Dont have brb but i beleive that chariots counts as vehicles and the overlord is embarked on its as per transport so yup.he keeps IC bit as he is in a vehicle (albiet eith lots of special rules) that cannot join units
Current RAW, as long as he is not joining a unit that contains a MC or Vehicles, yes.
This feels cheesy, but he should have been FAQed with the Heralds. I can't tell if GW wants you to join him with units or not so I recommend talking this over with your opponent first.
Guys, what's your interpretation of the rules for chariot CCB for Necrons?
BRB: " a Chariot is always treated as a single model. For the purpose of characteristic tests, always use the riders profile. Furthermore, any characteristic modifier that affect a chariot model apply to both rider and chariot.
Necron Codex: A model with phase shifter has a 3+ invulnerable save
So we have "one model" that has Phase Shifter - which should give both Chariot and Overlord a 3++ save.
Feels as cheesy as joining a Unit, however the RAW seems to allow it.
Don't let it join units. Wargear does not carry over.
Unless you want to spend 30 minutes before the game reasoning with your opponent, leaving both of you unssatisfied and angry.
RAW-wise, war gear does not carry over. Joining units might be possible, however, yet it creates a huge balance problem. And really, CCB got buffed so hard, don't go full DoC on your opponent.
Haha. I've read the thread posted. Thanks for that. I can see both arguments. But I'm going to go with RAI - he can't join a unit. Although I do now think a phase shifter gives the chariot a 3++, so with that discovery, I will walk away happy!
For my opinion: It keeps the IC rule when it becomes the unholy combination of models that is the 7th edition chariot. I fully expect this to receive some errata sooner or later, but for now it is a model with the IC rule and no specific rule (note I said 'rule'; not common sense, or balance issues) preventing it from joining anything you like, pursuant to that same rule of course.
I feel the same way about the 3++ working, but that isn't as relevant to this thread.
Neorealist wrote: For my opinion: It keeps the IC rule when it becomes the unholy combination of models that is the 7th edition chariot. I fully expect this to receive some errata sooner or later, but for now it is a model with the IC rule and no specific rule (note I said 'rule'; not common sense, or balance issues) preventing it from joining anything you like, pursuant to that same rule of course.
I feel the same way about the 3++ working, but that isn't as relevant to this thread.
Yeah, I see it the same way. I will run him with some wraiths. Until an opponent complains. And then I will simply run him alone. I'm not the arguing kind.
Neorealist wrote: For my opinion: It keeps the IC rule when it becomes the unholy combination of models that is the 7th edition chariot. I fully expect this to receive some errata sooner or later, but for now it is a model with the IC rule and no specific rule (note I said 'rule'; not common sense, or balance issues) preventing it from joining anything you like, pursuant to that same rule of course.
I feel the same way about the 3++ working, but that isn't as relevant to this thread.
Yeah, I see it the same way. I will run him with some wraiths. Until an opponent complains. And then I will simply run him alone. I'm not the arguing kind.
I would never play you again if you did that.
If someone tries something and when caught out on it, immediately changes it, to me, that simply looks like someone thinking that I was too stupid to catch him breaking the rules - I would feel stupid or even cheated out in such a situation! Always, always, always clear those things up before the game starts.
A good point brought up in the other thread is alloacation of wounds during a shooting attack.
During the roll to wound phase, you would roll vs majority toughness. If, lets say you get 5 wounds, when it comes time to allocate against the chariot, would you roll penetration? After you have rolled to wound? Somehow this step is not clarified in the FAQ. Not sure about the ruebook.
Based on this, I think it is hard to resolve shooting against such a unit. Thus, by extension, even if RAW allows joining right now, I probably wouldnt do it because it messes up the game in that way.
Neorealist wrote: For my opinion: It keeps the IC rule when it becomes the unholy combination of models that is the 7th edition chariot. I fully expect this to receive some errata sooner or later, but for now it is a model with the IC rule and no specific rule (note I said 'rule'; not common sense, or balance issues) preventing it from joining anything you like, pursuant to that same rule of course.
I feel the same way about the 3++ working, but that isn't as relevant to this thread.
Yeah, I see it the same way. I will run him with some wraiths. Until an opponent complains. And then I will simply run him alone. I'm not the arguing kind.
I would never play you again if you did that.
If someone tries something and when caught out on it, immediately changes it, to me, that simply looks like someone thinking that I was too stupid to catch him breaking the rules - I would feel stupid or even cheated out in such a situation! Always, always, always clear those things up before the game starts.
So because I'm not argumentative, and would happily allow any tantrum throwing player to get their own way, you would never play me again?
Oh no, I might not sleep tonight now...
Seriously though, I am pretty sure that at the moment - he can join. But I can also see the argument as to why not. The FAQ didn't help like it did with heralds. But I'm not in the business of a 30 minute squabble before a game, when I could just be playing.
@milkboy - The rules for Chariots in the BRB clearly states that shooting wounds on a Chariot are separated into pools, and allocated by the owning player.
Incidently, during combat the attacking player also decides if he will attack the lord or the chariot.
With the above in mind, I see no reason that one couldn't use the 3++ if attacks/wounds are allocated on the OL. My opinion.
To me its all a moot point now anyway. After further reflection, I just don't think its worth its points.
So because I'm not argumentative, and would happily allow any tantrum throwing player to get their own way, you would never play me again?
The problem isn't that you aren't argumentative - in the contrary, you came to an internet forum and looked for info. The problem is that if you play against someone and try to pull sth. off without telling him, then, when called out on it, immediately stop doing so...then, to anyone seeing this, it looks exactly like you knew that doing so would be wrong and tried to go under the radar. That's extremely bad sportsmanship. If you know that there might be trouble with something in the game, clear it up beforehand. It's the best solution by a long shot.
So if I am understanding this correctly you can have a barge lead a group of wraiths?? Pretty sure it's not intended but does seem RAW.
Reason why I don't think it's intended is how do you damage the unit? If we go the majority toughness route but have the barge in the front does it then roll on the damage chart for each wound? Or does it have to still roll for penetration or are these just glances. Furthermore if you somehow decide how that works and an explodes result is the occurrence how does look out sir work with this? How do you look out sir an explodes? Does the wraith "explode".
There are too many issues with this possible rule combination for it to be the intention, namely it breaks the game at the "wounding" stage.
Step aside 2++ re-rollable deathstars thats the past, 7th is all about the vehicle stars that you can't shoot.
Punisher wrote: So if I am understanding this correctly you can have a barge lead a group of wraiths?? Pretty sure it's not intended but does seem RAW.
Reason why I don't think it's intended is how do you damage the unit? If we go the majority toughness route but have the barge in the front does it then roll on the damage chart for each wound? Or does it have to still roll for penetration or are these just glances. Furthermore if you somehow decide how that works and an explodes result is the occurrence how does look out sir work with this? How do you look out sir an explodes? Does the wraith "explode".
There are too many issues with this possible rule combination for it to be the intention, namely it breaks the game at the "wounding" stage.
Step aside 2++ re-rollable deathstars thats the past, 7th is all about the vehicle stars that you can't shoot.
That's why you are highly recommend to go down the sportsmanship route and take the RAI solution.
Punisher wrote: So if I am understanding this correctly you can have a barge lead a group of wraiths?? Pretty sure it's not intended but does seem RAW.
Reason why I don't think it's intended is how do you damage the unit? If we go the majority toughness route but have the barge in the front does it then roll on the damage chart for each wound? Or does it have to still roll for penetration or are these just glances. Furthermore if you somehow decide how that works and an explodes result is the occurrence how does look out sir work with this? How do you look out sir an explodes? Does the wraith "explode".
There are too many issues with this possible rule combination for it to be the intention, namely it breaks the game at the "wounding" stage.
Step aside 2++ re-rollable deathstars thats the past, 7th is all about the vehicle stars that you can't shoot.
The "Shooting at Chariots" section and how hits are resolved in 7e, solves this problem.
When shooting, you go through the entire shoot sequence after selecting a target for each weapon. Only after you have finished resolving wounds/glances/penetrations, do you select another weapon to fire.
SHOOTING AT CHARIOTS wrote:The player controlling the Chariot unit then allocates each hit pool either to the rider or the Chariot of the closest model in the unit. If several pools of hits need to be resolved, the player making the attacks must decide in which order they are resolved. All hits from a single pool must be allocated and resolved before moving on to the next pool.
So even if a Chariot is in a group of Wraiths or Scarabs, it can and will still be wounded/glanced/penetrated, however, you will have to tank all the hits in that hit pool before moving to the next model unless it is still alive.
Sadly as Dakka Dakka forums have more than once shown, playing RAI (When intention is not clear) and when RAW conflict is neither poor sportsmanship nor playing cheesy. We had to suffer through the 2++ re-rollable in 6th and it looks like that until GW make s a call on this issue, of whether of not a Overlord (IC) keeps his IC status and can join units while being the rider of a CCB is unknown at present.
What is known is that a Chariot and Rider count as one model, and that in the Necron FAQ the Overlords do not have their IC status removed if riding a Chariot. We do know that as per the BRB when describing what special rules effect a chariot that :RP/EL will effect the CCB, Thus leading me to believe that if the OL had a Rez Orb (Purchasable wargear), it would effect the RP/EL roll taken by the chariot. Thus if the Chariot benefits from the Rez Orb, it would logically benefit from any other wargear purchased by the OL that would normally affect a Vehicle. (IE phase shifter and 3++ save).
I can see the issue with joining a CCB to a unit of say scarabs, where there is an AV 13 vehicle as the closet model and t3 3w models following it. How does one resolve wounding?
If I have read the section regarding chariots correctly, the controller of the chariot decides which hits from which weapons are allocated where, unless they are a precession shots. Thus the controller could have all the shots that cannot hurt the Chariot hit the chariot (And LOS due to the current IC rule those that can hurt it) and all the other shots hit the rider, where he can make LOS to the scarabs to tank wounds.
One issue brought up was how to resolve wounds against a Vehicle, and how to resolve LOS against Explodes results on the damage table. (Edited due to misinformation) Against a Chariot before any wounds are rolled the Controlling player get to allocate where the hits go, so there may never be an instance where this comes up, if the hits are from weapons that could harm the unit but not the chariot then those get thrown against the chariot, and the others against the Lord, where you are more than likely wounding on 2+ anyway.
Sadly as a Necron player I want to see this stay as it is written however, until I test it and see if it is as broken as every one else thinks it is going to be (Had the same issue with Knights, which I found as did many others to not be broken) I reverser my judgment until then.
So played a game yesterday, running two Overlords, both on Chariots. Game was against Eldar, admittedly not a great Eldar list, it wasn't seer council and he wasn't running a Wraith Knight. However he was running a huge amount of Str8 missile launcher guys. The guy I was playing is also a Necron player like myself.
Now I didn't have the CCB's join a unit, personally regardless of RAW or RAI, having an AV13 Chariot with infantry, sounds like a pain the manage on the table, assigning wounds or glances. But we did agree that the Chariot does get 3++ due to the RAW of the Chariot rules and the Codex Phase Shifter Rules (the whole Single Model argument)
Holy crap, these things are brutal, Sweep attacks are OK, Shooting is ok up to 6 Str 6 shots (only got 1-2 shots most turns in this game). In Close combat with D6 hammer of wrath on charge and 4 Str 7 AP1 on the charge from the Warscythe, amazing amount of kills. Oh yeah and its fearless
However the attack nothing compared to its defences (its so broken I felt bad)
2+ If taken on Lord
3++ If taken on Lord
AV13 on Chariot
3++ on Chariot if you manage to get past the AV13
My warlord trait gave one of them "It will not die"
When he did manage to glance one of the Chariots down, it came back with Everliving
On top of them he still had to contend with wraiths and flyers and an anni barge. A Double Haywire Squad and the Deathmark Double Despair tek squad being delivered by flyers
My List is very vehicle heavy and with 3 flyers, 7th has been really good to Necrons. I am still quite new to this hobby and not had that many games I shudder to think what good players could do with Necrons, even with having no magic phase.
