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.

 Griddlelol wrote:

Corollax wrote:


How? Cover is by model. There's no need for confusion or arguments of any sort with that interpretation.

That's how I've always resolved it. Also if the IC has ATSKNF shouldn't he regroup automatically, but just fire snap shots? He doesn't need the order.

It's more an issue for units that have gone to ground.

Corollax wrote:


It's more an issue for units that have gone to ground.

Sorry I don't follow.

This is the order of events I have in my head (please point out if I'm wrong here long day -_-) :

Unit with IC goes to ground
My turn I GBITF the unit at the sergeant's Ld allowing it to act as usual, the IC with ATSKNF regroups automatically.
The unit can fire normally, the IC can only fire snap shots.

I'd certainly agree with that interpretation. It seems that Moustaffa doesn't, however.

 Griddlelol wrote:

Corollax wrote:


It's more an issue for units that have gone to ground.

Sorry I don't follow.

This is the order of events I have in my head (please point out if I'm wrong here long day -_-) :

Unit with IC goes to ground
My turn I GBITF the unit at the sergeant's Ld allowing it to act as usual, the IC with ATSKNF regroups automatically.
The unit can fire normally, the IC can only fire snap shots.

What I meant before was that that's assuming that the IC has ATSKNF and the GBITF is used to recover from a Go to Ground action. Assume that it's an IG squad with IC without ATSKNF that's falling back, with GBITF issued on them, thus causing the IG squad to regroup, but not the IC. What if the unit wishes to move (assuming no separation between IC and unit), shoot, or run after? What if they want to charge (for whatever reason IG might charge into CC for... )? Would these actions then be denied?

Technically the IC is still "falling back", but cannot separate from the IG squad because that can only happen by voluntary action in the controlling player's Movement Phase (as previously cited earlier - BRB pg. 39).

watchamacarcess wrote:
Back to my point statistics give you a good sense of what should happen, but they by no means be relied upon.

They are the best available gauge for us to speculate chance of success.

There is nothing better.

"Oh, I always kill termies with Grenade Launchers" does in no way mean that it is a good means to said end.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MrMoustaffa wrote:

 Griddlelol wrote:

 Enigwolf wrote:
the only option is that the order cannot be given. Simple process of elimination.

How did you get to that conclusion? There is another option, that the IC doesn't benefit from the order while the squad does.

Yeah but then the IC would be on the ground while the unit around him are standing up.

I can understand how it would kind of work, but it would be a nightmare when resolving shooting attacks against that unit and could result in a lot of unneeded headaches and arguments.

Or the order doesn't affect the IC, just the unit he is attached to.

But if a unit that an IC is attached to rallies, then the attached IC rallies as well?

 TheCaptain wrote:

watchamacarcess wrote:
Back to my point statistics give you a good sense of what should happen, but they by no means be relied upon.

They are the best available gauge for us to speculate chance of success.

There is nothing better.

"Oh, I always kill termies with Grenade Launchers" does in no way mean that it is a good means to said end.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MrMoustaffa wrote:

 Griddlelol wrote:

 Enigwolf wrote:
the only option is that the order cannot be given. Simple process of elimination.

How did you get to that conclusion? There is another option, that the IC doesn't benefit from the order while the squad does.

Yeah but then the IC would be on the ground while the unit around him are standing up.

I can understand how it would kind of work, but it would be a nightmare when resolving shooting attacks against that unit and could result in a lot of unneeded headaches and arguments.

Or the order doesn't affect the IC, just the unit he is attached to.

But if a unit that an IC is attached to rallies, then the attached IC rallies as well?

The limitations of IG orders are quite clear that they won't work on an attached non-IG IC. Since the "auto-rally" is an effect of the IG order, the attached IC cannot auto-rally.

 Enigwolf wrote:

The limitations of IG orders are quite clear that they won't work on an attached non-IG IC. Since the "auto-rally" is an effect of the IG order, the attached IC cannot auto-rally.

Unless there is a ruling that IC's rally with their attached unit.

I'm not sure there is one, but that would be enough to allow it.

I'm fairly certain there is ruling that "If Unit X rallies, and Unit Y is attached to X, then Unit Y rallies with it."

Otherwise, if a unit with an attached IC goes to ground, you'd have to roll for rally twice. (barring orders)

Movement is now done per model. You can, for example, leave a HWS stationary in a moving platoon so that they can fire at BS in the subsequent shooting phase. So this is not a problem.

Shooting is, similarly, by model. So the IC snap-fires and the rest of the platoon are free to act normally.

Assaulting is not by model, and so naturally the unit would be prohibited from assaulting unless the IC had some other manner to regroup.

This rule point needs to go to YMDC. I'll throw a thread up:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/497178.page#5120624