Rules Question: Independent Characters

[Turtleboy(AWOL)]

when an independent character is in a squad, is he still an independent character? in the entry for our officers, it says "if the officers squad is destroyed, then the officer reverts to being an independent character" or something like that (don't have my 'dex infront of me). this implies that while an officer still has his retinue alive, then he isn't an IC.

my friend who's quite the pro at 40k (works at the local hobby shop) was over, and was telling me that my officers and other ICs weren't well..ICs as long as they still had their retinues.

[Deleted]

Basically your friend told you that some rank and file guardsmen pipes up and says "Don't worry i'll lead you as long as you all don't die?" Your example of the rules in the first paragraph are correct i think.

[Deleted]

That's correct it says that the character is no longer independent when he is in a squad.

The rules also says: "Characters who've joined a unit are considered part of that unit and may not be picked out as targets."

[Turtleboy(AWOL)]

wow dude...I've been playing my officers like they can be singled out in melee - so our officers with powerfists are basically hidden powerfists???!

[Deleted]

yes they are, nothing in a squad can be targeted... (except monstrous creatures)

[DesslokUnfrozen]

I do believe MINUS is under the mistaken belief that we are referring to IC in a unit which has been fired upon. (Though I myself may be mistaken.) We are hoping that an Officer is not considered an IC in close combat until he has lost his retinue. The entry in the Codex has ‘The Officer is’, then ‘However’ and then ‘reverts to’. (I do not think they could have made the rule any more ambiguous.) An official reference about Officers in close combat would be great.

[Turtleboy(AWOL)]

no doubt desslokunfrozen.

in the end I'm going with what my friend (who works at my local hobby store and is 'the man' when it comes to 40k in the store) said about ICs losing their IC status while in a squad of any kind. I guess it's all about the 'reverts to' bit. why would they put it in if he didn't lose the IC status (though it is hella ambiguous!).

[Mabus]

I like arguing with the guys at my local GW. it's quite funny......especially when you get other people to back you up.

[ssgtdude (M.I.A)]

whoa there guys... you are forgetting. Even though the character has joined a squad they are still an independent character. By joining a squad they can not be singled out, but follow a complete different line of combat during the assault phase. While in a squad they can not be targeted, nor can they attack unless they are in base to base contact with an enemy unit. Just look at the rules for independent characters in combat section of the big book.

This does two things. Number1 they can not become a casualty even if the entire squad is taken out despite the 2" rule.

Number 2 They can NOT attack during your phase of combat if they are not in base to base with the enemy. (12 wounds applied to a ten man squad with your IC commissar attached 10 models removed commissar stays unscathed the other 2 wounds are just lost)

The down side of this is if you have a character that i painted well and looks different from the standard unit member then your opponent is able to place his figures to avoid base to base contact unless you place the IC in such a way that they are the closest model of the unit.

It sucks, and it ties you up an extra round, but when you are able to let go with your attacks and bring down their big squad of baddies it is all worth it in the end.

Also, remember that some of the rules are different for different characters. You have to see what the rules for that specific character says. For the HSO they remain an independent character even if they have their retinue.

[Turtleboy(AWOL)]

I think it really boils down to how bad you want to rules lawyer it. in the guard codex, it has a definition of what 'independent character' means, and in that definition it basically says he loses his IC status when in a squad and reverts to being an IC when no longer in that squad (for whatever reason, being it died off or he left it).

You're totally right in pointing out the main rulebook IC rules - that totally is in contradiction to the IC rules written in the guard 'dex.

furthermore, if you look at say, codex dark angels, it DOESN'T have a definition for the independent character rule other than pointing you to the main rulebook.

however, looking at the past (3rd edition), guard ICs weren't ICs but marine ICs were. it can be argued that they've basically kept it the same as it was back in 3rd edition but made it so that our ICs don't have to take last man standing checks if their retinue is killed off since they now revert to IC status.

if you want to go with this ruling, then you're basically saying that since the IG codex is for the IG specifically, then any rules presented in the codex take precedence over other versions of the rule printed elsewhere in applicable books (like the main rulebook)....to paraphrase, we'd be saying that our codex trumps the main rulebook where rules are redefined.

this really doesn't seem unlikely, if you think about it, because the 4th edition main rulebook came out and THEN the 4th edition IG codex came out, so why would they redefine a rule in the main book when they could have just said 'see 40k main rulebook' like they did with dark angels and other 4th edition main books. the only logical answer to that would be that they wanted the IG to have a different definition of what the 'independent character' rule is defined as since our ICs have historically been different than other armies.

so you COULD see it either way, but there is a solid argument to be made in either direction - it basically boils down to whether the IG codex trumps the main rulebook for the same rule which is defined in each of the two books or vice versa.

I prefer to think the IG codex trumps the base rule book simply because it's an area where there historically HAS been a difference and the IG codexs rules support maintaining that very same difference - it's not introducing anything new, but keeping with a rule that has always been a guard only re-definition of the IC rule as presented in the core rules.

