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.

That is no flaw. The rules are in the IC section because they can create one. The character leaving the unit (by virtue of it being destroyed) is then an IC. Any time a character is with a retinue having that retinue destroyed "creates" an IC -- as the character is an Upgrade Character while in a retinue.

In fact, there is nothing in the retinue section even mentioning joining a unit.

kirsanth wrote: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"

We went round and round on this before, but I'll give it another try...

Your whole argument is predicated on the Tyrant/Swarmlord being a Character, which it's not. It's a Monstrous Creature. Nowhere in it's unit entry does it say it's an

A.) Independent Character
B.) 'Special' or Upgrade Character
C.) Unique

Yes, there's a section on Legendary Tyranid creatures, but I don't recall that section designating any of those creatures as Independent Characters. Unfortunately I don't have my codex with me for that bit.

Furthermore, doesn't the Retinue/Bodyguard/Or Similar section on P.48 directly referencing Independent Characters. Meaning that section only pertains to ICs? Exceptions to that general rule would have to come from the specific codex. Last I checked the Tyrant Guard are not Typed as retinue, bodyguard, or similar. I think you are inferring that from their fluff.

The problem I have with your logic is that by saying the Tyrant/Swarmlord becomes an IC after the Tyrant Guard are destroyed means that it can join any other infantry unit, not just Tyrant Guard. This is plainly wrong. It is only the Shieldwall rule that lets it join a unit, and that unit can only be the Tyrant Guard. Unit Type is inviolate. Unless there is a specific rule that changes the Unit Type of a non-IC to an IC, you can't do it. And no, the Retinue section on P.48 does not do this.

So the Tyrant/Swarmlord can join a unit of Tyrant Guard as if it were an IC, without being constrained by any of the IC rules. This means that:

1. It cannot be directly targeted by shooting attacks.
2. It cannot be directly targeted by close combat attacks.
3. It cannot leave the Tyrant Guard unit. NOTE: Not because the Guard unit is a retinue/bodyguard/or similar, but because the Tyrant is not an IC.

I'm curious, are Vet Sergeants upgrade characters? If so, do you believe that once the unit he's in is destroyed he becomes an Independent Character able to join any other infantry unit per the IC rules on P.48?

EDIT: The Retinue section does not specify Independent Characters, just characters. My argument still holds though as neither the Tyrant or Swarmlord are strictly typed as characters. Also, the Tyrant Guard unit entry does not say to treat either the Tyrant or the Swarmlord as an upgrade character, or even a character period. Your inferring that they are because they can't leave the unit. In a sense, you've got the cart before the horse.

-Yad

kirsanth wrote:In fact, there is nothing in the retinue section even mentioning joining a unit.

Great, no joining requirement huh? Next game I play, Telion is going to declare my Land Speeder as his retinue.

The Retinue rule needs to be taken in context, it only applies to an IC because it's in the IC rule set. It doesn't work because you're taking a section of one rule(the retinue rule) and applying it to a unit that doesn't use it.

Yad wrote:Your whole argument is predicated on the Tyrant/Swarmlord being a Character, which it's not. Nowhere in it's unit entry does it say it's


C.) Unique

Read your Tyranid codex again.

Tyrant isn't unique...

Kirsanth the rules under retinue only apply to IC as they are part of the IC rules. Upgrade Characters do not become ICs after their unit has died no matter how much you may want them to.

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.

Green Blow Fly wrote: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

FlingitNow wrote:Tyrant isn't unique...

Kirsanth the rules under retinue only apply to IC as they are part of the IC rules. Upgrade Characters do not become ICs after their unit has died no matter how much you may want them to.

I mentioned only the Swarmlord, who is, in fact, Unique.
Whether I want him to become an IC is as important as whether you want him not to, which is to say not at all. The rules for retinues are what they are, and do not require a model to start as an IC -- as a matter of fact it is impossible for a IC to have a retinue, the rules change them to an upgrade character in that case.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Others did bring the HT back into the discussion, but look back at what I wrote, for I did not.

I mentioned only the Swarmlord, who is, in fact, Unique.
Whether I want him to become an IC is as important as whether you want him not to, which is to say not at all. The rules for retinues are what they are, and do not require a model to start as an IC -- as a matter of fact it is impossible for a IC to have a retinue, the rules change them to an upgrade character in that case.

So exarchs become IC after their squad has died. You can't apply this rule to the Swarmlord without applying it to every upgrade Character in the game (Sergeants, Shas'ui, Exarchs, Warlocks, Mobz etc etc etc). Just because he's Unique doesn't a) make him a Special Character he's a legendary creature b) subject to eth independant characters rules on pages 47 - 49. Please note the "retinues" section you refer to is in the larger section "Independant Characters joining & leaving units" Still contest it has nothing to do with ICs joining and leaving units?

Here's an analogy for using "AS IF".

I can escort you into the restricted area as if you had the security clearance. You don't have the security clearance but you are allowed in there as if you had it.

Therefore, Hive Tyrant can join a Tyrant Guard squad as if it had the IC rule. It doesn't have the IC rule but is allowed to join as if it had it.

That's my take on the as if rule.

To be honest, the way that I look at it is the following:

1. The Swarmlord/Hive Tyrant is never an IC, since they are never listed as such (unlike the Tyranid Prime).
2. The Swarmlord/Hive Tyrant may join the Tyrant Guard's unit, in a similar way to an IC joins one BUT it may not then leave. (No IC, no option to leave).
3. This means the Swarmlord/Hive Tyrant may not be directly targeted by shooting or close combat, in a similar way a sergeant can't.

If the Tyrant Guard die, however, he counts as a MC again and can be targeted normally.

What i'm also interested in though, is while the Swarmlord is with that unit, does he count as moving like them? (In a similar way to a jump infantry character moves like the unit he joins on foot)? If that is the case, then the Swarmlord could in theory appear out of a Trygon tunnel! Which would solve the 'delivery method' problem with him, since he doesn't even have fleet, let alone a mycetic spore option.

What i'm also interested in though, is while the Swarmlord is with that unit, does he count as moving like them? (In a similar way to a jump infantry character moves like the unit he joins on foot)? If that is the case, then the Swarmlord could in theory appear out of a Trygon tunnel! Which would solve the 'delivery method' problem with him, since he doesn't even have fleet, let alone a mycetic spore option.

Is the unit infantry? No as the Tyrant is a MC so it is mixed. So my guess is not.

Not confinced fleet makes a huge difference as a delivery method now that everyone can run anyway. Delivery method requires target saturation present your opponent is a more appealing target and the Swarmlord will be fine. Even if he could come up through the Trygon whole attempting this would cause more problems than it would solve. There's a good chance he'd either come on before the Trygon or on the same turn as the Trygon in either case he's then walking on from the back edge. Is that worth the risk for the small chance he actually arrives after the Trygon (about a 25% chance)?

I really don't see another delivery method for the Swarmlord other than getting a Flyrant. Though I'm open to suggestions.

I guess i'll have to stick with my idea of spamming a screen of gaunts or whatever infront of him then, with a Tervigon giving them feel no pain and the screen giving his unit a 4+ cover save.

Ok, on page 2 right now, but want to say this. For people who say when I join my HT with a TG that he becomes an IC, then Once he joint the TG, he will leave it and then join a brood of 30 gaunts. No were in the rules does he say he looses his IC if he leaves the TG, so by going your way, if he is an IC he stays an IC and then can join anyother squat or brood he wants.

He is not an IC, all shield wall does as stated numours times, is let the HT joint a brood of TG as if he was an IC since no other unit can join anthour unit excpet IC.

Ok now back to page 3 of this thread.

*edit* wow debate still going on. Only an errata will sovle this as many people on this board says FAQ's don't mean much. We want an Official Ruling, not a GW house rule. So it will have to be an Errata that will solve this answer once and for all.

Davor wrote:*edit* wow debate still going on. Only an errata will sovle this as many people on this board says FAQ's don't mean much. We want an Official Ruling, not a GW house rule. So it will have to be an Errata that will solve this answer once and for all.

(Almost) no one cares about the distinction.

MasterSlowPoke wrote:

Davor wrote:*edit* wow debate still going on. Only an errata will sovle this as many people on this board says FAQ's don't mean much. We want an Official Ruling, not a GW house rule. So it will have to be an Errata that will solve this answer once and for all.

(Almost) no one cares about the distinction.

Well I hope that it will be settled once and for all, but if it's a FAQ, I have the feeling some debates will be goin on no matter what.

Davor wrote:Well I hope that it will be settled once and for all, but if it's a FAQ, I have the feeling some debates will be goin on no matter what.

That is GW;s own fault for spouting nonsense about "their houserules" instead of having a pair .

A-P wrote:

Davor wrote:Well I hope that it will be settled once and for all, but if it's a FAQ, I have the feeling some debates will be goin on no matter what.

That is GW;s own fault for spouting nonsense about "their houserules" instead of having a pair .

Yes, yes it is.