Chariots are broken, even if you lost the 3++ on the chariot, it still would get a 4+ Jink, they are not unkillable by any means but they are so durable you have to put a lot into getting one down then again you are paying 285 Points.
Correction, NECRON chariots are broken. Daemon chariots are fine.
Personally, since the precedent has already been established with the rider losing their IC status for Codex: Chaos Daemons, I would have to think that the Overlord loses IC as well, even if its not specifically stated in the FAQ. As for the 3++ with the phase shifter, thats a tough one. RAW, there is nothing anywhere that indicates it would not apply to the entire model, but it sure does seem cheezy as all get out (13 AV, 4+ Jink, plus can tank shooting with a 2+/3++ on the rider).
Punisher wrote: So if I am understanding this correctly you can have a barge lead a group of wraiths?? Pretty sure it's not intended but does seem RAW.
Reason why I don't think it's intended is how do you damage the unit? If we go the majority toughness route but have the barge in the front does it then roll on the damage chart for each wound? Or does it have to still roll for penetration or are these just glances. Furthermore if you somehow decide how that works and an explodes result is the occurrence how does look out sir work with this? How do you look out sir an explodes? Does the wraith "explode".
There are too many issues with this possible rule combination for it to be the intention, namely it breaks the game at the "wounding" stage.
Step aside 2++ re-rollable deathstars thats the past, 7th is all about the vehicle stars that you can't shoot.
The "Shooting at Chariots" section and how hits are resolved in 7e, solves this problem. When shooting, you go through the entire shoot sequence after selecting a target for each weapon. Only after you have finished resolving wounds/glances/penetrations, do you select another weapon to fire.
SHOOTING AT CHARIOTS wrote:The player controlling the Chariot unit then allocates each hit pool either to the rider or the Chariot of the closest model in the unit. If several pools of hits need to be resolved, the player making the attacks must decide in which order they are resolved. All hits from a single pool must be allocated and resolved before moving on to the next pool.
So even if a Chariot is in a group of Wraiths or Scarabs, it can and will still be wounded/glanced/penetrated, however, you will have to tank all the hits in that hit pool before moving to the next model unless it is still alive.
The thing here is that shooting against non-vehicles is far different than shooting to vehicles. Against vehicles you make hit pools, meanwhile against non-vehicles you make wound pools.
Correction, NECRON chariots are broken. Daemon chariots are fine.
Personally, since the precedent has already been established with the rider losing their IC status for Codex: Chaos Daemons, I would have to think that the Overlord loses IC as well, even if its not specifically stated in the FAQ. As for the 3++ with the phase shifter, thats a tough one. RAW, there is nothing anywhere that indicates it would not apply to the entire model, but it sure does seem cheezy as all get out (13 AV, 4+ Jink, plus can tank shooting with a 2+/3++ on the rider).
Daemon chariots still have the problem (same as Necrons) that we don't know how many of their special rules/wargear interact with the 'always treated as one model' thing.
E.g. can a daemon chariot with a rider that has the Dark Blessing reward re-roll invulnerable saves?
Yep. So, being a chariot doesn't mean it is not still an independent character, as there is nothing specific which states such. (unlike the daemon variant).
So basically the chariot (and the ccb + Overlord combo in particular) seems to be a fine stew of rules currently, one which will hopefully be sorted out with a more robust FAQ entry.
Even in the Chariot section of the BRB it only states that the Character is to be referred to as the Rider. Also there is nothing in the BRB about what define a Rider or what USR affect what...
While the authorities are trying to figure out what's happening, the Necron Overlord is bringing his chariot out for a spin every night without his metaphorical licence..... And racing through every red light he sees, screaming his head off.
Automatically Appended Next Post: With a head wreathed in flames, swinging a long thick chain.
The Daemons FAQ, which parallels the chariots for Heralds of Khorne, Tzeench, and Slaanesh, state that those heralds become riders and lose the IC rule.
The same mechanic is in the Necron Overlord; however, it only states that the Command barge loses transport capacity and instead has "Rider: Necron Overlord".
I see this as an oversight on the Necron FAQ and would function the same as the Daemons as both are ICs that can purchase a chariot upgrade.
I suspect you are right, and that the eventual FAQ update for the CCB will prompt the rider to lose his IC status as well. (as the other way around; getting the CCB to play nice with being in a group of other models seems a lot more complex)
Until then, discuss such with your opponents and/or enjoy making up a house rule or two to insure you can resolve things properly.
The Chariot rules clearly state that it is an unusual unit that has dual profiles, one for the rider and one for the chariot.
Throughout the whole Chariot section, it is clear that although there is one model, there are two separate profiles and these profiles can be allocated wounds and or hits. Further, in assault, each profile (rider vs chariot) can be attacked separately.
IC is a USR and there is NO mechanism for this USR to transfer to any other unit (or in this case to any other profile).
Everyone referencing "However, a Chariot is always treated as a single model" needs to read the sentence before it.
"A Chariot is a unusual unit with a dual profile - a non-vehicle profile for the rider of the Chariot (see below) and a vehicle profile for the Chariot itself".
The fact that it is treated as a single model does not mean that USR automatically transfer between the rider and vehicle profiles.
MarkCron wrote: The Chariot rules clearly state that it is an unusual unit that has dual profiles, one for the rider and one for the chariot.
Throughout the whole Chariot section, it is clear that although there is one model, there are two separate profiles and these profiles can be allocated wounds and or hits. Further, in assault, each profile (rider vs chariot) can be attacked separately.
IC is a USR and there is NO mechanism for this USR to transfer to any other unit (or in this case to any other profile).
Everyone referencing "However, a Chariot is always treated as a single model" needs to read the sentence before it.
"A Chariot is a unusual unit with a dual profile - a non-vehicle profile for the rider of the Chariot (see below) and a vehicle profile for the Chariot itself".
The fact that it is treated as a single model does not mean that USR automatically transfer between the rider and vehicle profiles.
A couple questions:
Who does the IC rules apply to? I cannot find a reference in the rule that they apply to the Profile or Model.
Why would the IC rule only being on the Overlord Profile prevent it from joining a unit? The IC rule only says it can join with other units.
The sad part regarding this issue is either due to an over sight on GW's part or it is exactly what they are going for... and no one here is being paid by GW to write rules, leaving us to question what Gw was going for...
BLADERIKER wrote: The sad part regarding this issue is either due to an over sight on GW's part or is exactly what they are going for... and no one here is being paid by GW to write rules, leaving us to question what Gw was going for...
For how the daemon FAQ is written, I'm presuming an oversight that'll be corrected in the next round of FAQs. Hopefully we don't have to wait another year for them.
MarkCron wrote: The Chariot rules clearly state that it is an unusual unit that has dual profiles, one for the rider and one for the chariot.
Throughout the whole Chariot section, it is clear that although there is one model, there are two separate profiles and these profiles can be allocated wounds and or hits. Further, in assault, each profile (rider vs chariot) can be attacked separately.
IC is a USR and there is NO mechanism for this USR to transfer to any other unit (or in this case to any other profile).
Everyone referencing "However, a Chariot is always treated as a single model" needs to read the sentence before it.
"A Chariot is a unusual unit with a dual profile - a non-vehicle profile for the rider of the Chariot (see below) and a vehicle profile for the Chariot itself".
The fact that it is treated as a single model does not mean that USR automatically transfer between the rider and vehicle profiles.
A couple questions:
Who does the IC rules apply to? I cannot find a reference in the rule that they apply to the Profile or Model.
Excellent question. The ERB pg 640 "What Special Rules Do I Have" refers to "models". Not sure whether model=profile. First couple of sentences are interesting : "It may seem obvious, but unless stated otherwise, a model does not have a special rule. Most special rules are given to a model by the relevant Army List Entry or it's Unit Type. That said, a model's attacks can gain special rules because of the weapon it is using".
So, if model doesn't equal profile, then the model (comprising Chariot and Rider) only has the special rules applicable to Chariots (as set out in the BRB/ERB/Necron Codex) plus any USR conferred by wargear?
Nilok wrote: Why would the IC rule only being on the Overlord Profile prevent it from joining a unit? The IC rule only says it can join with other units.
Because units are impassable terrain so you can't get within an inch of the unit. Therefore you can't join units to other units without special permission, namely the IC special rule. For example, An overlord with a Royal Court can't join a unit of warriors because the Royal Court isn't an IC - and IC doesn't confer to the Royal Court when the Overlord is joined to it.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Aaaannd...Ignore the comment on impassable terrain. Interestingly I can't find the rule which says you can't move within an inch of a friendly unit.
Automatically Appended Next Post: So apparently it is now legal to intermix two units providing you maintain coherency in both. Walking cover anyone?
BLADERIKER wrote: The sad part regarding this issue is either due to an over sight on GW's part or is exactly what they are going for... and no one here is being paid by GW to write rules, leaving us to question what Gw was going for...
For how the daemon FAQ is written, I'm presuming an oversight that'll be corrected in the next round of FAQs. Hopefully we don't have to wait another year for them.
Similarly to this ongoing debate is a question regarding Sammael (DA) and his Land Speeder (Sableclaw) I have looked at the DAFAQ and the Codex and I cannot find where Sammael losses his IC status for taking the Land Speeder, only that his unit type changes to Vehicle(Fast Skimmer) his wargear and USR are left unchanged as is his Warlord Trait. So in theory you could have Sammael in his Land speeder join a Squad of Raven Wing Bikers and would have a similar issue.
MarkCron wrote: The Chariot rules clearly state that it is an unusual unit that has dual profiles, one for the rider and one for the chariot.
Throughout the whole Chariot section, it is clear that although there is one model, there are two separate profiles and these profiles can be allocated wounds and or hits. Further, in assault, each profile (rider vs chariot) can be attacked separately.
IC is a USR and there is NO mechanism for this USR to transfer to any other unit (or in this case to any other profile).
Everyone referencing "However, a Chariot is always treated as a single model" needs to read the sentence before it.
"A Chariot is a unusual unit with a dual profile - a non-vehicle profile for the rider of the Chariot (see below) and a vehicle profile for the Chariot itself".
The fact that it is treated as a single model does not mean that USR automatically transfer between the rider and vehicle profiles.
A couple questions:
Who does the IC rules apply to? I cannot find a reference in the rule that they apply to the Profile or Model.
Excellent question. The ERB pg 640 "What Special Rules Do I Have" refers to "models". Not sure whether model=profile. First couple of sentences are interesting : "It may seem obvious, but unless stated otherwise, a model does not have a special rule. Most special rules are given to a model by the relevant Army List Entry or it's Unit Type. That said, a model's attacks can gain special rules because of the weapon it is using".
So, if model doesn't equal profile, then the model (comprising Chariot and Rider) only has the special rules applicable to Chariots (as set out in the BRB/ERB/Necron Codex) plus any USR conferred by wargear?
Nilok wrote: Why would the IC rule only being on the Overlord Profile prevent it from joining a unit? The IC rule only says it can join with other units.
Because units are impassable terrain so you can't get within an inch of the unit. Therefore you can't join units to other units without special permission, namely the IC special rule. For example, An overlord with a Royal Court can't join a unit of warriors because the Royal Court isn't an IC - and IC doesn't confer to the Royal Court when the Overlord is joined to it.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Aaaannd...Ignore the comment on impassable terrain. Interestingly I can't find the rule which says you can't move within an inch of a friendly unit.
Automatically Appended Next Post: So apparently it is now legal to intermix two units providing you maintain coherency in both. Walking cover anyone?
