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.

So I was told when I was proposing a variation of strategy based on these rules in the tactics section that this circumstance is under debate here still so I wanted to put for my reasoning and hear what counter reasoning there is to this situation.

Now,

1st: Mordrak does not contain the IC special rule, but since when he is apart of a unit of Ghost Knights or by the very fact that he can be apart of them should allow that you can join any IC to him and/or his squad. I similarly join a Tyranid Prime to a unit of Carnifex for a great combined effect.

2nd: The Cambridge Dictionary defines the verb to accompany as, "to go with someone or to be provided or exist at the same time as something" which more than meets the requirements of First into the Fray special rule as Mordrak is mos definately accompanying the storm raven he is embarked on by that definition which must be accepted (especially since it is the British definition) since neither the BRB nor Codex Grey Knights defines the criteria of what it is to accompany in any way that supersedes the definition. There is neither a listing for the word nor a single case use that can be used as an example as the sole definition within the context of the game.

3rd: The only questionable part of this seems to be the fact that in First into the Fray it clearly states that any Unit he accompanies, so the burden would fall to me to define a transport vehicle within the context of the rule-book as unit, except the BRB already does so on page 36 of the BRB "...units that must deploy via deep strike (along with any models embarked upon them)" and based on the wording it would seem that a transport and any embarked unit essentially count as a single unit in a few instances more: If a vehicle is assaulted then the unit embarked can fire over watch just as if you were assaulting it (the embarked unit); you can never assault a unit you didn't shoot at unless is is a unit that was forced to disembark from a vehicle you shot at which again eludes to instances of two separate units being treated as one when dealing with the transition of one phase to the other or (espeically in) dealing with Grey Knight special rules: Coteaz's I've been expecting you allows you to shoot at both a drop pod and the unit embarked once they enter his line of site which means that even thought the squad is disembarking from the vehicle they are still considered to have just entered via deep strike as a part of it.

I think the case is made, I am not sure why it would be in question unless no one has done the reading yet or maybe I was mislead, but I believe this argument has shifted the Burden of Proof to a GW faq or if someone can find an instance of what rule this circumstance would be breaking.

Well technically GW defines being inside of a transport embarked.

Unfortunately there's also this;

6. Dictionary definitions of words are not always a reliable source of information for rules debates, as words in the general English language have broader meanings than those in the rules. This is further compounded by the fact that certain English words have different meanings or connotations in Great Britain (where the rules were written) and in the United States. Unless a poster is using a word incorrectly in a very obvious manner, leave dictionary definitions out.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:
Well technically GW defines being inside of a transport embarked.

Unfortunately there's also this;

6. Dictionary definitions of words are not always a reliable source of information for rules debates, as words in the general English language have broader meanings than those in the rules. This is further compounded by the fact that certain English words have different meanings or connotations in Great Britain (where the rules were written) and in the United States. Unless a poster is using a word incorrectly in a very obvious manner, leave dictionary definitions out.

Had GW taken the time to define the word "Accompany" as they did in many other instances where the definition of a word may come into question then I would be inclined to agree with you, but since a British Dictionary is the only objective means by which we can discuss the meaning of the word in question (not what synonyms it might have in the context of the game) it must be accepted as defined by it. The basics in debate is finding a concrete premise to build on which I have done with examples from the BRB as well as the Codex and objective third party definitions that meet the criteria. This is the only way one can have a successful debate in hopes to reach any kind of conclusion outside of raw opinion.

So, I'm sorry but unless you can prove that the Cambridge dictionary is irrelevant when discussing the meanings of words when used by the British I must disregard your premise as just an opinion and does not detract from my previous argument.

That being said, generally "accompany" is seen to mean that they're in the same unit. So an independent character could join Mordrak and his Ghost Knights and accompany them, but not the Storm Raven they are embarked upon.

 Ghaz wrote:
That being said, generally "accompany" is seen to mean that they're in the same unit. So an independent character could join Mordrak and his Ghost Knights and accompany them, but not the Storm Raven they are embarked upon.

Okay, I thank you for your opinion, but again: does anyone have any instance of a rule this would be breaking as that is the only argument that can be made against this unless someone has an instance of where the BRB defines accompany or limits its wording in any way; because I looked, and I can't find one in either the BRB, any FAQ or Codex Grey Knights.

