Librarium Online Forums banner
1 - 20 of 54 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
157 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Hi,

The otherday i was playing vs orks, he assaulted a squad of 13 warriors and a lord with 20 boys, an dreadnought and his warboss ( my shooting went so wrong.. sigh...).
He killed al of my warriors and only my lord was still alive.

now my question is, do i have to roll at -5 leadership cause my unit is under half strength or at -4 cause my unit is crushed by the horde of orks and so there is no more unit to be under half strength?

thanks

tdh
 

·
Son of LO
Joined
·
3,475 Posts
The Necron Lord was attached right?

Assuming he was then the necron lord is considered unattached as soon as the squad is dead. Therefore he doesn't get the below 50% penalty.

If he wasn't attached then he tests seperately and doesn't get the negative anyway.

However I believe there was a rules-lawyering argument that no-one enforces in a game (one of THOSE arguments ;Y) where it was interpreted that a character doesn't unattach until you declare it during the movement phase, regardless of whether the squad is dead or not.
 

·
Charitably Tables People
Joined
·
1,500 Posts
Um, I think it actually says in the rulebook somewhere that the Lord tests as an independent character in close combat. He is not under half, so he doesn't take a penalty for that. He will take the outnumbered penalty and that is it.

For the purposes of morale checks (at least in melee), Independent Characters are indeed independent ... in fact, when you think about it as soon as CC begins they act as Indies, from the get-go (re: base-to-base rules, etc.).
 

·
Fun guy from Yuggoth
Joined
·
772 Posts
Um, I think it actually says in the rulebook somewhere that the Lord tests as an independent character in close combat. He is not under half, so he doesn't take a penalty for that. He will take the outnumbered penalty and that is it.

For the purposes of morale checks (at least in melee), Independent Characters are indeed independent ... in fact, when you think about it as soon as CC begins they act as Indies, from the get-go (re: base-to-base rules, etc.).
This is indeed correct. They are treated as seperate units and follow the multiple combatant rules - p.51 BGB.
 

·
LO Zealot
Joined
·
1,568 Posts
This is indeed correct. They are treated as seperate units and follow the multiple combatant rules - p.51 BGB.
Only for combat purposes. Assuming they were attached, they are considered to be rejoined to their squad before morale checks are taken... so you'd only ever take 1 morale check for a squad that has an IC joined to it if you lose combat. They don't test separate.

As to the original poster, the BGB never really specifies when an IC reverts to being on his own, but I'd say just -4 and not -5... as the "Unit" is completely gone, not just under half.
 

·
Charitably Tables People
Joined
·
1,500 Posts
Actually, I thought the BGB specifically refers to them taking morale tests separately in CC ... damnit for not having book in front of me.
 

·
Fun guy from Yuggoth
Joined
·
772 Posts
Only for combat purposes. Assuming they were attached, they are considered to be rejoined to their squad before morale checks are taken... so you'd only ever take 1 morale check for a squad that has an IC joined to it if you lose combat. They don't test separate.

As to the original poster, the BGB never really specifies when an IC reverts to being on his own, but I'd say just -4 and not -5... as the "Unit" is completely gone, not just under half.
I disagree... "characters are treated as a seperate unit when resloving close combats...". So what does 'resolving close combats' entail? Check the assault phase summary on p.36 - it includes morale checks, breaking-off, etc.

Not that anyone plays it that way, but it does solve the problem of when precisely does an IC leave a unit which has been wiped out in CC.
 

·
Suffer not the Unclean
Joined
·
2,251 Posts
Y'all need to keep up with your rulebook FAQs! =)

It specifically says that an IC is only separate for fighting and is considered part of the unit for morale tests and everything that comes after. (as nice as it would be to get two shots at sweeping advance...!)

Does it really cap at -4? For some reason unless my memory has gone whacky today I thought the rulebook says the outnumbering penalty continues to scale up ad infinitum.
 

·
Fun guy from Yuggoth
Joined
·
772 Posts
Y'all need to keep up with your rulebook FAQs! =)

It specifically says that an IC is only separate for fighting and is considered part of the unit for morale tests and everything that comes after. (as nice as it would be to get two shots at sweeping advance...!)

Does it really cap at -4? For some reason unless my memory has gone whacky today I thought the rulebook says the outnumbering penalty continues to scale up ad infinitum.
Well, I stand corrected!

It definitely caps at -4 for outnumbering, though.
 

·
LO Zealot
Joined
·
1,568 Posts
Y'all need to keep up with your rulebook FAQs! =)

It specifically says that an IC is only separate for fighting and is considered part of the unit for morale tests and everything that comes after. (as nice as it would be to get two shots at sweeping advance...!)

Does it really cap at -4? For some reason unless my memory has gone whacky today I thought the rulebook says the outnumbering penalty continues to scale up ad infinitum.
-4 for outnumbering, other factors can lower it more, though.... but the BGB has a table:
Outnumbered = ...
2:1 = ...
3:1 = ...
4:1 or more = ...
 

·
Fun guy from Yuggoth
Joined
·
772 Posts
Getting back to the original query, I'm of the opinion that he would take the test at -5. He did start the combat in the unit, and regardless of whether or not you take the stance that he is locked into it until his next non-engaged movement phase, it seems very shady to me that he would have an easier leadership check when 13 warriors are killed than he would if only 7 to 12 were.
 

