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.

Okay, here's the thing. There's such a heated debate going on in Kel's thread about Independent Characters and getting into Allied Transports, that I'd like to get some numbers to see what the lay of the land is. If there's enough support for it, I would like to try out the tactics that Kel's point of view opens up. Here's a link to the thread.

For those who don't want to wade through ten pages to make sure they get the full story, I've summed up the two arguments below. IF YOU FEEL I NEED TO CLARIFY THE ARGUMENTS BELOW, DO NOT POST THAT. Please PM me with the argument for or against reworded to your liking, and I will update this post if it becomes necessary. To clarify it, this poll is about what you think the rules say, not the way you would play it.

The Argument For: When an Independent Character joins a unit, he is counted as being part of that unit. So long as the transport belongs to the army that the core unit comes from, then they are legally allowed to embark on transports, regardless of the presence of allied independent characters.

The Argument Against: When an Independent Character joins a unit, nothing removes his original army affiliation. Despite being treated 'as a member of that unit for all intents and purposes' he is still a member of an allied army, and is NOT eligible to get onto allied transports.

Now, this thread is not for discussion of this rules issue. It's a poll to find out what your opinion on the issue is. There's already a perfectly good thread for that. It's here. If you want to discuss this rules call, go to Kel's thread to do it, please.

If you simply must post something here, then by all means, feel free to propose a hypothetical scenario (for good or for ill) that could arise if Independent Characters WERE able to embark on allied transports, so long as they were joined to an appropriate unit. Any further rules complications? Powerhouse combos? Post those here. Again, further discussion of these rules belong in the original thread. Comments like 'close the thread,' 'troll thread,' and 'anyone who thinks differently than me is a cheater/stupid/illiterate' don't belong on this site at all.

Thank you all in advance for keeping it civil and productive.

Is this HYWPI or RAW?

Rules as Written.

How about when an IC attached to a unit in a transport stops being attached to that unit? Think possessed CSM transports eating the last model of the original unit but leaving the IC.

Can CSM transports kill the models riding in them? I didn't know that. Is it random allocation as to who gets eaten? (Making it very unlikely the IC would be the last man standing?) Sorry, I don't know CSM rules well enough. Good eye, though!

 WarOne wrote:
How about when an IC attached to a unit in a transport stops being attached to that unit? Think possessed CSM transports eating the last model of the original unit but leaving the IC.

Impossible scenario. CSM is only BB with Daemons who specifically can't join their units.

rigeld2 wrote:

 WarOne wrote:
How about when an IC attached to a unit in a transport stops being attached to that unit? Think possessed CSM transports eating the last model of the original unit but leaving the IC.

Impossible scenario. CSM is only BB with Daemons who specifically can't join their units.

http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Downloads/Product/PDF/a/allies.pdf

FW allows certain FW specific armies to Battle Brother with CSM.

Which would mean FW needs to address those inconsistencies - the BRB cannot be expected to cover them.

rigeld2 wrote:
Which would mean FW needs to address those inconsistencies - the BRB cannot be expected to cover them.

But yet the scenario now does exist, so how would we treat such a situation?

Alternatively, how do we treat a unit of two separate ICs that are Battle Brothers and have joined together? Who is with whom in this context?

First question:
Are those army lists 40k approved?
Second:
Do they actually have any ICs?

I'd force him out if he was the last model embarked.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 WarOne wrote:
Alternatively, how do we treat a unit of two separate ICs that are Battle Brothers and have joined together? Who is with whom in this context?

One always joins the other. The model that is joined is the "winning" unit.

Suppose a SM character joins a unit consisting of two guardsmen both armed with a plasmagun... They fire from inside the Chimera and both die to overheats. The game breaks at this point.

rigeld2 wrote:
First question:
Are those army lists 40k approved?
Second:
Do they actually have any ICs?

I'd force him out if he was the last model embarked.

Not sure; we have an expert on FW here to confirm this?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dozer Blades wrote:
Suppose a SM character joins a unit consisting of two guardsmen both armed with a plasmagun... They fire from inside the Chimera and both die to overheats. The game breaks at this point.

