If I have Preferred Enemy: Space Marines for example, and I shoot at a unit that is mixed Tau and Space Marine (Say a Farsight/shadowsun bomb with an allied Space Marine Librarian being used to gate them around), how does Preferred Enemy work when I shoot at that unit? It contains a Space Marine model within the target.. do I get the benefits of Preferred Enemy?

No as in your example it is a Tau unit still, if the reverse was the example, Tau commander in SM unit then yes you would.

MarkyMark wrote:
No as in your example it is a Tau unit still, if the reverse was the example, Tau commander in SM unit then yes you would.

would he get the preferred enemy rule if the spacemarine was not in cover and the tau are in cover and he used the focus fire rule on the marine?

You target/roll to-hit against units, focus fire deals with which models wounds can be allocated to.

Even if you focus fire on the marine, it's still a Tau unit (in the case where a marine character joins a Tau unit).

MarkyMark wrote:
No as in your example it is a Tau unit still, if the reverse was the example, Tau commander in SM unit then yes you would.

Could you perhaps give me the page-numbers of the rules?
I don't see how you come to that conclusion.

All units have a type, an IC joining it doesn't create a hybrid or mixed type unit. The IC becomes 'for all rules purposes' part of the unit. No mention is made of the unit changing its type.

So a Tau IC joining a SM unit doesn't make it a Tau unit, it stays SM.
Reversely a SM IC joining a Tau unit doesn't make it a SM unit, it stays Tau.

Kangodo wrote:

MarkyMark wrote:
No as in your example it is a Tau unit still, if the reverse was the example, Tau commander in SM unit then yes you would.

Could you perhaps give me the page-numbers of the rules?
I don't see how you come to that conclusion.

I would like to see this also.

What codex are you choosing the first unit from?, Is it a Tau codex?. Then its a Tau unit, Preferred enemy states if it has a specfic type then you are PE against that specfic type of Foe. Lets take CSM they have PE Space marines. Now are you shooting at space marines as they contain one model that is a space marine, or are you shooting at Tau with a space marine in it.

For reference, see page 39, the block about Independent Characters, specifically the last sentence of the first column.

What about, say, a tau IC joined to an SM IC?

It's pretty clear, the IC joining another unit becomes part of that unit.

In this case both ICs are a unit.

The wording is vague (no suprise) but it says when an IC joins a unit he becomes a member of that unit for all rules purposes.
Many people take that to mean that the space marine would be considered to be a Tau at that point and stops being a space marine (which is almost as silly as a space marine joining a Tau unit to begin with) and you can follow that logic to allow an Allied IC to enter a transport when attached to a unit, the rulebook forbids it explicitly but hey.
The preferred enemy special rule is just as vague and says when "attacking it's preferred enemy" both shooting and close combat. It doesn't even specify unit or model or whatever so good luck making much of an arguement either way.

Edit: note the definition of a unit doesn't say anything about a unit belonging a codex either it just has it as a collection of Models

Commander R'alai has Preferred Enemy (Independent Character)

How would that work?

It wouldn't work, since Independent Character is a Special Rule, not a unit type. Characters usually have the type Infantry (Character), I think?
And it's not the unit name/codex name/army name either, in the case of Preferred Enemy (Space Marines) and such.

Still, I guess the intent is clear. If he shoots at a lone IC he gets Preferred Enemy.

The quedtion.is, what happens if the unit consists of 1 IC joining another IC to make a unit of 2? For example, Librarian joins a Battlesuit commander?

Then the model that "joined" the unit is the one that becomes a normal member for all rules purposes. So Tau joining SM makes the Tau "SM", and vice versa.

Had this discussion previously, from memory.

That discussion has come up many times and the conclusion doesn't make any sense, "Becomes a member of that unit" doesn't give blanket permision to pick up that units traits, no where in the rule book does it say that it does, simply that they are a member.
Also you join a unit that has wargear listed for that unit, well he is member right so he has that wargear by the same logic. So if the tau becomes a member of a tac unit, he gets grenades and power armor and a bolter that the unit has right? no.

Definition of a unit is models grouped together (to work together) find me any rules referrence that says otherwise.

Preferred enemy doesn't even say when targeting a unit, it simple says "When attacking their preferred enemy"

Kisada II wrote:
That discussion has come up many times and the conclusion doesn't make any sense, "Becomes a member of that unit" doesn't give blanket permision to pick up that units traits, no where in the rule book does it say that it does, simply that they are a member.

No, it says they're a normal member. There's a slight but important difference.
And you *can* gain traits when joining a unit, depending on how the rule is worded.

Also you join a unit that has wargear listed for that unit, well he is member right so he has that wargear by the same logic. So if the tau becomes a member of a tac unit, he gets grenades and power armor and a bolter that the unit has right? no.

No because wargear is model based, not unit based. Some wargear benefits the unit as a whole, however, and the IC would benefit from that.

Definition of a unit is models grouped together (to work together) find me any rules referrence that says otherwise.

How is that relevant?

Preferred enemy doesn't even say when targeting a unit, it simple says "When attacking their preferred enemy"

And how does one attack in 40k?

I do not have access to everything right now but wasn't there a FAQ detailing when R'alai's Preferred enemy (independent characters) would be applied that would also be valid for this original question?

rigeld2 wrote:

Kisada II wrote:
That discussion has come up many times and the conclusion doesn't make any sense, "Becomes a member of that unit" doesn't give blanket permision to pick up that units traits, no where in the rule book does it say that it does, simply that they are a member.

No, it says they're a normal member. There's a slight but important difference.
Rule book reference on this difference?
And you *can* gain traits when joining a unit, depending on how the rule is worded.
Provide Reference to the IC gaining the traits

Also you join a unit that has wargear listed for that unit, well he is member right so he has that wargear by the same logic. So if the tau becomes a member of a tac unit, he gets grenades and power armor and a bolter that the unit has right? no.

No because wargear is model based, not unit based. Some wargear benefits the unit as a whole, however, and the IC would benefit from that.
everything is Model based that is my point

Definition of a unit is models grouped together (to work together) find me any rules referrence that says otherwise.

How is that relevant?
Because you're claiming joining a unit alters the character itself and there isn't a definition that says a unit can't be a mixed unit (it infact implies the opposite, you have a unit of space marine members that has a tau member)

Preferred enemy doesn't even say when targeting a unit, it simple says "When attacking their preferred enemy"

And how does one attack in 40k?
For shooting, By fist choosing a target that has at least one model in line of sight to at least one model in your unit, so if you have preferred enemy to the model choosen ....

Kisada II wrote:
Provide Reference to the IC gaining the traits

How about Prefered Enemy? Seems a relevent rule.
"A unit that contains at least one model with this special rule.."
If the unit has it, but not the IC, then the IC gains the benefit.

everything is Model based that is my point

No it isn't. You target Units for shooting for example, not models.

For shooting, By fist choosing a target that has at least one model in line of sight to at least one model in your unit, so if you have preferred enemy to the model choosen ....

Kisada II wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Kisada II wrote:
That discussion has come up many times and the conclusion doesn't make any sense, "Becomes a member of that unit" doesn't give blanket permision to pick up that units traits, no where in the rule book does it say that it does, simply that they are a member.

No, it says they're a normal member. There's a slight but important difference.
Rule book reference on this difference?

First of all, it's more polite not to respond inside the quote - no matter how distinctive you make it look, it looks like I responded to myself.
Second - apologies, the "normal" word carried over from 5th edition.
In 6th, he's a member of the unit for all rules purposes. All. Not some. This is at the bottom left of the IC rules on page 39.

And you *can* gain traits when joining a unit, depending on how the rule is worded.
Provide Reference to the IC gaining the traits

Any rule that says "the unit gains" the benefit.

Also you join a unit that has wargear listed for that unit, well he is member right so he has that wargear by the same logic. So if the tau becomes a member of a tac unit, he gets grenades and power armor and a bolter that the unit has right? no.

No because wargear is model based, not unit based. Some wargear benefits the unit as a whole, however, and the IC would benefit from that.
everything is Model based that is my point

Absolutely false. Line of sight is model based, USRs can be either unit or model based.

Definition of a unit is models grouped together (to work together) find me any rules referrence that says otherwise.

How is that relevant?
Because you're claiming joining a unit alters the character itself and there isn't a definition that says a unit can't be a mixed unit (it infact implies the opposite, you have a unit of space marine members that has a tau member)

What?
No, joining a unit does not change the character in any way. I've never - ever - said that it does.
But if you're treating the IC as anything but a member of the unit for ALL rules purposes, you're breaking a rule.

Preferred enemy doesn't even say when targeting a unit, it simple says "When attacking their preferred enemy"

And how does one attack in 40k?
For shooting, By fist choosing a target that has at least one model in line of sight to at least one model in your unit, so if you have preferred enemy to the model choosen ....

How about if a model with Prefferred Enemy: Beasts targets a unit of Kroot Carnivoires (Infantry) with Kroothounds (Beasts). What happens then?

For that matter, Prefferred Enemy Monstrous Creatures attacking a Riptide (Monstrous Creature (Jet Pack)) and Shielded Missile Drones (Infantry (Jet Pack)).

RAW it's an Infantry unit and a MC unit (respectively).
Upgrades don't change the unit type unless specified.

It's one unit when you roll to hit and wound though.

And?

What about in the case of precision shots? If you roll to hit with sixes and you choose to allocate those wounds to a preferred enemy IC in a mixed unit, you would not benefit from the preferred enemy rule?

No. Preferred enemy applies to the target unit, not individual models.

Wasn't trying to be impolite was posting from a phone.

A rule that says it benefits the whole unit doesn't mean every member has the rule / trait. If all the members with the rule die they take the rule with them.

And no USRs are not model or unit based. They are all model based with effects that can benefit the whole unit etc.

Preferred enemy doesn't say target unit. That is the problem.

rigeld2 wrote:
No. Preferred enemy applies to the target unit, not individual models.

So what's the unit type of the target unit when the unit is a Riptide (Monstrous Creature, Jet Pack) and 2 Sheilded Missile Drones (Infantry, Jet Pack)? Does an attacker with Preffered Enemy (Monstrous Creatures) still benefit on the to Hit and to Wound rerolls against the unit? What about Monster Hunters?

What's the unit type when the target unit is 10 Kroot Carnivoires (Infantry) and 10 Kroot Hounds (Beasts)? Does Preferred Enemy (Beasts) get its rerolls?

Asked and answered.
It's MC and Infantry (respectively). Upgrading a model doesn't change the unit type.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kisada II wrote:
A rule that says it benefits the whole unit doesn't mean every member has the rule / trait. If all the members with the rule die they take the rule with them.

Sure - irrelevant distinction, but correct.

Preferred enemy doesn't say target unit. That is the problem.

In 40k do you attack units or models?

But if its MC and Infantry, will PE (MC) work then? If it does, you are getting to reroll hits and wounds against infantry models because those rolls are done against the overall unit before wound allocation to specific models. If it doesn't work, you lose the effects of PE against the MC (which is the reason you wanted PE to begin with).

So which option is right?

Jefffar wrote:
But if its MC and Infantry, will PE (MC) work then?

You're misunderstanding me. You asked 2 questions and I answered 2 questions.

A Riptide with drones is an MC unit. A Kroot squad with Carnivores is an Infantry squad.

If it does, you are getting to reroll hits and wounds against infantry models because those rolls are done against the overall unit before wound allocation to specific models. If it doesn't work, you lose the effects of PE against the MC (which is the reason you wanted PE to begin with).

So which option is right?

The former.
Just like you are rolling to wound against T3 in a squad of Hormagaunts with a Tyranid Prime (T5) attached, even if he's leading.

What about this situation.
Kroot squad with hounds. Part way through the game all the kroot are dead and only hounds are left. I shoot it with PE (beasts) Is it still an infantry squad or does my PE work now?

My FLGS rules it that only one model in the target unit has to be the PE to get the benefit using Hunters from Hyperspace as a precedent. However HFH states this interaction in its rules/Necron FAQ so I concede that it doesn't really work in as a precedent in a RAW discussion for PE.

Warfrog wrote:
What about this situation.
Kroot squad with hounds. Part way through the game all the kroot are dead and only hounds are left. I shoot it with PE (beasts) Is it still an infantry squad or does my PE work now?

Still an Infantry squad. Squad type stays the same unless a rule changes it.
Surprise, my answers aren't going to change regardless of how many circumstances you throw out there.

rigeld2 wrote:

Warfrog wrote:
What about this situation.
Kroot squad with hounds. Part way through the game all the kroot are dead and only hounds are left. I shoot it with PE (beasts) Is it still an infantry squad or does my PE work now?

Still an Infantry squad. Squad type stays the same unless a rule changes it.
Surprise, my answers aren't going to change regardless of how many circumstances you throw out there.

I wasn't expecting your answer to change. I was just asking for clarification for myself. Everyone examples still involved mixed units I was just curious how a mixed unit with only 1 model type remaining would interact.

You seem to be mistaking unit type for unit composition. Yes, the starting unit composition for a Kroot Carnivoire Squad is 10 Kroot and yes Kroot have the unit type Infantry, but the Kroot Hounds that form a part of that unit have the unit type Beasts. They still move and act as Beasts, but they must stay in coherency with the unit in question.

Take another Tau hybrid unit for example, a Firewarrior Team plus a couple of Marker Drones. The all are Infantry but the Drones are Jet Pack as well. This means that those Marker Drones can fire their Markerlights normally after moving because they are relentless. It also means that the Drones can use their Thrust move to reposition themselves in the Assault Phase, but have to stay in coherency with their stationary Firewarrior companions.

No, I'm mistaking nothing.
Individual models work differently - I haven't ever said differently.
But a unit of Fire Warriors with drone upgrade is still a unit of Fire Warriors when it gets shot at. What type of unit is a unit of Fire Warriors?

A unit of Fire Warriors and Drones is a mix of Infantry and Infantry, Jet Pack.

Unit Type is attached to the stat line of the model, not the unit.

Do you attack models or units?

Every time I see a question of 'What type of unit is X' I keep wanting to scream out their force organization slot as the answer.

rigeld2 wrote:
Do you attack models or units?

Where aside from the model stat line does it say the unit type?

Pages 410-413in the BRB, referenced by page 44.

Unit types are for (amusingly enough) the unit.

rigeld2 wrote:
Pages 410-413in the BRB, referenced by page 44.

Unit types are for (amusingly enough) the unit.

Page 44 "[snip] that lists each model's unit type."

That to me says unit type is on a model by model basis. So a unit of Kroot with Hounds that only have hounds remaining should be a beast unit.

Page 410 to 413 of the BRB are superseded by the codices. Show me in Codex TE where a unit of Kroot and Kroot Hounds is all Infantry and I will happily agree they are.

rigeld2 wrote:RAW it's an Infantry unit and a MC unit (respectively).
Upgrades don't change the unit type unless specified.

rigeld2 wrote:RAW it's an Infantry unit and a MC unit (respectively).
Upgrades don't change the unit type unless specified.

Let me get this straight, your saying that an HT that joins a unit of Tyrant Guard is no longer a MC?

 Abandon wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:RAW it's an Infantry unit and a MC unit (respectively).
Upgrades don't change the unit type unless specified.

rigeld2 wrote:RAW it's an Infantry unit and a MC unit (respectively).
Upgrades don't change the unit type unless specified.

Let me get this straight, your saying that an HT that joins a unit of Tyrant Guard is no longer a MC?

No, he is saying that the unit is an Infantry unit. The Tyrant is still an MC, however, for rules purposes, he is part of an Infantry unit.

MC is a unit type. Your saying it's both unit type: MC and unit type Infantry?

 Abandon wrote:
MC is a unit type. Your saying it's both unit type: MC and unit type Infantry?

No we are not.

The unit [Tyrant Guard Brood] is an infantry unit. If a Hive Tyrant joins the unit [Tyrant Guard Brood] than the unit [Tyrant Guard Brood] is an Infantry unit. The Hive Tyrant is still unit type (Monstrous Creature).

 Happyjew wrote:

 Abandon wrote:
MC is a unit type. Your saying it's both unit type: MC and unit type Infantry?

No we are not.