I am a little confused by your reply. The CCB/Overlord isn't attached to any units and is alone. If USRs affect models, than the CCB should also be affected by the ICUSR from it's rider profile.
Why did you say it didn't?
BLADERIKER wrote: The sad part regarding this issue is either due to an over sight on GW's part or is exactly what they are going for... and no one here is being paid by GW to write rules, leaving us to question what Gw was going for...
For how the daemon FAQ is written, I'm presuming an oversight that'll be corrected in the next round of FAQs. Hopefully we don't have to wait another year for them.
Similarly to this ongoing debate is a question regarding Sammael (DA) and his Land Speeder (Sableclaw) I have looked at the DAFAQ and the Codex and I cannot find where Sammael losses his IC status for taking the Land Speeder, only that his unit type changes to Vehicle(Fast Skimmer) his wargear and USR are left unchanged as is his Warlord Trait. So in theory you could have Sammael in his Land speeder join a Squad of Raven Wing Bikers and would have a similar issue.
Sammael loses the IC special Rule because Codex DA states that he uses the land speeder profile instead - which is lacking the IC rule.
MarkCron wrote: The Chariot rules clearly state that it is an unusual unit that has dual profiles, one for the rider and one for the chariot.
Throughout the whole Chariot section, it is clear that although there is one model, there are two separate profiles and these profiles can be allocated wounds and or hits. Further, in assault, each profile (rider vs chariot) can be attacked separately.
IC is a USR and there is NO mechanism for this USR to transfer to any other unit (or in this case to any other profile).
Everyone referencing "However, a Chariot is always treated as a single model" needs to read the sentence before it.
"A Chariot is a unusual unit with a dual profile - a non-vehicle profile for the rider of the Chariot (see below) and a vehicle profile for the Chariot itself".
The fact that it is treated as a single model does not mean that USR automatically transfer between the rider and vehicle profiles.
A couple questions:
Who does the IC rules apply to? I cannot find a reference in the rule that they apply to the Profile or Model.
Excellent question. The ERB pg 640 "What Special Rules Do I Have" refers to "models". Not sure whether model=profile. First couple of sentences are interesting : "It may seem obvious, but unless stated otherwise, a model does not have a special rule. Most special rules are given to a model by the relevant Army List Entry or it's Unit Type. That said, a model's attacks can gain special rules because of the weapon it is using".
So, if model doesn't equal profile, then the model (comprising Chariot and Rider) only has the special rules applicable to Chariots (as set out in the BRB/ERB/Necron Codex) plus any USR conferred by wargear?
Nilok wrote: Why would the IC rule only being on the Overlord Profile prevent it from joining a unit? The IC rule only says it can join with other units.
Because units are impassable terrain so you can't get within an inch of the unit. Therefore you can't join units to other units without special permission, namely the IC special rule. For example, An overlord with a Royal Court can't join a unit of warriors because the Royal Court isn't an IC - and IC doesn't confer to the Royal Court when the Overlord is joined to it.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Aaaannd...Ignore the comment on impassable terrain. Interestingly I can't find the rule which says you can't move within an inch of a friendly unit.
Automatically Appended Next Post: So apparently it is now legal to intermix two units providing you maintain coherency in both. Walking cover anyone?
I am a little confused by your reply. The CCB/Overlord isn't attached to any units and is alone. If USRs affect models, than the CCB should also be affected by the ICUSR from it's rider profile.
Why did you say it didn't?
Because the Chariot doesn't have that USR per the BRB. That was my point originally...the BRB is clear that the Chariot is unique because you have two profiles (ie 2 models) which are considered 1. Unless the USR confers to units joined, it can't transfer to the Chariot. In the example above, if you have an Overlord in his Royal Court, you have multiple models, considered as one unit. You can pick out the Overlord with a precision shot, you can assault him in combat, but you can't join him and the royal court to another unit, because the ICUSR doesn't transfer to the models in the royal court and is only applicable to him.
In the case of the Chariot, the first sentence is clear. There are dual profiles, one for the rider, one for the chariot and there is nowhere a statement that says that the rider gets Chariot USR or vice versa. The statement "However, it is always treated as one model" has to be interpreted in the context of the first sentence ie there are two *separate* profiles which are "treated as" one model. They don't *become* one model, they are only treated as one model. If they became one model (for example a SM captain on a bike), you would have a *combined* profile. So I have no problem with a captain on a bike joining a unit (providing they had IC) because the bike doesn't have it's own profile or characteristics.
The problem I see with the Chariot, is that it has it's own profile and characteristics to which some people suggest an additional benefit should be added, just because the Rider happens to have it and despite the fact that specific benefit cannot be transferred under any circumstances.
Because the Chariot doesn't have that USR per the BRB. That was my point originally...the BRB is clear that the Chariot is unique because you have two profiles (ie 2 models) which are considered 1. Unless the USR confers to units joined, it can't transfer to the Chariot. In the example above, if you have an Overlord in his Royal Court, you have multiple models, considered as one unit. You can pick out the Overlord with a precision shot, you can assault him in combat, but you can't join him and the royal court to another unit, because the ICUSR doesn't transfer to the models in the royal court and is only applicable to him.
In the case of the Chariot, the first sentence is clear. There are dual profiles, one for the rider, one for the chariot and there is nowhere a statement that says that the rider gets Chariot USR or vice versa. The statement "However, it is always treated as one model" has to be interpreted in the context of the first sentence ie there are two *separate* profiles which are "treated as" one model. They don't *become* one model, they are only treated as one model. If they became one model (for example a SM captain on a bike), you would have a *combined* profile. So I have no problem with a captain on a bike joining a unit (providing they had IC) because the bike doesn't have it's own profile or characteristics.
The problem I see with the Chariot, is that it has it's own profile and characteristics to which some people suggest an additional benefit should be added, just because the Rider happens to have it and despite the fact that specific benefit cannot be transferred under any circumstances.
You are conflating rules when you refer to the Overlord hatched to a Royal Court and an Overlord in a CCB. You are allowed to pick the Overlord profile out with precision shots because you are given permission to do so for that model, not because you treat the Chariot as a unit. Of course the ICUSR would not spread to the rest of the unit, it would only stay with the model with that rule because it does not give permission to spread to the rest of the unit. However, a Chariot is a single model that has that rule. To use your example, it would be like saying the rest of a unit does not get the befits of Shrouded even though they are all one unit. It is why it is generally accepted that a CCB gains the benefits of a Phase Shifter from the Overlord because it applies to the model, not the profile.
If what you said is true about USRs always affecting models unless otherwise specified, than a Chariot would benefit from any USR its rider has, such as IC, and vice versa.
Because the Chariot doesn't have that USR per the BRB. That was my point originally...the BRB is clear that the Chariot is unique because you have two profiles (ie 2 models) which are considered 1. Unless the USR confers to units joined, it can't transfer to the Chariot. In the example above, if you have an Overlord in his Royal Court, you have multiple models, considered as one unit. You can pick out the Overlord with a precision shot, you can assault him in combat, but you can't join him and the royal court to another unit, because the ICUSR doesn't transfer to the models in the royal court and is only applicable to him.
In the case of the Chariot, the first sentence is clear. There are dual profiles, one for the rider, one for the chariot and there is nowhere a statement that says that the rider gets Chariot USR or vice versa. The statement "However, it is always treated as one model" has to be interpreted in the context of the first sentence ie there are two *separate* profiles which are "treated as" one model. They don't *become* one model, they are only treated as one model. If they became one model (for example a SM captain on a bike), you would have a *combined* profile. So I have no problem with a captain on a bike joining a unit (providing they had IC) because the bike doesn't have it's own profile or characteristics.
The problem I see with the Chariot, is that it has it's own profile and characteristics to which some people suggest an additional benefit should be added, just because the Rider happens to have it and despite the fact that specific benefit cannot be transferred under any circumstances.
You are conflating rules when you refer to the Overlord hatched to a Royal Court and an Overlord in a CCB. You are allowed to pick the Overlord profile out with precision shots because you are given permission to do so for that model, not because you treat the Chariot as a unit. Of course the ICUSR would not spread to the rest of the unit, it would only stay with the model with that rule because it does not give permission to spread to the rest of the unit. However, a Chariot is a single model that has that rule. To use your example, it would be like saying the rest of a unit does not get the befits of Shrouded even though they are all one unit. It is why it is generally accepted that a CCB gains the benefits of a Phase Shifter from the Overlord because it applies to the model, not the profile.
If what you said is true about USRs always affecting models unless otherwise specified, than a Chariot would benefit from any USR its rider has, such as IC, and vice versa.
No, that is not correct. There is no rule that states that the Chariot benefits from any USR its Rider has. That is your interpretation based on taking a sentence out of context. Without that misinterpretation, the Chariot does not have IC. It is exactly the same with Challenges. Note that per the rules the *Rider* issues the challenge, not the Chariot and then only if the *Rider* is a character. It is clearly not intended that characteristics of the Rider transfer to the Chariot. If the Chariot was an Independent Character, it would be able to issue a challenge.
Further Shrouded and Stealth specifically state that they transfer, so are not good examples in this case.
Because the Chariot doesn't have that USR per the BRB. That was my point originally...the BRB is clear that the Chariot is unique because you have two profiles (ie 2 models) which are considered 1. Unless the USR confers to units joined, it can't transfer to the Chariot. In the example above, if you have an Overlord in his Royal Court, you have multiple models, considered as one unit. You can pick out the Overlord with a precision shot, you can assault him in combat, but you can't join him and the royal court to another unit, because the ICUSR doesn't transfer to the models in the royal court and is only applicable to him.
In the case of the Chariot, the first sentence is clear. There are dual profiles, one for the rider, one for the chariot and there is nowhere a statement that says that the rider gets Chariot USR or vice versa. The statement "However, it is always treated as one model" has to be interpreted in the context of the first sentence ie there are two *separate* profiles which are "treated as" one model. They don't *become* one model, they are only treated as one model. If they became one model (for example a SM captain on a bike), you would have a *combined* profile. So I have no problem with a captain on a bike joining a unit (providing they had IC) because the bike doesn't have it's own profile or characteristics.
The problem I see with the Chariot, is that it has it's own profile and characteristics to which some people suggest an additional benefit should be added, just because the Rider happens to have it and despite the fact that specific benefit cannot be transferred under any circumstances.
You are conflating rules when you refer to the Overlord hatched to a Royal Court and an Overlord in a CCB. You are allowed to pick the Overlord profile out with precision shots because you are given permission to do so for that model, not because you treat the Chariot as a unit. Of course the ICUSR would not spread to the rest of the unit, it would only stay with the model with that rule because it does not give permission to spread to the rest of the unit. However, a Chariot is a single model that has that rule. To use your example, it would be like saying the rest of a unit does not get the befits of Shrouded even though they are all one unit. It is why it is generally accepted that a CCB gains the benefits of a Phase Shifter from the Overlord because it applies to the model, not the profile.
If what you said is true about USRs always affecting models unless otherwise specified, than a Chariot would benefit from any USR its rider has, such as IC, and vice versa.
No, that is not correct. There is no rule that states that the Chariot benefits from any USR its Rider has. That is your interpretation based on taking a sentence out of context. Without that misinterpretation, the Chariot does not have IC. It is exactly the same with Challenges. Note that per the rules the *Rider* issues the challenge, not the Chariot and then only if the *Rider* is a character. It is clearly not intended that characteristics of the Rider transfer to the Chariot. If the Chariot was an Independent Character, it would be able to issue a challenge.
Further Shrouded and Stealth specifically state that they transfer, so are not good examples in this case.
I will ask you more bluntly, please provide the rule or restriction that the Chariot does no benefit from rules affecting the model.
There is nothing I can find in the rules that say USR or Wargear only affects the profile they are purchased for and I can't find anywhere that the chariot does not benefit from rules from either profile.
If we accept that ICUSR affects the model from "What Special Rules Do I Have?", then the Chariot would benefit unless there is a restriction.
Your example shows they wanted the rider to be able to challenge as normal if it was a character. It may be that was their intention, but not let the vehicle profile do so. I can accept that if you are trying to argue RAI.
In a friendly game i wouldn't use it but in a Tournament game I will definitely ask how the TO how they will play it. As I see it in tournament I will take every edge I can get vs some very strong combos.
The CCB is a Chariot - a single model with a dual profile.
The vehicle doesn't lose Living Metal, Sweep Attack, or Symbiotic Repair because it is now a Chariot.
Similarly, the Overlord (rider) doesn't lose Ever-living, Independent Character, or Reanimation protocol because it's now a Chariot.
Why don't they lose these? Because by definition the profiles of the vehicle and the rider are being merged together into a dual profile which is collectively the Chariot and the Chariot is being treated as a single entity in all matters.
If a FAQ took away the IC special rule, like it did in the Chaos Demon codex, then the CCB would lose the IC special rule. The current Necron FAQ has no such line. It is very clear how to field a CCB and what is RAI. It's very possible that the Necron codex does not have such a line due to some oversight. However, you have to assume competence in the case of a document like a FAQ which is used as a basis for rules. If there is an oversight, fine, let them fix it. Otherwise, play it as it's being presented. If it winds up being too OP then it will be up to the player to throttle it in friendly games and the TO to deal with it in tournament games. But, as it is, there is no confusion to me as to how GW thinks the CCB should work.
MarkCron - your biggest problem is that you are not treating the Chariot as a single model, which by definition you are supposed to. GW is very specifically telling us to mash two profiles together and call it a single model. Unless you base your line of argumentation around mashing two profiles together and treating it as a single model, you are not following GW's specific guideline as to how to treat the Chariot.
Now, MarkCron, you may be heading down some path of bringing balance to the ruleset by trying to defeat the ability of the CCB to join units and pursuing various lines of argumentation to keep IC off the CCB, but it is not a path that GW has laid out for you. GW wants you to mash two profiles together and call it a model. You are better off appealing to TOs to nip this in the bud if you think this is OP. GW's input is very clear from what I see (unless there is just some big oversight in the Necron FAQ and they just failed to say "Hey guys, remove IC from the Overlord if you take the CCB").
Because the Chariot doesn't have that USR per the BRB. That was my point originally...the BRB is clear that the Chariot is unique because you have two profiles (ie 2 models) which are considered 1. Unless the USR confers to units joined, it can't transfer to the Chariot. In the example above, if you have an Overlord in his Royal Court, you have multiple models, considered as one unit. You can pick out the Overlord with a precision shot, you can assault him in combat, but you can't join him and the royal court to another unit, because the ICUSR doesn't transfer to the models in the royal court and is only applicable to him.
In the case of the Chariot, the first sentence is clear. There are dual profiles, one for the rider, one for the chariot and there is nowhere a statement that says that the rider gets Chariot USR or vice versa. The statement "However, it is always treated as one model" has to be interpreted in the context of the first sentence ie there are two *separate* profiles which are "treated as" one model. They don't *become* one model, they are only treated as one model. If they became one model (for example a SM captain on a bike), you would have a *combined* profile. So I have no problem with a captain on a bike joining a unit (providing they had IC) because the bike doesn't have it's own profile or characteristics.
The problem I see with the Chariot, is that it has it's own profile and characteristics to which some people suggest an additional benefit should be added, just because the Rider happens to have it and despite the fact that specific benefit cannot be transferred under any circumstances.
You are conflating rules when you refer to the Overlord hatched to a Royal Court and an Overlord in a CCB. You are allowed to pick the Overlord profile out with precision shots because you are given permission to do so for that model, not because you treat the Chariot as a unit. Of course the ICUSR would not spread to the rest of the unit, it would only stay with the model with that rule because it does not give permission to spread to the rest of the unit. However, a Chariot is a single model that has that rule. To use your example, it would be like saying the rest of a unit does not get the befits of Shrouded even though they are all one unit. It is why it is generally accepted that a CCB gains the benefits of a Phase Shifter from the Overlord because it applies to the model, not the profile.
If what you said is true about USRs always affecting models unless otherwise specified, than a Chariot would benefit from any USR its rider has, such as IC, and vice versa.
No, that is not correct. There is no rule that states that the Chariot benefits from any USR its Rider has. That is your interpretation based on taking a sentence out of context. Without that misinterpretation, the Chariot does not have IC. It is exactly the same with Challenges. Note that per the rules the *Rider* issues the challenge, not the Chariot and then only if the *Rider* is a character. It is clearly not intended that characteristics of the Rider transfer to the Chariot. If the Chariot was an Independent Character, it would be able to issue a challenge.
Further Shrouded and Stealth specifically state that they transfer, so are not good examples in this case.
I will ask you more bluntly, please provide the rule or restriction that the Chariot does no benefit from rules affecting the model.
There is nothing I can find in the rules that say USR or Wargear only affects the profile they are purchased for and I can't find anywhere that the chariot does not benefit from rules from either profile.
If we accept that ICUSR affects the model from "What Special Rules Do I Have?", then the Chariot would benefit unless there is a restriction.
Your example shows they wanted the rider to be able to challenge as normal if it was a character. It may be that was their intention, but not let the vehicle profile do so. I can accept that if you are trying to argue RAI.
Nilok, I think you have this the wrong way round. In the BRB, you require explicit permission to do something. So, if you aren't specifically allowed to do something you can't do it. In this case, you need to show that:
a) The paragraph
"A Chariot is an unusual unit with a dual profile - a non vehicle profile for the rider of the Chariot (see below), and a vehicle profile for the Chariot itself. However a Chariot is always treated as a single model. For the purposes of characteristics test, always use the Rider's profile. Furthermore, any characteristics modifiers that affect a Chariot model apply to both rider and Chariot"
and the rest of the Chariot rules, which has *repeated* references to ,and uses of, the separate profiles (clearly indicating that the intention was for these profiles and abilities to remain separate) actually means
"The Chariot and Rider *become* a single model where each of the Chariot and the Rider get each others USRs (even if the USR rule says that isn't allowed) but don't combine their characteristics particularly, if the Rider is a character, the Chariot doesn't become one as well. "
OR
b) Demonstrate that the ICUSR can be transferred to another model - I'll take anything you can think of here.
Seriously, isn't the fact that the rulebook specifically has to state that a Rider who is a Character can do an assault enough indication that attributes such as Character *don't* transfer?
If that isn't enough, how do you explain then the following sentence. "If the rider has a special rule that returns it to play after it has been removed as a casualty, sucah as Necron's Ever-living speical rule, that model's Chariot is also returned to play with a single Hull Point." (emphasis added). Clearly, GW is still referring to the Rider as a separate "model".
If we want to be REALLY pedantic, in the first para, you could argue that the statement "A Chariot is an unusual unit with a dual profile - a non vehicle profile for the rider of the Chariot (see below), and a vehicle profile for the Chariot itself. However a Chariot is always treated as a single model." does not actually state that the Rider and Chariot's MODELS are treated as a single model, only that the PROFILES were treated as a single model. So, now you have to show that a profile = model. And if you do that, you need to get around (b) because you can't transfer USR between models/profiles unless the USR says so.
Fundamentally, this whole debate seems to be about taking a single sentence out of context to make an already broken unit even worse. And I'm saying that as a Cron Player!
Sigvatr wrote: Best piece of advice on how to play this:
Don't let it join units. Wargear does not carry over.
Unless you want to spend 30 minutes before the game reasoning with your opponent, leaving both of you unssatisfied and angry.
RAW-wise, war gear does not carry over. Joining units might be possible, however, yet it creates a huge balance problem. And really, CCB got buffed so hard, don't go full DoC on your opponent.
@col_impact : glad to see you dropped in! Better than cluttering up the other thread.
Re your comment, I have no problem treating it as a single model, I'm only taking exception to the assertion that this means that the "combined model" picks up all USR's from the rider and the chariot.
Taking the pedantic route, from my earlier post, you don't combine models, you take the profiles together. The profiles DO NOT include the USR. Each MODEL retains USR that it has (eg Ever-Living for the RIDER) but the other MODEL doesn't get them.
I think that's why the ever-living come back had to be in the rulebook as a specific exception (as well as the Rider ability to issue a challenge).
Living metal, symbiotic repair etc don't factor into this, because they are additional rules applied by the Codex, which takes precedence over the BRB.
MarkCron wrote: @col_impact : but the other MODEL doesn't get them.
There is no Other model. There is only one model, the Chariot, and Independent Character is on there until it is FAQed off (as GW saw fit to do so in the case of the Chaos Demon Chariot). GW tells us to resolve the Chariot as if its a single model. You keep treating it like its an Independent Character embarking on a Dedicated Transport with a capactiy of one. That's not the case here. That was 6th Edition. This is a 7th Edition Chariot. There is no more than one model here, and that one model has a dual profile, which is a mashing of the two together, by definition.
I will ask you more bluntly, please provide the rule or restriction that the Chariot does no benefit from rules affecting the model.
There is nothing I can find in the rules that say USR or Wargear only affects the profile they are purchased for and I can't find anywhere that the chariot does not benefit from rules from either profile.
If we accept that ICUSR affects the model from "What Special Rules Do I Have?", then the Chariot would benefit unless there is a restriction.
Your example shows they wanted the rider to be able to challenge as normal if it was a character. It may be that was their intention, but not let the vehicle profile do so. I can accept that if you are trying to argue RAI.
Nilok, I think you have this the wrong way round. In the BRB, you require explicit permission to do something. So, if you aren't specifically allowed to do something you can't do it. In this case, you need to show that:
a) The paragraph
"A Chariot is an unusual unit with a dual profile - a non vehicle profile for the rider of the Chariot (see below), and a vehicle profile for the Chariot itself. However a Chariot is always treated as a single model. For the purposes of characteristics test, always use the Rider's profile. Furthermore, any characteristics modifiers that affect a Chariot model apply to both rider and Chariot"
and the rest of the Chariot rules, which has *repeated* references to ,and uses of, the separate profiles (clearly indicating that the intention was for these profiles and abilities to remain separate) actually means
"The Chariot and Rider *become* a single model where each of the Chariot and the Rider get each others USRs (even if the USR rule says that isn't allowed) but don't combine their characteristics particularly, if the Rider is a character, the Chariot doesn't become one as well. "
OR
b) Demonstrate that the ICUSR can be transferred to another model - I'll take anything you can think of here.
Seriously, isn't the fact that the rulebook specifically has to state that a Rider who is a Character can do an assault enough indication that attributes such as Character *don't* transfer?
If that isn't enough, how do you explain then the following sentence. "If the rider has a special rule that returns it to play after it has been removed as a casualty, sucah as Necron's Ever-living speical rule, that model's Chariot is also returned to play with a single Hull Point." (emphasis added). Clearly, GW is still referring to the Rider as a separate "model".
If we want to be REALLY pedantic, in the first para, you could argue that the statement "A Chariot is an unusual unit with a dual profile - a non vehicle profile for the rider of the Chariot (see below), and a vehicle profile for the Chariot itself. However a Chariot is always treated as a single model." does not actually state that the Rider and Chariot's MODELS are treated as a single model, only that the PROFILES were treated as a single model. So, now you have to show that a profile = model. And if you do that, you need to get around (b) because you can't transfer USR between models/profiles unless the USR says so.
Fundamentally, this whole debate seems to be about taking a single sentence out of context to make an already broken unit even worse. And I'm saying that as a Cron Player!
MarkCron - your biggest problem is that you are not treating the Chariot as a single model, which by definition you are supposed to. GW is very specifically telling us to mash two profiles together and call it a single model.
