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.

BGB Page 47: A unit losing 25% or more of its current unit strength in models from shooting during a single shooting phase must pass a moral check.

BGB Page 47: The leadership is modified by the following factor:
-1 if the unit is below 50% of its starting strength (ie, the unit has fewer than half the number of models remaining that it had when the battle started).

BGB Page 49: A unit falling back can attempt to regroup by taking a Leadership test...so long as
1. It has left at least 50% of its original strength.

BGB Page 85: If any non-vehicle units include multi-Wound models, count wounds not models to see if a unit is above/below 50% strength.

TE Page 31: Drones under the command of a drone controller are counted when assessing if the unit they are with should take a Morale check having taken 25% casualties. They are similarly counted when determining if the unit is strong enough to claim an objective. If their unit suffers losses, drones are counted when determining if it is below 50% for Victory point purposes.

A unit of 3 crisis and 2 shield drones loses 2 shield drones and a crisis to shooting. The TE and the BGB both say that the unit needs to take a 25% casulaty Moral check, and that the unit is still scoring. Assuming Morale 50% strength is consistently done on models:

Q. Do drones count when determing if a unit is above 50% for rallying purposes?

Argument 1: No. The TE codex states what drones do count for. This implies they only count for what is stated. Therefore they don't count for rallying purposes. The intent is to stop a scoring unit from being unable to rally.

Argument 2: Yes. The paragraph in the TE codex is pointless. Drones would count for all these things anyway, as drones are models with wounds. An ommision in a part where the rules are repeated doesn't mean it's wrong in the first place.

Which one is it?

I vote for #1.
The TE paragraph specifies how you should solve the "model with wound but still wargear" problem, it defines when drones are counted and by implication (induction, truth by omission?? english is not my primary language and thesaurus unavailable) when they are not counted for the the rest of the moral/leadership rules.
It is however written in a very icky way and I won't take more than 1 drone per suit in competetive play until the issue is clarified. (read that as a broadside monat with 1 shield drone.)

Conclusion (Argument) #1 is a fallacy.

Conclusion (Argument) #2 is logically correct.

This is insanely sticky!

I would tend to agree with Yak but by a purely rules based interpretation I think that #1 would be more correct.

I would play by #2 though because I think that is the true intent.

It should have been worded more like "a drone is part of the unit and all normal rules that apply to units for scoring/vp/assault etc. count" (although not that sloppy either)

I think 1 is the intent. GW put the rules in to say "Ok, drones act differently, these rules are how they work". They just forgot to tell us that part.

To say the paragraph is completely pointless is logically correct though, I agree.

Happypants:

How did you come to the conclusion that I support Argument #1? I said that it is a logical fallacy and therefore is completely false.

It should have been worded more like "a drone is part of the unit and all normal rules that apply to units for scoring/vp/assault etc. count" (although not that sloppy either)

No, they don't need to say that. All models in a unit follow the normal rules unless specified otherwise.

So why GW decided they needed to re-emphasize some of the basic rules of the unit when considering drones is unknown (likely for added clarity; which is quite ironic). But what we do know is that drones are part of the unit (as all models are) and therefore follow all the normal rules for a unit unless otherwise specified.

In the last codex the general conscencus was that the drone were counting only for what the drone rules was saying what it was counting for.  There was also a general consencuse that the rules was badly written. 

They have wrote it the same way in this codex. What has change for people to come to a different conclusion?

Where was that consensus? How can that consensus have been reached when it is based on a logical fallacy?

Just because a rule is mentioned again does not mean all other rules pertaining to the unit are suddenly ignored.


Say that it is an accepted fact that cars must have their oil changed every 3,000 miles, their tires changed every 30,000 miles and their brakes cahnged every 40,000 miles.

If I buy a car and in their maitenance guide it only says: The tires must be changed every 30,000 miles.

Does that suddenly mean I no longer have to change the oil and brakes at their respective limits?

Of course not. The original rules remain in effect unless directly rebutted.

its 'morale', not 'moral'.

btw this whole issue confuses me a bit, could you do a summary thing of all the various situations, like 25%, 50%, scoring... etc.. from what i gather, drones count for all of these things?

but in which situations do you count models, or wounds? and sometimes its original unit strength, and sometimes its current unit strength, maybe a cheeky article on ATT or something, go on, you know you wanna :p

btw this whole issue confuses me a bit, could you do a summary thing of all the various situations, like 25%, 50%, scoring... etc.. from what i gather, drones count for all of these things?

Drones are part of the unit, and therefore count as part of the unit in all circumstances unless specified otherwise. Since the drone rules do not specifically exempt drones from any of the normal unit rules you've listed above, those rules do indeed apply to drones.

but in which situations do you count models, or wounds? and sometimes its original unit strength, and sometimes its current unit strength, maybe a cheeky article on ATT or something, go on, you know you wanna :p

It depends on the situation. When a situation occurs, simply look in the rulebook and see what it calls for: total number of models or wounds in the unit.

Happypants:

How did you come to the conclusion that I support Argument #1? I said that it is a logical fallacy and therefore is completely false.

He didn't:

I would tend to agree with Yak but by a purely rules based interpretation I think that #1 would be more correct.

Anyway, I personally favour #1 - it makes sense that there's a reason behind GW mentioning those particular cases in the drone rules. That said, we all know the drill about logic and GW rules, so unless we reach a consensus or Alessio gets those FAQs done, I doubt we'll have a definite answer.

Anyway, I personally favour #1 - it makes sense that there's a reason behind GW mentioning those particular cases in the drone rules. That said, we all know the drill about logic and GW rules, so unless we reach a consensus or Alessio gets those FAQs done, I doubt we'll have a definite answer.

That makes me laugh a bit. The definitve answer is that you follow the rules unless specified otherwise.

I'm assuming that everyone moves and shoots their drones as part of the unit they are with, even though those rules aren't specifically named in the drone rules, right?

You can't pick and choose here people. If you want drones to only count as part of the unit where specifically listed in the drone rules, then you are essentially saying that drones don't follow any of the other normal unit rules, like moving, shooting, assaulting, etc.

All of this is, of course, based on a logical fallacy that the fact that GW re-iterates certain unit rules about drones means that all other unit related rules do not apply to drones.

This is patently false, and simply put, does not work.


Drones that are part of a unit are part of that unit and follow all the normal rules for being part of a unit.

Yakface is right.

But here is something I don't understand. Crisis Suits have 2 wounds, Crisis Suits can only ever take 2 drones. So whatever unit you have, unless you take Crisis Suit Casulties, you will not be below 50%.

So whats the issue.

I'm assuming that everyone moves and shoots their drones as part of the unit they are with, even though those rules aren't specifically named in the drone rules, right?

That argument is moot, since GW doesn't specifically mention that drones follow the rules for range (as opposed to those for range and line of sight; for example, obviously) in the Shooting phase. If they did, then we would know that they don't follow the rules for line of sight. Why? Because GW presumes we have a brain and can do basic logic. This is why GW specifically mentioning those rules means the others don't apply.

This actually isn't worthy of being mentioned in a FAQ - it would be a waste of resources.

I can only agree with ANSOB, it is so obvious that its hardly worth discussing.
There is no other reason for GW to put the rules in the codex.

OK guys, you don't get the point.

A specifeid mention of a rule does not invalidate the other general rules. Look, no matter what any rule wording says, unless it is specific in how it operates the general rules apply. Just because the Drone Rules mention a general rule doesn't mean that they throw out all the other rules. The drone rules would have to specifically say that the other rules don't apply or have a specific discription on how Drones work that contradict the general rules. The drone rules do neither, therefore with the exception of what the specific Drone rule is all the other rules apply.

I still am trying to understand why this is an issue. You can still only have as many Gun Drones as your crisis suits have wounds, therefore you will never be below 50% as long as your suits are alive.

stealth suit can take drones so you can have a unit that is under 50% of its starting strength if you remove drones

And of course, Mahu, you've seemed to have forgotten that rallying is done on models, not wounds.

3 Crisis and 2 Shield Drones lose 2 shield drones and a crisis as in the example in the first post. According to the rules, this unit is still scoring, but cannot rally. What I and others are arguing is that this is silly, it is a clear mistake of GW of just forgetting to add the word "only".

Yakface is right, the word "only" isn't there, therefore the paragraph is pointless. However, I still believe that GW put that paragraph there to show that they don't count for rallying. They decided this because they thought it was silly that a scoring unit couldn't rally. #1 is a falacy, but I think that's a mistake.

Similar to the reason I'm going to play that a vespid unit gets fleet even if it has a Strain Leader, I'm going to play that drones don't count for rallying.

There is no valid argument that a Stingwing unit with a strain leader does not have fleet, so you should be playing it that way.

Oh. Well I didn't see the argument that the Strain Leader does have fleet, sorry. However I still think there's a reason for that paragraph. Why should a scoring unit be unable to rally?

And of course, Mahu, you've seemed to have forgotten that rallying is done on models, not wounds.

Are you sure?

I check the location of each quote you provided and this is what I found:

Quote 1 - is only specific in the shooting phase.

Quote 2 - is only an example of the rule

Quote 3 - isn't specific

Quote 4 - is located in the Scoring Units section and might not apply to the issue.

Everywhere else I see it only refers to "Unit Streangth", now that has always been assumed to imply the amount of models that where compared to the amount of models that are. However, I do not see anywhere that clearly defines unit streangth.

Now, I am with you saying that it is probably models, but is there anything that clearly states that in relation to Multi-wound Model units? The only thing that come close is the 4th quote but like I said, that might not be applicable because they are talking about whether or not it is scoring unit.

Oh. Well I didn't see the argument that the Strain Leader does have fleet, sorry. However I still think there's a reason for that paragraph. Why should a scoring unit be unable to rally?

Well, I am personally not arguing that a scoring unit shoudl be unable to rally. Even if someone did try to argue that point it isn't a drone issue, but a "starting strength" issue.


I think you'll find that most players will use the "wounds not models" rule throughout the game, regardless of what the rules seem to state in the morale section.

Ok I can easily play it that rallying is done on wounds, not models. Which would make you right Mahu, and would mean I end up playing the unit can still rally even if drones do count for rallying.

So everyone's happy.

I did state "Assuming Morale 50% strength is consistently done on models" because I couldn't actually find anywhere that says what Morale 50% strength is actually done on. I posted a thread in dakkadakka not too long ago about this, and the consensus was it was done on models.