IC in Term. Arm. assaulting with a unit. - Warhammer 40K Fantasy
 

Welcome to Librarium Online!

Join our community of 80,000+ members and take part in the number one resource for Warhammer and Warhammer 40K discussion!

Registering gives you full access to take part in discussions, upload pictures, contact other members and search everything!


Register Now!

User Tag List

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 11
  1. #1
    Member onodera's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Moscow, Russian Federation
    Age
    30
    Posts
    201
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    ReputationReputation
    32 (x1)

    IC in Term. Arm. assaulting with a unit.

    If an independent character in Terminator Armor joins a unit and they assault, can the unit still make a Sweeping Advance? According to BGB, IC behaves like a separate unit in assault, so he wouldn't slow them down. Am I right or not?


  2. Remove Advertisements
    Librarium-Online.com
    Advertisements
     

  3. #2
    Now with STFU flames! Caluin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Age
    36
    Posts
    5,917
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    ReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputation
    708 (x8)

    The entire unit loses the ability to sweeping advance. The IC is only considered a seperate unit for the purposes of targeting the IC with Close Combat attacks.


  4. #3
    Member onodera's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Moscow, Russian Federation
    Age
    30
    Posts
    201
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    ReputationReputation
    32 (x1)

    'tis a pity. But I still can make my IC leave the unit in the movement phase and assault with two units (unit, IC), right?

  5. #4
    Master of the Ravenwing Anacron's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Wakefield, UK
    Age
    34
    Posts
    849
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    ReputationReputation
    39 (x2)

    Right.

    But in that case you would have to take two Morale checks if you lost, and the unit would not be able to use the IC's Leadership for theirs.
    All the old Specialist Games resources are currently being uploaded at the Tactical Command forums, and you can find them here: http://www.sg.tacticalwargames.net/fanatic/.

  6. #5
    Son of LO tarzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    3,023
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    ReputationReputationReputationReputationReputation
    121 (x8)

    Quote Originally Posted by Caluin
    The entire unit loses the ability to sweeping advance. The IC is only considered a seperate unit for the purposes of targeting the IC with Close Combat attacks.
    Care to back that up caluin? IC's fight seperately, and each group in CC rolls if they fail, Just as each group rolls for sweeping advance if they have btb with only the squad falling back. So the IC can't sweeping advance, but the squad can.
    Not trying to be arguementative but the rules say they fight seperately. And no where does it say they would lose sweeping advance if an an ic has it. Fearless is another issue (if IC is fearless and squad isn't, he loses it yup, but the other way.)

  7. #6
    LO Zealot Ostsol's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
    Age
    36
    Posts
    1,907
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    ReputationReputationReputationReputation
    80 (x4)

    Do we really need to bring up that topic again?
    Why do the survivors remain anonymous -- as if cursed -- while the dead are revered? Why do we cling to what we lose while we ignore what we still hold?
    Name none of the fallen, for they stood in our place, and stand there still in each moment of our lives.

    --Duiker, "Deadhouse Gates"

    -Ostsol

  8. #7
    Now with STFU flames! Caluin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Age
    36
    Posts
    5,917
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    ReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputation
    708 (x8)

    Quote Originally Posted by Ostsol
    Do we really need to bring up that topic again?
    No, we don't. I've already argued over this point once with Tarzen, and I won't do it again.

    I'm willing to admit that Tarzen may be correct in his statements. However, it's just as likely everyone who disagrees with him is correct instead. The answer I gave is the most widely accepted answer to an ambigious situation, and is the most likely answer that will be accepted in a tournament setting.

    You're free to make up your own mind about it. Opinions were asked about a certain rule, I gave mine. That's all I will say on the subject.


  9. #8
    Son of LO tarzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    3,023
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    ReputationReputationReputationReputationReputation
    121 (x8)

    Quote Originally Posted by Caluin
    No, we don't. I've already argued over this point once with Tarzen, and I won't do it again.

    I'm willing to admit that Tarzen may be correct in his statements. However, it's just as likely everyone who disagrees with him is correct instead. The answer I gave is the most widely accepted answer to an ambigious situation, and is the most likely answer that will be accepted in a tournament setting.

    You're free to make up your own mind about it. Opinions were asked about a certain rule, I gave mine. That's all I will say on the subject.
    Agreed=) about the last part and first! I question the middle paragraph but that's neither here nor there as we agreed to disagree on this point.

    As Anacron pointed out, if you keep them seperate you lose the high leadership if they lose (but who intends to lose, right?)and with two units, if you maintain btb with both (ic and unit) then you get to chances to catch in sweeping advance (except for the thread example, where the IC is in termy armour). But I could see how one might argue that the unit "can only move as fast as its slowest member" thus people may claim that the whole unit can't catch them (even though there is no such stimpulation in the rules for sweeping advance that I can find).

  10. #9
    are
    are is offline
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Oslo, Norway
    Posts
    101
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Reputation
    2 (x1)

    Quote Originally Posted by tarzen
    IC's fight seperately, and each group in CC rolls if they fail, Just as each group rolls for sweeping advance if they have btb with only the squad falling back.
    They fight separately but sweep together.

  11. #10
    Son of LO tarzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    3,023
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    ReputationReputationReputationReputationReputation
    121 (x8)

    Quote Originally Posted by are
    They fight separately but sweep together.
    sorry caluin...it's something I gotta do. Won't argue it with you=)

    ARE
    According to the rule book, this is not the case. It may very well be how everyone plays it, but the rule book says that they fight seperately, thus we check the rules for multiple units in combat and see that each one rolls seperately. For more about this check the othr thread (will post a link when I can)

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts