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.

Question 1: If an Independent Character joins the Wulfen squad, can they still benefit from Bounding Lope and reroll their charge distances/run and charge?

Question 2: If my Wulfen have TH/SS, and die at the Initiative 1 step, do they just attack once, or do they get to attack twice?

Thanks for your answers!

Q1: The way the rule it written "this unit" it makes me believe it would transfer to ICs who join the unit but I don't think its RAI.

Q2: Attack twice basically. All the attacks are made and resolved simultaneously at each initiative step. If they die at the same int step as when they attack all the attacks are resolved. Death Frenzy says at the end of the int step if that Wulfen was slain it gets to pile in and attack again before being removed.

The SW FAQ.states the unit may still use the rule, but the IC doesn't benefit. The only result that this can give is that the unit may still charge, but the IC cannot make a charge move.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
The SW FAQ.states the unit may still use the rule, but the IC doesn't benefit. The only result that this can give is that the unit may still charge, but the IC cannot make a charge move.

Which is cool, because it means a SM squad that fires Pistols and an IC with a combi-Plasma Rifle can still charge, just that the IC can't make a charge move.

Does the IC have any exemption to the rule stating that a unit that fired rapid fire weapons may not charge? Does the SM Squad have arule stating it may fire rapid fire weapons and still charge, same as the wulfen have a rule stating their unit may run and charge?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Does the IC have any exemption to the rule stating that a unit that fired rapid fire weapons may not charge? Does the SM Squad have arule stating it may fire rapid fire weapons and still charge, same as the wulfen have a rule stating their unit may run and charge?

The only model not allowed to charge is the IC, the same model which is forbidden from charging with Bounding Lope according to the FAQ ruling. So they have the same exceptions as Wulfen after the FAQ.

"Does the SM Squad have arule stating it may fire rapid fire weapons and still charge, same as the wulfen have a rule stating their unit may run and charge?"

Please answer the question.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
"Does the SM Squad have arule stating it may fire rapid fire weapons and still charge, same as the wulfen have a rule stating their unit may run and charge?"

Please answer the question.

No. The Unit didn't fire rapid fire weapons, it fired bolt pistols. The IC fired a rapid fire weapon. Or is he part of the unit? If so, then:

Does the IC in the Wulfen unit have permission to charge after it ran?

THe IC does not make a charge move, as per the FAQ. The uit still benefits from their rule allowing them to run and charge.

The unit DID fire a rapid fire weapon. As per the rules. So the unit may not charge. And, as the unit does NOT have a rule allowing it to charge having fired a rapid fire weapon, the unit may not make a charge move.

Youre comparing apples to guava here.

Run is a unit level action.Firing a rapid fire weapon is a unit level action.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
THe IC does not make a charge move, as per the FAQ. The uit still benefits from their rule allowing them to run and charge.

The unit DID fire a rapid fire weapon. As per the rules. So the unit may not charge. And, as the unit does NOT have a rule allowing it to charge having fired a rapid fire weapon, the unit may not make a charge move.

Youre comparing apples to guava here.

Run is a unit level action.Firing a rapid fire weapon is a unit level action.

They are both unit level actions. An IC in each unit did something which forbids the unit from charging, while the rest of the unit (other than the IC) has permission to charge per the rules. The situations are identical, so either both work or both don't.

The situations are not identical, as has been pointed out and youc annot refute.

As pointed out. Wulfen have a rule specifically allowing the unit to RUN and then charge

The Unit in your example does NOT have a rule allowing the unit (the IC is a member of the unit for all ruels purposes) to fire a rapid fire weapon and still charge.

The situations are not identical. Your argument is refuted.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
The situations are not identical, as has been pointed out and youc annot refute.

As pointed out. Wulfen have a rule specifically allowing the unit to RUN and then charge

The Unit in your example does NOT have a rule allowing the unit (the IC is a member of the unit for all ruels purposes) to fire a rapid fire weapon and still charge.

The situations are not identical. Your argument is refuted.

The rule that the Wulfen has that says they can Run and Charge explicitly does not apply to ICs, forbidding the IC from benefiting.