The unit [Tyrant Guard Brood] is an infantry unit. If a Hive Tyrant joins the unit [Tyrant Guard Brood] than the unit [Tyrant Guard Brood] is an Infantry unit. The Hive Tyrant is still unit type (Monstrous Creature).

So its a unit with two different unit types... being as one member is a MC and the rest are infantry...

The MC unit type is irrelevant as far as PE is concerned.
Because the MC unit can never be attacked.

 Abandon wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

 Abandon wrote:
MC is a unit type. Your saying it's both unit type: MC and unit type Infantry?

No we are not.

The unit [Tyrant Guard Brood] is an infantry unit. If a Hive Tyrant joins the unit [Tyrant Guard Brood] than the unit [Tyrant Guard Brood] is an Infantry unit. The Hive Tyrant is still unit type (Monstrous Creature).

So its a unit with two different unit types... being as one member is a MC and the rest are infantry...

So its a two unit type unit, can you show us where the rules are in the BRB for a mixed unit type unit?. It is still a infantry type as the Hive tyrant has joined a tyrant guard becoming part of the tyrant guards unit.

rigeld2 wrote:

Warfrog wrote:
What about this situation.
Kroot squad with hounds. Part way through the game all the kroot are dead and only hounds are left. I shoot it with PE (beasts) Is it still an infantry squad or does my PE work now?

Still an Infantry squad. Squad type stays the same unless a rule changes it.
Surprise, my answers aren't going to change regardless of how many circumstances you throw out there.

Both the Hive Tryant +TG and tau Drones, would seem to indicated otherwise. The HT is not an IC and this is important. When it becomes a part of the TG unit it gains the infantry type Infantry for its UNIT type. Because it is not an IC it can never leave the unit, so based on what you are saying, when TG die the Tyrant cannot revert to being a Unit (MC) as it can not leave the TG unit. Current supported ruling for play say the HT reverts back to be Unit MC

The Tau FW + Drones squads also specifically tell you that the mixed unit behave differently. When all the FW dies the unit is now a Drone unit and follows all drone rules losing the Troop and Unit Infantry status. While it could be a drone specific ruling, I would say combined the HT it would appears that unit such as the Krrot + hounds and all the Kroot died would change to Unit beast. This also follows the RAI/HIWPI indicated by the RAW of the IC rules to follow majority Unit type when determining what unit is.

Suddenly you have a reason to take 2 drones with that Riptide, I know the above could make some weirdness like this possible, but seem to match RAW and RAI the best.

The Tyrant is actually an IC in the guard unit - he just cannot leave.

The drone ruling is drone specific.

How about a Goaded Great Knarloc? The initial unit composition is a MC (the Great Knarloc) and 8 Infantry models (the Goads). So without options being exercised you have 2 Unit Types in a single unit.

Or how about those Eldar fire support batteries? The gunners are Infantry and the weapons are Artillery.

Or a Space Wolves Lone Wolf an infantry character specifically prevented from joining or being joined by any other unit, but can include two Fenresian Wolves in his unit which are Beasts. The Iron Priest is another non-independent character of the Infantry persuasian and his unit can upgrade with Servitors (infantry) and Fenresian Wolves.

Speaking of Fenresian Wolves, they are a frequent upgrade for characters in the Space Wolves codex. Another character upgrade is riding a Thunderwolf (Cavalry) which actually restricts that character to being in units consisting only of other Thunderwolf riders and/or Fenresian Wolves.

It seems to me like there are plenty of hybrid units that consist of multiple unit types already. Viewing them as exceptions or anomolies would be in error.

Jefffar wrote:
Or how about those Eldar fire support batteries? The gunners are Infantry and the weapons are Artillery.

Odd, because my codex says the crew has a Unit Type of Artillery.

It would still be nice if they would produce some sort of errata or rules on how to deal with 'mixed unit types.' While he might of been in slight error over one unit, Jeffa is still correct in pointing out that models of different unit types being bundled into a single unit are not an anomalous occurrence. Several codex's contain such units outright while every Independent character could, in theory anyway because there probably are a few that can not, create a unit that consisted of mixed unit types. To have an official answer as to how a handful of rules, those directly related to a single unit type, would be resolved against a 'mixed-unit' could prevent many arguments that undoubtedly form whenever those rules and units collide.

Did I ever say hybrid units are anomalous? Pretty sure I never did.

The Goaded Great Knarloc is a FW unit and they aren't known for amazing rules clarity.
The Space Wolves examples mean nothing because they introduce no issues.

rigeld2 wrote:The Tyrant is actually an IC in the guard unit - he just cannot leave.

The drone ruling is drone specific.

Not quite true, the HT can only join as if it were an IC. None of the other IC rules carry over.

Barnowl is correct, the HT can never leave the unit.... so per your interpretation, it remains part of a unit of Tyrant Guard even after they are all dead and would be treated as an infantry unit though somehow still being treated as a MC at the same time.

I must say, there's really no concrete RAW here imo so I won't say your wrong nor will I argue with your logic in reaching your conclusion but I will say it seems to me that it is not the only logical conclusion one could come to given the lack coverage in this area by the BRB.

 Abandon wrote:
Not quite true, the HT can only join as if it were an IC. None of the other IC rules carry over..

Which ones? I know for a fact it can LOS! as if it were an IC, as well as make Precision Shots/Strikes.

 Happyjew wrote:

 Abandon wrote:
Not quite true, the HT can only join as if it were an IC. None of the other IC rules carry over..

Which ones? I know for a fact it can LOS! as if it were an IC, as well as make Precision Shots/Strikes.

It's still a character, it's just not an IC.

Ahh, yes, blew the Vaul's Vengeance Battery, my bad.

Still, lots of hybrid units out there without stretching to IC shenanigans and the rules don't mention what happens with Prefferred Enemy and them.

Here's another interesting Preferred Enemy, one of the conditions sometimes seen on Preferred Enemy in the Space Wolves codex is a Toughness of 5 or more. So what happens when a unit with that Preferred Enemy attacks a Necron Destroyer Lord (T6) leading a squad of Wraiths (T4)?

 Abandon wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

 Abandon wrote:
Not quite true, the HT can only join as if it were an IC. None of the other IC rules carry over..

Which ones? I know for a fact it can LOS! as if it were an IC, as well as make Precision Shots/Strikes.

It's still a character, it's just not an IC.

From the Tyranid FAQ:

"A single Hive Tyrant (including the Swarmlord) may join a unit
of Tyrant Guard exactly as if it had the Independent Character
special rule and, while part of the unit, is treated as such for
the purposes of Look Out Sir! rolls, Challenges, Precision
Shots and Precision Strikes."

 Happyjew wrote:

 Abandon wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

 Abandon wrote:
Not quite true, the HT can only join as if it were an IC. None of the other IC rules carry over..

Which ones? I know for a fact it can LOS! as if it were an IC, as well as make Precision Shots/Strikes.

It's still a character, it's just not an IC.

From the Tyranid FAQ:

"A single Hive Tyrant (including the Swarmlord) may join a unit
of Tyrant Guard exactly as if it had the Independent Character
special rule and, while part of the unit, is treated as such for
the purposes of Look Out Sir! rolls, Challenges, Precision
Shots and Precision Strikes."

Still not become one and only gets most not all of the IC rules FAQed to it. It still has the problem of never being able to leave the unit.

 Abandon wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:The Tyrant is actually an IC in the guard unit - he just cannot leave.

The drone ruling is drone specific.

Not quite true, the HT can only join as if it were an IC. None of the other IC rules carry over.

Barnowl is correct, the HT can never leave the unit.... so per your interpretation, it remains part of a unit of Tyrant Guard even after they are all dead and would be treated as an infantry unit though somehow still being treated as a MC at the same time.

I must say, there's really no concrete RAW here imo so I won't say your wrong nor will I argue with your logic in reaching your conclusion but I will say it seems to me that it is not the only logical conclusion one could come to given the lack coverage in this area by the BRB.

Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the relevant FAQs.

Nid FAQ wrote:Page 35 – Tyrant Guard, Shieldwall.
Change the first sentence of the second paragraph to read “A single Hive Tyrant (including the Swarmlord) may join a unit of Tyrant Guard exactly as if it had the Independent Character special rule and, while part of the unit, is treated as such for the purposes of Look Out Sir! rolls, Challenges, Precision Shots and Precision Strikes”.

And you should read the IC rules to see what happens when the IC is the only member of a unit left alive.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jefffar wrote:
Ahh, yes, blew the Vaul's Vengeance Battery, my bad.

Still, lots of hybrid units out there without stretching to IC shenanigans and the rules don't mention what happens with Prefferred Enemy and them.

Here's another interesting Preferred Enemy, one of the conditions sometimes seen on Preferred Enemy in the Space Wolves codex is a Toughness of 5 or more. So what happens when a unit with that Preferred Enemy attacks a Necron Destroyer Lord (T6) leading a squad of Wraiths (T4)?

He's attacking a T4 unit.

How is this difficult to accept?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

barnowl wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

 Abandon wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

 Abandon wrote:
Not quite true, the HT can only join as if it were an IC. None of the other IC rules carry over..

Which ones? I know for a fact it can LOS! as if it were an IC, as well as make Precision Shots/Strikes.

It's still a character, it's just not an IC.

From the Tyranid FAQ:

"A single Hive Tyrant (including the Swarmlord) may join a unit
of Tyrant Guard exactly as if it had the Independent Character
special rule and, while part of the unit, is treated as such for
the purposes of Look Out Sir! rolls, Challenges, Precision
Shots and Precision Strikes."

Still not become one and only gets most not all of the IC rules FAQed to it. It still has the problem of never being able to leave the unit.

It joins exactly as an IC, which has specific rules on what happens when it's the last member of the unit.
And no, it can't leave the unit while the Guard is alive... Page 3 of the Nid FAQ says so.

rigeld2 wrote:

Still not become one and only gets most not all of the IC rules FAQed to it. It still has the problem of never being able to leave the unit.

It joins exactly as an IC, which has specific rules on what happens when it's the last member of the unit.
And no, it can't leave the unit while the Guard is alive... Page 3 of the Nid FAQ says so.

It's not limited to during deployment - it can happen during the game as well.

And you're right - it doesn't gain the rule, it just joins exactly as one and gets all the other benefits.

It specifies for what purposes it is treated as an IC. Being the last member of the unit or indeed, leaving it in any way is not among them.

 Abandon wrote:
It specifies for what purposes it is treated as an IC. Being the last member of the unit or indeed, leaving it in any way is not among them.

Once the models with the Shieldwall ability die, the Tyrant can no longer benefit from the rule - meaning he cannot be joined to a (no longer existent) unit.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Abandon wrote:
It specifies for what purposes it is treated as an IC. Being the last member of the unit or indeed, leaving it in any way is not among them.

Once the models with the Shieldwall ability die, the Tyrant can no longer benefit from the rule - meaning he cannot be joined to a (no longer existent) unit.

Unless you see joining the unit as a one time exercise of the SR and once done the rule is no longer needed. Consider a situation where an IC also joined the Tyrant Guard as well as a HT and all the Tyrant Guard are killed....

anyways, its a bit off topic.

Back on the main point of the thread. It seems to me the main question here is what makes a unit into a unit of a particular type? Is a unit of SM infantry a unit of SM infantry because the unit has unit type infantry and is from the SM codex or is it because the models in the unit have unit type infantry and are from the SM codex? It seems to me you purchase the models in the unit and they come with the type - infantry, MC, vehicle, etc. and a unit is just a unit with all the other types coming from it's models.

rigeld2 wrote:

Jefffar wrote:
Ahh, yes, blew the Vaul's Vengeance Battery, my bad.

Still, lots of hybrid units out there without stretching to IC shenanigans and the rules don't mention what happens with Prefferred Enemy and them.

Here's another interesting Preferred Enemy, one of the conditions sometimes seen on Preferred Enemy in the Space Wolves codex is a Toughness of 5 or more. So what happens when a unit with that Preferred Enemy attacks a Necron Destroyer Lord (T6) leading a squad of Wraiths (T4)?

He's attacking a T4 unit.

How is this difficult to accept?

Because he's attacking a unit of T4 and T6 models. Last I heard Units don't have a Toughness stat and the entry in Space Wolves specifies Models with a Toughness of 5 or more, so it doesn't care about things like Majority Toughness. All it wants is a Model with Toughness 5 or more.

Also worthy of note here. Logically when attacking a unit, until all hits and wounds have been resolved you are actually attacking every member of the unit, attacking no members, both and neither.

If you shoot Schrodinger's Box with a high powered rifle, did you attack a cat? Among the correct answers is a yes so if you had PE (cats) you'd get to re-roll To-Hit and wounds rolls of 1.

Jefffar wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Jefffar wrote:
Ahh, yes, blew the Vaul's Vengeance Battery, my bad.

Still, lots of hybrid units out there without stretching to IC shenanigans and the rules don't mention what happens with Prefferred Enemy and them.

Here's another interesting Preferred Enemy, one of the conditions sometimes seen on Preferred Enemy in the Space Wolves codex is a Toughness of 5 or more. So what happens when a unit with that Preferred Enemy attacks a Necron Destroyer Lord (T6) leading a squad of Wraiths (T4)?

He's attacking a T4 unit.

How is this difficult to accept?

Because he's attacking a unit of T4 and T6 models. Last I heard Units don't have a Toughness stat and the entry in Space Wolves specifies Models with a Toughness of 5 or more, so it doesn't care about things like Majority Toughness. All it wants is a Model with Toughness 5 or more.

When he attacks, what toughness does he roll to wound? Oh, T4.
So there's no T5+ ever involved. Gotcha.

No, it specifies Models with T5+. It doesn't care about unit or majority Toughness and Toughness has nothing to do with the To Hit roll.

Then it's useless as you do not attack models ever.
Except in a challenge so it'd work there.

You certainly do attack models. It just happens that usually you are attacking a group of them rather than lone ones.

Jefffar wrote:
You certainly do attack models. It just happens that usually you are attacking a group of them rather than lone ones.

Citation needed. The actual rules disagree with you.

Sure, check out page 3 of the main rule book. "A unit usually consists of several models that have banded together . . . "

So a Unit is made up of Models.

So if you are attacking a Unit, you are attacking a group of Models.

Jefffar wrote:
Sure, check out page 3 of the main rule book. "A unit usually consists of several models that have banded together . . . "

So a Unit is made up of Models.

So if you are attacking a Unit, you are attacking a group of Models.

And the group of models is not their Preferred Enemy. A single model may be, but the group demonstrably isn't.

But that model is in the group, so is potentially subject to the attack.

Jefffar wrote:
But that model is in the group, so is potentially subject to the attack.

Wrong. That would be attacking an individual model which you're never allowed to do.
You're allowed to attack the group as a whole.

Exactly, and the group as a whole includes its unique members. For example the Riptide and its Drones.

As all members of the group are under attack, then the conditions of Preferred Enemy are met.

Jefffar wrote:
Exactly, and the group as a whole includes its unique members. For example the Riptide and its Drones.

As all members of the group are under attack, then the conditions of Preferred Enemy are met.

No, because all members of the group are not the Preferred Enemy. One model is, but that's not the requirement put forth by the PE rule.

Nor is it excluded either, which is where the problem comes in as the rule is worded without thought to this possible situation.

Jefffar wrote:
Nor is it excluded either, which is where the problem comes in as the rule is worded without thought to this possible situation.

It is excluded. The requirement in the PE rule is that you're attacking your preferred enemy, correct?
Since you do not attack a model (in most circumstances) it doesn't apply in cases where a single model in the target unit triggers PE.

But the unit contains the enemy, so you are attacking it.

Jefffar wrote:
But the unit contains the enemy, so you are attacking it.

No, you're attacking the unit. Since that's what the rules say and all...

The unit which is made up of models. The models which have characteristics that trigger the effects of Preferred Enemy.


By your reasoning Preferred Enemy would almost never work because things like Unit Type, Special Rules and Characteristics are keyed to the models, not the unit.

Jefffar wrote:
The unit which is made up of models. The models which have characteristics that trigger the effects of Preferred Enemy.

Have you found permission to attack a model yet? You haven't cited one.

By your reasoning Preferred Enemy would almost never work because things like Unit Type, Special Rules and Characteristics are keyed to the models, not the unit.