I defined the word exactly as it is in the dictionary, a British dictionary, what the word generally means doesn't effect this rule.

Except as has been pointed out, your interpretation requires a very narrow rules definition of the word "accompany" that has no support. Please provide one instance of the rules stating that an embarked unit is "accompanying" the vehicle, otherwise there is nothing to suppor your leap of logic. You embark on a vehicle, you don't accompany it.

 Sorginak wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
That being said, generally "accompany" is seen to mean that they're in the same unit. So an independent character could join Mordrak and his Ghost Knights and accompany them, but not the Storm Raven they are embarked upon.

Okay, I thank you for your opinion, but again: does anyone have any instance of a rule this would be breaking as that is the only argument that can be made against this unless someone has an instance of where the BRB defines accompany or limits its wording in any way; because I looked, and I can't find one in either the BRB, any FAQ or Codex Grey Knights.

I defined the word exactly as it is in the dictionary, a British dictionary, what the word generally means doesn't effect this rule.

As Ghaz and I have said/hinted upon. Show me in the rules where accompany ='s embarked.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

 Sorginak wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
That being said, generally "accompany" is seen to mean that they're in the same unit. So an independent character could join Mordrak and his Ghost Knights and accompany them, but not the Storm Raven they are embarked upon.

Okay, I thank you for your opinion, but again: does anyone have any instance of a rule this would be breaking as that is the only argument that can be made against this unless someone has an instance of where the BRB defines accompany or limits its wording in any way; because I looked, and I can't find one in either the BRB, any FAQ or Codex Grey Knights.

I defined the word exactly as it is in the dictionary, a British dictionary, what the word generally means doesn't effect this rule.

As Ghaz and I have said/hinted upon. Show me in the rules where accompany ='s embarked.

See, this is why I hate arguing on the internet: no one understands the fundamentals of debate or the concept of the burden of proof. This isn't some "Validity of the History of the world as noted by your religion" debate where you can just I know you are but what am I your way out of this.

I can't show you where in the BRB it states, "A unit embarking in a vehicle shall henceforth be known as accompanying it" just like you can't show me a single instance where the BRB limits the meaning of the word or uses it in a clear definition as, it refers to Characters and Independent Characters as "Joining" units and in no way refers to them as accompanying them on either page 63 or 39 where both of those are defined, nor does it limit it in the definition of a unit on page 3 which actually solidifies part of my argument by defining a Unit to encompass vehicles. So by your own logic, his rule invalidates itself as he can never accompany a unit per the rules of 40k.

Sorry if I am being a dick about this, but I don't care much for opinion when rules come into question. I am a Communications Major with an emphasis on Psychology and Epistemology, digging to the root truth of a matter is what I do and while I hate sounding so arrogant as to state that my logic is flawless, I cannot find fault with it and I put my argument here to see if it is solid and based on logic and the definition and mechanics of the game, all which have stood up. This is clearly an example of where they purposefully left a definition broad to encompass many things like they did in many a codex just before 6th edition (like "Power Weapon") which unless clarified in a FAQ must stand as read.

 Sorginak wrote:


except the BRB already does so on page 36 of the BRB "...units that must deploy via deep strike (along with any models embarked upon them)" and based on the wording it would seem that a transport and any embarked unit essentially count as a single unit in a few instances more

I think the case is made, I am not sure why it would be in question unless no one has done the reading yet or maybe I was mislead, but I believe this argument has shifted the Burden of Proof to a GW faq or if someone can find an instance of what rule this circumstance would be breaking.

First it be breaking the flyer rules, as they must start in reserves. Second, an SR nor Mordak are units that MUST deepstrike so the above does nothing. Last, if you can not sure us the rule then the rule does not exist and has no baring over the game. This rule set is a premisive one or in other terms it doesn't saw I can't does not mean I can.

The fault I find in your logic is with accompany. A unit inside a transport does not go with the transport. The unit is not going anywhere. They do not accompany a transport in a normal sense as you claim, nor do they exist with the transport at the same time.

Instead a transported unit is removed from the table and is not moving at all. They give the transported unit very different and unique rules to define what its movement and shooting count as, and these rules do not accompany the vehicle rules, they stand apart from how the vehicle fires weapons and moves. In addition the units never exist together at the same time. For the transported models to exist on the tabletop they must disembark. You can not target the transport and have 'accompanying' models take hits as they units do not exist together and are not accompanying each other as a unit made of models in coherency as part of a squad do.

Are they two separate units? Why yes, they are.Does Mordrak have permission to bring in TWO units? No, he doesn't. Fundamentals of debate, you got nothing to stand on. Deal with it.

This is seriously being debated?
I mean....come on. There's RAW, and then there's rules lawerying.
Worse still, this is a no brainer.
"If he deploys via deepstrike, mordrk and any unit he accompanies will automatically arrive in your first turn and will not scatter." Page 40, Grey Knights.
So the idea is, as i understand it, you take mordrak, his ghost knights and a stormraven deep strike turn one.
Your argument is assuming that a unit embarked upon a vehcle is actually accompanied by the GK.
So let me ask you this: do you accompany a buss?

 Sorginak wrote:
2nd: The Cambridge Dictionary defines the verb to accompany as, "to go with someone or to be provided or exist at the same time as something" which more than meets the requirements of First into the Fray special rule as Mordrak is mos definately accompanying the storm raven he is embarked on by that definition which must be accepted (especially since it is the British definition) since neither the BRB nor Codex Grey Knights defines the criteria of what it is to accompany in any way that supersedes the definition. There is neither a listing for the word nor a single case use that can be used as an example as the sole definition within the context of the game.

BRB Page 39 wrote:An Independent Character can begin the game already with a unit, ...

BRB Page 39 wrote:An Independent Character can leave a unit during the Movement phase by moving out of unit coherency with it.

BRB Page 39 wrote:Special rules that are conferred to the unit only apply for as long as the Independent Character is with them.

There's more - so we can guarantee that "with" == "joined to" as far as the BRB is concerned.
Accompany, per your definition, means to go with someone. We know that to go with must mean to be joined to. Therefore Mordrak cannot accompany a Storm Raven as he's specifically forbidden from joining it.

 Sorginak wrote:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

 Sorginak wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
That being said, generally "accompany" is seen to mean that they're in the same unit. So an independent character could join Mordrak and his Ghost Knights and accompany them, but not the Storm Raven they are embarked upon.

Okay, I thank you for your opinion, but again: does anyone have any instance of a rule this would be breaking as that is the only argument that can be made against this unless someone has an instance of where the BRB defines accompany or limits its wording in any way; because I looked, and I can't find one in either the BRB, any FAQ or Codex Grey Knights.

I defined the word exactly as it is in the dictionary, a British dictionary, what the word generally means doesn't effect this rule.

As Ghaz and I have said/hinted upon. Show me in the rules where accompany ='s embarked.

See, this is why I hate arguing on the internet: no one understands the fundamentals of debate or the concept of the burden of proof. This isn't some "Validity of the History of the world as noted by your religion" debate where you can just I know you are but what am I your way out of this.

I can't show you where in the BRB it states, "A unit embarking in a vehicle shall henceforth be known as accompanying it" just like you can't show me a single instance where the BRB limits the meaning of the word or uses it in a clear definition as, it refers to Characters and Independent Characters as "Joining" units and in no way refers to them as accompanying them on either page 63 or 39 where both of those are defined, nor does it limit it in the definition of a unit on page 3 which actually solidifies part of my argument by defining a Unit to encompass vehicles. So by your own logic, his rule invalidates itself as he can never accompany a unit per the rules of 40k.

Sorry if I am being a dick about this, but I don't care much for opinion when rules come into question. I am a Communications Major with an emphasis on Psychology and Epistemology, digging to the root truth of a matter is what I do and while I hate sounding so arrogant as to state that my logic is flawless, I cannot find fault with it and I put my argument here to see if it is solid and based on logic and the definition and mechanics of the game, all which have stood up. This is clearly an example of where they purposefully left a definition broad to encompass many things like they did in many a codex just before 6th edition (like "Power Weapon") which unless clarified in a FAQ must stand as read.

you're entirely too hung up on the definition. It's not really a debate when you're going neener neener I don't like your opinion so I'm obviously right.

For the record it doesn't matter what you are, Psyc, epist, savant, pope, your logic is not flawless, you're just a tid full of yourself (perhaps)

Well, he's wrong even using the definition - as I proved.

As a small addition to this argument, I believe the only time a unit and a transport vehicle are considered as a single entity is with dedicated transports (e.g. drop pods, rhino's, etc.).