If the Unit runs, it may not charge <- basic rules. Wulfen override that rule, except attached ICs.
If the Unit fires rapid fire weapons, it may not charge <- basic rules. Firing pistols is not firing rapid fire weapons, except the IC.

Identical situation.

Your "refutation" ignores the FAQ answer that says ICs may not benefit from the rule. Being engaged in combat in the assault phase after running in the shooting phase is a benefit of the rule, whether a charge move was made by the specific model or not.

The rule does NOT explicitly state that. The FAQ clarifies that the IC does not benefit. You may want to rephrase, as the Bounding Leap rule makes no mention whatsoever of ICs, so it cannot "explicitly" do so.

The IC may not make a charge move, but the unit can.

"If the Unit runs, it may not charge <- basic rules. Wulfen override that rule, except attached ICs.
If the Unit fires rapid fire weapons, it may not charge <- basic rules. Firing pistols is not firing rapid fire weapons, except the IC."

Seriously - two different situations, youre claiming are identical? You realise in your first premise you point out the RULE allowing the Wulfen to OVERIDE the basic rule, yet in the second somehow a rule is not needed? Just that part of the unit didnt fire a rapid fire weapon - whic is irrelevant, as the RULES state the UNIT may not charge?

The UNIT does not have an allowance to ignore that the UNIT fired raid fire weapons.

THe Wulfen DO have such an allowance.


Different. Argument refuted.

Your final attempt at an argument results in the FAQ answer having no meaning. OCcams razor suggests that as your contention is the least likely one it is less likely to be the correct answer

It isnt a "refutation", it is actually refuting your argument, citing ruels and where your argument breaks down. Your claim that they are "identical situation(s)" HAS been refuted. Over and over.

Looking at the BRB wording
Running by the rules makes the unit unable to charge.

Bounding Leap gives an override to the unit allowing them to charge. It doesn't say models with this rule but just flat out says "This unit can Run and Charge......" How exactly GW came to the conclusion that an IC in the unit that ran can't move during a charge but the wulfen can still charge is a mystery to me as nowhere in the wording for running or bounding leap does it make a per model distinction.

Rapid Fire says the model cannot charge when it fires a rapid fire gun. Now if a IC attacked to a unit of wulfen can run and "not charge" but not prevent the Wulfen from charging then what exactly prevents a tactical marine with a plasma gun from firing his rapid fire gun while his squad mates fire their bolt pistols and charge in (conga lining to keep the plasma gunner in unit cohesion).

I don't agree with any of this but it seems that this is the direction GW is shifting the rules towards by letting models unable to charge not prevent others in the unit who aren't disqualified from making a charge action be able to do so.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
The rule does NOT explicitly state that. The FAQ clarifies that the IC does not benefit. You may want to rephrase, as the Bounding Leap rule makes no mention whatsoever of ICs, so it cannot "explicitly" do so.

The IC may not make a charge move, but the unit can.

"If the Unit runs, it may not charge <- basic rules. Wulfen override that rule, except attached ICs.
If the Unit fires rapid fire weapons, it may not charge <- basic rules. Firing pistols is not firing rapid fire weapons, except the IC."

Seriously - two different situations, youre claiming are identical? You realise in your first premise you point out the RULE allowing the Wulfen to OVERIDE the basic rule, yet in the second somehow a rule is not needed? Just that part of the unit didnt fire a rapid fire weapon - whic is irrelevant, as the RULES state the UNIT may not charge?

The UNIT does not have an allowance to ignore that the UNIT fired raid fire weapons.

THe Wulfen DO have such an allowance.


Different. Argument refuted.

Your final attempt at an argument results in the FAQ answer having no meaning. OCcams razor suggests that as your contention is the least likely one it is less likely to be the correct answer

It isnt a "refutation", it is actually refuting your argument, citing ruels and where your argument breaks down. Your claim that they are "identical situation(s)" HAS been refuted. Over and over.

Now you understand my point. The FAQ answer does nothing, basically. So we are left with two alternatives:

Either the FAQ answer refers to the other benefit of Bounding Lope, which is the re-roll of run and charge distances, or we end up with a meaningless, bizarre FAQ answer.

And even if you have refuted that argument (though my playgroup here will take some convincing), examine another scenario:

The Skitarii Killclade can also run and charge (as long as it isn't the first turn of the game). Could they do so with an attached IC as well, so long as the IC doesn't make a charge move? That, truly, is an identical situation.