Or if the unit decides to disembark but leave the IC in the transport.

"The game breaks" isn't a valid reason to disagree with how the rules work.
The game breaks as soon as you try to fire with a Wraithlord, Hive Guard, Zoanthrope, or similar models. That doesn't mean the rules don't say what they say.

rigeld2 wrote:
"The game breaks" isn't a valid reason to disagree with how the rules work.
The game breaks as soon as you try to fire with a Wraithlord, Hive Guard, Zoanthrope, or similar models. That doesn't mean the rules don't say what they say.

I think he meant what do you do in this situation that is grounded in the rules.

And actually, the rules as stated only restrict Battle Brothers from embarking; nothing is stated about what happens when a BB is found inside a transport.

Marneus Calgar, here is your Devilfish transport! Enjoy!

rigeld2 wrote:
"The game breaks" isn't a valid reason to disagree with how the rules work.

It is, however, a good incentive to choose the other option when there are two possible interpretations.

rigeld2 wrote:
"The game breaks" isn't a valid reason to disagree with how the rules work.
The game breaks as soon as you try to fire with a Wraithlord, Hive Guard, Zoanthrope, or similar models. That doesn't mean the rules don't say what they say.

Yea, and no one really plays or reads the whole "eyes" thing as a true RAW. Cmon, now.

What if a SM IC is embarking into a Chimera and all his good IG buddies die due to dangerous terrain tests? It's clear the rules weren't written to accommodate these types of situations.

Dozer, please don't use this thread as a platform to argue your position on the main topic. There's already a ten page thread for that.

I appreciate you bringing up a more conventional example of the scenario initially brought up, however. If the minority inerpretation of the rule is correct, what happens to a joined IC who suddenly finds himself alone in a vehicle he could not normally be in? It makes sense to me that an IC who found himself on an Allied transport without a 'carrier unit' would have to disembark at the first opportunity where models could normally disembark from a vehicle.

It would be possible to have that situation even if the BB cannot embark - unless there is a rule I missed stating that BB cannot start the game in an Allied Transport.

 Happyjew wrote:
It would be possible to have that situation even if the BB cannot embark - unless there is a rule I missed stating that BB cannot start the game in an Allied Transport.

Looking at the wording in the Deploy Forces section, the condition in the Allies rule would cover that.

I am sure you can guess what I voted for.

Voted. Let's just hope we can contain the discussion to the other thread and just make this one a poll without all the tortured logic.

Didn't notice that it said ALLIED TRENSPORTS until after I had voted. Darn.

Beast wrote:
Voted. Let's just hope we can contain the discussion to the other thread and just make this one a poll without all the tortured logic.

While I agree with this sentiment, your stance is clearly wrong and we must spend the next 15 pages arguing the same exact two points.

JK. I really hope we can keep the argument in the other thread. Of course I'm also curious how the people who vote Yes they can, actually play it.

Who knew it was still spring break? Because people are 'Easter Egging' rules all day long in YMTC.

No to embarking allied transports.

 Happyjew wrote:

Beast wrote:
Voted. Let's just hope we can contain the discussion to the other thread and just make this one a poll without all the tortured logic.

While I agree with this sentiment, your stance is clearly wrong and we must spend the next 15 pages arguing the same exact two points.

JK. I really hope we can keep the argument in the other thread. Of course I'm also curious how the people who vote Yes they can, actually play it.

lol... +1

Yeah me too...

It's nice to be able to see the actual numbers.

I voted already but Rig offered me some BEER, so I am going to have to support his side.

Unless of course, someone else cares up the ante?!?

I am not above accepting a bribe.

40k-noob wrote:
I voted already but Rig offered me some BEER, so I am going to have to support his side.

Unless of course, someone else cares up the ante?!?

I am not above accepting a bribe.

One lousy beer? I don't think he is very serious about you... I would re-think this relationship IIWY.

Beast, would you do it for a Scooby Snack?