As defined in the rulebook, Mordrak has to declare his deployment before units are placed on the board. I.E. he has to declare if he is deepstriking using his special rule or declare he is boarding the transport. Dedicated transports are different in this respect, since the unit starts the game inside the transport before it is even placed on the board (though you do have the option, as explicitly outlined in the rules, to have the units disembark before they deploy).

Even dedicated transports and their units are never considered a single entity. They are grouped for certain specified purposes, but they're still always separate units.

Nothing forces units to embark in their dedicated transports, either, unless they're Outflanking with them.

As for the original question, rigel2 and jdjamesdean have it covered.

The 40k rules in this context are clearly referring to a character accompanying/joined to a squad, and vice-versa. No such state ever exists between a character and a vehicle in 40k.

jdjamesdean in his first post quoted the Tenets of You Make Da Call, which explain why dictionary definitions are not to be relied upon in rules discussion as a matter of general usage.

Since I see no one is willing to actually find any examples of the use of the word accompany in relevance to the BRB I found the only three entries in which the word is used (unless I missed one or two):

Pg. 138 "...and its missionaries who often accompany Imperial exploratory vessels."

Pg. 159 "A Missionary is a particularly fervent individual who finds hlmself at the forefront of Imperial expansion. Sent to rediscovered worlds or to accompany a crusading army, it is his task to bring the Emperor's light to lost civilisations."

Pg. 232 "A BETRAYAL OF BODY
Accompanying the cultist down the path to ruination is the mutant."

Then there is the question of whether a unit and transport are ever considered a single entity for the purposes of deep strike and special rules:

Pg 124, "First, he must specify to the opponent if any of his Independent Characters left in reserve are joining a unit, in which case they will arrive together. Similarly, the player must specify if any units in reserve are embarked upon any Transport vehicles in reserve, in which case they will arrive together."

It doesn't get much more clear than that with the 1.1 FAQ that clearly states, "If Mordrak arrives via deep strike...and any unit he accompanies".

See, this is why I asked for examples out of the book. Opinions are one thing, the truth when backed by evidence is another. Clearly, GW uses accompany the way I use it, in the broad sense of the term to encompass many different scenarios which all mean the same thing: To accompany = to go with. When a unit arrives via reserves or deep strike they are arriving with the transport they are embarked on. When I embark on a bus I am not directly accompanying that bus, but I am accompanying it down the street.

And yes jdjamesdean@mail.com, I am full of myself. (Obviously, I play Inquisition and Dark Eldar). I always assume I am right until someone proves me wrong and the only judgement I accept is objective truth. This has made me very good at compiling arguments and defending ideas because unless you are willing to completely devote yourself to playing devil's advocate you will never be the one to break new ground or have the gall to stand up to and entire group of people to prove a point. I listed my credentials not as a means of tooting my own horn but as a challenge to anyone who thinks I am wrong letting them know that this isn't going to devolve into some troll fest nor have I violated any of the tenants of YMDC though the same can't be said for those who attack me instead of my argument (thanks for trying though). I'm hung up on a definition because the entire meaning of a special rule rests on it.

Are there any other examples anyone would like to bring up or can we put this to rest now?

Did you ignore my post completely?

 Sorginak wrote:
Since I see no one is willing to actually find any examples of the use of the word accompany in relevance to the BRB I found the only three entries in which the word is used (unless I missed one or two):

Then there is the question of whether a unit and transport are ever considered a single entity for the purposes of deep strike and special rules:

Pg 124, "First, he must specify to the opponent if any of his Independent Characters left in reserve are joining a unit, in which case they will arrive together. Similarly, the player must specify if any units in reserve are embarked upon any Transport vehicles in reserve, in which case they will arrive together."

It doesn't get much more clear than that with the 1.1 FAQ that clearly states, "If Mordrak arrives via deep strike...and any unit he accompanies"

A character and a squad can accompany one another by the IC joining the unit, per the IC rules. As the IC rules detail, when joined to a unit the IC functions as part of the unit.

 Sorginak wrote:
Since I see no one is willing to actually find any examples of the use of the word accompany in relevance to the BRB I found the only three entries in which the word is used (unless I missed one or two):

Pg. 138 "...and its missionaries who often accompany Imperial exploratory vessels."

