Huron Infiltration Loophole - Page 3 - Wargaming Forum and Wargamer Forums
40k Rules Discussion Post any Warhammer 40k rules queries and discussions here.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #21 of 36 (permalink) Old 10-20-13, 04:21 PM
Senior Member
 
Iraqiel's Avatar
Iraqiel's Flag is: Australia
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Top End
Posts: 2,422
Reputation: 68
Default

While I have no more sources to add, as the use of upgrade characters like Gunnery Sergeant Harker allow a non-infiltrating unit to infiltrate, I interpret the primary rule this way as well, and will always allow my opponent to do so also.

Iraqiel

Check out my Imperial Guard Battle-Group-in-the-making as it slowly takes form! Located just here:
https://www.heresy-online.net/forums/...my&army_id=705

And my collection of all things - particularly Grey Knights; Guard and Adeptus Mechanicus: https://www.heresy-online.net/forums/...d.php?t=129966
Iraqiel is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #22 of 36 (permalink) Old 10-20-13, 09:58 PM
Senior Member
 
Straken's_Fist's Avatar
Straken's_Fist's Flag is: South Georgia
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Wiltshire
Posts: 1,094
Reputation: 18
Default

You declare the IC is joining the unit in deployment, so the IC joins a unit and grants them infiltrate...What am I missing? Without the superflous explaination.
Straken's_Fist is offline  
post #23 of 36 (permalink) Old 10-20-13, 10:04 PM
Senior Member
 
Xabre's Avatar
Xabre's Flag is: USA
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,848
Reputation: 72
Default

The short verson: No one can figure out the WHEN involved in that, Straken. Most people say that the IC joins the unit early enough to grant them Infiltrate, while the other half are saying that they CANT join the unit until deployment, in which case infiltrate can't be granted in time.

Xabre is offline  
 
post #24 of 36 (permalink) Old 10-20-13, 11:27 PM
Senior Member
 
NathanJD's Avatar
NathanJD's Flag is: USA
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 268
Reputation: 6
Default

That's right, 4+ and move on .
NathanJD is offline  
post #25 of 36 (permalink) Old 10-21-13, 02:38 AM
Senior Member
 
Straken's_Fist's Avatar
Straken's_Fist's Flag is: South Georgia
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Wiltshire
Posts: 1,094
Reputation: 18
Default

Fair enough.
Straken's_Fist is offline  
post #26 of 36 (permalink) Old 10-22-13, 09:59 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 423
Reputation: 7
Default

You guys keep mentioning Huron's ability in conjunction with possible strategies involving Allies like Necrons. Is Huron's D3 Infiltrate ability a Warlord trait? Because if so, it would only be able to benefit the main detatchment, and any Battlebrother Allies (so Daemons would be fine). I haven't read the CSM codex, so..

The Grey Knights: Because Huzzah for Blind Faith and Unreasonable Hatred!
Routine is offline  
post #27 of 36 (permalink) Old 10-22-13, 10:18 PM
Senior Member
 
NathanJD's Avatar
NathanJD's Flag is: USA
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 268
Reputation: 6
Default

The "Master of Deceit" warlord trait reads, "D3 Infantry units in your army have Infiltrate." The key word here is: army. Army is defined as everything you've brought to the game which includes any number of primary and allied detachments as well as any number of fortifications. By any number I mean 1-2 of each accounting for double force org games. It could go even higher if you wanted to play triple+ force org.

Also important is "D3 Infantry units" as opposed to D3 friendly Infantry units or D3 friendly units from this codex or D3 friendly units from this detachment. All of which are used to describe other slightly different restrictions.
NathanJD is offline  
post #28 of 36 (permalink) Old 10-23-13, 03:00 AM
Senior Moderator
 
DeathKlokk's Avatar
DeathKlokk's Flag is: USA
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 5,719
Reputation: 20
Default

But anything other than Battle Brothers cannot benefit from Warlord traits.

Strange, but not a Stranger.
DeathKlokk is offline  
post #29 of 36 (permalink) Old 10-23-13, 03:06 AM
Senior Member
 
NathanJD's Avatar
NathanJD's Flag is: USA
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 268
Reputation: 6
Default

Ahh totally right, it's even in a bullet point! It's taking me a while to understand all the rules.
NathanJD is offline  
post #30 of 36 (permalink) Old 10-25-13, 12:11 AM
Senior Member
 
w0lfgang7's Avatar
w0lfgang7's Flag is: USA
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 146
Reputation: 2
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jam123456 View Post
this bit is what gets me..
pg 39 "Independent Character - Joining and Leaving a Unit"
An Independent Character can begin the game already with a unit, either by being deployed in coherency with it or, if the unit is in reserve, by informing your opponent of which unit it has joined.


by informing your opponent of which unit it has joined.

So i declare in my deployment turn that my IC that i didn't deploy who has the infiltrate rule is with my unit without infiltrate. as he is with them he bestows that rule upon them and he will be infiltrating with them. He doesn't have to be on the table to give them the rule. He could also do this with the outflanking rule instead of infiltrate and take any dedicated transport with them.

why would this be wrong??? what have i missed that disallows this.??

This is easier if you break out the two ideas from the one sentence into their own separate thoughts.

First, page 39 reads, "An Independent Character can begin the game already with a unit, either by being deployed in unit coherency with it or, if the unit is in reserve, by informing your opponent of which unit it has joined."

Again, this one sentence contains two ways (two rules) that ICs can begin the game already joined to a unit.

#1) "An Independent Character can begin the game already with a unit...by being deployed in unit coherency with [the unit]" The sentence is talking about how to deploy the IC. What is being deployed? The IC. The entire section is about ICs and how to deal with them. Here the BRB says that if you deploy the IC (not the IC and a unit, but the IC alone) in unit coherency with another unit on the battlefield, then you may begin the game with them considered already joined and therefore don't have to join them during turn one. End of thought/rule number one.

"OR," (emphasis added. The OR is important because it ends the first thought and begins the second thought.)

#2) "An Independent Character can begin the game already with a unit...in reserve, by informing your opponent of which unit [the IC] has joined." The sentence continues to talk about how to allow an IC to already be considered a part of a unit during turn one without having to use the regular "Joining and Leaving a Unit" rules. In this case, the IC and unit that you want the IC joined to are in reserves and are separate since they were placed there separately. The fact that they are placed into reserves on a separate basis is reinforced on page 124 when it states, "specify to the opponent if any...ICs left in reserve are joining a unit." Both units are already in reserves and are there separately, but you are allowed to declare them as joined. You then have the option to declare them as joined because this is the one instance where RAW allows you to simply "declare" that an IC and a unit are joined. The "declare" part of the sentence on page 39 is clearly written in reference to the reserves portion alone and does not apply to the unit cohesion thought that precedes the "or." End of thought/rule number one.

With the exception of units IN reserves, the sentence on page 39 NEVER addresses units NOT on the battlefield. This is another key point.

This now allows us to examine your statement. You wrote, "i declare in my deployment turn that my IC that i didn't deploy who has the infiltrate rule is with my unit without infiltrate" In this statement, you combined the rule for joining ICs with units in RESERVE, with the rule for joining ICs with units on the battlefield. That is where your statement goes wrong; you took the "declare" from units in reserve and applied it to units not even on the battlefield and definitely not in reserves. Then, since your opening sentence does not follow RAW, the rest of the example falls apart so does not need addressed.

Hope that helps.
w0lfgang7 is offline  
Reply

  Lower Navigation
Go Back   Wargaming Forum and Wargamer Forums > Warhammer 40K > 40k Rules Discussion

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Wargaming Forum and Wargamer Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome