rules reference, as they are explaining how groups of models are referred to as "units". The part you left out was "... band together to fight in squads, teams, sections or similarly named groups". This merely a reference to tactics used on the battlefield and is only there to help people understand what a unit represents. The only thing this paragraph says rules wise is that "We represent this by grouping models together in units". Therefore group of models = a unit. Not a squad, not a team, but a unit. Bold added for emphasis to show that they are basing the earlier statements on fluffy wording that people would understand.

Although, this is only my interpretation of RaW. I think GW does use the terms interchangeably (in some instances), thus causing these kinds of issues.

Technically I think this argument can be looked at from another standpoint as well in the special character rules. I know this rule is argued fairly often here on the boards, but an independent character in a unit is still his own unit, he just counts as being part of the unit he is joined with for movement, shooting, and assault purposes. It is not actually part of the "squad", he has merely joined the squad. Being that it has merely joined another unit, you roll for the unit it has joined, but not the independent character.

Even ignoring the previous point, it specifically says in the independent characters section that "When an independent character joins a unit, it might have different special rules from those of the unit. Unless specified in the rule itself ... the unit's special rules are not conferred upon the character..." This was argued earlier in this thread, and I tend to agree with it. The special character does not have the special rule TRT, and TRT does not say that it is granted to ICs that have joined the unit.

This Painboy argument threw me in a loop.

Now I have no idea what to think - I don't see how they're different.

Magnalon wrote:This Painboy argument threw me in a loop.

Now I have no idea what to think - I don't see how they're different.

One is Wargear that gives a USR to everyone in the unit (including attached IC's) so long as he is alive, one is a Special Rule that only members of the unit have (of which ICs are not part of) no matter what.

Magnalon wrote:This Painboy argument threw me in a loop.

Now I have no idea what to think - I don't see how they're different.

If what we've been saying so far is true (and I believe it is), ICs attached to a squad with a Painboy would NOT get FNP.

SaintHazard wrote:

Magnalon wrote:This Painboy argument threw me in a loop.

Now I have no idea what to think - I don't see how they're different.

If what we've been saying so far is true (and I believe it is), ICs attached to a squad with a Painboy would NOT get FNP.

They do. The Wargear says everyone in the unit gets FnP. That includes ICs.

An IC attached to a unit with TRT doesn't have TRT, so cannot be affected by it directly.

The difference is TRT doesn't say "Everyone in the unit gains TRT" like the doc tools say "Everyone in the unti gets FnP".