PDA

View Full Version : Imperial characters conflict



jisu
11-01-2007, 13:25
Hello.

The Master of cavalry order gives a knight unit the rule --- Inmune to psicology

A warrior priest gives a unit --- Hatred


What happened if both are in the same unit ?

A. Both rules aply
B. Inmune to psicology cancel hatred


Thanks.

Zeke1973
11-01-2007, 13:49
Both rules apply. "Immune to Psychology" only means "Immune to Panic, Fear and Terror" nowadays IIRC. :)

Griefbringer
11-01-2007, 14:01
"Immune to Psychology" only means "Immune to Panic, Fear and Terror" nowadays IIRC. :)

Quoted for truth - this is how it works in the 7th edition (it does not make one immune to haterd, frenzy or stubborness)! :)

T10
12-01-2007, 07:26
I put my Templar Grand Marshal and my Battle Standard Bearer into a unit of Knights of the Order. This made the Knights unit Immune to Psychology, which also meant the BSB was immune to psychology.

After a lengthy struggle with some Cold One Knights the last Knight model finally croaked, leaving me with the Marshal and the BSB. The following ensued:

1. The Marshal was no longer in a unit of Knights of the Order.
2. The BSB and him still made up a unit.
3. The unit did not qualify as receiving the Immune to Psychology benefit.
4. The Marshal "lost" his Immunity to Psychology.

Outnumbered by Fear-causing enemy... Well, with a "Thanks a bunch!" yelled to the BSB, the General got run down by uppity elves. On dinosaurs.

-T10

3) One could argue that the BSB had joined a "unit of Grand Marshals" and thus the whole unit would have IP. But the other way around was a lot more quirky and thus fun.

Griefbringer
12-01-2007, 09:53
That was a hilarious story, T10.

However, as far as the rules go, I would have resolved it differently: since characters cannot join each other, the demise of the last normal knight should have lead to the characters becoming two independent units of their own.

EvC
12-01-2007, 10:29
Yes, Griefbringer is right; I've been in similar situations with a vampire count and necromancer being the only survivors of a unit and thinknig they'd be in a unit together when actually they'd be two separate units. It's one of those rules they've changed for no real reason that I can see...

T10
12-01-2007, 10:45
Another example that brings forward the fact that there is no standard way to resolve illegal units.

I suggest breaking them up at the earliest opportunity that does not result in further disruption, e.g. after combat is resolved.

-T10

GranFarfar
13-01-2007, 11:42
Another example that brings forward the fact that there is no standard way to resolve illegal units.

I suggest breaking them up at the earliest opportunity that does not result in further disruption, e.g. after combat is resolved.

-T10

We had a problem with this for a year ago or so, similar to your story with the knights.

Had a grail lord and a damesl in a unit of realm knights fighting a bone giant. The giant killed all the knights, leaving just the lord and the damsel.
The problem here is that the lord was immune to psych, while the damsel was not. Alone, she would auto-break, he would not. But the question ,were the two still a unit?
Don't remember how we solved it.

Atrahasis
13-01-2007, 12:31
A year ago they certainly would be a unit.

Now they are specifically prohibited from being a unit.

T10
13-01-2007, 12:46
The rules may prevent them from actively forming a unit, but no provision is made for handling the transition to illegal from legal. Which means that this is up to the players to resolve as best they can.

-T10

Falkman
13-01-2007, 22:45
They are disallowed to form a unit, but from what I know the rules do not say that they can't become a unit of just two characters, if the unit they have joined get slaughtered.
There is a difference between actively trying to form a unit, and ending up being a unit due to circumstances.

T10
13-01-2007, 23:12
I do agree with the idea that a unit that is illegal to create is illegal to maintain.

I don't think that immediately rectifying such a breach is paramount, but the player should enforce this at the earliest opportunity where the unit is no longer tied up in compulsory behaviour. The player should not actively work to deny such opportunity.

E.g. A character on a monster mount joins a unit. The character is killed and the unit flees. The monster mount moves with the unit while it is fleeing (compulsory). It remains witht the unit the turn it rallies (rallied units may not normally move). The unit may not charge the following turn as the monster leaves the unit.

But that's just my opinion.

-T10

Gen.Steiner
14-01-2007, 00:14
Surely in the above situation of the Damsel and the Lord, the Damsel would auto-break while the Lord remains where he is?

If their unit is destroyed they instantly become two seperate characters fighting the same enemy unit. That's how it seems to me...

Falkman
14-01-2007, 10:00
If their unit is destroyed they instantly become two seperate characters fighting the same enemy unit. That's how it seems to me...
AFAIK, that is not supported by the rules though?
The rules only say you can't form such a unit, not that you can't maintain it if the unit both characters have joined should be wiped out.

Gen.Steiner
14-01-2007, 13:26
But they're not part of the unit - they've just joined it. If the unit is killed and the characters survive, then they're not in the unit.

So what are they?

Two independant characters in combat with an enemy unit. They're now, to all intents and purposes, two seperate units. Right? :confused:

It seems the most logical answer...

Festus
14-01-2007, 13:46
Hi

But they're not part of the unit ...
They certainly are a part of the unit in all respects unitl they choose to leave the unit again - which they may only do in the movement phase.

cf. BRB, p. 72, right column, bottom.

Festus

Falkman
14-01-2007, 14:16
And therefore one has to come to the conclusion that they will continue to be a unit even when everyone else has been killed off, as there is nothing that says the stop being a unit and split apart.

Atrahasis
14-01-2007, 16:52
"Form" is not necessarily an active verb. It is used in English to describe any collection of things, and as such being prohibited from forming a unit could be interpreted as being an indication that 2 characters cannot be the sole models in a unit at any time.

DeathlessDraich
14-01-2007, 17:26
We had a problem with this for a year ago or so, similar to your story with the knights.

Had a grail lord and a damesl in a unit of realm knights fighting a bone giant. The giant killed all the knights, leaving just the lord and the damsel.
The problem here is that the lord was immune to psych, while the damsel was not. Alone, she would auto-break, he would not. But the question ,were the two still a unit?
Don't remember how we solved it.

Good question which evokes a few other questions:

1) Does the surviving unit/s take a Break test or do the unit/s which fought and lost take the Break test? i.e. 2 Break tests or one for the case above

pg 39 "You need to take a Break test for every unit involved in the combat on the losing side"

This suggests that one Break test may be sufficient but who takes it, Damsel or Lord? I would prefer a dice roll.

2) Is the auto break from a Fear causer applied to each unit that fought combat or to each unit that survived? (1 unit fought but 2 units survived!?)

Nothing in the rules that helps.
Again a dice roll, I think.

Krankenstein
14-01-2007, 18:47
This is by far the simplest way to play it: The very instant the last normal trooper dies, the two characters are separate units for all intents and purposes. Because if they don’t split at that instant you have to decide on another “split time” or let them stay together, so you might as well get it over with, and save yourself and your opponent a lot of head scratching.

Gen.Steiner
14-01-2007, 18:50
This is by far the simplest way to play it: The very instant the last normal trooper dies, the two characters are separate units for all intents and purposes. Because if they don’t split at that instant you have to decide on another “split time” or let them stay together, so you might as well get it over with, and save yourself and your opponent a lot of head scratching.

Yes, exactly! That's what I've been trying to get at...