Pg. 159 "A Missionary is a particularly fervent individual who finds hlmself at the forefront of Imperial expansion. Sent to rediscovered worlds or to accompany a crusading army, it is his task to bring the Emperor's light to lost civilisations."

Pg. 232 "A BETRAYAL OF BODY
Accompanying the cultist down the path to ruination is the mutant."

None of which are rules and none of which support your position.

rigeld2 wrote:
Did you ignore my post completely?

Sorry, I wasn't going to address everyone's post individually. but no, I addressed your comments in my post with examples of what GW means when they use the word "Accompany" directly from the BRB. It took me hours of reading to get that rebuttal, I'm actually insulted that you think I didn't read everyone's answers before posting that last bit.

 Mannahnin wrote:
A character and a squad can accompany one another by the IC joining the unit, per the IC rules. As the IC rules detail, when joined to a unit the IC functions as part of the unit.

I was about to thank you for providing an argument from the book, but what you just said isn't how it is worded in the BRB... at all. No where on that entire page does it use the word Accompany.

If you people want me to accept your narrow version of the word Accompany, you're going to have to find it somewhere in written form from GW in some manner that states a limitation of it because according to them a Missionary can accompany a vessel and when an IC joins a unit or embarks upon a transport they arrive together. I can see how you would mean in the paragraph about Special Rules, but his special rule clearly states "if he arrives via deep strike". You can arrive via deep strike in a couple of different ways, one of which is embarked upon a transport with the deep strike special rule.

I mean, what part of the broad use of this word is being lost. Why would they change the phrase from deploys via deep strike to arrives via deep strike for 6th if not to ensure that it matches the criteria laid down in the reserves special rule for a unit arriving via deep strike (either in a transport or no, joined by IC or no) they all arrive together which is to say, granted by the definition utilized by GW in the BRB, they accompany each other to the battle field.

 Sorginak wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Did you ignore my post completely?

Sorry, I wasn't going to address everyone's post individually. but no, I addressed your comments in my post with examples of what GW means when they use the word "Accompany" directly from the BRB. It took me hours of reading to get that rebuttal, I'm actually insulted that you think I didn't read everyone's answers before posting that last bit.

Considering I used the definition you provided to prove you wrong and your post did nothing to address my argument, I felt you didn't read my post at all.

If you people want me to accept your narrow version of the word Accompany, you're going to have to find it somewhere in written form from GW in some manner that states a limitation of it because according to them a Missionary can accompany a vessel and when an IC joins a unit or embarks upon a transport they arrive together. I can see how you would mean in the paragraph about Special Rules, but his special rule clearly states "when he arrives via deep strike". You can arrive via deep strike in a couple of different ways, one of which is embarked upon a transport with the deep strike special rule.

You can't use fluff to support a rules argument.

I mean, what part of the broad use of this word is being lost. Is this just all GK haters here or people who just want me to be wrong? Why would they change the phrase from deploys via deep strike to arrives via deep strike for 6th if not to ensure that it matches the criteria laid down in the reserves special rule for a unit arriving via deep strike (either in a transport or no, joined by IC or no) they all arrive together.

Yeah, that's the right way to debate. Just call everyone on the opposing side biased and ignore their statements. Great plan.
His method of arrival is irrelevant. He does not arrive "with" the Raven or Dread.


Edit: To accompany == To go with. The IC rules demonstrate that, according to GW, "to go with" means joined to the unit. There's no wiggle room.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Sorginak wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Did you ignore my post completely?

Sorry, I wasn't going to address everyone's post individually. but no, I addressed your comments in my post with examples of what GW means when they use the word "Accompany" directly from the BRB. It took me hours of reading to get that rebuttal, I'm actually insulted that you think I didn't read everyone's answers before posting that last bit.

Considering I used the definition you provided to prove you wrong and your post did nothing to address my argument, I felt you didn't read my post at all.

If you people want me to accept your narrow version of the word Accompany, you're going to have to find it somewhere in written form from GW in some manner that states a limitation of it because according to them a Missionary can accompany a vessel and when an IC joins a unit or embarks upon a transport they arrive together. I can see how you would mean in the paragraph about Special Rules, but his special rule clearly states "when he arrives via deep strike". You can arrive via deep strike in a couple of different ways, one of which is embarked upon a transport with the deep strike special rule.

You can't use fluff to support a rules argument.