I have to agree with col_impact there, I don't think we are arguing the same rules.
I am not being pedantic, I simply want a consistent way the rules are applied. If a rule affects a model, a rule affects a model, if a rule affects a unit, it affects the unit. You are saying the Chariot rules are two different models, it says it is one model and apply the rules as such. A rule that only affect one model can never transfer to a different model, however, a profile is not a model.
USR as you has said they affect the model they are on, if that is the case, then the Chariot must be affected by the ICUSR since it is one model.
So to answer your question how the Chariot can get a USR of Wargear from the unit, the Wargear and USR says it affects the model. As you said:
The ERB pg 640 "What Special Rules Do I Have" refers to "models".
and
PHASE SHIFTER wrote:A model with a Phase Shifter as a 3+ Invulnerable Save.
I have shown your permission, that a USR and Wargear from one profile can affect another profile on the same model. Please provide the restriction that it does not work.
MarkCron wrote: @col_impact : but the other MODEL doesn't get them.
There is no Other model. There is only one model, the Chariot, and Independent Character is on there until it is FAQed off. GW tells us to resolve the Chariot as if its a single model. You keep treating it like its an Independent Character embarking on a Dedicated Transport with a capactiy of one. That's not the case here. That was 6th Edition. This is a 7th Edition Chariot. There is no more than one model here, and that one model has a dual profile, which is a mashing of the two together, by definition.
There are 2 MODELS, and GW is telling to combine two PROFILES and treat them as part of the Chariot MODEL. Read the paragraph, then look at the example of the PROFILE, which is only characteristics. USR's are given to MODELS, not profiles.
If you like, there is only 1 MODEL (the chariot), it has 2 PROFILES (one for the Rider and one for itself), and the MODEL (ie the Chariot) does not have the Independent Character special rule because the RIDER can't confer that to the MODEL. Ever-Living is a perfect example - it was granted to the RIDER, not the MODEL and in order to be able to use it GW had to write a rule in the rulebook saying that you could. Where is the equivalent rule for the ICUSR?
MarkCron wrote: @col_impact : but the other MODEL doesn't get them.
There is no Other model. There is only one model, the Chariot, and Independent Character is on there until it is FAQed off. GW tells us to resolve the Chariot as if its a single model. You keep treating it like its an Independent Character embarking on a Dedicated Transport with a capactiy of one. That's not the case here. That was 6th Edition. This is a 7th Edition Chariot. There is no more than one model here, and that one model has a dual profile, which is a mashing of the two together, by definition.
There are 2 MODELS, and GW is telling to combine two PROFILES and treat them as part of the Chariot MODEL. Read the paragraph, then look at the example of the PROFILE, which is only characteristics. USR's are given to MODELS, not profiles.
If you like, there is only 1 MODEL (the chariot), it has 2 PROFILES (one for the Rider and one for itself), and the MODEL (ie the Chariot) does not have the Independent Character special rule because the RIDER can't confer that to the MODEL. Ever-Living is a perfect example - it was granted to the RIDER, not the MODEL and in order to be able to use it GW had to write a rule in the rulebook saying that you could. Where is the equivalent rule for the ICUSR?
MarkCron, there is only one model. A profile is not a model.
CHARIOTS wrote:However, a Chariot is always treated as a single model.
The reason one profile can affect the other is because all of the rules save for specific ones for Chariots affect the model.
I will ask you again, please provide a quote or page that restricts a rule affecting a model from applying to a specific profile.
If Independent Character is so obviously not possibly attributable to a Chariot, then why bother even specifically taking it away in the case of the Chaos Demon Codex. The Chaos Demon codex has to specifically take it away because otherwise the Chaos Chariot would have it. Obviously, when you mash two profiles together into a single model you indeed have two profiles mashed together into a single model and some one has to say "hey now, Independent Character is no longer in effect here" because it being there is a byproduct of the mashing.
I would personally have no problem with any future FAQ or any TO taking away IC from a Chariot. I am just telling you what I think is "Rules as they are," and I am not blurring the conversation with rules as I think they should be.
Guys, you seem to be mixing and matching words to suit your arguments.
Can we agree to some standard terms and use the consistently please.
"Profile" - a representation of characteristics excluding wargear and special rules as shown in the example profile under the Chariot rules in the ERB.
"Model" - a term defined to mean one or more profiles, together with wargear/USR and or other special rules. Note that USR can only be assigned to a model and must be explicity assigned.
Ok, so lets be clear. Orikan the Diviner also has 2 profiles on a single model. Wargear and rules applying DO NOT transfer to the other profile. He is also in the Necron Codex. Fateweaver also has two profiles, in the form of different heads - again special abilities associated with one profile cannot be gained by the other.
As noted by Nilok, a profile is not a model.
The wording of the Chariot says that it has dual PROFILES and it should be treated as a single MODEL, which is type Chariot. The rules go on to state which profiles to use in certain circumstances.
Further, the rules contemplate that the Rider may have additional abilities which the Chariot Model does not have. Examples and specific rules given in the BRB are Ever-Living and Character.
Col_impact has also raised the issue of things like Living Metal, Symbiotic Repair. These are special rules assigned by the Necron codex to the Chariot Model.
Hopefully we agree to this point, as these are statements of fact.
Your assertion is that the sentence which tells you to treat the 2 profiles as a single model INCLUDES wargear and special rules, despite the evidence that the PROFILE does not contain these things (the profile example, ever living rule, character rule).
In addition, you are stating that if the Rider's MODEL had a special rule, therefore the Chariot MODEL has that rule, even though the rule book says to combine PROFILES, which I have already shown does not include USR or wargear.
So, utilising the rules available to us....
*USR can only be assigned to a MODEL (not a PROFILE). In this case the ICUSR was assigned to the Rider MODEL, together with Ever-living and a bunch of wargear, including a warscythe, semp weave.
*The chariot PROFILE cannot use any of the RIDER's wargear, nor can it use Character or Ever-living (and yes, I don't think the Chariot gets the benefit of the phase shifter in assault either).
*You maintain that the chariot CAN use Independent Character. Why? IC is not part of the Rider profile. The Chariot model has not been specifically assigned the ICUSR. The Rider CANNOT transfer IC to any model and certainly can't transfer it to a Profile.
What am I missing?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
col_impact wrote: If Independent Character is so obviously not possibly attributable to a Chariot, then why bother even specifically taking it away in the case of the Chaos Demon Codex. The Chaos Demon codex has to specifically take it away because otherwise the Chaos Chariot would have it. Obviously, when you mash two profiles together into a single model you indeed have two profiles mashed together into a single model and some one has to say "hey now, Independent Character is no longer in effect here" because it being there is a byproduct of the mashing.
That's a ridiculous argument. If it was so obvious that the special rules and attributes were "mashed together" in the Chariot model, why bother having the rule about the rider issuing a challenge in the BRB?
And you are still confusing the process. There was no mashing...there is simply a single model with 2 profiles. The single model (Chariot) has an attribute known as Rider, which can itself have special attributes/special rules and wargear. It is a fallacy to assume that the special rules, attributes or wargear assigned to the Rider automatically follow to the Model. Or, if you want to assume that special rules/attributes/wargear assigned to the Rider are part of the "model", then fine, but special attributes/rules/wargear of the Rider can ONLY be exercised and affect the Rider (eg the ability to use a warscythe).
MarkCron wrote: Guys, you seem to be mixing and matching words to suit your arguments.
Can we agree to some standard terms and use the consistently please.
"Profile" - a representation of characteristics excluding wargear and special rules as shown in the example profile under the Chariot rules in the ERB.
"Model" - a term defined to mean one or more profiles, together with wargear/USR and or other special rules. Note that USR can only be assigned to a model and must be explicity assigned.
Ok, so lets be clear. Orikan the Diviner also has 2 profiles on a single model. Wargear and rules applying DO NOT transfer to the other profile. He is also in the Necron Codex. Fateweaver also has two profiles, in the form of different heads - again special abilities associated with one profile cannot be gained by the other.
As noted by Nilok, a profile is not a model.
The wording of the Chariot says that it has dual PROFILES and it should be treated as a single MODEL, which is type Chariot. The rules go on to state which profiles to use in certain circumstances.
Further, the rules contemplate that the Rider may have additional abilities which the Chariot Model does not have. Examples and specific rules given in the BRB are Ever-Living and Character.
Col_impact has also raised the issue of things like Living Metal, Symbiotic Repair. These are special rules assigned by the Necron codex to the Chariot Model.
Hopefully we agree to this point, as these are statements of fact.
Your assertion is that the sentence which tells you to treat the 2 profiles as a single model INCLUDES wargear and special rules, despite the evidence that the PROFILE does not contain these things (the profile example, ever living rule, character rule).
In addition, you are stating that if the Rider's MODEL had a special rule, therefore the Chariot MODEL has that rule, even though the rule book says to combine PROFILES, which I have already shown does not include USR or wargear.
So, utilising the rules available to us....
*USR can only be assigned to a MODEL (not a PROFILE). In this case the ICUSR was assigned to the Rider MODEL, together with Ever-living and a bunch of wargear, including a warscythe, semp weave.
*The chariot PROFILE cannot use any of the RIDER's wargear, nor can it use Character or Ever-living (and yes, I don't think the Chariot gets the benefit of the phase shifter in assault either).
*You maintain that the chariot CAN use Independent Character. Why? IC is not part of the Rider profile. The Chariot model has not been specifically assigned the ICUSR. The Rider CANNOT transfer IC to any model and certainly can't transfer it to a Profile.
What am I missing?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
col_impact wrote: If Independent Character is so obviously not possibly attributable to a Chariot, then why bother even specifically taking it away in the case of the Chaos Demon Codex. The Chaos Demon codex has to specifically take it away because otherwise the Chaos Chariot would have it. Obviously, when you mash two profiles together into a single model you indeed have two profiles mashed together into a single model and some one has to say "hey now, Independent Character is no longer in effect here" because it being there is a byproduct of the mashing.
That's a ridiculous argument. If it was so obvious that the special rules and attributes were "mashed together" in the Chariot model, why bother having the rule about the rider issuing a challenge in the BRB?
And you are still confusing the process. There was no mashing...there is simply a single model with 2 profiles. The single model (Chariot) has an attribute known as Rider, which can itself have special attributes/special rules and wargear. It is a fallacy to assume that the special rules, attributes or wargear assigned to the Rider automatically follow to the Model. Or, if you want to assume that special rules/attributes/wargear assigned to the Rider are part of the "model", then fine, but special attributes/rules/wargear of the Rider can ONLY be exercised and affect the Rider (eg the ability to use a warscythe).
Please do not bring in rules that do not factor into the discussion. Orikan the Diviner never has both profiles active on the model at the same time.
The problem is you keep referancing things like "Rider model". Please tell me where the rider model is. Is in a transport? No, the Chariot is not a transport. Is it in reserves? no, it can't be. There is no rider model. If the rider profile has anything that say it applies to the model, it applies to the only model, the Chariot model, the Catacomb Command Barge. If the chariot profile has anything that applies to the model, it too applies to the Catacomb Command Barge.
If is say model, it applies to the model. There is no such thing as a rider model, there is only the Catacomb Command Barge model, which has a Chariot Profile and a Rider Profile.
You are on the losing side of an argument here. You are having to explain away why GW could not be bothered to mention that the Overlord loses IC status if it takes a CCB. GW did not mention it, as it did in the case of the Chaos Daemon codex, because GW intends for the CCB to have IC.
Oversight? Perhaps. But we have to assume competence. Chaos Demon Chariot = No on IC. Necron Chariot = Yes on IC.
MarkCron wrote: Guys, you seem to be mixing and matching words to suit your arguments.
Can we agree to some standard terms and use the consistently please.