If all the models have a trait it can be said that the unit has that trait.
But saying that the unit has that trait because a single model in the unit does is incorrect.

When you attack a unit you attack all its constituent models, so you have permission to attack models. There's just some (surmountable) restrictions on which order the models actually take wounds, but that happens after rolling to wound.

So if a single model in a unit is not enough to give a unit that trait, what happens when you have a Riptide and 2 Drones? Does Preferred Enemy Monstrous Creature still work? By your logic no.

In fact, by your logic, that unit is also immune to Preferred Enemy Infantry because not all the models in the unit would be the Infantry type.

Hey, this gets better and better the more I think about it, as the unit would be immune to abilities that specifically target Infantry or Monstrous Creatures.

Jefffar wrote:
When you attack a unit you attack all its constituent models, so you have permission to attack models. There's just some (surmountable) restrictions on which order the models actually take wounds, but that happens after rolling to wound.

That's simply incorrect. You've failed to cite a rule allowing you to attack models.

So if a single model in a unit is not enough to give a unit that trait, what happens when you have a Riptide and 2 Drones? Does Preferred Enemy Monstrous Creature still work? By your logic no.

This is a different argument. The unit type is MC and no rules allow you to change it just by purchasing upgrades.

Hey, this gets better and better the more I think about it, as the unit would be immune to abilities that specifically target Infantry or Monstrous Creatures.

If they require attacking the unit...

"When you attack a unit you attack all its constituent models,"

Citation needed. Prove this assertion.

You have made a logical leap, unsupported by rules.

P.4, it's the definition of a unit.

Kisada II wrote:
P.4, it's the definition of a unit.

But attacking the whole does not mean you are attacking each individual part of the whole. You're just attacking the unit.

Kisada II wrote:
P.4, it's the definition of a unit.

That doesnt prove that you attack each model - your target is the unit, and nothing more. You are explicitly NOT targeting all the models

So, again, a line stating you attack all models. Real rules this time, ones that are relevant to your assertion, or concede the point.

So as I have said, again, An Eldar Farseer can get into a Devilfish so long as it is joined to a Tau unit.

Because the unit being a tau unit may embark on the Tau Transport.

Sorry, wasn't trying to defend the position that attacking a unit meant attack each model individually. Was simply stating that a unit is defined as a group of Models. No where in the rule book does it talk about a unit belonging to just one codex. In fact the rule for embarking into allied transports directly contradicts that for that reason.

If a unit is defined as a grouping of one or more models then an attack on said unit is also an attack on those models. We don't learn which specific models suffer the consequences of the attack until such time as wound allocation occurs.

Which, if you strictly beleive that only traits possessed by the unit matter, other than Prefferred Enemy (Army Type), Prefferred Enemy won't work as the other defining characteristics used for Prefferred Enemy are on the individual models, not the Unit in the new Codexes.

So no Prefferred Enemy Monstrous Creature or Infantry or Models with a Toughness of 5+ at all.

Really just needs an FAQ, and talk with your TO / play group before hand to how you'll be playing it in your games

Quite badly, yes.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
So as I have said, again, An Eldar Farseer can get into a Devilfish so long as it is joined to a Tau unit.

Because the unit being a tau unit may embark on the Tau Transport.

This does seem to be the way the thread is going.

Fortunately for me, I disagree both with the argument here against Preferred Enemy, AND your earlier argument about ICs in allied transports! But it does look like some other people are going to have to change their previous positions...!

 Elric Greywolf wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
So as I have said, again, An Eldar Farseer can get into a Devilfish so long as it is joined to a Tau unit.

Because the unit being a tau unit may embark on the Tau Transport.

This does seem to be the way the thread is going.

Fortunately for me, I disagree both with the argument here against Preferred Enemy, AND your earlier argument about ICs in allied transports! But it does look like some other people are going to have to change their previous positions...!

I'm fine with you disagreeing. However, I disagree that it should have been brought up in the first place. The embarkation on allied transport thing.

It is mostly off topic, but it does follow the same logic as certain posters are using here. So by following that logic for one principle - mixed units only have one Army Type for Preferred Enemy - you are pretty much stuck with the other - mixed units have only one Army Type for boarding transports.

It just keeps going back and forth, but I would think that if you were shooting at a Tau unit with a SM IC then you would not get preferred enemy, but if you had a special rule or something that allowed you to target individual models then you would get preferred enemy.

Jefffar wrote:
If a unit is defined as a grouping of one or more models then an attack on said unit is also an attack on those models.

No, it's really not. Addressing them as models means you're trying to address them individually and you have no permission to.

Which, if you strictly beleive that only traits possessed by the unit matter, other than Prefferred Enemy (Army Type), Prefferred Enemy won't work as the other defining characteristics used for Prefferred Enemy are on the individual models, not the Unit in the new Codexes.

No, that's not true either. As I've said. Not that it would matter if that's what the rules actually said - you're trying to appeal to intent or HYWPI, not the actual rules.

 Happyjew wrote:

 Elric Greywolf wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
So as I have said, again, An Eldar Farseer can get into a Devilfish so long as it is joined to a Tau unit.

Because the unit being a tau unit may embark on the Tau Transport.

This does seem to be the way the thread is going.

Fortunately for me, I disagree both with the argument here against Preferred Enemy, AND your earlier argument about ICs in allied transports! But it does look like some other people are going to have to change their previous positions...!

I'm fine with you disagreeing. However, I disagree that it should have been brought up in the first place. The embarkation on allied transport thing.

I brought it up because this thread exactly parallels my point.

For the record I also assert that the IC becomes subject to Preferred enemy

Please prove that units have a unit type. I only see that models have a unit type and happen to come in units.

rigeld2 wrote:

Jefffar wrote:
But that model is in the group, so is potentially subject to the attack.

Wrong. That would be attacking an individual model which you're never allowed to do.
You're allowed to attack the group as a whole.

Attacking the whole group is exactly the same as attacking each member. It is actually you who is considering them individually and for some reason separating out the IC from the rest stating he doesn't count for some reason without rules back-up. The IC is part of the unit just like every other member and just like them, has a unit type and codex affiliation. It makes no logical sense to say that when attacking the unit as a whole you are not attacking the IC.

rigeld2 wrote:

Jefffar wrote:
Exactly, and the group as a whole includes its unique members. For example the Riptide and its Drones.

As all members of the group are under attack, then the conditions of Preferred Enemy are met.

No, because all members of the group are not the Preferred Enemy. One model is, but that's not the requirement put forth by the PE rule.

PE does not care if you are attacking foes that are not the proffered enemy. It only care if you are attacking the preferred enemy.

rigeld2 wrote:

Jefffar wrote:
The unit which is made up of models. The models which have characteristics that trigger the effects of Preferred Enemy.

Have you found permission to attack a model yet? You haven't cited one.

By your reasoning Preferred Enemy would almost never work because things like Unit Type, Special Rules and Characteristics are keyed to the models, not the unit.

If all the models have a trait it can be said that the unit has that trait.
But saying that the unit has that trait because a single model in the unit does is incorrect.

Incorrect. A unit has everything the models in the unit have because it is made of it's models. That the whole unit does not have the same things does not change that.

rigeld2 wrote:

Kisada II wrote:
P.4, it's the definition of a unit.

But attacking the whole does not mean you are attacking each individual part of the whole. You're just attacking the unit.

What individual part? All the models are the whole. Which is what your attacking, the whole, as in all of it. Not just the part it started as.

Kisada II wrote:Really just needs an FAQ, and talk with your TO / play group before hand to how you'll be playing it in your games

Yes. This very much please.

Kommissar Kel wrote:So as I have said, again, An Eldar Farseer can get into a Devilfish so long as it is joined to a Tau unit.

Because the unit being a tau unit may embark on the Tau Transport.

Why would a Tau/SM unit no longer be a Tau unit?

 Abandon wrote:
Please prove that units have a unit type. I only see that models have a unit type and happen to come in units.

I'll let you reread my posts - I've addressed this.

rigeld2 wrote:

Jefffar wrote:
But that model is in the group, so is potentially subject to the attack.

Wrong. That would be attacking an individual model which you're never allowed to do.
You're allowed to attack the group as a whole.

Attacking the whole group is exactly the same as attacking each member. It is actually you who is considering them individually and for some reason separating out the IC from the rest stating he doesn't count for some reason without rules back-up. The IC is part of the unit just like every other member and just like them, has a unit type and codex affiliation. It makes no logical sense to say that when attacking the unit as a whole you are not attacking the IC.

rigeld2 wrote:
Yes, you're attacking the unit. And an IC is a - wait for it - normal member of the unit. Treating him as something other than that would be breaking a rule.

The problem here is that you are making assumptions that "normal member of a unit" (which by the way is not the wording in the rule book) actually means anything other than "All rules purposes" and by All rules purposes I mean the rules and restrictions in the rulebook pretaining to units.
This nonsense about the IC being consider part of a different detachment directly violates the allies rules in the rulebook. The idea of a unit being limited to one "unit type" (poor choice of words on GWs part) directly violates the examples in the rule of models moving at different speeds due to different unit types.
Units Group models and they work together and benifit/hinder each other that is it.

Most, if not all, of the examples you have laid out for a Unit having something (like defensive grenades) actually explicitly state If one or more MODELS have it then the unit gets the benefit.

We don't know if Attacking your preferred enemy means: "at least one model in the target unit" or "all models" or "majority of models" it's not in there anywhere.

Your arguement for it being the unit that got joined makes sense, but it's not founded in the rules as they written and it's full of holes when you join multiple ICs together to form a unit or multiple unit types. It's a similar problem with hatred (let me stop hating that chaos space marine, because he is joined up with some daemons.....wait you can't do that, you know what I mean)

We play it as "At least one model" for both hatred and Preferred Enenmy. This rules or written approach for Units (where a unit is simply a grouping for rules purposes) keeps allied ICs out of transports from different detachments. Meaning that All rules purposes goes both ways, if he can't get in neither can they.

Kisada II wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Yes, you're attacking the unit. And an IC is a - wait for it - normal member of the unit. Treating him as something other than that would be breaking a rule.

The problem here is that you are making assumptions that "normal member of a unit" (which by the way is not the wording in the rule book) actually means anything other than "All rules purposes" and by All rules purposes I mean the rules and restrictions in the rulebook pretaining to units.
This nonsense about the IC being consider part of a different detachment directly violates the allies rules in the rulebook.

No, no it does not. In fact the exact opposite is true with Battle brothers, the very first sentence of the rules defines Battle brothers as "Friendly Units". Therefore when the IC joins a unit he stops being a Battle Brother as defined and instead become part of the unit "for all rules purposes".

We don't know if Attacking your preferred enemy means: "at least one model in the target unit" or "all models" or "majority of models" it's not in there anywhere.

Except we absolutely do know. Units Shoot at/Attack Units. A unit from the Preferred Enemy Codex is a preferred enemy(this as a concept is defined in an earlier Special Rule: Hatred). An IC Joins a unit, and becomes part of that unit for all rules purposes. So A Tau Fire Warrior unit is a Tau unit. When you add an Eldar Farseer to that Fire Warrior unit the unit is still a Fire Warrior unit, just the same as if An Ethereal had joined the unit.

Your arguement for it being the unit that got joined makes sense, but it's not founded in the rules as they written and it's full of holes when you join multiple ICs together to form a unit or multiple unit types. It's a similar problem with hatred (let me stop hating that chaos space marine, because he is joined up with some daemons.....wait you can't do that, you know what I mean)

Again, the rules exactly state that the IC joins the unit, and the IC becomes part of the unit.

This does not fall apart with Multiple ICs. If the ICs all join a unit, then they all become part of that unit. If you join multiple ICs together they all become part of the first IC joined's unit. For example I have an IG army with a Lord Commissar, a Psyker, and A Priest; I first join the psyker to the Lord Commissar, he is now a part of the Lord Commissar unit. I then join the Priest to the unit and he joins and become a part of the Lord Commissar unit(even though that unit now contains a Psyker). This is exactly what the rules say and really isn't that hard.

For your argument about hatred, that may not make sense to you, but it is what the rules say. Heck Hatred even makes the Point that it only effects units from the hated Codex, ICs joined to unit are no longer units in their own right(Or can I specifically shoot your IC "unit" within the greater unit he joined?).

First of all the rulebook explicitly says, that an Allied IC can never enter the a transport of a different detachment it's right bellow the part where it gives them permision to join the unit.
But the common line of thinking that has gone through this thread, would lead to that conclusion, of that I agree.

Second, hatred actually says "Any model" from that codex in it's definition for when you get the bonus, the unit part you are referring to is one of the two options of what you are allowed to hate.

Again "All rules purposes" as laid out for rules pretaining to units in the rule book does not in any way say that a unit belongs to one codex.

Please provide referrence to an Allied IC becoming a member of a different codex (nevermind the fact that it would totally invalid half the FAQs that clarify only members from the codex benefit from codex specific abilities... looking at you Blood Angels... or the fact that GW has gone out of their way to )

A farseer is not the same as an etherial joining firewarriors, there are plenty of codex specific buffs for both those codexs

Kisada II wrote:
First of all the rulebook explicitly says, that an Allied IC can never enter the a transport of a different detachment it's right bellow the part where it gives them permision to join the unit.

Correct. The IC is not entering the transport - the unit is. The IC is part of the unit for all rules purposes. Denying the IC the right to embark is breaking that rule.

Again "All rules purposes" as laid out for rules pretaining to units in the rule book does not in any way say that a unit belongs to one codex.

Is it a rules purpose? Then it's covered.

Please provide referrence to an Allied IC becoming a member of a different codex (nevermind the fact that it would totally invalid half the FAQs that clarify only members from the codex benefit from codex specific abilities... looking at you Blood Angels... or the fact that GW has gone out of their way to )

You're misunderstanding or misrepresenting.
The IC does not change what codex it's from. But its a member of a Tau unit for all rules purposes.

A farseer is not the same as an etherial joining firewarriors, there are plenty of codex specific buffs for both those codexs

Depending on the wording of the buff, it would work. Because for all rules purposes the farseer/ethereal are members of the unit.

No it explicity states that not even Battle Brothers may enter an allied transport, and Battle Brothers is defined in that first sentence as a Friendly unit; which an attached IC is not.

But I wasn't talking about the Transport issue, I was talking about the Basic IC Rules, and how they interact with Battle Brothers in general(it just happens to relate back to the Transport thing).

Second: Conceded.

Third: Is Preferred Enemy a Rule? If it is a rule, then The IC counts as part of the unit for it's purposes, and Units attack units, so when a Unit with preferred enemy makes its attacks on a unit that is a preferred enemy(even with an attached non-preferred IC who is counting as a member of the preferred unit for all rules purposes); then the Unit is attacking a preferred foe.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
No it explicity states that not even Battle Brothers may enter an allied transport, and Battle Brothers is defined in that first sentence as a Friendly unit; which an attached IC is not.

An attached IC is not a unit in any way and therefore cannot be a Battle Brother.

Third: Is Preferred Enemy a Rule? If it is a rule, then The IC counts as part of the unit for it's purposes, and Units attack units, so when a Unit with preferred enemy makes its attacks on a unit that is a preferred enemy(even with an attached non-preferred IC who is counting as a member of the preferred unit for all rules purposes); then the Unit is attacking a preferred foe.

I agree with that (and said as much).
Read and follow the thread.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:


Third: Is Preferred Enemy a Rule? If it is a rule, then The IC counts as part of the unit for it's purposes, and Units attack units, so when a Unit with preferred enemy makes its attacks on a unit that is a preferred enemy(even with an attached non-preferred IC who is counting as a member of the preferred unit for all rules purposes); then the Unit is attacking a preferred foe.

I wouldn't argue against any one wanting to play it this way, but they still need to FAQ it as Hatred uses the term "striking a hated foe" and clearly applies to any model being hated and preferred enemy uses very similar term "specific type of foe" but doesn't explicit define what that means (if you only attack units then Hatred wouldn't work at all and clearly it is suppose to).

For the Allied IC thing I'm looking at the page and what you wrote and I think you are technically correct (the best kind of correct I might add).

rigeld2 wrote:

 Abandon wrote:
Please prove that units have a unit type. I only see that models have a unit type and happen to come in units.