No, MY point is that the FAQ answer is strictly delimiting "benefit" to mean a direct benefit. Same as the old power from pain didnt count a unit running off the table as being destroyed for the purpose of generating a toekn, and the same for blood tithe now. The FAQ answer refers to the whole rule, because it calls it out by name. Thus the unit may still charge.

Based on the FAQ answer, YES THEY COULD.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
No, MY point is that the FAQ answer is strictly delimiting "benefit" to mean a direct benefit. Same as the old power from pain didnt count a unit running off the table as being destroyed for the purpose of generating a toekn, and the same for blood tithe now. The FAQ answer refers to the whole rule, because it calls it out by name. Thus the unit may still charge.

Based on the FAQ answer, YES THEY COULD.

Interesting.

Next question from my playgroup (we're in a FB chat about this because I want them to stop charging my tanks when they're not allowed! E.G. firing a lascannon on one dude and pistols/krak grenades on the rest as long as the one guy "doesn't make a charge move"):

Does this mean that an IC being able to swing in combat the assault phase after running isn't some kind of benefit?

I didnt say that

It said it isnt as direct a benefit as making the charge move.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
I didnt say that

It said it isnt as direct a benefit as making the charge move.

So then the IC does benefit from it, if indirectly?

If the IC is killed, has he benefited or lost out?

Again, GW only seem to consider direct benefits, examples already given when e.g. PfP tokens werent granted because your shooting caused a unit to run off the board.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
If the IC is killed, has he benefited or lost out?

Again, GW only seem to consider direct benefits, examples already given when e.g. PfP tokens werent granted because your shooting caused a unit to run off the board.

Okay, I will tell them. I suspect their response will be "quote and page number" though. D:

It was a serious question - HAS the IC benefited? Or can it lose out? Its ambiguous - you cannot say for definite. Whereas if it does not make a charge move, potentially hampering the number of uwulfen that make it to combat and get to swing thats more definite a benefit.

If they are trying to fire a lascannon Tac marine and then charge because the rest only fire bolt pistols, that i a gross misreading of the FAQ, as the two situaitons are not REMOTELY similar.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
It was a serious question - HAS the IC benefited? Or can it lose out? Its ambiguous - you cannot say for definite. Whereas if it does not make a charge move, potentially hampering the number of uwulfen that make it to combat and get to swing thats more definite a benefit.

If they are trying to fire a lascannon Tac marine and then charge because the rest only fire bolt pistols, that i a gross misreading of the FAQ, as the two situaitons are not REMOTELY similar.

Yes, I am talking to them about it now. And you're right... though if you're charging and planning to engage with the IC I would suspect you believe (and with good reason, if you're a good player) your IC will smash face, which is a benefit.

Arguably, having the potential to swing (rather than not swinging at all in the same phase) or being locked in combat so the opponent couldn't shoot you, even if you kill nothing, is beneficial.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
The situations are not identical, as has been pointed out and youc annot refute.

As pointed out. Wulfen have a rule specifically allowing the unit to RUN and then charge

The Unit in your example does NOT have a rule allowing the unit (the IC is a member of the unit for all ruels purposes) to fire a rapid fire weapon and still charge.

The situations are not identical. Your argument is refuted.

The rule that the Wulfen has that says they can Run and Charge explicitly does not apply to ICs, forbidding the IC from benefiting.

If the Unit runs, it may not charge <- basic rules. Wulfen override that rule, except attached ICs.
If the Unit fires rapid fire weapons, it may not charge <- basic rules. Firing pistols is not firing rapid fire weapons, except the IC.

Identical situation.

Your "refutation" ignores the FAQ answer that says ICs may not benefit from the rule. Being engaged in combat in the assault phase after running in the shooting phase is a benefit of the rule, whether a charge move was made by the specific model or not.

Yet, the IC is treated as part of the unit, so if the IC fires a rapid fire weapon, the unit is treated as firing a rapid fire weapon.. If the IC isn't being treated as part of the unit, then he should be able to normally fire at a different target than the unit. Since he can't, he's following the rules for being part of the unit. If part of the unit fires rapid fire weapons, then the unit can't charge. Bounding Lope allows you to run and charge, not to fire rapid fire weapons and charge.