"Profile" - a representation of characteristics excluding wargear and special rules as shown in the example profile under the Chariot rules in the ERB.
"Model" - a term defined to mean one or more profiles, together with wargear/USR and or other special rules. Note that USR can only be assigned to a model and must be explicity assigned.
Ok, so lets be clear. Orikan the Diviner also has 2 profiles on a single model. Wargear and rules applying DO NOT transfer to the other profile. He is also in the Necron Codex. Fateweaver also has two profiles, in the form of different heads - again special abilities associated with one profile cannot be gained by the other.
As noted by Nilok, a profile is not a model.
The wording of the Chariot says that it has dual PROFILES and it should be treated as a single MODEL, which is type Chariot. The rules go on to state which profiles to use in certain circumstances.
Further, the rules contemplate that the Rider may have additional abilities which the Chariot Model does not have. Examples and specific rules given in the BRB are Ever-Living and Character.
Col_impact has also raised the issue of things like Living Metal, Symbiotic Repair. These are special rules assigned by the Necron codex to the Chariot Model.
Hopefully we agree to this point, as these are statements of fact.
Your assertion is that the sentence which tells you to treat the 2 profiles as a single model INCLUDES wargear and special rules, despite the evidence that the PROFILE does not contain these things (the profile example, ever living rule, character rule).
In addition, you are stating that if the Rider's MODEL had a special rule, therefore the Chariot MODEL has that rule, even though the rule book says to combine PROFILES, which I have already shown does not include USR or wargear.
So, utilising the rules available to us....
*USR can only be assigned to a MODEL (not a PROFILE). In this case the ICUSR was assigned to the Rider MODEL, together with Ever-living and a bunch of wargear, including a warscythe, semp weave.
*The chariot PROFILE cannot use any of the RIDER's wargear, nor can it use Character or Ever-living (and yes, I don't think the Chariot gets the benefit of the phase shifter in assault either).
*You maintain that the chariot CAN use Independent Character. Why? IC is not part of the Rider profile. The Chariot model has not been specifically assigned the ICUSR. The Rider CANNOT transfer IC to any model and certainly can't transfer it to a Profile.
What am I missing?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
col_impact wrote: If Independent Character is so obviously not possibly attributable to a Chariot, then why bother even specifically taking it away in the case of the Chaos Demon Codex. The Chaos Demon codex has to specifically take it away because otherwise the Chaos Chariot would have it. Obviously, when you mash two profiles together into a single model you indeed have two profiles mashed together into a single model and some one has to say "hey now, Independent Character is no longer in effect here" because it being there is a byproduct of the mashing.
That's a ridiculous argument. If it was so obvious that the special rules and attributes were "mashed together" in the Chariot model, why bother having the rule about the rider issuing a challenge in the BRB?
And you are still confusing the process. There was no mashing...there is simply a single model with 2 profiles. The single model (Chariot) has an attribute known as Rider, which can itself have special attributes/special rules and wargear. It is a fallacy to assume that the special rules, attributes or wargear assigned to the Rider automatically follow to the Model. Or, if you want to assume that special rules/attributes/wargear assigned to the Rider are part of the "model", then fine, but special attributes/rules/wargear of the Rider can ONLY be exercised and affect the Rider (eg the ability to use a warscythe).
Please do not bring in rules that do not factor into the discussion. Orikan the Diviner never has both profiles active on the model at the same time.
And neither does the Chariot. For any event you only get to use one profile, not both.
The problem is you keep referancing things like "Rider model". Please tell me where the rider model is. Is in a transport? No, the Chariot is not a transport. Is it in reserves? no, it can't be. There is no rider model. If the rider profile has anything that say it applies to the model, it applies to the only model, the Chariot model, the Catacomb Command Barge.
Fair point. From now on, I'll refer to the Rider attribute. However, please note that you have confused yourself there. The Rider profile contains the characteristics (but not the special wargear, atrributes or special rules) of the Rider, which is part of the Chariot model. The Rider profile can only be used by the Rider attribute and not the vehicle attribute and vice versa. The rider attribute cannot sweep attack with Model weapons, only with its own weapons (ie warscythe or whatever) as an example.
If is say model, it applies to the model. There is no such thing as a rider model, there is only the Catacomb Command Barge model, which has a Chariot Profile and a Rider Profile.
Plus it has an additional Rider attribute, because the Rider profile does not contain special rules, wargear etc.
You are on the losing side of an argument here. You are having to explain away why GW could not be bothered to mention that the Overlord loses IC status if it takes a CCB. GW did not mention it, as it did in the case of the Chaos Daemon codex, because GW intends for the CCB to have IC.
Oversight? Perhaps. But we have to assume competence. Chaos Demon Chariot = No on IC. Necron Chariot = Yes on IC.
Could it possibly be more clear what is RAI here?
Don't you hate cleaning up after other peoples work?
I don't agree that we need to assume competence, because you could equally say that the Demon FAQ was required due to lack of common sense re Demon Players. However, Crons are a Ward codex so it may indeed be possible that the intent was to give Crons a basically unkillable game breaking unit, which reanimates.
Problem is, it doesn't feel like that was what was intended.
People on the Chariot can join side can you tell me which of the following two options is true in your interpretation:
1) The Chariot and unit once joined are not a chariot unit and thus assigning hits does not come into effect and the unit becomes immortal as you just assign wounds to the chariot and it doesn't care.
2) The Chariot and unit are a Chariot unit and thus all models gave all the USRs for chariots including HoW etc. Also should an infantry man be at the front of the unit it becomes immortal as assigning hits works and you simply assign all hits to his non-existent chariot.
So dont know if anyone else has but emailed gwfaqs so hopefully fingers crossed we get an faq sometime in the near future... Remember everyone involved in these debates if you all.email gamefaqs@gwplc.com we may see a resolution doesnt help if we dont as a community all ask for the clarification.
This is an interesting arguement and well thought out on both sides but my gut tells me they cant join a unit it just seems weird.
Can anyone else think of an example when a vehicle model can join a non vehicle model in a unit?
Waiting for them to FAQ this may be the best way rather than argue about it now. Also, the suggestion to discuss this with your opponents. My group doesn't really like it so in deference to my good pals, I won't be joining any units with my CCB.
What we feel it should be is all attempting to know RAI, which, as we are not GW, will never be accurate.
So the choice now is take it RAW and do it, or discuss with your opponent. And the good suggestion to mail in.
MarkCron wrote: "Profile" - a representation of characteristics excluding wargear and special rules as shown in the example profile under the Chariot rules in the ERB.
That's a characteristics profile.
The model profile contains wargear and special rules.
In addition to its characteristics profile, each model will have a unit type, such as Infantry or Monstrous Creature, which we discuss in the Unit Types section. It might also have an additional save of some kind, representing any special armour or mystical protection it might have, it could be carrying one or more shooting or Melee weapons or might have one or more special rules.
MarkCron wrote: "Profile" - a representation of characteristics excluding wargear and special rules as shown in the example profile under the Chariot rules in the ERB.
That's a characteristics profile.
The model profile contains wargear and special rules.
In addition to its characteristics profile, each model will have a unit type, such as Infantry or Monstrous Creature, which we discuss in the Unit Types section. It might also have an additional save of some kind, representing any special armour or mystical protection it might have, it could be carrying one or more shooting or Melee weapons or might have one or more special rules.
True. However, the profile referred to in the ERB example was only a characteristics profile, which is one of the main issues I have with this theory that IC transfers. Even if the example *meant* model profile, I'm yet to see anything which indicates that a USR attaching to the Rider can transfer so the Vehicle can use it. The ERB has several examples of USR/special rules attaching to the Rider, which the Chariot can't use.
Can anyone else think of an example when a vehicle model can join a non vehicle model in a unit?
Ghostark repair barge rule can add Warhound titans to warrior or Immortal units using the same logic as is presented here...
You got me curious. Which rule allows this?
Repair barge allows you to add d3 MODELS to a warrior/immortal unit and puts no restrictions on what those models can be. So you're free to add d3 Reaver Titans if you want.
Can anyone else think of an example when a vehicle model can join a non vehicle model in a unit?
Ghostark repair barge rule can add Warhound titans to warrior or Immortal units using the same logic as is presented here...
You got me curious. Which rule allows this?
Repair barge allows you to add d3 MODELS to a warrior/immortal unit and puts no restrictions on what those models can be. So you're free to add d3 Reaver Titans if you want.
I would ask if you are arguing RAW or RAI. When I asked MarkCron if his argument was RAI, we got back into the argument about What is a Man Model.
If we can start on common ground of RAW or RAI, we can make progress in this discussion.
he is embarked on a vehicle (in a strange way) and you cant join units outside the vehicle. this isnt difficult but all the waac players who troll this board seem to make rules or understand them in a special way. the chariot gains characteristics of the overlord not his usr's
broo wrote: he is embarked on a vehicle (in a strange way) and you cant join units outside the vehicle. this isnt difficult but all the waac players who troll this board seem to make rules or understand them in a special way. the chariot gains characteristics of the overlord not his usr's
I would recommend reading through the new 7e rules on Chariots. A Chariot is no longer a Transport and can never have anything embarked in it. The Overlord model no longer exists and is instead a secondary profile for the Chariot, one in the same model.
If you are arguing RAI there is a good discussion there, however RAW arguments haven't provided a reasonable argument that the CCB's profiles don't benefit from things that target the model.
Can anyone else think of an example when a vehicle model can join a non vehicle model in a unit?
Ghostark repair barge rule can add Warhound titans to warrior or Immortal units using the same logic as is presented here...
You got me curious. Which rule allows this?
Repair barge allows you to add d3 MODELS to a warrior/immortal unit and puts no restrictions on what those models can be. So you're free to add d3 Reaver Titans if you want.
Hahaha brillant an interesting way of lookijg at it
Nilok wrote:
If we can start on common ground of RAW or RAI, we can make progress in this discussion.
Nilok, my argument is clearly RAW, as I have repeatedly quoted ERB extracts verbatim.
Nilok wrote:
broo wrote: he is embarked on a vehicle (in a strange way) and you cant join units outside the vehicle. this isnt difficult but all the waac players who troll this board seem to make rules or understand them in a special way. the chariot gains characteristics of the overlord not his usr's
I would recommend reading through the new 7e rules on Chariots. A Chariot is no longer a Transport and can never have anything embarked in it. The Overlord model no longer exists and is instead a secondary profile for the Chariot, one in the same model.
If you are arguing RAI there is a good discussion there, however RAW arguments haven't provided a reasonable argument that the CCB's profiles don't benefit from things that target the model.
Ahem, this is TOTALLY incorrect. Those arguing FOR IC are yet to provide a RAW for "mashing" up the USR.
However, in order to ensure we are clear on the RAW and my argument why the chariot is not an IC, I will set them out again.
RAW - ERB Pg 510, first para under "Chariots" = "A Chariot is an unusual unit with a dual profile - a non vehicle profile for the rider of the Chariot (see below), and a vehicle profile for the Chariot itself. However a Chariot is always treated as a single model." For reference the "see below" is to a diagram showing characteristic profiles, with no reference at all to either wargear or special rules.
RAW - ERB pg 510 under heading "Characters Riding Chariots" = "A character mounted on a chariot is referred to as a Rider."
RAW - ERB pg 510 under heading "Characters Riding Chariots" = "If the rider has a special rule that returns it to play after it has been removed as a casualty, sucah as Necron's Ever-living speical rule, that model's Chariot is also returned to play with a single Hull Point."
RAW - ERB pg 511 under the heading "Shooting at Chariots" = "The controlling player then allocates each hit pool to either the Rider or the Chariot of the closest model in the unit"
RAW ERB pg 512 "Challenges" = "A Rider who is a character can issue and accept challenges as normal, but cannot perform a glorious intervention".