I'll let you reread my posts - I've addressed this.

rigeld2 wrote:

Jefffar wrote:
But that model is in the group, so is potentially subject to the attack.

Wrong. That would be attacking an individual model which you're never allowed to do.
You're allowed to attack the group as a whole.

 Abandon wrote:

Attacking the whole group is exactly the same as attacking each member. It is actually you who is considering them individually and for some reason separating out the IC from the rest stating he doesn't count for some reason without rules back-up. The IC is part of the unit just like every other member and just like them, has a unit type and codex affiliation. It makes no logical sense to say that when attacking the unit as a whole you are not attacking the IC.

No, it's not the same as attacking each member. I'm not considering each member individually. I've supplied rules that back up my statement.
When you declare a shooting attack do you target the unit or the IC?

rigeld2 wrote:

Jefffar wrote:
Exactly, and the group as a whole includes its unique members. For example the Riptide and its Drones.

As all members of the group are under attack, then the conditions of Preferred Enemy are met.

No, because all members of the group are not the Preferred Enemy. One model is, but that's not the requirement put forth by the PE rule.

PE does not care if you are attacking foes that are not the proffered enemy. It only care if you are attacking the preferred enemy.

Right - and if you're attacking something that is demonstrably not the preferred enemy you don't get the bonus. Which is what I said.
So you agreed with me? I'm not sure of your point here - could you clarify?

rigeld2 wrote:

Jefffar wrote:
The unit which is made up of models. The models which have characteristics that trigger the effects of Preferred Enemy.

Have you found permission to attack a model yet? You haven't cited one.

By your reasoning Preferred Enemy would almost never work because things like Unit Type, Special Rules and Characteristics are keyed to the models, not the unit.

If all the models have a trait it can be said that the unit has that trait.
But saying that the unit has that trait because a single model in the unit does is incorrect.

Incorrect. A unit has everything the models in the unit have because it is made of it's models. That the whole unit does not have the same things does not change that.

Citation needed. Units do not have frag grenades, models do. Units do have defensive grenades though.

rigeld2 wrote:

Kisada II wrote:
P.4, it's the definition of a unit.

But attacking the whole does not mean you are attacking each individual part of the whole. You're just attacking the unit.

What individual part? All the models are the whole. Which is what your attacking, the whole, as in all of it. Not just the part it started as.

Yes, you're attacking the unit. And an IC is a - wait for it - normal member of the unit. Treating him as something other than that would be breaking a rule.

page 44 BRB "unit type is essentially an extension of the characteristic profile ... you will find a complete at-a-glance bestiary that (amongst other things) lists each model's unit type."
Unit type comes from the models, not the unit. The profile for each model has a unit type, it does not come with the unit by default. A unit of infantry is only called an infantry unit because it has one or more models of the infantry unit type. As you have yet to show any 'default' unit type exists it seems fairly clear that the unit type for the whole unit can only be derived from its constituents. As the IC becomes a member of the unit for all rule purposes, why do you believe its unit type would not contribute to this? Or for that matter, why not its army type(source codex)?This is why I asked for proof that a unit has a type and not just the models and I do not see that you have actually addressed this other than to reference page 44 which as you can see, does not back up your stance.

You keep acting like a unit is somehow separate from its models. It is not. It is its models. Attacking a unit is attacking its models. That is the only way PE works since the models have all the characteristics. To the extent that the IC is part of a unit and that unit is under attack, the IC is under attack just like every other model in the unit. The fact that PE does not care if you are not attacking the preferred enemy matters because the models in a unit that are not the preferred enemy do not counteract the fact that the preferred enemy models are part of the unit. I only mention it because you keep stating that because you are attacking models that are not your preferred enemy you don't get the bonus but that point is irrelevant to the rule as the rule does not care about it. The rule only cares that you are attacking a preferred target, no matter if any non-preferred targets are mixed in with it. So attacking a mixed unit, PE does not care about unit types that are not the preferred target, only the ones that are.

Attacking the whole unit. If the whole unit is three infantry and an MC then three infantry and an MC is what you are attacking when you attack the whole unit. I don't know how you could see that any other way.

How do you determine a unit's unit type?
It must be he models that make up the unit.
When an IC joins the unit, he cannot change the unit type - if he does you're not treating him as a member of the unit for all rules purposes.

This extends to your fallacy regarding attacking the unit.
If you attack a unit of Tau and have PE SM, you don't get re-rolls if there is a SM OC attached to the Tau unit. If you did you'd be treating the IC as something other than a member of the unit for a rules purpose which would be illegal. Your target is unarguably a Tau unit.

Your MC +3 Infantry example depends on how the unit was created.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
No it explicity states that not even Battle Brothers may enter an allied transport, and Battle Brothers is defined in that first sentence as a Friendly unit; which an attached IC is not.

An attached IC is not a unit in any way and therefore cannot be a Battle Brother.

Third: Is Preferred Enemy a Rule? If it is a rule, then The IC counts as part of the unit for it's purposes, and Units attack units, so when a Unit with preferred enemy makes its attacks on a unit that is a preferred enemy(even with an attached non-preferred IC who is counting as a member of the preferred unit for all rules purposes); then the Unit is attacking a preferred foe.

I agree with that (and said as much).
Read and follow the thread.

Yes, I know; and the post I made was not directed towards you; it was directed to the gentleman I quoted.

Kisada: Hatred is a rule that explicitly states that it is Model vs Model, just because it uses the term "Hated Foe" really means nothing. Preferred enemy does not have the distinction of Model on Model in its rules, so we have to go with the baseline Units attack units(and Preferred Enemy counts on all attacks, not just the first round of a close combat).

rigeld2 wrote:
How do you determine a unit's unit type?
It must be he models that make up the unit.
When an IC joins the unit, he cannot change the unit type - if he does you're not treating him as a member of the unit for all rules purposes.

This extends to your fallacy regarding attacking the unit.
If you attack a unit of Tau and have PE SM, you don't get re-rolls if there is a SM OC attached to the Tau unit. If you did you'd be treating the IC as something other than a member of the unit for a rules purpose which would be illegal. Your target is unarguably a Tau unit.

Your MC +3 Infantry example depends on how the unit was created.

Since the models, members of the unit, determine the units type it seems you would actually need permission to exclude a member for that purpose. An IC is after all a member for all rules purposes.

So, to be clear, your claim is that when attacking, you attack the unit as a whole, not any specific part therefore the IC is not being attacked only the unit as a whole is. Correct?
By definition, attacking the whole is attacking every part. If the whole group(the unit) is being attacked, every member is being attacked.

Unit type is a Model by Model Rule, it is a part of a model's profile.

A Unit of Guardians with an attached Autarch on a jetbike does not Change either the Guardian's, nor the Autarch's Unit types, they are still infantry and he is still Jetbike.

They are, however, still as a whole a unit of guardians; and thus would be the preferred enemy of a unit that had preferred enemy(Guardians).

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
Unit type is a Model by Model Rule, it is a part of a model's profile.

A Unit of Guardians with an attached Autarch on a jetbike does not Change either the Guardian's, nor the Autarch's Unit types, they are still infantry and he is still Jetbike.

They are, however, still as a whole a unit of guardians; and thus would be the preferred enemy of a unit that had preferred enemy(Guardians).

"still as a whole a unit of guardians" If there's a jetbike in the unit, the whole unit is not guardians. Properly the as a whole it is a unit of guardians and a jetbike.

As the Unit has no type, only its models. Why would you ignore its type when the unit is being attacked? It just as relevant as every other models unit type as it is a member for all rules purposes.

 Abandon wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
Unit type is a Model by Model Rule, it is a part of a model's profile.

A Unit of Guardians with an attached Autarch on a jetbike does not Change either the Guardian's, nor the Autarch's Unit types, they are still infantry and he is still Jetbike.

They are, however, still as a whole a unit of guardians; and thus would be the preferred enemy of a unit that had preferred enemy(Guardians).

"still as a whole a unit of guardians" If there's a jetbike in the unit, the whole unit is not guardians. Properly the as a whole it is a unit of guardians and a jetbike.

As the Unit has no type, only its models. Why would you ignore its type when the unit is being attacked? It just as relevant as every other models unit type as it is a member for all rules purposes.

The reason the Autarch's Jetbike profile doesn't count is because IC states they count as part of the unit for all rules purposes.

 Nilok wrote:
[The reason the Autarch's Jetbike profile doesn't count is because IC states they count as part of the unit for all rules purposes.

But the Unit Type is decided in the Model's stat line, not the Unit's.

Jefffar wrote:

 Nilok wrote:
[The reason the Autarch's Jetbike profile doesn't count is because IC states they count as part of the unit for all rules purposes.

But the Unit Type is decided in the Model's stat line, not the Unit's.

And when you shoot you are shooting at a Guardian unit. What is the unit type of Guardians?

 Nilok wrote:

 Abandon wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
Unit type is a Model by Model Rule, it is a part of a model's profile.

A Unit of Guardians with an attached Autarch on a jetbike does not Change either the Guardian's, nor the Autarch's Unit types, they are still infantry and he is still Jetbike.

They are, however, still as a whole a unit of guardians; and thus would be the preferred enemy of a unit that had preferred enemy(Guardians).

"still as a whole a unit of guardians" If there's a jetbike in the unit, the whole unit is not guardians. Properly the as a whole it is a unit of guardians and a jetbike.

As the Unit has no type, only its models. Why would you ignore its type when the unit is being attacked? It just as relevant as every other models unit type as it is a member for all rules purposes.

The reason the Autarch's Jetbike profile doesn't count is because IC states they count as part of the unit for all rules purposes.

That somehow means the Autarch is not being attacked like the rest of the unit?

"part of the unit for all rules purposes" means he is being attacked just like every other member of the unit and that its unit type means just as much as every other models unit type in the unit.
The fact that units do not have a type means that the IC is not joining an infantry unit, it is just joining a unit that is comprised of infantry. After the Autarch joins that changes to mostly infantry and one jetbike because it counts as "part of the unit for all rules purposes". It does not change any unit type, it just adds it to the unit.

Also, I don't know why there would be a need for mixed unit type rules. The IC rules cover what the codex's don't. Rules govern different movement rate/rules, shooting requirements, etc.

Abandon is spot on, for how units work.
Again Hatred and all codex specific rules (such as BA priest) wouldn't work at all otherwise. A member go all rules purposes means they function as a member, and not a seperate unit, for all rules purposes. Rules purposes that don't pertain to being a unit member don't apply from that statement.

None of this matters though, just ask your TO / play group and know ahead of time so you don't get in trouble expecting it to work one way and then find out that isn't how they play it.

 Abandon wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
Unit type is a Model by Model Rule, it is a part of a model's profile.

A Unit of Guardians with an attached Autarch on a jetbike does not Change either the Guardian's, nor the Autarch's Unit types, they are still infantry and he is still Jetbike.

They are, however, still as a whole a unit of guardians; and thus would be the preferred enemy of a unit that had preferred enemy(Guardians).

"still as a whole a unit of guardians" If there's a jetbike in the unit, the whole unit is not guardians. Properly the as a whole it is a unit of guardians and a jetbike.

As the Unit has no type, only its models. Why would you ignore its type when the unit is being attacked? It just as relevant as every other models unit type as it is a member for all rules purposes.

The unit is a unit of Guardians, having a Jetboke Autarch in it does not in anyway change this fact.

Powers/abilities that target Guardians effect the unit just the same.

The same thing can be said with Tau. Darkstrider can only join Fire Warrior or Pathfinder units. If an Ethereal, Commander, or farseer joins the Fire warrior unit it is still a Fire Warrior unit and thuis Darkstrider can still join them. This is because ICs join units and becomes part of the unit.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

 Abandon wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
Unit type is a Model by Model Rule, it is a part of a model's profile.

A Unit of Guardians with an attached Autarch on a jetbike does not Change either the Guardian's, nor the Autarch's Unit types, they are still infantry and he is still Jetbike.

They are, however, still as a whole a unit of guardians; and thus would be the preferred enemy of a unit that had preferred enemy(Guardians).

"still as a whole a unit of guardians" If there's a jetbike in the unit, the whole unit is not guardians. Properly the as a whole it is a unit of guardians and a jetbike.

As the Unit has no type, only its models. Why would you ignore its type when the unit is being attacked? It just as relevant as every other models unit type as it is a member for all rules purposes.

The unit is a unit of Guardians, having a Jetboke Autarch in it does not in anyway change this fact.

Powers/abilities that target Guardians effect the unit just the same.

The same thing can be said with Tau. Darkstrider can only join Fire Warrior or Pathfinder units. If an Ethereal, Commander, or farseer joins the Fire warrior unit it is still a Fire Warrior unit and thuis Darkstrider can still join them. This is because ICs join units and becomes part of the unit.

No one is arguing against preferred enemy guardians applying even with the jetbike in there.
But you are still attacking a jetbike to, because it is a member of the unit for all rules purposes, and therefore a factor for all things related to the attacking the unit such as line of sight, majority toughness, Morale tests, characteristic tests, sweeping advance, wargear, special rules, etc. it goes on and on and on... to say that, all those things are special cases is just nuts.

So why would preferred enemy "Jetbike" not apply, without it specifically saying in a FAQ that it stops applying?
Everything is the rulebook is a special case for being on a model basis (such as all members of the unit or at least one member), but this one example is the normal case for how units are attacked? That just doesn't add up.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

 Abandon wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
Unit type is a Model by Model Rule, it is a part of a model's profile.

A Unit of Guardians with an attached Autarch on a jetbike does not Change either the Guardian's, nor the Autarch's Unit types, they are still infantry and he is still Jetbike.

They are, however, still as a whole a unit of guardians; and thus would be the preferred enemy of a unit that had preferred enemy(Guardians).

"still as a whole a unit of guardians" If there's a jetbike in the unit, the whole unit is not guardians. Properly the as a whole it is a unit of guardians and a jetbike.

As the Unit has no type, only its models. Why would you ignore its type when the unit is being attacked? It just as relevant as every other models unit type as it is a member for all rules purposes.

The unit is a unit of Guardians, having a Jetboke Autarch in it does not in anyway change this fact.

Powers/abilities that target Guardians effect the unit just the same.

The same thing can be said with Tau. Darkstrider can only join Fire Warrior or Pathfinder units. If an Ethereal, Commander, or farseer joins the Fire warrior unit it is still a Fire Warrior unit and thuis Darkstrider can still join them. This is because ICs join units and becomes part of the unit.

I'm not sure we are in disagreement here as I've said nothing to the contrary of any of this. A unit with at least one guardian in it is a unit of guardians. That is not to say that is all it is if one or more ICs join it.

To put my view down concisely, you can never attack a Fire Warrior unit because that does not exist. You can only attack a unit that has Fire Warriors in it, AKA a unit of Fire Warriors. Since a unit has no type it is only associated with the Fire Warrior type because of its models. PE works because the models are the unit and there is no distinction between the two. As only the whole unit can be attacked (special rules aside) every model in the unit is being attacked so PE(Fire Warrior) triggers when you do so.

I understand why one might think of it the other way but the fact is BRB does not state that units have a type. The only way a unit type becomes associated with a unit is by its models and therefore an addition of one or more models of another type adds that association as well.

Consider this scenario:

A unit of Fire Warriors is joined by three ICs. All the Fire Warriors are subsequently killed. None of them have been permitted to leave the unit and none of them are the last one in the unit. Do you think it's still a unit of Fire Warriors?

I read through the entire thread and reached a final conclusion.

You are all, every single one of you, right. and wrong.

Point is, the PE rules, as written, simply does not WORK without interpretation, and as interpretation goes, it changes based on perspective.

There are too many possible cases where you mix ICs of different armies, units with multiple unit types and etc, where there is no longer a clear cut if the unit is a "unit X" or not at that point.
So without proper ruling whether PE works on "at least one proper target", "majorety of proper targets" or "exclusively proper targets" there is just no telling how those odd interactions work.

FAQ required. someone British call GWS and ask them to clear it up.

If the unit is still a unit of Guardians(which it is); and you agree that it would be affected by Preferred Enemy(Guardians) with a Jetbike Autarch attached, then it would still be affected when a Battlesuit Commander is attached.

