Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Breton wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
This of course does not matter since "units cannot... be affected in any way while they are embarked." The leader does not give his squad the sustained hits while they are embarked.

Bottom line is that the vehicle will not have sustained hits because of AZ being attached to an embarked unit.

And Leaders are said to be leading their units for the duration of the battle - which includes the time they're embarked. It could go either way. I was merely explaining the confusion is understandable. It needs a FAQ, it could go either way. I see two times out of three they say no, one time they say yes.

That is great that leaders are said to be leading their units for the duration of the battle.

This of course does not matter since "units cannot... be affected in any way while they are embarked." The leader does not give his squad the sustained hits while they are embarked.

Does not need an FAQ, since "units cannot... be affected in any way while they are embarked." trying to give the units weapons sustained hits because they have a leader, is affecting the embarked unit.

The fact that the two of you can go back and forth with logical conclusions that are diametrically opposed is enough to make an FAQ/Rules Commentary definitive answer useful. You shouldn't have to be a lawyer to determine the proper answer.

 alextroy wrote:
The fact that the two of you can go back and forth with logical conclusions that are diametrically opposed is enough to make an FAQ/Rules Commentary definitive answer useful. You shouldn't have to be a lawyer to determine the proper answer.

I am the only one with the logical conclusion, because he is ignoring the rule that says "units cannot... be affected in any way while they are embarked."

Does not need an FAQ. The rules are clear if you do not ignore other rules.

Affecting the unit by giving it a leader bonus seems to be affecting the unit. It's consistent as well, and so is likely intend (as well as being raw()

 DeathReaper wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
The fact that the two of you can go back and forth with logical conclusions that are diametrically opposed is enough to make an FAQ/Rules Commentary definitive answer useful. You shouldn't have to be a lawyer to determine the proper answer.

I am the only one with the logical conclusion, because he is ignoring the rule that says "units cannot... be affected in any way while they are embarked."

Does not need an FAQ. The rules are clear if you do not ignore other rules.

Being right doesn't mean a clear definative answer from GW isn't helpful. This would not be the first time GW gave and FAQ answer to something that was clear to the majority. The FAQ makes it clear to everyone.

Except "leading a unit" isn't like how it used to work when IC was a thing where the IC can freely join and leave a unit in middle of battle.

When a character unit with Leader keyword leads a unit, the said character becomes part of that unit for all rules purposes - at which point, the leader isn't "actively" leading a unit. The character and bodyguard units are a single unit until the bodyguard units' models are depleted.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but once a character attached to a unit loses the said bodyguard unit, there are no rules that allow you to attach the character to a new unit.

Let's think of it this way - if you selected Azrael's weapon as a part of the weapons that will be "used" by the transport, does his weapon not get [sustained 1]? Following, does being embarked in a transport force Azrael to somehow "un-lead" the said unit, as in, does he get "detached" from his unit while he is embarked in a transport?

Now, abilities with aura keyword would not affect the embarked unit for sure.

Okay so reading through it further and it gets less clear cut than I thought initially.

As an example a cadian castallen.

Senior Officer: While this model is leading a unit, ranged
weapons equipped by models in that unit have the
[SUSTAINED HITS 1] ability.

So the weapons have the sustained hits ability, the vehicle gets the weapons which in theory keep the ability. Yes the castallen isn't leading the vehicle but the vehicle still gets the guns with all the abilities the gun (not the unit) possesses.

Now if it said the unit gains sustained hits I'd say no it doesn't pass over. But since their guns get it? Yes I think at least.

cody.d. wrote:
Okay so reading through it further and it gets less clear cut than I thought initially.

As an example a cadian castallen.

Senior Officer: While this model is leading a unit, ranged
weapons equipped by models in that unit have the
[SUSTAINED HITS 1] ability.

So the weapons have the sustained hits ability, the vehicle gets the weapons which in theory keep the ability. Yes the castallen isn't leading the vehicle but the vehicle still gets the guns with all the abilities the gun (not the unit) possesses.