If the IC dies, is it still beneficial? If they dont make it to engaged that turn but the following, is it still directly beneficial?

nosferatu1001 wrote:It was a serious question - HAS the IC benefited? Or can it lose out? Its ambiguous - you cannot say for definite. Whereas if it does not make a charge move, potentially hampering the number of uwulfen that make it to combat and get to swing thats more definite a benefit.

If they are trying to fire a lascannon Tac marine and then charge because the rest only fire bolt pistols, that i a gross misreading of the FAQ, as the two situaitons are not REMOTELY similar.

Incorrect, they are indeed quite similar. We are talking certain regular models of the unit being able to Charge, while another model not being able to Charge. The only difference between a Captain firing a Bolter and a Tactical Marine firing a Lascannon is one is a temporary member of the unit and the other a regular member.

That is just considering the fact that some models in the unit have permission to Charge while others do not. It also doesn't consider that the restrictions for Charging and not Charging are all made on a unit level, not a model level. The restriction against Charging is if a Unit Runs or a Unit fires a Weapon of certain types. Bounding Lope removes the Running restriction from the unit This FAQ answer completely misses this fact and should consider the IC as part of the unit like with Stubborn and Fleet do. If Bounding Lope is not to work with attached ICs without the rule, it should be worded like Fleet, not without any unit composition restrictions as it is. But, instead, they give a half answer which was "partially" and not a pure "no", and also ignores the Errata which allows a Charge to ignore unit coherency when performed.

As for benefiting if the Wulfen Unit Charges? If the unit makes a successful Charge, the IC is free from being shot at, the IC can participate in a Challenge, and so on. A considerable advantage for a model that supposedly isn't able to be moving during that Assault Phase, don't you think?

nosferatu1001 wrote:If the IC dies, is it still beneficial? If they dont make it to engaged that turn but the following, is it still directly beneficial?

The question isn't asking about a model that is no longer involved in the unit, but one that is currently part of the unit.

If the IC dies as a result of the charge, was it still beneficial for the IC?

Simple question.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
If the IC dies as a result of the charge, was it still beneficial for the IC?

Simple question.

Provide an example of how the IC dies as a result of the Charge in which they did not move? I'm not including Overwatch in this, since technically, it's not part of the unit's Charge and the Charge would have to be declared before Overwatch is made.

 Charistoph wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
If the IC dies as a result of the charge, was it still beneficial for the IC?

Simple question.

Provide an example of how the IC dies as a result of the Charge in which they did not move? I'm not including Overwatch in this, since technically, it's not part of the unit's Charge and the Charge would have to be declared before Overwatch is made.

So, you're saying "provide an example of how the IC dies as a result of the Charge in which they did not move, but don't include the method in which they could die."

If the IC is the closest model when the charge is declared, whether or not he can move, according to Overwatch rules he would be the model that wounds were allocated to, since normal rules for wound allocation are still followed.

Of course, it seems like a moot point because however he would be destroyed in a charge, it doesn't seem it would matter whether he could move or not. And isn't looking at the larger point, which you talk about in your earlier post. A Captain firing a bolter and a Tac Marine firing a lascannon is the same in that a member of the unit fired a weapon that disqualifies the unit from charging. Otherwise, we could normally see IC's firing heavy weapons or rapid fire weapons and having units charge. I haven't seen anybody allow that now.

I do agree with your previous comment about giving a half answer that ignores the errata about charging and unit coherency. Maybe when they dreamed up the Bounding Lope answer they hadn't come up yet with that answer for charging and unit coherency - just because it was released later doesn't mean they came up with the question and answer later.

 Charistoph wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
If the IC dies as a result of the charge, was it still beneficial for the IC?

Simple question.

Provide an example of how the IC dies as a result of the Charge in which they did not move? I'm not including Overwatch in this, since technically, it's not part of the unit's Charge and the Charge would have to be declared before Overwatch is made.

Maybe phrase your question more clearly, however just because he could not make a charge move doesn't mean he cannot have wounds allocated to him normally.

So he dies. Is that still a benefit? Yes or no.