·
Ahhhhh....
Joined
·
1,233 Posts
Ya he has to take the LDR test at -5 modifier --

-4 for being outnumbered 4:1
-1 for being below half

.. the Warboss was in the unit nontheless, and it does not rever back to Independent Character until the start of the next turn... if it regroups.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
341 Posts
From the sound of it, it sound's like your playing DE. But, in the case of having to take a leadership test after a loss of combat and the IC is the only one left. I do remember that in the BGB if a character is the only one left you don't have to take a leadership test, as they are use to fighting on their own.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
787 Posts
From the sound of it, it sound's like your playing DE. But, in the case of having to take a leadership test after a lose of combat and the IC is the only one left. I do remember that in the BGB if a character is the only one left you don't have to take a leadership test, as they are use to fighting on their own.
For Man Alone, yeppa ;)

I'm all for the -5, as Nekochen stated. Afterall, he joined the unit and suffered badly. Such is the price of failure. (hope your shooting phases become more acurate Chief!);Y
 

·
Dark Eldar Zealot
Joined
·
3,699 Posts
Yes, the leadership modifiers are accumulative and it is indeed –5 here.

But tactically wise it is unusual for a Lord to be attached to Warriors but we have to run with this assumption due to lack of information.

Don’t forget that the Lord’s model count is equal to the number of his wounds shown in the profile but this hardly going to change the outcome here.

Further the “Last Man Standing” test does not apply if the model ‘started’ the game as a single model and this is a fact we do not know. The test is applied at the start of the turn unlike the morale test that is taken at the end of the turn.

So it looks like there will be 2 tests taken in this case –

1. A –5 morale check at the end of assault and,
2. And a last man standing check at the start of the Lords turn (but only if he started the game attached.)

That’s my take on all this.
Cheers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Moglun

·
Fun guy from Yuggoth
Joined
·
772 Posts
Yes, the leadership modifiers are accumulative and it is indeed –5 here.

But tactically wise it is unusual for a Lord to be attached to Warriors but we have to run with this assumption due to lack of information.

Don’t forget that the Lord’s model count is equal to the number of his wounds shown in the profile but this hardly going to change the outcome here.

Further the “Last Man Standing” test does not apply if the model ‘started’ the game as a single model and this is a fact we do not know. The test is applied at the start of the turn unlike the morale test that is taken at the end of the turn.

So it looks like there will be 2 tests taken in this case –

1. A –5 morale check at the end of assault and,
2. And a last man standing check at the start of the Lords turn (but only if he started the game attached.)

That’s my take on all this.
Cheers.
I believe an IC never has to take a last man standing test, whether he started attached or not. P. 51 'Characters as leaders'. Otherwise, I agree entirely.
 

·
Dark Eldar Zealot
Joined
·
3,699 Posts
I believe an IC never has to take a last man standing test, whether he started attached or not. P. 51 'Characters as leaders'. Otherwise, I agree entirely.
Hi again,

Maybe I goofed up but the rules for a "Last Man Standing Test" from page 49 say that units that start the battle as a single model don’t need a test but if the IC has joined a retinue as part of the army roster he is considered part of that unit and can not leave it.

Now if the entire retinue is destroyed then he must make the test for every turn of the game, that’s my take on it.

Do you see it this way due to the boxed entry on page 49?

Please get back to me on this as I can see your point of view here, thanks.

(Perhaps this is getting off topic and worthy of a new thread.)
 

·
Ahhhhh....
Joined
·
1,233 Posts
Okay.. a more thorough scope on the IC status vs moral check:

If an IC is inside an unit (either by joining an unit or has a retinue of his own), he is still an IC nontheless, it does not revoke his IC status just because he's inside an unit. While an IC is inside an unit, he loses most of his IC bonus such as the protection from shooting (if enough wounds caused to the unit, he may be forced to take a hit) and Move Through Cover, but he still has the other IC benefits such as leaving/joining units. Everything that an IC benefits is listed under p50. - p51. Characters.

IC can only leave/join units during its movement phase if the following criterias are met (p.50):

  • If the IC and the unit is not engaged in combat
  • If the IC and the unit is not pinned
  • If the IC is not falling back

The HQ said in the topic must test on a -5 Leadership because his unit is below half (-1) and he's indeed outnumbered 4:1 or more (-4). It doesnt matter if he's the only one left, the fact is that he was in a unit and he will remain a unit until the start of his movement phase. Remember all shootings are happened simultaneously which means if your IC is the only one left standing because his unit got blasted into pieces, other unit may target him and ignore the IC being closest rule because he's still inside "an unit" until the start of his movement phase... if he passes the moral check or regroup check.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
341 Posts
Hi again,

Maybe I goofed up but the rules for a "Last Man Standing Test" from page 49 say that units that start the battle as a single model don’t need a test but if the IC has joined a retinue as part of the army roster he is considered part of that unit and can not leave it.

Now if the entire retinue is destroyed then he must make the test for every turn of the game, that’s my take on it.

Do you see it this way due to the boxed entry on page 49?
I'm reading the last man standing rule. If the model is a single model on the tabele then they do not need to take a Last man standing test (LMS). Which makes sence and covers the set of models that are single models. But in the characters section it goes further and says that characters never need to take LMS, covering the set of single IC models.

So as I'm reading it, A unit is wiped out save one model, that model must take LMS. If the unit is one model large, then no LMS. A unit is wiped out, save one IC, IC never has to take LMS.

That's how I read it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Moglun
1 - 20 of 54 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top