RAW ERB pg 513 "Special Rules" = "A Chariot has the hammer of wrath special rule ...." and also "A Rider has the Fearless and Relentless special rules. A rider can fire Overwatch if its Chariot is charged, but cannot shoot any of the weapons mounted on the Chariot itself"
For the purposes of the Chariot section of the rulebook the following definitions therefore apply:
"Profile" - a representation of characteristics excluding wargear and special rules as shown in the example profile under the Chariot rules in the ERB.
"Model" - a term defined to mean one or more profiles, together with wargear/USR and or other special rules.
"Rider" - a mounted character which can have it's own wargear and special rules separate to the Chariot
"Chariot" - A single model having dual profiles ("non vehicle profile for the rider", "vehicle profile for the chariot itself") plus a Rider
My RAW argument:
a) The wording of the Chariot says that it has dual PROFILES and it should be treated as a single MODEL, which is type Chariot. RAW, the profiles referred to are characteristic profiles which do not include USR, other special rules, weapons and/or wargear.
b) The Rider has special rules, weapons and wargear that can only be wielded by the Rider (eg Fearless, Ever-living, Relentless) plus weapons and wargear that can only be wielded by the rider.
c) The Chariot profile has special rules, weapons and wargear that cannot be used or wielded by the Rider. Eg mounted weapons, Living Metal, Symbiotic Repair.
RAW : Combine the characteristic profiles and treat as a single model.
There are ample RAW quoted above that indicate that the Rider and the Chariot have separate special rules, weapons and wargear. Unless specifically covered by RAW, the Chariot is unable to use special rules/USR or wargear associated with the Rider.
With that done, Nilok, please provide RAW that the ICUSR is able to be wielded by the Chariot.
RAW - ERB pg 511 under the heading "Shooting at Chariots" = "The controlling player then allocates each hit pool to either the Rider or the Chariot of the closest model in the unit"
Is this quote exact? If it is, I'm just a little curious why they specified closest model in the unit. If the chariot was meant to be a unit of one model all the time (because it cannot join units), why the need to specify closest model of the unit?
b) The Rider has special rules, weapons and wargear that can only be wielded by the Rider (eg Fearless, Ever-living, Relentless) plus weapons and wargear that can only be wielded by the rider.
c) The Chariot profile has special rules, weapons and wargear that cannot be used or wielded by the Rider. Eg mounted weapons, Living Metal, Symbiotic Repair.
The problem is you are creating these rules. A profile is only a stat line, while wargear and USRs are on the model.
I would recommend reading the Core Rules section of the book.
Other Important Information wrote:In addition to its characteristics profile, each model will have a unit type... ...it could be carrying one or more shooting or Melee weapons or might have one or more special rules. ...it's enough that you know to look for these aspects of the model.
Underlined for convenience.
I ask you, please provide a rules quote or page that says the profiles on the Chariot have segregated wargear and USRs.
RAW - ERB pg 511 under the heading "Shooting at Chariots" = "The controlling player then allocates each hit pool to either the Rider or the Chariot of the closest model in the unit"
Is this quote exact? If it is, I'm just a little curious why they specified closest model in the unit. If the chariot was meant to be a unit of one model all the time (because it cannot join units), why the need to specify closest model of the unit?
Because Daemons have Seeker Cavalcade which is a squadron of Chariots.
b) The Rider has special rules, weapons and wargear that can only be wielded by the Rider (eg Fearless, Ever-living, Relentless) plus weapons and wargear that can only be wielded by the rider.
c) The Chariot profile has special rules, weapons and wargear that cannot be used or wielded by the Rider. Eg mounted weapons, Living Metal, Symbiotic Repair.
The problem is you are creating these rules. A profile is only a stat line, while wargear and USRs are on the model.
I would recommend reading the Core Rules section of the book.
Thanks Nilok, I'll do that. While I'm doing that, perhaps you'd like to read the Necron Codex, which details the wargear, weapons and rules you can purchase or equip your Chariot model with. You should particularly pay attention to where you purchase special rules, such as Ever-living and IC. And don't forget about equipping your chariot model with a warscythe, MSS and the phase shifter.
Apologies for the sarcasm, but does the above help to show how absurd your model interpretation is?
The FIRST thing you do in order to get the Necron Chariot, you take an Overlord, being a model. This model has a characteristic profile, plus you can equip the Overlord MODEL with wargear (eg warscythe, semp weave, MSS etc). Up to this point, there is no Chariot involved. You THEN give the Overlord model a Chariot.
At this point, the Overlord becomes a Rider (see the BRB rule). The Chariot now has two CHARACTERISTIC profiles, PLUS a Rider with whatever wargear/weapons that the original Overlord was equipped with, which are treated as one model.
This treatment of "one model" under your INTERPRETATION means:
a) The Rider can make Sweep attacks with the Chariot model weapon.
b) The Chariot can make sweep attacks with its own weapon (because per your argument there is only one model with completely shared USR, Special rules, Weapon and wargear).
c) The Rider doesn't take morale, fear etc attacks because vehicles don't take leadership tests
d) The Chariot can fire overwatch.
I'm happy to cease arguing as soon as you quote the rulebook reference which explicitly confirms your INTERPRETATION.
Nilok wrote:
Other Important Information wrote:In addition to its characteristics profile, each model will have a unit type... ...it could be carrying one or more shooting or Melee weapons or might have one or more special rules. ...it's enough that you know to look for these aspects of the model.
Underlined for convenience.
I ask you, please provide a rules quote or page that says the profiles on the Chariot have segregated wargear and USRs.
RAW - ERB pg 510 under heading "Characters Riding Chariots" = "If the rider has a special rule that returns it to play after it has been removed as a casualty, such as Necron's Ever-living special rule, that model's Chariot is also returned to play with a single Hull Point."
RAW ERB pg 512 "Challenges" = "A Rider who is a character can issue and accept challenges as normal, but cannot perform a glorious intervention".
RAW ERB pg 513 "Special Rules" = "A Chariot has the hammer of wrath special rule ...." and also "A Rider has the Fearless and Relentless special rules. A rider can fire Overwatch if its Chariot is charged, but cannot shoot any of the weapons mounted on the Chariot itself"
Apparently you didn't read this in my earlier post. Frankly, I think you are so focussed on that one "However....etc" statement that you haven't actually read the rest of the Chariot rules. According to your definition, GW has stuffed up completely every time they refer to giving a Rider a special rule or the ability to do something, because per the rulebook that can only be done for models.
1: If the Daemons have Chariot Squadrons why take away IC from their Heralds in the first place this seems like a mistake that might have carried over from an older FAQ? Also if IC did not or could not affect the Chariot then why take it away from the Daemons in the first place?
2: Given that a CCB can get across the board in one turn why would or when would there ever be a time that a Glorious Intervention might take place.
3: If you have a Squadron of Chariots then the Closest model will always be a chariot so why make the distinction when shooting at a Chariot that you have to allocate to the closest model?
4: Lets us presume that I could buy Wargear for my CCB, How would I use a Warscythe without a WS? or number of Attacks or Initiative as those are not part of the CCB Profile?
One interesting thing to note is the rule regarding the use of everliving and the like. It states if the "rider" has the special rule, then that "model's" chariot gains 1 hull point. This would indicate that the rider profile is considered a separate model for special rule purposes (and possibly wargear?).
1: If the Daemons have Chariot Squadrons why take away IC from their Heralds in the first place this seems like a mistake that might have carried over from an older FAQ? Also if IC did not or could not affect the Chariot then why take it away from the Daemons in the first place?
2: Given that a CCB can get across the board in one turn why would or when would there ever be a time that a Glorious Intervention might take place.
3: If you have a Squadron of Chariots then the Closest model will always be a chariot so why make the distinction when shooting at a Chariot that you have to allocate to the closest model?
4: Lets us presume that I could buy Wargear for my CCB, How would I use a Warscythe without a WS? or number of Attacks or Initiative as those are not part of the CCB Profile?
This entire subject needs a FAQ.
1. I suspect it is because of the way the codex is worded. If you can buy a chariot squadron in the codex, THEN upgrade to include IC then the Chariot with the herald will have IC. Alternatively, if the herald unit is already on a chariot, and you add a retinue on chariots, then there would be an argument that the whole lot could join another unit. In the Necron codex there is no way to do that (you have to buy the overlord first).
2. I think this is to stop the Chariot being used to tarpit enemy characters. Scenario is necron player has warlord in unit, which is assaulted. Warlord accepts challenge. Round 2, Chariot assaults and performs glorious intervention to get the overlord away.
3. Good question
4. The Chariot uses the Rider profile for all characteristic tests. If you could buy a warscythe for a chariot, it would be wielded by the rider, using the riders attacks.
b) The Rider has special rules, weapons and wargear that can only be wielded by the Rider (eg Fearless, Ever-living, Relentless) plus weapons and wargear that can only be wielded by the rider.
c) The Chariot profile has special rules, weapons and wargear that cannot be used or wielded by the Rider. Eg mounted weapons, Living Metal, Symbiotic Repair.
The problem is you are creating these rules. A profile is only a stat line, while wargear and USRs are on the model.
I would recommend reading the Core Rules section of the book.
Thanks Nilok, I'll do that. While I'm doing that, perhaps you'd like to read the Necron Codex, which details the wargear, weapons and rules you can purchase or equip your Chariot model with. You should particularly pay attention to where you purchase special rules, such as Ever-living and IC. And don't forget about equipping your chariot model with a warscythe, MSS and the phase shifter.
Apologies for the sarcasm, but does the above help to show how absurd your model interpretation is?
The FIRST thing you do in order to get the Necron Chariot, you take an Overlord, being a model. This model has a characteristic profile, plus you can equip the Overlord MODEL with wargear (eg warscythe, semp weave, MSS etc). Up to this point, there is no Chariot involved. You THEN give the Overlord model a Chariot.
At this point, the Overlord becomes a Rider (see the BRB rule). The Chariot now has two CHARACTERISTIC profiles, PLUS a Rider with whatever wargear/weapons that the original Overlord was equipped with, which are treated as one model.
This treatment of "one model" under your INTERPRETATION means:
a) The Rider can make Sweep attacks with the Chariot model weapon.
b) The Chariot can make sweep attacks with its own weapon (because per your argument there is only one model with completely shared USR, Special rules, Weapon and wargear).
c) The Rider doesn't take morale, fear etc attacks because vehicles don't take leadership tests
d) The Chariot can fire overwatch.
I'm happy to cease arguing as soon as you quote the rulebook reference which explicitly confirms your INTERPRETATION.
Nilok wrote:
Other Important Information wrote:In addition to its characteristics profile, each model will have a unit type... ...it could be carrying one or more shooting or Melee weapons or might have one or more special rules. ...it's enough that you know to look for these aspects of the model.
Underlined for convenience.
I ask you, please provide a rules quote or page that says the profiles on the Chariot have segregated wargear and USRs.
RAW - ERB pg 510 under heading "Characters Riding Chariots" = "If the rider has a special rule that returns it to play after it has been removed as a casualty, such as Necron's Ever-living special rule, that model's Chariot is also returned to play with a single Hull Point."
RAW ERB pg 512 "Challenges" = "A Rider who is a character can issue and accept challenges as normal, but cannot perform a glorious intervention".
RAW ERB pg 513 "Special Rules" = "A Chariot has the hammer of wrath special rule ...." and also "A Rider has the Fearless and Relentless special rules. A rider can fire Overwatch if its Chariot is charged, but cannot shoot any of the weapons mounted on the Chariot itself"
Apparently you didn't read this in my earlier post. Frankly, I think you are so focussed on that one "However....etc" statement that you haven't actually read the rest of the Chariot rules. According to your definition, GW has stuffed up completely every time they refer to giving a Rider a special rule or the ability to do something, because per the rulebook that can only be done for models.