[Deleted]

Well seeing as how the rule book is the newest rules set it trumps IG book. The difference is guard chars cant leave their squads while other armies chars can leave their squads at will. Guard officers are independent chars but commisars are not independent chars unless you take the doctrince. You can use comms as hidden powerfists.


wow I really shouldnt be writting stuff after work, I sound like i'm 14

[Turtleboy(AWOL)]

actually, the IG codex was released >after< the 4th edition 40k core rulebook, so they literally put a different version of the independent character rule in our codex than what's in the core book and in all the other 4th edition codecei GW just points to the core rulebook definition of 'independent character' so it is pretty safe to assume that GW wanted our ICs to be different (like they were in 3rd edition) than other armies. check it out if you don't believe me

[fatuous]

Codex specific rules always over rule the main rule book (how many times can u fit the word 'rule' in 1 sentence).

I really would like some official clarification on this, as it is not clear at all.

IG CS are totally unique in 40k, other armies have IC, then u can often buy them retinues, like nobz for orks, vets for marines, etc.... but that is not the case with IG. The come with their attendent staff. Now u could argue that they are in effect a retinue, but I don't think that they are, as u HAVE to have them, they come with the price of the officer.

The way I play them atm is that they are not independent characters when in the squad, so the squad can be shot as as usual, but no wounds ever carry over to the character, this is to stop people targeting ur officers with artilery, nothing like a looted basilisk pie plate taking out ur leader, which u can't do to other armies.

In cc, I treat them like IC, so they have to be in base to base to attack, and people have to specify their attacks against the officer, or they don't carry over.

I know that playing in that way is counter to each other, but it works, and at least my opponent and I know what is going on, but it doesn't really feel right tbh.

Some official addition to the FAQ would be very useful.

Commisaars, preists and pyskers are not independent characters, they become one of the sqaud they are assigned to, and if I remember rightly, they can never leave it.

Independent commisaars are the exception to this. They are always IC, so can't be used as hidden power fists . but i guess that is the price to pay if u want to attach them to conscripts and ogryns.

[Colonel Grammissar Azalar]

All IC's lose thier IC status when joining a squad, unless it is a Commissar and you take the Independent Commissar doctorine.

But!! When the squad that a IC with is wiped out, they then become IC.

For Example

A Squad with A HSO, A Commissar, A Pysker, Two veteran Guardsmen and 2 Standard Guardsmen are fired upon, the Veteran Guardsmens and the 2 Standard Guardsmen are killed, then in the next turn, the Commissar and Pysker are killed. then the HSO then becomes a IC.

[Turtleboy(AWOL)]

azalar has it right. I'll quote the codex for the IG specific version of the 'independent character' rule that we use for our officers:

pardon me, it's called the 'character' rule - anyhow, here we go:

Character: The Officer is an independent character. However, he must remain within 2" of his command squad at all times and may not leave it. If it is wiped out, the Officer reverts to being an independent character.

basically it's a screwed up rule, but the key is 'reverts.' reverts means that previous to the officers command squad being wiped out he is not an independent character, otherwise he would not be able to revert to (or return to) being an independent character.

I totally and wholeheartedly agree that this rule is about as poorly written as it gets, almost like a chunk of text was just jerked out of the armylist entry mid-sentence, but the word 'reverts' is important in the sentence because it implies strongly that he isn't an IC when he has a squad.

[Colonel Grammissar Azalar]

*Takes a bow

I am to please and help T

[Deleted]

I'm not so sure about this... They first say he is an Independent Character and then he is not? Sounds very strange but I hope u are right...

What it also could mean is just that he can join another squad and is not subject to the "last man standing" rule.

I would very much like an official clarification regarding this issue...

[Colonel Grammissar Azalar]

Please read the post which T-boy agreed with, you cant get much clearer than that.

[fatuous]

I'm with u when being fired on, but still not 100% certain about CC. From the exert from the codex it would appear that they still function as IC during an assault. So no hidden power fists on officers.

The reverts to bit appears to regard joining other units and last man stand rolls, ie, they can't join units unless their squad is all killed, and never make last man standing rolls as they are independent.

[Colonel Grammissar Azalar]

No, They do not, due to the fact they are accompanied by a retuine, but they do go last due to them have power weapons

[Turtleboy(AWOL)]

I give up on this one. I literally can't figure out what they intended the rule to be. time to call the roolzboyz

k. got off the phone with the roolzboyz and they cleared it up for me. you guys are pretty much right on on most counts - here's the full run down from the most official GW source there is prettymuch:

when in a squad, the officer is still and IC. the squad may be shot at.

in a close combat, the officer fights separately as he is an IC.

when his retinue is removed from play, the officer reverts to being an IC meaning:
+he doesn't need to pass last man standing checks
+he may join other squads
+he may not be targetted unless he's the closest model by shooting attacks
+etc as per the IC rules.

and that's that!

[Colonel Grammissar Azalar]

Turtle-Boy, you have to be this boards resident Roolzboy, Lol.

[Turtleboy(AWOL)]

nah, I'm just the only one with GW on speed dial!!!

[Rolling Thunder]

So the officer can or cannot be targeted seperately in close combat?

Sorry, but I'm kinda slow at this time of night.

[Turtleboy(AWOL)]

officer may be singled out in melee.

officer also may not attack unless in base to base in melee.

for all practical purposes, he is a separate unit in melee except that he must retain unit cohesion with his retinue.