I mean, what part of the broad use of this word is being lost. Is this just all GK haters here or people who just want me to be wrong? Why would they change the phrase from deploys via deep strike to arrives via deep strike for 6th if not to ensure that it matches the criteria laid down in the reserves special rule for a unit arriving via deep strike (either in a transport or no, joined by IC or no) they all arrive together.

Yeah, that's the right way to debate. Just call everyone on the opposing side biased and ignore their statements. Great plan.
His method of arrival is irrelevant. He does not arrive "with" the Raven or Dread.


Edit: To accompany == To go with. The IC rules demonstrate that, according to GW, "to go with" means joined to the unit. There's no wiggle room.

Uhh... No? You cut part of the definition, not my definition, of accompany and used some half supported examples that do, yes, prove that your version of the word accompany does in fact meet the requirements, but it doesn't discredit mine.

I mean, this is just getting ridiculous. You won't accept the dictionary definition of a word, you wont accept it in context when used by the people who wrote the rules we are debating. What exactly is your leg to stand on? I'm not calling everyone on the opposing side biased and ignore their statements. That's what you did, that is what you are doing when you state the same argument without any facts or examples to back it up for a reason I cannot comprehend which is why I can only assume you just want me to be wrong; which is fine with me, I will not mind being wrong if you can find a single example to support your argument that holds up to scrutiny.

You people say I can't use an actual example of the word when taken from the BRB because it is fluff when it is used no where else within it. Can you even find me an example of where a contemporary codex or the BRB even uses the word Accompany outside of the ones I have listed? If no, then don't tell me you are right because I am wrong nor that I don't know how to argue rules.

I've accepted that we must use the dictionary definition that you've provided since the BRB doesn't define the word. The only definition that makes sense in the sentence is "To go with".

I've cited 3 examples from the IC rules that show when GW says "with" they mean joined to (or leaving).

I'm not the person who accused everyone else of being GK haters who just want me to be wrong. That's accusing people of a bias, and its unwarranted.

There is no rule defining "accompany". There is a way defined in the rules by which a character may join a unit, thereby accompanying them and vice versa.

Sorginak, since you are professing a strong intellect and debating ability, I think it is necessary that you review some of the more common logical fallacies. Here is a short list of the ones I have noticed you make:

http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/tu-quoque
http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/special-pleading
http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/loaded-question
http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof
http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ambiguity
http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority
http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/genetic
http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-fallacy-fallacy

If you're going to claim to be on such a high, philosophical, and linguistic horse, you really need to be able to back it up without committing such elementary errors in argumentation.

Remember, a good debater does NOT use these fallacies to 'win' his argument. He actually avoids them at all cost and still proves his point.

Respectfully,

DoW

I particularly like the 'fallacy-fallacy' one. Just because he may have used a logical fallacy or two in his arguments, does not perforce make them wrong. (just ill-argued)

In this case though i have to agree with the majority concensus: Mordraks' 'First into the Fray' ability cannot be used on a vehicle in which he and his squad are embarked.

So we all love to get into forum debates on here to try and convince others to share our interpretations of ambiguous rules. Many claim their view is so cut crystal clear as day based on the RAW, being the very words on the pages. And yet so many others have conflicting ideas based on those same printed words. This is why we have judges in tournaments, they determine the RAI, which will always be the actual way people play, because most of the time, these issues are already settled in friendly games.....in none of which I've ever played would permit an IC, much less his bodyguard unit, to join a flyer just so it could come in turn 1, when they can already deepstrike and not scatter in turn 1. If you're worried about them getting all shot up, put them behind cover, or even better put your Aegis Line way up in your table half and deepstrike them behind that.

Or a King Solomon way to settle this: split Mordrak/Ghost Knights and the StormRaven into 2 units, and whichever Quad Gun loves them the most gets to shoot first.

 don_mondo wrote:
Are they two separate units? Why yes, they are.Does Mordrak have permission to bring in TWO units? No, he doesn't. Fundamentals of debate, you got nothing to stand on. Deal with it.

I don't understand how his didn't end the thread.

The OP, as far as I have understood, is claiming that Mordrak is "accompanying" both a unit and another vehicle.

My reasoning would be, in response to this:

The entry for Mordrak specifies "...the unit he accompanies" singular.

As don_mondo has pointed out, they are in fact two units. So how then, can Mordrak's rule affect two, separate, units?