Now if it said the unit gains sustained hits I'd say no it doesn't pass over. But since their guns get it? Yes I think at least.

No, they do not gains sustained hits in this case because "units cannot... be affected in any way while they are embarked." trying to give the units weapons abilities because they have a leader, is affecting the embarked unit which is specifically not allowed.

 skchsan wrote:
Except "leading a unit" isn't like how it used to work when IC was a thing where the IC can freely join and leave a unit in middle of battle.

When a character unit with Leader keyword leads a unit, the said character becomes part of that unit for all rules purposes - at which point, the leader isn't "actively" leading a unit. The character and bodyguard units are a single unit until the bodyguard units' models are depleted.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but once a character attached to a unit loses the said bodyguard unit, there are no rules that allow you to attach the character to a new unit.

Let's think of it this way - if you selected Azrael's weapon as a part of the weapons that will be "used" by the transport, does his weapon not get [sustained 1]? Following, does being embarked in a transport force Azrael to somehow "un-lead" the said unit, as in, does he get "detached" from his unit while he is embarked in a transport?

Now, abilities with aura keyword would not affect the embarked unit for sure.

Not quite: Azrael is leading the unit for the duration of the battle. He is still "leading the unit" - meaning the "Attached Unit" - if every bodyguard model is destroyed - he is leading the unit "for the duration of the battle". This only changes if there's a secondary Leader attached because they have an addon blurb

If you do, and that Bodyguard unit is destroyed, the Leader units attached to it become separate units, with their original Starting Strengths.

The leader rule effects the unit, while the model is leading. It isn't set once and done.

LWhile leading" tells you you have to keep checking each time you interact with the unit.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
The leader rule effects the unit, while the model is leading. It isn't set once and done.

LWhile leading" tells you you have to keep checking each time you interact with the unit.

But it is set and done until the bodyguard unit is destroyed. You can't "un-lead" a unit (i.e. voluntarily leave a unit) after the deployment. There is no "check" to see if a leader is still leading the unit. And a leader doesn't all of a sudden stops leading a unit just because it's embarked.

The underlying assumption here is that being led by a leader (and subsequently being granted certain abilities) = being affected in some way. There's no rule text to consider this to be true. While there are certain leader abilities affect the unit's actions (i.e. reroll, add, ignore, etc), and the rules are clear in that transport unit =! embarked units, but by no means does that mean all abilities by virtue of existing on the data sheet are abilities that "affect the model in any sort of way".

If you get really technical here, it's actually the bodyguard unit that's "affecting" the leader first by virtue of being attached by the leader. The leader's ability has no effect until it's attached to a bodyguard unit (i.e. he cannot benefit from [sustained hits 1] while he is NOT leading a unit) - which, arguably is a really roundabout and disingenuous way of parsing the phrase as to make the ability not work.

Another alternative take - if an embarked model has improved weapon profile via enhancements and is selected to be used by the transport, does the transport use the baseline profile or use the improved profile? Is the enhancement considered to be "affecting" the unit? In the same line of thought, is the process of exchanging weapons during army creation considered to be "affecting" the unit swapping weapons out?

Yes there is. There is the clause "while leading". He has to still be leading in order to grant the rule. When you check the unit and the weapon rules, you check to see if they are being led at that time. There is no persistence. It is every single time you observe the unit

And while embarked, you cannot be affected in any way.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yes there is. There is the clause "while leading". He has to still be leading in order to grant the rule. When you check the unit and the weapon rules, you check to see if they are being led at that time. There is no persistence. It is every single time you observe the unit

And while embarked, you cannot be affected in any way.

100% this is correct.

No sustained hits for a transport with Az and crew inside.

At least it's not only us who were confused about how to handle it.

We agreed to not use leader bonuses for embarked units until GW clarifies it.