Welcome to Librarium Online!
The old thread ended with the wrong information, so it is best to leave this right. So here it goes and should lay this question to rest.
Certain older codeci state that an IC with a retinue loses his IC status (including being targetted in an assault). Could you clarify that an IC with retinue still follows all the universal rules for ICs as printed in the BGB, or does he still not count as being an IC?
---->He is an IC but cannot leave his retinue. The older phrasing was problematic as it implied an IC with a retinue wasn't an IC and therefore couldn't be targeted in close combat, hence the change.
All that is important is that IC's cannot worm out of being targeted by claiming they are not an IC if they have a retinue.
as posted by Tim (GW-Hivemind) at http://uk.games-workshop.com/forums/warhammer40000/
this is under the more 40k rules clarification..... Simply put ICs remain ICs in assault regardless of the old rules.
Yeah, when someone was using my army, they abused that misunderstanding and had Drazhar protect the Archon, while he becomes a hidden combat maniac. Nasty Combo.
Tenozuma - The Burninator... I came, I saw, I posted.Originally Posted by Aussie Bogan
Dark Eldar player.
Feel free to PM if you want any advice or help with anything.
Assume everything I say has a "what I think" disclaimer.
Hang out with all the other Aussie and NZ members at The ANZAC Clan.
Need advice, want to talk warhammer or just want a laugh? Come on LO Chat. http://www.librarium-chat.com/
I was recently at a local RTT and was playing against the owner of one of the stores sponsoring the event. I popped his LRC in turn 2 and his HQ + retinue was entangled for turn 3 and had to sit through a turn of fire from my 2 gunboats (8 splinter cannon shots, 2 blasters, 32 rilfe shots) before he got to move. FInally on the top of turn 4 he gets to move but fails to charge my warriors in cover (1/4" short). So bottom of turn 4 I oblige him and counter charge my wytches, who singled out his Master and Chappy (attached) both of which bought the farm.
When I first started rolling dice he very confidently stated that since the Master had a retinue and the Chappy was purchased as attached to the retinue that I couldn't target them in hth. Well after I showed him the rules he read and re-read it twice. Then he called over his buddy for corroboration.
Unfortunately that just took the wind out of his sails and he lost the heart to continue playing effectively. So I let him annihilate my cheapest Raider Squad with a round of good shooting in turn 6.
War Record Since Sept 2005
Old Codex 48-20-9 Dark Eldar
New Codex 1-0-0 Dark Eldar
I realize the way that independent characters SHOULD work (IE, not losing IC status when being in a retinue), and whether or not the wording in the DE codex is "incorrect" by these standards, the fact remains that until GW releases an FAQ addressing this issue, you must go by what the book says...not what it "supposedly" should say.
Perhaps DE characters with a proper retinue are supposed to lose their IC status, or perhaps it was just worded improperly in the codex. What does matter though, is how it is worded in the codex, and the wording of the codex states that he/she is NOT an IC IF accompanied by an HQ retinue.
If I'm at a GT and the judges tell me to ignore the wording of the codex and use the retinue rules for other armies, then I'll of course oblige them, after all, you play at their tournament, you play by their rules.
There are few issues out there that I will argue so adamantly for, but this is probably the one that I do. You may have a separate opinion and I respect that, and you don't have to agree with me. But when I play, this is the ruling I use, and after people read the passage in the codex, they agree with me 9/10 of the time, so it's almost never an issue in games I play.
Last edited by Neferata; April 11th, 2006 at 16:19.
My 40K Armies:
- Thousand Sons
- Mordian Imperial Guard
- Dark Eldar
My Fantasy Armies:
- Lhamian Vampire Counts