Since the unit of guardians is still affected by Preferred enemy(guardians), then the same unit with the same Battlesuit Commander would still be affected by a unit with Preferred Enemy(Eldar).

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
If the unit is still a unit of Guardians(which it is); and you agree that it would be affected by Preferred Enemy(Guardians) with a Jetbike Autarch attached, then it would still be affected when a Battlesuit Commander is attached.

Since the unit of guardians is still affected by Preferred enemy(guardians), then the same unit with the same Battlesuit Commander would still be affected by a unit with Preferred Enemy(Eldar).

Yes and it would, in my view, also be affected by Preferred enemy Tau.

 BoomWolf wrote:
I read through the entire thread and reached a final conclusion.

You are all, every single one of you, right. and wrong.

Point is, the PE rules, as written, simply does not WORK without interpretation, and as interpretation goes, it changes based on perspective.

There are too many possible cases where you mix ICs of different armies, units with multiple unit types and etc, where there is no longer a clear cut if the unit is a "unit X" or not at that point.
So without proper ruling whether PE works on "at least one proper target", "majorety of proper targets" or "exclusively proper targets" there is just no telling how those odd interactions work.

FAQ required. someone British call GWS and ask them to clear it up.

More less my point. A unit is composed of models. Attacking the unit is attacking the models. There is no guidance anywhere that says that PE ties to having any specific number of models in the unit. So as its written, PE will always be applied unfairly in mixed units. Either it applies to something it shouldn't or and doesn't apply to something it should. With a proper FAQ at least players will know in advance instead of deciding on the fly.

Yep that just about solves it.

Kisada II wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
If the unit is still a unit of Guardians(which it is); and you agree that it would be affected by Preferred Enemy(Guardians) with a Jetbike Autarch attached, then it would still be affected when a Battlesuit Commander is attached.

Since the unit of guardians is still affected by Preferred enemy(guardians), then the same unit with the same Battlesuit Commander would still be affected by a unit with Preferred Enemy(Eldar).

Yes and it would, in my view, also be affected by Preferred enemy Tau.

No because it is an Eldar Unit; the Tau just joined it and became a member of that unit for all rules purposes(meaning that a rule that effect Tau units would no longer apply as he is not a tau unit, he is a member of an eldar unit)

If the entire unit dies along with the Battlesuit Commander it would count as if you had destroyed one eldar unit. So coming from that angle you would not get preferred enemy Tau against the unit.

Kommissar Kel wrote:If the unit is still a unit of Guardians(which it is); and you agree that it would be affected by Preferred Enemy(Guardians) with a Jetbike Autarch attached, then it would still be affected when a Battlesuit Commander is attached.

Since the unit of guardians is still affected by Preferred enemy(guardians), then the same unit with the same Battlesuit Commander would still be affected by a unit with Preferred Enemy(Eldar).

Kommissar Kel wrote:

Kisada II wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
If the unit is still a unit of Guardians(which it is); and you agree that it would be affected by Preferred Enemy(Guardians) with a Jetbike Autarch attached, then it would still be affected when a Battlesuit Commander is attached.

Since the unit of guardians is still affected by Preferred enemy(guardians), then the same unit with the same Battlesuit Commander would still be affected by a unit with Preferred Enemy(Eldar).

Yes and it would, in my view, also be affected by Preferred enemy Tau.

No because it is an Eldar Unit; the Tau just joined it and became a member of that unit for all rules purposes(meaning that a rule that effect Tau units would no longer apply as he is not a tau unit, he is a member of an eldar unit)

What makes it an Eldar unit? It's because the models in it are eldar. Adding in a Tau model makes it both Eldar and Tau. You cannot ignore it's type and codex affiliation any more than you can ignore the original models types and codex affiliations because it is a member for all rules purposes (meaning that the unit of Eldar now has a Tau mixed in with it)

Grey Knight Dillon wrote:If the entire unit dies along with the Battlesuit Commander it would count as if you had destroyed one eldar unit. So coming from that angle you would not get preferred enemy Tau against the unit.

Actually that would count as destroying two units with VPs handed out accordingly. EDIT: This actually lends to the idea that unit(IC) is combined with unit(X) into unit(X + IC)

Also, I noted my earlier question has not been answered.

 Abandon wrote:

A unit of Fire Warriors is joined by three ICs. All the Fire Warriors are subsequently killed. None of them have been permitted to leave the unit and none of them are the last one in the unit. Do you think it's still a unit of Fire Warriors?

To your last question - until the end of the phase, yes it's a unit of Fire Warriors.

And adding a Tau IC to an Eldar unit does not make it a Eldar + Tau unit. The Tau unit ceases to exist so the only unit left is Eldar.

So, following that logic, if a SM IC joins a tau unit, he gains the benefits of markerlights used by the squad?

 BoomWolf wrote:
So, following that logic, if a SM IC joins a tau unit, he gains the benefits of markerlights used by the squad?

What do the markerlight rules actually say?
I'm pretty sure it says something along the lines of models from Codex: Tau, but I could be wrong.

But isn't the unit a Tau Codex unit at that point? Or are we allowed to consider the individual models that make up a unit?

Jefffar wrote:
But isn't the unit a Tau Codex unit at that point? Or are we allowed to consider the individual models that make up a unit?

This basically sums up the argument. You cant have one rule go your way and not the other.

Page 3 5th paragraph "Warriors Tend to band together in squads, teams, sections or similarly named groups-individuals do not normally go wondering off on there own for obvious reasons! In warhammer 40,000 we represent this by grouping models together in units. A unit usually consist of several models that have banded together, but a single powerful model, such as a lone character, a tank a war engine or a rampaging monster, is also considered a unit in its own right.

Preferred Enemy Page 40 3 paragraph, Second to last sentence: a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule re-rolls failed to hit and wound rolls of 1 if attacking its preferred enemy.

Notice it does NOT say enemy unit. Hence if it did you could not shoot at an IC in the open. So CLEARLY RAW says you can use PE on individual models.


Nothing there says when a character joins a unit he is wholly absorbed in that unit and no longer a model. IC have it lucky they can leave or join as they wish and RAW if he takes focusfire that character is subject to be targeted as PE if he is being shot at by anything that has him preferred.

osirisx69 wrote:
Notice it does NOT say enemy unit. Hence if it did you could not shoot at an IC in the open. So CLEARLY RAW says you can use PE on individual models.

ICs in the open are absolutely a unit.
Since your "Hence" statement is incorrect, anything derived from it cannot be correct.

And it is a Codex: Tau unit - that's why I asked for the wording on markerlights.

rigeld2 wrote:

osirisx69 wrote:
Notice it does NOT say enemy unit. Hence if it did you could not shoot at an IC in the open. So CLEARLY RAW says you can use PE on individual models.

ICs in the open are absolutely a unit.
Since your "Hence" statement is incorrect, anything derived from it cannot be correct.

And it is a Codex: Tau unit - that's why I asked for the wording on markerlights.

you are incorrect. I posted the correct page number sentence and words that prove my point.

post your page numbers or sentence's to prove I am not correct.

anything is either RAI or just making stuff up.

osirisx69 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

osirisx69 wrote:
Notice it does NOT say enemy unit. Hence if it did you could not shoot at an IC in the open. So CLEARLY RAW says you can use PE on individual models.

ICs in the open are absolutely a unit.
Since your "Hence" statement is incorrect, anything derived from it cannot be correct.

And it is a Codex: Tau unit - that's why I asked for the wording on markerlights.

you are incorrect. I posted the correct page number sentence and words that prove my point.

post your page numbers or sentence's to prove I am not correct.

anything is either RAI or just making stuff up.

Prove that lone ICs are units?
You posted it.

but a single powerful model, such as a lone character,

Further, if they were not a unit they could not ever move or shoot unless joined to a unit (since you nominate units, not models to do those things).
Further, if they were not a unit they could not ever be targeted (since you target units, not models).
Page 39 - Independent Characters can join other units - implying they are a unit themselves.
This continues when ICs are allowed to join other ICs - meaning they are joining another unit.

There's more, but hopefully you'll see that lone ICs are absolutely a unit.

rigeld2 wrote:

osirisx69 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

osirisx69 wrote:
Notice it does NOT say enemy unit. Hence if it did you could not shoot at an IC in the open. So CLEARLY RAW says you can use PE on individual models.

ICs in the open are absolutely a unit.
Since your "Hence" statement is incorrect, anything derived from it cannot be correct.

And it is a Codex: Tau unit - that's why I asked for the wording on markerlights.

you are incorrect. I posted the correct page number sentence and words that prove my point.

post your page numbers or sentence's to prove I am not correct.

anything is either RAI or just making stuff up.

Prove that lone ICs are units?
You posted it.

but a single powerful model, such as a lone character,

Further, if they were not a unit they could not ever move or shoot unless joined to a unit (since you nominate units, not models to do those things).
Further, if they were not a unit they could not ever be targeted (since you target units, not models).
Page 39 - Independent Characters can join other units - implying they are a unit themselves.
This continues when ICs are allowed to join other ICs - meaning they are joining another unit.

There's more, but hopefully you'll see that lone ICs are absolutely a unit.

"Since your "Hence" statement is incorrect, anything derived from it cannot be correct." that's the sentence you are incorrect about.

Please post page number to prove your point.

Good job picking out the only thing I agreed with you on and posting a WHOLE book about how you agreed. That was awesome!

There was no sarcasm in that sentence BTW! I really do think its awesome.

osirisx69 wrote:

osirisx69 wrote:
Notice it does NOT say enemy unit. Hence if it did you could not shoot at an IC in the open. So CLEARLY RAW says you can use PE on individual models.

"Since your "Hence" statement is incorrect, anything derived from it cannot be correct." that's the sentence you are incorrect about.

PE does not say enemy unit. The only way to read your "Hence" sentence (which is poorly constructed) is that you're saying ICs in the open cannot be shot (with PE) because they're not units - they're an individual model. This works with the next sentence that says "So clearly RAW says you can use PE on individual models."

If I interpreted your "Hence" sentence incorrectly, please clarify it. I don't see any other way to read it in context.

rigeld2 wrote:

osirisx69 wrote:

osirisx69 wrote:
Notice it does NOT say enemy unit. Hence if it did you could not shoot at an IC in the open. So CLEARLY RAW says you can use PE on individual models.

"Since your "Hence" statement is incorrect, anything derived from it cannot be correct." that's the sentence you are incorrect about.

PE does not say enemy unit. The only way to read your "Hence" sentence (which is poorly constructed) is that you're saying ICs in the open cannot be shot (with PE) because they're not units - they're an individual model. This works with the next sentence that says "So clearly RAW says you can use PE on individual models."

If I interpreted your "Hence" sentence incorrectly, please clarify it. I don't see any other way to read it in context.

ahh I see sorry about that.

RAW state IC are considered units in there own right. No where in the rules does it say "when you join an ally unit with an IC he now immune to PE from enemy attacks.

Since this is a permissive game and we are already given permission to use PE against said IC there are NO rules stating he is immune or cant be targeted or CC'ed with PE if he joins an ally that is of different codex then him.

osirisx69 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

osirisx69 wrote:

osirisx69 wrote:
Notice it does NOT say enemy unit. Hence if it did you could not shoot at an IC in the open. So CLEARLY RAW says you can use PE on individual models.

"Since your "Hence" statement is incorrect, anything derived from it cannot be correct." that's the sentence you are incorrect about.

PE does not say enemy unit. The only way to read your "Hence" sentence (which is poorly constructed) is that you're saying ICs in the open cannot be shot (with PE) because they're not units - they're an individual model. This works with the next sentence that says "So clearly RAW says you can use PE on individual models."

If I interpreted your "Hence" sentence incorrectly, please clarify it. I don't see any other way to read it in context.

ahh I see sorry about that.

RAW state IC are considered units in there own right. No where in the rules does it say "when you join an ally unit with an IC he now immune to PE from enemy attacks.

Since this is a permissive game and we are already given permission to use PE against said IC there are NO rules stating he is immune or cant be targeted or CC'ed with PE if he joins an ally that is of different codex then him.

Except that assumption ignores how you attack in the actual rules.
PE gives a bonus when you attack your PE.
How do you attack in 40k? Well, you target something.
If you target something that is not your PE, you get no bonus.
Therefore, if your PE is Tau, shooting an Eldar unit gets you no bonus - even if there's a Tau model in there. Why? Because you cannot (as in, are never given permission to) attack the Tau model in that unit.

rigeld2 wrote:

osirisx69 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

osirisx69 wrote:

osirisx69 wrote:
Notice it does NOT say enemy unit. Hence if it did you could not shoot at an IC in the open. So CLEARLY RAW says you can use PE on individual models.

"Since your "Hence" statement is incorrect, anything derived from it cannot be correct." that's the sentence you are incorrect about.

PE does not say enemy unit. The only way to read your "Hence" sentence (which is poorly constructed) is that you're saying ICs in the open cannot be shot (with PE) because they're not units - they're an individual model. This works with the next sentence that says "So clearly RAW says you can use PE on individual models."

If I interpreted your "Hence" sentence incorrectly, please clarify it. I don't see any other way to read it in context.

ahh I see sorry about that.

RAW state IC are considered units in there own right. No where in the rules does it say "when you join an ally unit with an IC he now immune to PE from enemy attacks.

Since this is a permissive game and we are already given permission to use PE against said IC there are NO rules stating he is immune or cant be targeted or CC'ed with PE if he joins an ally that is of different codex then him.

Except that assumption ignores how you attack in the actual rules.
PE gives a bonus when you attack your PE.
How do you attack in 40k? Well, you target something.
If you target something that is not your PE, you get no bonus.
Therefore, if your PE is Tau, shooting an Eldar unit gets you no bonus - even if there's a Tau model in there. Why? Because you cannot (as in, are never given permission to) attack the Tau model in that unit.

Again I was VERY clear about the statements I made. I was referring to focus fire on the marine or if the marine was first. I am given permission to shoot him and get PE against him.

Page reference please that states that rule is incorrect.

osirisx69 wrote:
Page reference please that states that rule is incorrect.

Shooting rules - you attack a unit, never (ever) a model.
You may be allowed to allocate wounds to individual models, but you are not, by definition, attacking a model. Ever.

rigeld2 wrote:

osirisx69 wrote:
Page reference please that states that rule is incorrect.

Shooting rules - you attack a unit, never (ever) a model.
You may be allowed to allocate wounds to individual models, but you are not, by definition, attacking a model. Ever.

Sigh again wrong. This is a permissive game. I am allowed to attack individual models under certain circumstances.

Focus fire allows us to attack an individual model if he is the only one in terrain or he is the only 1 not in terrain. I have proven your statment wrong. Please post where the rules Deny an allowed PE attack against a model.

osirisx69 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

osirisx69 wrote:
Page reference please that states that rule is incorrect.

Shooting rules - you attack a unit, never (ever) a model.
You may be allowed to allocate wounds to individual models, but you are not, by definition, attacking a model. Ever.

Sigh again wrong. This is a permissive game. I am allowed to attack individual models under certain circumstances.

Focus fire allows us to attack an individual model if he is the only one in terrain or he is the only 1 not in terrain. I have proven your stamen wrong. Please post where the rules Deny an allowed PE attack against a model.

You're incorrect about Focus Fire.

Sometimes, a target unit will only be partially in cover, with some of its models in cover and some not. In this case,you have a choice: your unit can either shoot at the squad as a whole, or you can declare that they will Focus Fire on the enemies who are less hidden. If you choose to Focus Fire, you must state your intention before making any rolls To Hit.

You state your intention before rolling to hit.
Page 12 shows Roll To Hit as step 3. Would you mind telling me what Step 2 is?

rigeld2 wrote:

osirisx69 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

osirisx69 wrote:
Page reference please that states that rule is incorrect.

Shooting rules - you attack a unit, never (ever) a model.
You may be allowed to allocate wounds to individual models, but you are not, by definition, attacking a model. Ever.

Sigh again wrong. This is a permissive game. I am allowed to attack individual models under certain circumstances.

Focus fire allows us to attack an individual model if he is the only one in terrain or he is the only 1 not in terrain. I have proven your stamen wrong. Please post where the rules Deny an allowed PE attack against a model.

You're incorrect about Focus Fire.

Sometimes, a target unit will only be partially in cover, with some of its models in cover and some not. In this case,you have a choice: your unit can either shoot at the squad as a whole, or you can declare that they will Focus Fire on the enemies who are less hidden. If you choose to Focus Fire, you must state your intention before making any rolls To Hit.

You state your intention before rolling to hit.
Page 12 shows Roll To Hit as step 3. Would you mind telling me what Step 2 is?

Wow did you read any of my post? I clearly stated he was the only model in cover or out of cover. So I choose to shoot the marine. Is he my preferred enemy "yes" then I get to re-roll.

Step 2 Choose a target. The unit can shoot at one enemy unit that it can see.

Ok read it. Doesn't disprove what I just typed about focus fire. Again you keep moving the goal past back and back to prove your argument and its getting silly.

osirisx69 wrote:
Wow did you read any of my post? I clearly stated he was the only model in cover or out of cover. So I choose to shoot the marine. Is he my preferred enemy "yes" then I get to re-roll.

How are you attacking the marine?

Step 2 Choose a target. The unit can shoot at one enemy unit that it can see.

Ok read it. Doesn't disprove what I just typed about focus fire. Again you keep moving the goal past back and back to prove your argument and its getting silly.

So you choose a target unit. Is the unit the marine? If not, you cannot attack him. You're attacking the unit that includes the marine, but you're explicitly not attacking the marine.

rigeld2 wrote:

osirisx69 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

osirisx69 wrote:
Notice it does NOT say enemy unit. Hence if it did you could not shoot at an IC in the open. So CLEARLY RAW says you can use PE on individual models.

ICs in the open are absolutely a unit.
Since your "Hence" statement is incorrect, anything derived from it cannot be correct.

And it is a Codex: Tau unit - that's why I asked for the wording on markerlights.

you are incorrect. I posted the correct page number sentence and words that prove my point.

post your page numbers or sentence's to prove I am not correct.

anything is either RAI or just making stuff up.

Prove that lone ICs are units?
You posted it.

but a single powerful model, such as a lone character,

Further, if they were not a unit they could not ever move or shoot unless joined to a unit (since you nominate units, not models to do those things).
Further, if they were not a unit they could not ever be targeted (since you target units, not models).
Page 39 - Independent Characters can join other units - implying they are a unit themselves.
This continues when ICs are allowed to join other ICs - meaning they are joining another unit.

There's more, but hopefully you'll see that lone ICs are absolutely a unit.

rigeld2 wrote:

osirisx69 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

osirisx69 wrote:
Notice it does NOT say enemy unit. Hence if it did you could not shoot at an IC in the open. So CLEARLY RAW says you can use PE on individual models.

ICs in the open are absolutely a unit.
Since your "Hence" statement is incorrect, anything derived from it cannot be correct.

And it is a Codex: Tau unit - that's why I asked for the wording on markerlights.

you are incorrect. I posted the correct page number sentence and words that prove my point.

post your page numbers or sentence's to prove I am not correct.

anything is either RAI or just making stuff up.

Prove that lone ICs are units?
You posted it.

but a single powerful model, such as a lone character,

Further, if they were not a unit they could not ever move or shoot unless joined to a unit (since you nominate units, not models to do those things).
Further, if they were not a unit they could not ever be targeted (since you target units, not models).
Page 39 - Independent Characters can join other units - implying they are a unit themselves.
This continues when ICs are allowed to join other ICs - meaning they are joining another unit.

There's more, but hopefully you'll see that lone ICs are absolutely a unit.

"So you choose a target unit. Is the unit the marine? If not, you cannot attack him. You're attacking the unit that includes the marine, but you're explicitly not attacking the marine. "


That above statement proves you can use PE. PE clearly states it can be used against models and units and tanks and MC. All PE needs per RAW is the correct Codex\model. That's it! No where in the PE rules does it state the firer is shooting at a unit. You are just making that up.
I have already posted the sentence from preferred enemy that shows it is NOT a unit its attacking. Its attack its PE. I have been given permission RAW to attack this guy. I have permission. You have never posted a page, sentence or even a line to disprove this point.

you must have forgot the most basic of rules.

Forgetting That the Specific Overrules the General

The rules are written so that a more specific rule supersedes a general rule. If your argument fails to take more specific rules into account, then your argument is flawed.

i.e. the general rule states that units cannot regroup if below 50%. But space marines follow And They Shall Know No Fear, which allows them to regroup even when below 50%. That rule is more specific because it applies to a smaller group or more specific situation.

Per this topic in the forums PE supersedes anything else.

osirisx69 wrote:
"So you choose a target unit. Is the unit the marine? If not, you cannot attack him. You're attacking the unit that includes the marine, but you're explicitly not attacking the marine. "


That above statement proves you can use PE. PE clearly states it can be used against models and units and tanks and MC. All PE needs per RAW is the correct Codex\model. That's it! No where in the PE rules does it state the firer is shooting at a unit. You are just making that up.

I am?
Please cite the rule that allows you to attack something other than a unit.

I have already posted the sentence from preferred enemy that shows it is NOT a unit its attacking. Its attack its PE. I have been given permission RAW to attack this guy. I have permission. You have never posted a page, sentence or even a line to disprove this point.

That quote does not give you permission to break targeting rules. It just says that *IF* you attack your PE, you get a bonus. Since you cannot attack individual models (but rather must attack a unit) you can never single out a model with PE.

you must have forgot the most basic of rules.

Forgetting That the Specific Overrules the General

The rules are written so that a more specific rule supersedes a general rule. If your argument fails to take more specific rules into account, then your argument is flawed.

i.e. the general rule states that units cannot regroup if below 50%. But space marines follow And They Shall Know No Fear, which allows them to regroup even when below 50%. That rule is more specific because it applies to a smaller group or more specific situation.

Per this topic in the forums PE supersedes anything else.

Where in PE are you given permission to attack an individual model? You've failed to cite such permission (because it doesn't exist).

rigeld2 wrote:

osirisx69 wrote:
"So you choose a target unit. Is the unit the marine? If not, you cannot attack him. You're attacking the unit that includes the marine, but you're explicitly not attacking the marine. "


That above statement proves you can use PE. PE clearly states it can be used against models and units and tanks and MC. All PE needs per RAW is the correct Codex\model. That's it! No where in the PE rules does it state the firer is shooting at a unit. You are just making that up.

I am?
Please cite the rule that allows you to attack something other than a unit.

I have already posted the sentence from preferred enemy that shows it is NOT a unit its attacking. Its attack its PE. I have been given permission RAW to attack this guy. I have permission. You have never posted a page, sentence or even a line to disprove this point.

That quote does not give you permission to break targeting rules. It just says that *IF* you attack your PE, you get a bonus. Since you cannot attack individual models (but rather must attack a unit) you can never single out a model with PE.

you must have forgot the most basic of rules.

Forgetting That the Specific Overrules the General

The rules are written so that a more specific rule supersedes a general rule. If your argument fails to take more specific rules into account, then your argument is flawed.

i.e. the general rule states that units cannot regroup if below 50%. But space marines follow And They Shall Know No Fear, which allows them to regroup even when below 50%. That rule is more specific because it applies to a smaller group or more specific situation.

Per this topic in the forums PE supersedes anything else.

Where in PE are you given permission to attack an individual model? You've failed to cite such permission (because it doesn't exist).

I cited all that in previous post. I understand it my be hard to read but if you look closely you will see it amongst the other posts.

Again you have never disproved the argument per the forum rules. You just state your opinion and that sir means squat as far as YMTC is concerned. Here is a PRIME example of your opinion and not the RAW.

"Since you cannot attack individual models (but rather must attack a unit) you can never single out a model with PE."

This is your opinion and its wrong. A lone character is a single model, a MC is a single model and a tank is a single model. Just because they call them units does not change the FACT that they are single models and can be treated as such Page 3 (see how I post a page reference) Notice it states Models and units but never states model are no longer models if they join a unit. As a mater of fact they point out single models can be units in there own right but it does not state they lose any bonuses for being models. In FACT they sometimes transfer some bonuses to the unit the join PROVING that models are in fact real targets in 40k.

So I have proven the permission with a page and sentence cite.

Please show a page or wording that says unit do NOT contain models.

Again you have no proof, just your opinion and in this instance its wrong.

So unless you post a real page reference (as opposed to your inaccurate opinions) that states a model is NEVER referred as a single model then you whole argument is flawed. I have posted pages and words that give REAL ( not flawed opinion) proof that my point is right.

osirisx69 wrote:
"Since you cannot attack individual models (but rather must attack a unit) you can never single out a model with PE."

This is your opinion and its wrong. A lone character is a single model, a MC is a single model and a tank is a single model. Just because they call them units does not change the FACT that they are single models and can be treated as such Page 3 (see how I post a page reference)

They are single model units. You can never attack individual models - I've shown that you must (as in, the rules require) you to target units. Find permission to target individual models. You've failed to cite anything that allows that.

Notice it states Models and units but never states model are no longer models if they join a unit. As a mater of fact they point out single models can be units in there own right but it does not state they lose any bonuses for being models. In FACT they sometimes transfer some bonuses to the unit the join PROVING that models are in fact real targets in 40k.

I never said a model stops being a model. That's ludicrous.

Please show a page or wording that says unit do NOT contain models.

That's absurd and not what I'm saying.

So unless you post a real page reference (as opposed to your inaccurate opinions) that states a model is NEVER referred as a single model then you whole argument is flawed. I have posted pages and words that give REAL ( not flawed opinion) proof that my point is right.

No, you've cited zero rules allowing you to attack a model. None. Ever.
I've shown you rules (on page 12) that require (as in, you have to do this) you to target a unit to make a shooting attack.
Please cite rules allowing the same for an individual model.

rigeld2 wrote:

osirisx69 wrote:
"Since you cannot attack individual models (but rather must attack a unit) you can never single out a model with PE."

This is your opinion and its wrong. A lone character is a single model, a MC is a single model and a tank is a single model. Just because they call them units does not change the FACT that they are single models and can be treated as such Page 3 (see how I post a page reference)

They are single model units. You can never attack individual models - I've shown that you must (as in, the rules require) you to target units. Find permission to target individual models. You've failed to cite anything that allows that.

Notice it states Models and units but never states model are no longer models if they join a unit. As a mater of fact they point out single models can be units in there own right but it does not state they lose any bonuses for being models. In FACT they sometimes transfer some bonuses to the unit the join PROVING that models are in fact real targets in 40k.

I never said a model stops being a model. That's ludicrous.

Please show a page or wording that says unit do NOT contain models.

That's absurd and not what I'm saying.

So unless you post a real page reference (as opposed to your inaccurate opinions) that states a model is NEVER referred as a single model then you whole argument is flawed. I have posted pages and words that give REAL ( not flawed opinion) proof that my point is right.

No, you've cited zero rules allowing you to attack a model. None. Ever.
I've shown you rules (on page 12) that require (as in, you have to do this) you to target a unit to make a shooting attack.
Please cite rules allowing the same for an individual model.

again I posted, you can target individual models with focus fire if the right situation come up...what are you missing? You shoot, if that unit has your enemy in it you use PE (page number 40 paragraph 5 second to last sentence.) Its attacking its Preferred enemy. Why do you have such an issue with the RAW?

"I've shown you rules (on page 12) that require (as in, you have to do this) you to target a unit to make a shooting attack." Yes target the unit, does the unit have your PE? why yes, yes it does. Then he gets to use the PE skill. page 40 paragraph 5 second to last sentence! RAW on my part RAI on your part.

osirisx69 wrote:

again I posted, you can target individual models with focus fire if the right situation come up...

No, that's absolutely not what the rules say. You've literally invented that. Keep in mind that targeting has a specific meaning in 40k. If you're using it to mean something else that could be the reason for your misunderstanding.

what are you missing? You shoot, if that unit has your enemy in it you use PE (page number 40 paragraph 5 second to last sentence.) Its attacking its Preferred enemy. Why do you have such an issue with the RAW?

My PE is Tau. I shoot an Eldar unit. According to you I should get my PE bonus. Why? I'm demonstrably not attacking my PE.

"I've shown you rules (on page 12) that require (as in, you have to do this) you to target a unit to make a shooting attack. yes target the unit does the unit have your PE? why yes, yes it does. Then he gets to use the PE skill.

No, the target unit is Eldar. The fact that it has a Tau IC attached is irrelevant - there's only one unit you're targeting and it's an Eldar unit.

rigeld2 wrote:

osirisx69 wrote:

again I posted, you can target individual models with focus fire if the right situation come up...

No, that's absolutely not what the rules say. You've literally invented that. Keep in mind that targeting has a specific meaning in 40k. If you're using it to mean something else that could be the reason for your misunderstanding.

what are you missing? You shoot, if that unit has your enemy in it you use PE (page number 40 paragraph 5 second to last sentence.) Its attacking its Preferred enemy. Why do you have such an issue with the RAW?

My PE is Tau. I shoot an Eldar unit. According to you I should get my PE bonus. Why? I'm demonstrably not attacking my PE.

"I've shown you rules (on page 12) that require (as in, you have to do this) you to target a unit to make a shooting attack. yes target the unit does the unit have your PE? why yes, yes it does. Then he gets to use the PE skill.

No, the target unit is Eldar. The fact that it has a Tau IC attached is irrelevant - there's only one unit you're targeting and it's an Eldar unit.

EVERYTHING you just posted has nothing to do with the rule on page 40. The rule on page 40 supersedes page 12. citation included right here page 40 paragraph 5 second to last sentence. He is shooting at a unit with his preferred enemy in it. he gets to use PE..... simple really.

Please post where that is NOT true because according to the rules of THIS forum it is true and I will quote it for you because you seem to forget this very important rule........


"Forgetting That the Specific Overrules the General

The rules are written so that a more specific rule supercedes a general rule. If your argument fails to take more specific rules into account, then your argument is flawed.

i.e. the general rule states that units cannot regroup if below 50%. But space marines follow And They Shall Know No Fear, which allows them to regroup even when below 50%. That rule is more specific because it applies to a smaller group or more specific situation."

Your argument FAILS to take more specific rules into account. In fact all you keep sighting is page 12. That's it....you have no argument.

Anyways if you still refuse to post anything new to your argument I am just going to ignore it. I have never disputed that models are in a unit. I have never disputed you don't target models in a unit. I have never disputed models together are called units. I have never disputed you shoot at units.

+1

osirisx69 wrote:
EVERYTHING you just posted has nothing to do with the rule on page 40. The rule on page 40 supersedes page 12. citation included right here page 40 paragraph 5 second to last sentence. He is shooting at a unit with his preferred enemy in it. he gets to use PE..... simple really.

So you're past trying to say that you target models with focus fire - good.

A unit that contains at least one model with this special rule re-rolls failed To Hit and To Wound rolls of 1 if attacking its Preferred Enemy.

We know that to attack requires a target. (page 12) Agreed?
We know that to target something, it must be a unit. (page 12) Agreed?
We know that if an IC joins a unit, there's only one unit there - not two. (page 39) Agreed?
We know that if there's only one unit, you can not target an IC individually. (Page 39 and page 12) Agreed?

If you agree to the 4 points above, the only conclusion is that PE only works if the unit you're targeting is (not contains - is) your Preferred Enemy. If the unit you're targeting is not your Preferred Enemy, you cannot gain the bonus.
You may be misreading the "at least one model" to pertain to the targeted unit - it doesn't.

If you disagree with the 4 points above, please explain which one and why - preferably using page numbers.

rigeld2 wrote:

osirisx69 wrote:
EVERYTHING you just posted has nothing to do with the rule on page 40. The rule on page 40 supersedes page 12. citation included right here page 40 paragraph 5 second to last sentence. He is shooting at a unit with his preferred enemy in it. he gets to use PE..... simple really.

So you're past trying to say that you target models with focus fire - good.

A unit that contains at least one model with this special rule re-rolls failed To Hit and To Wound rolls of 1 if attacking its Preferred Enemy.

We know that to attack requires a target. (page 12) Agreed?
We know that to target something, it must be a unit. (page 12) Agreed?
We know that if an IC joins a unit, there's only one unit there - not two. (page 39) Agreed?
We know that if there's only one unit, you can not target an IC individually. (Page 39 and page 12) Agreed?

If you agree to the 4 points above, the only conclusion is that PE only works if the unit you're targeting is (not contains - is) your Preferred Enemy. If the unit you're targeting is not your Preferred Enemy, you cannot gain the bonus.
You may be misreading the "at least one model" to pertain to the targeted unit - it doesn't.

If you disagree with the 4 points above, please explain which one and why - preferably using page numbers.

"We know that if there's only one unit, you can not target an IC individually." sigh incorrect again. its funny how wrong your argument has been. If I roll a 6 to hit then I can choose the IC. See how THAT supersedes page 12 !?!?!?!?!?!??!?!!!?!? Why would you let some rules supersedes targeting but not others? Focus fire allow me to target a single model if he is out in the open and the rest of his buddies are in cover. See another rule that supersedes Page 12.

"If you agree to the 4 points above, the only conclusion is that PE only works if the unit you're targeting is (not contains - is) your Preferred Enemy. If the unit you're targeting is not your Preferred Enemy, you cannot gain the bonus." again your drawing your conclusions on failed logic as I have pointed out in this post.

I do appreciate that you supplied more points to your argument though. Thanks.

osirisx69 wrote:
"We know that if there's only one unit, you can not target an IC individually." sigh incorrect again. its funny how wrong your argument has been. If I roll a 6 to hit then I can choose the IC. See how THAT supersedes page 12 !?!?!?!?!?!??!?!!!?!? Why would you let some rules supersedes targeting but not others?

No, that doesn't supersede page 12 at all. Rolling a 6 triggers Precision Shot - let's look at that rule.

page 63 wrote:Wounds from Precision Shots are allocated against a model (or models) of your choice in the target unit

So you get to choose allocation not the target. The sentence even repeats that the unit was targeted.

rigeld2 wrote:

osirisx69 wrote:
"We know that if there's only one unit, you can not target an IC individually." sigh incorrect again. its funny how wrong your argument has been. If I roll a 6 to hit then I can choose the IC. See how THAT supersedes page 12 !?!?!?!?!?!??!?!!!?!? Why would you let some rules supersedes targeting but not others?

No, that doesn't supersede page 12 at all. Rolling a 6 triggers Precision Shot - let's look at that rule.

page 63 wrote:Wounds from Precision Shots are allocated against a model (or models) of your choice in the target unit

So you get to choose allocation not the target. The sentence even repeats that the unit was targeted.

being stuck on the word "target" doesn't change the fact I am right. You asked if I could target the IC. PS doesn't use the word TARGET in its ruling just like PE doesn't use the word TARGET so why are you so fixated on that word which does not apply to either rule?

osirisx69 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

osirisx69 wrote:
"We know that if there's only one unit, you can not target an IC individually." sigh incorrect again. its funny how wrong your argument has been. If I roll a 6 to hit then I can choose the IC. See how THAT supersedes page 12 !?!?!?!?!?!??!?!!!?!? Why would you let some rules supersedes targeting but not others?

No, that doesn't supersede page 12 at all. Rolling a 6 triggers Precision Shot - let's look at that rule.

page 63 wrote:Wounds from Precision Shots are allocated against a model (or models) of your choice in the target unit

So you get to choose allocation not the target. The sentence even repeats that the unit was targeted.

being stuck on the word "target" doesn't change the fact I am right. You asked if I could target the IC. PS doesn't use the word TARGET in its ruling just like PE doesn't use the word TARGET so why are you so fixated on that word which does not apply to either rule?

No, you said that you were given permission to target the IC separate from targeting the unit.
PS does not allow you to target the IC - this is important.
I did ask if you could target the IC - and you can not. You were not correct when you said you could and have provided no (correct) rules arguments to back your statement up.

PE requires that you attack your PE to get the bonus.
How do you attack in 40k? Page 12 has 5 steps to accomplish that encompass a shooting attack (vs a CC attack which has similar restrictions).
The word absolutely applies and using it correctly is a good idea.

rigeld2 wrote:

osirisx69 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

osirisx69 wrote:
"We know that if there's only one unit, you can not target an IC individually." sigh incorrect again. its funny how wrong your argument has been. If I roll a 6 to hit then I can choose the IC. See how THAT supersedes page 12 !?!?!?!?!?!??!?!!!?!? Why would you let some rules supersedes targeting but not others?

No, that doesn't supersede page 12 at all. Rolling a 6 triggers Precision Shot - let's look at that rule.

page 63 wrote:Wounds from Precision Shots are allocated against a model (or models) of your choice in the target unit

So you get to choose allocation not the target. The sentence even repeats that the unit was targeted.

being stuck on the word "target" doesn't change the fact I am right. You asked if I could target the IC. PS doesn't use the word TARGET in its ruling just like PE doesn't use the word TARGET so why are you so fixated on that word which does not apply to either rule?

No, you said that you were given permission to target the IC separate from targeting the unit.
PS does not allow you to target the IC - this is important.
I did ask if you could target the IC - and you can not. You were not correct when you said you could and have provided no (correct) rules arguments to back your statement up.

PE requires that you attack your PE to get the bonus.
How do you attack in 40k? Page 12 has 5 steps to accomplish that encompass a shooting attack (vs a CC attack which has similar restrictions).
The word absolutely applies and using it correctly is a good idea.

okay again for you because something in not connecting, here is how it goes per the rule I have cited 13 times now.


attack unit, does unit have PE in it. yes it does then I get my PE rule.

Page 40 paragraph 5 second to last sentence.

here is more proof I am right

"Forgetting That the Specific Overrules the General

The rules are written so that a more specific rule supersedes a general rule. If your argument fails to take more specific rules into account, then your argument is flawed.

i.e. the general rule states that units cannot regroup if below 50%. But space marines follow And They Shall Know No Fear, which allows them to regroup even when below 50%. That rule is more specific because it applies to a smaller group or more specific situation."

PE does NOT ever care about page 12 PE only cares if there is a PE in the unit. PE per RAW does not care if there are 1, 2, or 100 PE's in the unit. As a mater of fact PE never mentions shooting at units at ALL. Since PE supersedes page 12 ruling then that's the rule.

That's pure RAW proof

osirisx69 wrote:
attack unit, does unit have PE in it. yes it does then I get my PE rule.

That's not what the rule on page 40 says. You've invented the bolded requirement.
The rule actually says that you must attack your Preferred Enemy. There is a difference between the two statements - I've corrected this misunderstanding of yours at least once already.

"Forgetting That the Specific Overrules the General

PE does NOT ever care about page 12 PE only cares if there is a PE in the unit. PE never ever RAW says it cares who or what unit it is in. As a mater of fact PE never mentions shooting at units at ALL.

It does say that you must attack your PE.
Please, define attack using the rules.

rigeld2 wrote:

osirisx69 wrote:
attack unit, does unit have PE in it. yes it does then I get my PE rule.

That's not what the rule on page 40 says. You've invented the bolded requirement.
The rule actually says that you must attack your Preferred Enemy. There is a difference between the two statements - I've corrected this misunderstanding of yours at least once already.

"Forgetting That the Specific Overrules the General

PE does NOT ever care about page 12 PE only cares if there is a PE in the unit. PE never ever RAW says it cares who or what unit it is in. As a mater of fact PE never mentions shooting at units at ALL.

It does say that you must attack your PE.
Please, define attack using the rules.

1st off I never stated it was a quote from the book. You made that up make your argument look better..... sad really

Second since you have not addressed my proven post ABOUT PE superseding page 12 (Forgetting That the Specific Overrules the General) and keep going back to a flawed logic I can only see you are just trying to waste time.

osirisx69 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

osirisx69 wrote:
attack unit, does unit have PE in it. yes it does then I get my PE rule.

That's not what the rule on page 40 says. You've invented the bolded requirement.
The rule actually says that you must attack your Preferred Enemy. There is a difference between the two statements - I've corrected this misunderstanding of yours at least once already.

"Forgetting That the Specific Overrules the General

PE does NOT ever care about page 12 PE only cares if there is a PE in the unit. PE never ever RAW says it cares who or what unit it is in. As a mater of fact PE never mentions shooting at units at ALL.

It does say that you must attack your PE.
Please, define attack using the rules.

1st off I never stated it was a quote from the book. You made that up make your argument look better..... sad really

When you are asserting that it is RAW and it's demonstrably not, you deserve correction.

Second since you have not addressed my proven post ABOUT PE superseding page 12 (Forgetting That the Specific Overrules the General) and keep going back to a flawed logic I can only see you are just trying to waste time.

I did address that point. I asked you to define attack using the rules - since that's what PE cares about you must have a definition ready.
I'm waiting.

rigeld2 wrote:

osirisx69 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

osirisx69 wrote:
attack unit, does unit have PE in it. yes it does then I get my PE rule.

That's not what the rule on page 40 says. You've invented the bolded requirement.
The rule actually says that you must attack your Preferred Enemy. There is a difference between the two statements - I've corrected this misunderstanding of yours at least once already.

"Forgetting That the Specific Overrules the General

PE does NOT ever care about page 12 PE only cares if there is a PE in the unit. PE never ever RAW says it cares who or what unit it is in. As a mater of fact PE never mentions shooting at units at ALL.

It does say that you must attack your PE.
Please, define attack using the rules.

1st off I never stated it was a quote from the book. You made that up make your argument look better..... sad really

When you are asserting that it is RAW and it's demonstrably not, you deserve correction.

Second since you have not addressed my proven post ABOUT PE superseding page 12 (Forgetting That the Specific Overrules the General) and keep going back to a flawed logic I can only see you are just trying to waste time.

I did address that point. I asked you to define attack using the rules - since that's what PE cares about you must have a definition ready.
I'm waiting.

No you did not address that point. You posted your opinion yet had no real page or reference to back it up. I see where you stuck and you just wont let it go and that's fine. Move that goal post farther back. I enjoy a good debate but when the other side degrades to just silly word play its no longer a debate...

osirisx69 wrote:
No you did not address that point. You posted your opinion yet had no real page or reference to back it up.

No, I didn't post an opinion. I asked for a definition.
I've posted page references where required. Please don't pretend otherwise - that's impolite.

I see where you stuck and you just wont let it go and that's fine. Move that goal post farther back. I enjoy a good debate but the other side degrades to just silly word play its no longer a debate...

I've moved no goal posts. I've done literally nothing but answer honestly and politely. I'm not engaging in silly word play, I'm addressing the rules as they're written.
40k defines some terms specifically. Attacking is one of them. It seems like you're using a more general definition of attack (and target). It's incorrect to apply those more general definitions to 40k rules.
I've asked for the definition of attack that you're using because attacking is a prerequisite for Preferred Enemy to work.
Without common ground a debate is impossible. I'm attempting to reach common ground.

rigeld2 wrote:

osirisx69 wrote:
No you did not address that point. You posted your opinion yet had no real page or reference to back it up.

No, I didn't post an opinion. I asked for a definition.
I've posted page references where required. Please don't pretend otherwise - that's impolite.

I see where you stuck and you just wont let it go and that's fine. Move that goal post farther back. I enjoy a good debate but the other side degrades to just silly word play its no longer a debate...

I've moved no goal posts. I've done literally nothing but answer honestly and politely. I'm not engaging in silly word play, I'm addressing the rules as they're written.
40k defines some terms specifically. Attacking is one of them. It seems like you're using a more general definition of attack (and target). It's incorrect to apply those more general definitions to 40k rules.
I've asked for the definition of attack that you're using because attacking is a prerequisite for Preferred Enemy to work.
Without common ground a debate is impossible. I'm attempting to reach common ground.

Okay lets try it a different way...

why do you have an issue with the ruling I made?

osirisx69 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

osirisx69 wrote:
No you did not address that point. You posted your opinion yet had no real page or reference to back it up.

No, I didn't post an opinion. I asked for a definition.
I've posted page references where required. Please don't pretend otherwise - that's impolite.

I see where you stuck and you just wont let it go and that's fine. Move that goal post farther back. I enjoy a good debate but the other side degrades to just silly word play its no longer a debate...

I've moved no goal posts. I've done literally nothing but answer honestly and politely. I'm not engaging in silly word play, I'm addressing the rules as they're written.
40k defines some terms specifically. Attacking is one of them. It seems like you're using a more general definition of attack (and target). It's incorrect to apply those more general definitions to 40k rules.
I've asked for the definition of attack that you're using because attacking is a prerequisite for Preferred Enemy to work.
Without common ground a debate is impossible. I'm attempting to reach common ground.

Okay lets try it a different way...

why do you have an issue with the ruling I made?

Because you're attempting to attack an individual model (out of a unit of models) which is against the rules.

rigeld2 wrote:

osirisx69 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

osirisx69 wrote:
No you did not address that point. You posted your opinion yet had no real page or reference to back it up.

No, I didn't post an opinion. I asked for a definition.
I've posted page references where required. Please don't pretend otherwise - that's impolite.

I see where you stuck and you just wont let it go and that's fine. Move that goal post farther back. I enjoy a good debate but the other side degrades to just silly word play its no longer a debate...

I've moved no goal posts. I've done literally nothing but answer honestly and politely. I'm not engaging in silly word play, I'm addressing the rules as they're written.
40k defines some terms specifically. Attacking is one of them. It seems like you're using a more general definition of attack (and target). It's incorrect to apply those more general definitions to 40k rules.
I've asked for the definition of attack that you're using because attacking is a prerequisite for Preferred Enemy to work.
Without common ground a debate is impossible. I'm attempting to reach common ground.

Okay lets try it a different way...

why do you have an issue with the ruling I made?

Because you're attempting to attack an individual model (out of a unit of models) which is against the rules.

Ahh no, I am NOT attacking an individual model. All of the many references were where he could be harmed individually but I never said in the posts you are not targeting a unit. I understand the word attack has been flown around in different ways.

Like I said RAW never says with PE you are attacking a unit. it just states if you attack your PE use these rules. Is your PE in the unit yes or no if no then don't use the rule if yes then use the rule.

osirisx69 wrote:
Ahh no, I am NOT attacking an individual. I gave many references of how he could be harmed individually but I never said in the posts you are not attacking the unit.

You said you were able to target the individual. That's what I was addressing as incorrect (because it is).

Like I said RAW never says with PE you are attacking a unit. it just states if you attack your PE use these rules. Is your PE in the unit yes or no if no then don't use the rule if yes then use the rule.

PE does not say "is your PE in the unit".
It says if you're attacking your PE.

To attack something you must target it. Agreed?
If you target an Eldar unit and you have PE: Tau, are you allowed to re-roll?

rigeld2 wrote:

osirisx69 wrote:
Ahh no, I am NOT attacking an individual. I gave many references of how he could be harmed individually but I never said in the posts you are not attacking the unit.

You said you were able to target the individual. That's what I was addressing as incorrect (because it is).

Like I said RAW never says with PE you are attacking a unit. it just states if you attack your PE use these rules. Is your PE in the unit yes or no if no then don't use the rule if yes then use the rule.

PE does not say "is your PE in the unit".
It says if you're attacking your PE.

To attack something you must target it. Agreed?
If you target an Eldar unit and you have PE: Tau, are you allowed to re-roll?

Is there a tau in the unit? is the tau taking the wound? If yes and yes then yes if not then no.

If you are in CC and are in base to base contact with said tau you would get a your PE if you are in contact with the elder you would not.

osirisx69 wrote:
Is there a tau in the unit? is the tau the closest model? If yes and yes then yes if not then no.

Why does it matter if he's the closest? Are you attacking the Tau?

rigeld2 wrote:

osirisx69 wrote:
Is there a tau in the unit? is the tau the closest model? If yes and yes then yes if not then no.

Why does it matter if he's the closest? Are you attacking the Tau?

I edited my post and I was not fast enough before you posted a response.

osirisx69 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

osirisx69 wrote:
Is there a tau in the unit? is the tau the closest model? If yes and yes then yes if not then no.

Why does it matter if he's the closest? Are you attacking the Tau?

I edited my post and I was not fast enough before you posted a response.

Fair enough - but why does it matter if he's taking the wound?
Did you attack him? Or did you attack the Eldar unit?
edit: This is why the definition of "attack" matters.
In 40k, you're attacking what you target. You didn't target the individual model.

rigeld2 wrote:

osirisx69 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

osirisx69 wrote:
Is there a tau in the unit? is the tau the closest model? If yes and yes then yes if not then no.

Why does it matter if he's the closest? Are you attacking the Tau?

I edited my post and I was not fast enough before you posted a response.

Fair enough - but why does it matter if he's taking the wound?
Did you attack him? Or did you attack the Eldar unit?
edit: This is why the definition of "attack" matters.
In 40k, you're attacking what you target. You didn't target the individual model.

Your targeting the unit. The unit has a PE in it. So use the PE rules. If a unit of 1 wolf guard and 7 grey hunters are shot at by an enemy that has PE "wolf guard" then you would use PE. Since PE does not state the "entire unit must be filled with preferred enemies" then you can only go by exactly what it says. Are you shooting at your preferred enemy? If yes use these rules. is there a preferred enemy in the unit ? yes then use these rules. I am not saying individual models. heck there could be 3 or 5 of your preferred enemy in the target unit and you get PE. Since PE does not clarify and it is an overriding rule and this is a permissive game then it has to overwrite the previous rules for targeting per this post off of dakka.

"Forgetting That the Specific Overrules the General"

The general rule is you target units. The overriding rule is, your target units, but then you check to see if they have any preferred enemy in it.

osirisx69 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

osirisx69 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

osirisx69 wrote:
Is there a tau in the unit? is the tau the closest model? If yes and yes then yes if not then no.

Why does it matter if he's the closest? Are you attacking the Tau?

I edited my post and I was not fast enough before you posted a response.

Fair enough - but why does it matter if he's taking the wound?
Did you attack him? Or did you attack the Eldar unit?
edit: This is why the definition of "attack" matters.
In 40k, you're attacking what you target. You didn't target the individual model.

Your targeting the unit. The unit has a PE in it. So use the PE rules. If a unit of 1 wolf guard and 7 grey hunters are shot at by an enemy that has PE "wolf guard" then you would use PE. Since PE does not state the "entire unit must be filled with preferred enemies" then you can only go by exactly what it says. Are you shooting at your preferred enemy? If yes use these rules. is there a preferred enemy in the unit ? yes then use these rules. I am not saying individual models. heck there could be 3 or 5 of your preferred enemy in the target unit and you get PE. Since PE does not clarify and it is an overriding rule and this is a permissive game then it has to overwrite the previous rules for targeting per this post off of dakka.

The bolded does not exist in the rules anywhere.

It says if you're attacking your PE. Not if the unit you're attacking contains your PE.

"Forgetting That the Specific Overrules the General"

The general rule is you target units. The overriding rule is, your target units, but then you check to see if they have any preferred enemy in it.

You keep asserting the bold, but I've never seen you back it up with an actual rule. PE doesn't say if there's a PE in the unit you're attacking - it says if you're attacking.

rigeld2 wrote:

osirisx69 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

osirisx69 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

osirisx69 wrote:
Is there a tau in the unit? is the tau the closest model? If yes and yes then yes if not then no.

Why does it matter if he's the closest? Are you attacking the Tau?

I edited my post and I was not fast enough before you posted a response.

Fair enough - but why does it matter if he's taking the wound?
Did you attack him? Or did you attack the Eldar unit?
edit: This is why the definition of "attack" matters.
In 40k, you're attacking what you target. You didn't target the individual model.

Your targeting the unit. The unit has a PE in it. So use the PE rules. If a unit of 1 wolf guard and 7 grey hunters are shot at by an enemy that has PE "wolf guard" then you would use PE. Since PE does not state the "entire unit must be filled with preferred enemies" then you can only go by exactly what it says. Are you shooting at your preferred enemy? If yes use these rules. is there a preferred enemy in the unit ? yes then use these rules. I am not saying individual models. heck there could be 3 or 5 of your preferred enemy in the target unit and you get PE. Since PE does not clarify and it is an overriding rule and this is a permissive game then it has to overwrite the previous rules for targeting per this post off of dakka.

The bolded does not exist in the rules anywhere.

It says if you're attacking your PE. Not if the unit you're attacking contains your PE.

"Forgetting That the Specific Overrules the General"

The general rule is you target units. The overriding rule is, your target units, but then you check to see if they have any preferred enemy in it.

You keep asserting the bold, but I've never seen you back it up with an actual rule. PE doesn't say if there's a PE in the unit you're attacking - it says if you're attacking.

I have stated the rule. Page 40 paragraph 5 second to last sentence. The above example show that yes the unit has my preferred enemy in it. How else could I use this rule then? PE has given me permission to use a special rule against my PE. Does the unit contain my PE if yes then I use the special rule if not then no.

osirisx69 wrote:
I have stated the rule. Page 40 paragraph 5 second to last sentence. The above example show that yes the unit has my preferred enemy in it. How else could I use this rule then? PE has given me permission to use a special rule against my PE. Does the unit contain my PE if yes then I use the special rule if not then no.

There isn't a single word on page 40 paragraph 5 second to last sentence that implies the unit simply has to "contain" your PE. edit: this is the part that you've failed to back up with actual rules.
In fact, it states that you must attack your PE. Not a unit that the PE is part of - but your PE.
If you had PE: Tau and shot a Tau unit, it would kick it.

You have also failed to prove that you do in fact attack units as a whole and not as a collection of models, you have simply implied the rules via logical steps.

I've asked repeatedly how hatred is suppose to work if that was true ( it doesn't say if the unit contains any hated model it says any model from that codex) how do you attack a model under your definition?

How do you deal with Preferred Enemy T5 on a unit such as DE beastmasters? Where some of the unit models can have T5 and some don't (without even adding an IC). or Saga of the beastslayer on that same unit.

Sorry but your definition just doesn't work, as the definition of unit is just a group of models and that's it. An IC being a member of that group for all rules purposes means they are a member for all rules purposes.

And back to what was said earlier about ICs joining together by keeping track of who joined who, the rules actually say a new Multi-Character unit is formed so a libby joining a captian does not make a captian unit it makes a libby and captian unit.
So now how does preferred enemy work on that unit?

It really needs to be "at least one model", "all models" or "majority of models"

Kisada II wrote:
You have also failed to prove that you do in fact attack units as a whole and not as a collection of models, you have simply implied the rules via logical steps.

No, I've walked through the rules as they exist.

I've asked repeatedly how hatred is suppose to work if that was true ( it doesn't say if the unit contains any hated model it says any model from that codex) how do you attack a model under your definition?

That's not completely correct.
It is worded very similarly to PE actually.
And the requirement is to strike a hated foe.
Strike is synonymous with attack in the rules, so it works precisely like PE does.

How do you deal with Preferred Enemy T5 on a unit such as DE beastmasters? Where some of the unit models can have T5 and some don't (without even adding an IC). or Saga of the beastslayer on that same unit.

Is it a T5 unit? Is it a unit of beasts?

Sorry but your definition just doesn't work, as the definition of unit is just a group of models and that's it. An IC being a member of that group for all rules purposes means they are a member for all rules purposes.

Yes - which means that if the Tau IC joins an Eldar unit, the Tau unit ceases to exist.
I fail to see how my definition doesn't work - at least mine doesn't add words to make things work in a way that "sounds right".

And back to what was said earlier about ICs joining together by keeping track of who joined who, the rules actually say a new Multi-Character unit is formed so a libby joining a captian does not make a captian unit it makes a libby and captian unit.
So now how does preferred enemy work on that unit?

It does not make a Libby and captain unit. You do have to keep track of who joins who.

It really needs to be "at least one model", "all models" or "majority of models"

Sure - it needs an FAQ or different wording.

To osirisx69 and Kisada II:

Units from Codex: Tau Empire can expend Markerlights to gain various abilities before shooting.

If an Autarch is attached to a unit of Fire Warriors, can they use Markerlights and will the Autarch benefit? Why or why not?

If a Tau Commander is attached to a unit of Guardian Defenders, can they use Markerlights and will the Guardian Defenders benefit? Why or why not?

Please use actual rules to support your answers.

rigeld2 wrote:
To your last question - until the end of the phase, yes it's a unit of Fire Warriors.

And adding a Tau IC to an Eldar unit does not make it a Eldar + Tau unit. The Tau unit ceases to exist so the only unit left is Eldar.

So you believe a unit with no Fire Warriors in it can be a unit of Fire Warriors. How does that work since only models can be Fire Warriors? You've yet to show a unit has a type, Title(Fire Warrior) or codex affiliation so I maintain only models have those things.

The Tau unit ceases to exist? That is not stated. VPs are still awarded for it so obviously it can be destroyed. Seems to still exist to me and instead of disappearing is actually added to the unit the IC joins which is why that unit becomes worth 2 VPs.

Abandon, since osirisx and Kisada refuse (or are unable) to answer my question in the post immediately proceeding yours, perhaps you can?

Oh, and since you keep pointing out that you can only attack a unit then by your stance only PE(unit) would be usable. What exactly do you think a unit is?

 Abandon wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
To your last question - until the end of the phase, yes it's a unit of Fire Warriors.

And adding a Tau IC to an Eldar unit does not make it a Eldar + Tau unit. The Tau unit ceases to exist so the only unit left is Eldar.

So you believe a unit with no Fire Warriors in it can be a unit of Fire Warriors. How does that work since only models can be Fire Warriors? You've yet to show a unit has a type, Title(Fire Warrior) or codex affiliation so I maintain only models have those things.

If a unit is made up of Fire Warriors it is a Fire Warrior unit.
Since the ICs cannot leave that unit until the end of the phase, the FW unit still exists until then.

The Tau unit ceases to exist? That is not stated. VPs are still awarded for it so obviously it can be destroyed. Seems to still exist to me and instead of disappearing is actually added to the unit the IC joins which is why that unit becomes worth 2 VPs.

When do you count VP? When the unit dies or at the end of the game?
Perhaps if you applied the rules correctly you wouldn't have this misconception.
Also - if the unit continues to exist, that means the IC is targetable individually - it's still a unit after all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Abandon wrote:
Oh, and since you keep pointing out that you can only attack a unit then by your stance only PE(unit) would be usable. What exactly do you think a unit is?

PE (race) is as well.
As is any PE if the target unit is homogeneous.

The Tau commander is purchased as a unit in the Tau codex as are the Fire Warriors. The rule permits them to use marker lights. None of the others qualify.

So the others aren't treated as members of the Tau unit for all rules purposes?
Edit: others meaning Autarch + Fire Warriors

 Abandon wrote:
The Tau commander is purchased as a unit in the Tau codex as are the Fire Warriors. The rule permits them to use marker lights. None of the others qualify.

So the Autarch (who counts as a normal member for all rules purposes) does not count as a normal member for all rules purposes? As far as I know there are only a couple times where an IC counts as a separate unit while attached to a unit, and those specifically say so.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Abandon wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
To your last question - until the end of the phase, yes it's a unit of Fire Warriors.

And adding a Tau IC to an Eldar unit does not make it a Eldar + Tau unit. The Tau unit ceases to exist so the only unit left is Eldar.

So you believe a unit with no Fire Warriors in it can be a unit of Fire Warriors. How does that work since only models can be Fire Warriors? You've yet to show a unit has a type, Title(Fire Warrior) or codex affiliation so I maintain only models have those things.

If a unit is made up of Fire Warriors it is a Fire Warrior unit.
Since the ICs cannot leave that unit until the end of the phase, the FW unit still exists until then.

The first line contradicts the second there. The ICs cannot, by themselves, compose a Fire Warrior Unit according to that statement.

Since a unit composed of Fire Warrior models is what constitutes a unit of fire Warriors what would you call a unit composed of more than just Fire Warriros?

rigeld2 wrote:

The Tau unit ceases to exist? That is not stated. VPs are still awarded for it so obviously it can be destroyed. Seems to still exist to me and instead of disappearing is actually added to the unit the IC joins which is why that unit becomes worth 2 VPs.

When do you count VP? When the unit dies or at the end of the game?
Perhaps if you applied the rules correctly you wouldn't have this misconception.
Also - if the unit continues to exist, that means the IC is targetable individually - it's still a unit after all.

Why does that matter?
What misconception?
Yes, and...?

rigeld2 wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Abandon wrote:
Oh, and since you keep pointing out that you can only attack a unit then by your stance only PE(unit) would be usable. What exactly do you think a unit is?

PE (race) is as well.
As is any PE if the target unit is homogeneous.

You can't target a race.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Happyjew wrote:

 Abandon wrote:
The Tau commander is purchased as a unit in the Tau codex as are the Fire Warriors. The rule permits them to use marker lights. None of the others qualify.

So the Autarch (who counts as a normal member for all rules purposes) does not count as a normal member for all rules purposes? As far as I know there are only a couple times where an IC counts as a separate unit while attached to a unit, and those specifically say so.

First, a slight correction. It's not a 'normal member' this edition.

The rule does not care about what units who joins when etc. The rule only cares if they(the model(s)) were purchased as a unit form the Tau Codex. If they are not, then they are not permitted to use marker lights.

Re-read the IC section, it says that ICs can join together to form a Multi-character unit not one joining the other.
So if a Tau IC joins with an Eldar IC they make a new unit. Now how preferred enemy work on them?
I can't answer your question on marker lights, different tournaments here play it one of two ways and they both make sense, but maker lights say units and preferred enemy does not necessary have anything to do with units (my point this entire thread) units have been added in as a logical leap and although it makes sense it has problems and that isn't what is in the rule book

If Multiple ICs are joining each other they must do so one at a time. When forming the super unit the first IC that moves joins the IC whose unit will be applied to all other ICs.

You have ICs A, B, C, D, E, F, and G; IC A moves to join IC B, IC A is now a member of B-unit. IC C then has to join B-unit(consisting of IC A and B). All other ICs that move to join the Multi character unit are joining B-Unit.

What the passage you are talking about is, is an allowance for ICs to join other ICs at all; which would not be allowed under the more basic rules that ICs cannot join units that only ever consist of 1 model(like all ICs are).

 Abandon wrote:
The first line contradicts the second there. The ICs cannot, by themselves, compose a Fire Warrior Unit according to that statement.

They are not. They are members of a Fire Warrior unit for all rules purposes until the end of the phase.

Since a unit composed of Fire Warrior models is what constitutes a unit of fire Warriors what would you call a unit composed of more than just Fire Warriros?

It started as a unit of Fire Warriors. The other models joined the unit of Fire Warriors... and they're members of the Fire Warrior unit for all rules purposes.

rigeld2 wrote:

The Tau unit ceases to exist? That is not stated. VPs are still awarded for it so obviously it can be destroyed. Seems to still exist to me and instead of disappearing is actually added to the unit the IC joins which is why that unit becomes worth 2 VPs.

When do you count VP? When the unit dies or at the end of the game?
Perhaps if you applied the rules correctly you wouldn't have this misconception.
Also - if the unit continues to exist, that means the IC is targetable individually - it's still a unit after all.

Why does that matter?
What misconception?
Yes, and...?

Because the VP is counted at the end of the game, not during it. So the unit ceasing to exist causes no issues with counting VP.
The misconception that the IC unit still exists after it joins another unit.
So your arguing that an IC is still targetable by shooting after it joins another unit?

rigeld2 wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Abandon wrote:
Oh, and since you keep pointing out that you can only attack a unit then by your stance only PE(unit) would be usable. What exactly do you think a unit is?

PE (race) is as well.
As is any PE if the target unit is homogeneous.

You can't target a race.

I didn't say you could. Perhaps you could actually attempt to understand my argument?

The rule does not care about what units who joins when etc. The rule only cares if they(the model(s)) were purchased as a unit form the Tau Codex. If they are not, then they are not permitted to use marker lights.

Could you quote the rule please? I'm pretty sure it doesn't say that, but you're welcome to prove me wrong.

Semi silly question . If a IC joins a unit , by raw is the IC allowed to use abilities/wargear if the unit he joins does not have access to them ?

Absolutely; the Special rules, Abilities and wargear belong to the model. Just like the Character rule belongs to the unit leader(on most units), and the Special and heavy weapons(Wargear) only belong to certain models within the unit.