MarkCron, we are not suggesting that the Vehicle gains IC, only that the Rider does not lose IC. The Rider and Vehicle merge into one model that has IC on the Rider part of the dual profile. Because the rider has IC, the Chariot can join units as an IC. Nothing about also being at the same time a Vehicle prevents the Chariot from implementing IC.
The Daemon FAQ specifically takes away the IC status from the Daemon Chariot. Why? Because otherwise the Chariot would have it. You couldn't take it away if it didn't have it without that line.
ClassicCarraway wrote: One interesting thing to note is the rule regarding the use of everliving and the like. It states if the "rider" has the special rule, then that "model's" chariot gains 1 hull point. This would indicate that the rider profile is considered a separate model for special rule purposes (and possibly wargear?).
Precisely.
The issue here is that people are trying to abuse the "however, both profiles are treated as one model" sentence by claiming that the Rider is not a model, hence doesn't have special rules.
BLADERIKER wrote: 1: If the Daemons have Chariot Squadrons why take away IC from their Heralds in the first place this seems like a mistake that might have carried over from an older FAQ?
Nope. Looking at the v1.1 Codex Chaos Daemons FAQ (dated 24 July 2012) there is nothing to indicate that a Herald would lose his IC status just because he purchased a chariot.
b) The Rider has special rules, weapons and wargear that can only be wielded by the Rider (eg Fearless, Ever-living, Relentless) plus weapons and wargear that can only be wielded by the rider.
c) The Chariot profile has special rules, weapons and wargear that cannot be used or wielded by the Rider. Eg mounted weapons, Living Metal, Symbiotic Repair.
The problem is you are creating these rules. A profile is only a stat line, while wargear and USRs are on the model.
I would recommend reading the Core Rules section of the book.
Thanks Nilok, I'll do that. While I'm doing that, perhaps you'd like to read the Necron Codex, which details the wargear, weapons and rules you can purchase or equip your Chariot model with. You should particularly pay attention to where you purchase special rules, such as Ever-living and IC. And don't forget about equipping your chariot model with a warscythe, MSS and the phase shifter.
Apologies for the sarcasm, but does the above help to show how absurd your model interpretation is?
The FIRST thing you do in order to get the Necron Chariot, you take an Overlord, being a model. This model has a characteristic profile, plus you can equip the Overlord MODEL with wargear (eg warscythe, semp weave, MSS etc). Up to this point, there is no Chariot involved. You THEN give the Overlord model a Chariot.
At this point, the Overlord becomes a Rider (see the BRB rule). The Chariot now has two CHARACTERISTIC profiles, PLUS a Rider with whatever wargear/weapons that the original Overlord was equipped with, which are treated as one model.
This treatment of "one model" under your INTERPRETATION means:
a) The Rider can make Sweep attacks with the Chariot model weapon.
b) The Chariot can make sweep attacks with its own weapon (because per your argument there is only one model with completely shared USR, Special rules, Weapon and wargear).
c) The Rider doesn't take morale, fear etc attacks because vehicles don't take leadership tests
d) The Chariot can fire overwatch.
I'm happy to cease arguing as soon as you quote the rulebook reference which explicitly confirms your INTERPRETATION.
Nilok wrote:
Other Important Information wrote:In addition to its characteristics profile, each model will have a unit type... ...it could be carrying one or more shooting or Melee weapons or might have one or more special rules. ...it's enough that you know to look for these aspects of the model.
Underlined for convenience.
I ask you, please provide a rules quote or page that says the profiles on the Chariot have segregated wargear and USRs.
RAW - ERB pg 510 under heading "Characters Riding Chariots" = "If the rider has a special rule that returns it to play after it has been removed as a casualty, such as Necron's Ever-living special rule, that model's Chariot is also returned to play with a single Hull Point."
RAW ERB pg 512 "Challenges" = "A Rider who is a character can issue and accept challenges as normal, but cannot perform a glorious intervention".
RAW ERB pg 513 "Special Rules" = "A Chariot has the hammer of wrath special rule ...." and also "A Rider has the Fearless and Relentless special rules. A rider can fire Overwatch if its Chariot is charged, but cannot shoot any of the weapons mounted on the Chariot itself"
Apparently you didn't read this in my earlier post. Frankly, I think you are so focussed on that one "However....etc" statement that you haven't actually read the rest of the Chariot rules. According to your definition, GW has stuffed up completely every time they refer to giving a Rider a special rule or the ability to do something, because per the rulebook that can only be done for models.
MarkCron, we are not suggesting that the Vehicle gains IC, only that the Rider does not lose IC. The Rider and Vehicle merge into one model that has IC on the Rider part of the dual profile. Because the rider has IC, the Chariot can join units as an IC. Nothing about also being at the same time a Vehicle prevents the Chariot from implementing IC.
The Daemon FAQ specifically takes away the IC status from the Daemon Chariot. Why? Because otherwise the Chariot would have it. You couldn't take it away if it didn't have it without that line.
Col_Impact, I understand what you are saying. However, in order for the vehicle to be able to join a unit, both attributes (ie the Chariot attribute and the Rider attribute) have to have the USR. The principle is exactly the same as everliving or overwatch. The fact that the Rider has overwatch doesn't mean that the vehicle gets to do it.
IC essentially becomes useless because only the Rider has it and the Rider can't disembark.
Re the Demon FAQ, I have no idea, but the way the codex is worded may create a different issue.
b) The Rider has special rules, weapons and wargear that can only be wielded by the Rider (eg Fearless, Ever-living, Relentless) plus weapons and wargear that can only be wielded by the rider.
c) The Chariot profile has special rules, weapons and wargear that cannot be used or wielded by the Rider. Eg mounted weapons, Living Metal, Symbiotic Repair.
The problem is you are creating these rules. A profile is only a stat line, while wargear and USRs are on the model.
I would recommend reading the Core Rules section of the book.
Thanks Nilok, I'll do that. While I'm doing that, perhaps you'd like to read the Necron Codex, which details the wargear, weapons and rules you can purchase or equip your Chariot model with. You should particularly pay attention to where you purchase special rules, such as Ever-living and IC. And don't forget about equipping your chariot model with a warscythe, MSS and the phase shifter.
Apologies for the sarcasm, but does the above help to show how absurd your model interpretation is?
The FIRST thing you do in order to get the Necron Chariot, you take an Overlord, being a model. This model has a characteristic profile, plus you can equip the Overlord MODEL with wargear (eg warscythe, semp weave, MSS etc). Up to this point, there is no Chariot involved. You THEN give the Overlord model a Chariot.
At this point, the Overlord becomes a Rider (see the BRB rule). The Chariot now has two CHARACTERISTIC profiles, PLUS a Rider with whatever wargear/weapons that the original Overlord was equipped with, which are treated as one model.
This treatment of "one model" under your INTERPRETATION means:
a) The Rider can make Sweep attacks with the Chariot model weapon.
b) The Chariot can make sweep attacks with its own weapon (because per your argument there is only one model with completely shared USR, Special rules, Weapon and wargear).
c) The Rider doesn't take morale, fear etc attacks because vehicles don't take leadership tests
d) The Chariot can fire overwatch.
I'm happy to cease arguing as soon as you quote the rulebook reference which explicitly confirms your INTERPRETATION.
Nilok wrote:
Other Important Information wrote:In addition to its characteristics profile, each model will have a unit type... ...it could be carrying one or more shooting or Melee weapons or might have one or more special rules. ...it's enough that you know to look for these aspects of the model.
Underlined for convenience.
I ask you, please provide a rules quote or page that says the profiles on the Chariot have segregated wargear and USRs.
RAW - ERB pg 510 under heading "Characters Riding Chariots" = "If the rider has a special rule that returns it to play after it has been removed as a casualty, such as Necron's Ever-living special rule, that model's Chariot is also returned to play with a single Hull Point."
RAW ERB pg 512 "Challenges" = "A Rider who is a character can issue and accept challenges as normal, but cannot perform a glorious intervention".
RAW ERB pg 513 "Special Rules" = "A Chariot has the hammer of wrath special rule ...." and also "A Rider has the Fearless and Relentless special rules. A rider can fire Overwatch if its Chariot is charged, but cannot shoot any of the weapons mounted on the Chariot itself"
Apparently you didn't read this in my earlier post. Frankly, I think you are so focussed on that one "However....etc" statement that you haven't actually read the rest of the Chariot rules. According to your definition, GW has stuffed up completely every time they refer to giving a Rider a special rule or the ability to do something, because per the rulebook that can only be done for models.
MarkCron, we are not suggesting that the Vehicle gains IC, only that the Rider does not lose IC. The Rider and Vehicle merge into one model that has IC on the Rider part of the dual profile. Because the rider has IC, the Chariot can join units as an IC. Nothing about also being at the same time a Vehicle prevents the Chariot from implementing IC.
The Daemon FAQ specifically takes away the IC status from the Daemon Chariot. Why? Because otherwise the Chariot would have it. You couldn't take it away if it didn't have it without that line.
Col_Impact, I understand what you are saying. However, in order for the vehicle to be able to join a unit, both attributes (ie the Chariot attribute and the Rider attribute) have to have the USR. The principle is exactly the same as everliving or overwatch. The fact that the Rider has overwatch doesn't mean that the vehicle gets to do it.
IC essentially becomes useless because only the Rider has it and the Rider can't disembark.
Re the Demon FAQ, I have no idea, but the way the codex is worded may create a different issue.
But the command barge does get everliving, it even says so in the rule book
The rider doesn't have to disembark and in fact it cannot disembark because it is now a Chariot and part of a single entity. The rider and the vehicle are to be treated a single model per the rules. The rider simply implements the IC rule and the Chariot model joins the unit. There is nothing taking it away or preventing it. No line in the FAQ. And a very clear precedent exists in the Chaos Daemon codex, that a line needs to exist that takes away IC status. With that precedent we clearly see GW's RAI.
CrownAxe wrote:But the command barge does get everliving, it even says so in the rule book
No, it doesn't. RAW - ERB pg 510 under heading "Characters Riding Chariots" = "If the rider has a special rule that returns it to play after it has been removed as a casualty, such as Necron's Ever-living special rule, that model's Chariot is also returned to play with a single Hull Point."
The Chariot is *affected* by Ever-Living, it doesn't have it.
col_impact wrote:The rider doesn't have to disembark and in fact it cannot disembark because it is now a Chariot and part of a single entity.
Agreed, entity comprises a Rider attribute (being a Rider profile plus whatever special rules the Rider has) plus a Chariot attribute (being the Chariot profile plus whatever rules the Chariot has)
col_impact wrote:The rider and the vehicle are to be treated a single model per the rules.
No, the two characteristic profiles are treated as a single model.
Where this is confusing is that the Rider and Chariot attributes are treated differently and have different rules. The fundamental difference in our positions is that you are saying that the different attributes can't be separated because they are a single model. That's clearly not the case, because RAW in assault you can direct attacks to either the Rider or the Chariot attributes, the hit pools are assigned to the different attributes and special rules applicable to one attribute don't apply to another (eg the armourbane associated with a Rider warscythe does not grant armourbane to the Chariot attribute weapon, plus the previously quoted everliving/overwatch examples).
col_impact wrote:The rider simply implements the IC rule and the Chariot model joins the unit. There is nothing taking it away or preventing it.
The Rider is prevented from joining a unit that contains a vehicle per the USR. The Chariot model is type Chariot so any unit with a Chariot in it is ineligible. Granted, the way the USR is worded doesn't make a lot of sense, because you are essentially bringing the vehicle with you. The USR as worded is clear, you cannot have an IC in a unit which contains a vehicle.
col_impact wrote:No line in the FAQ. And a very clear precedent exists in the Chaos Daemon codex, that a line needs to exist that takes away IC status. With that precedent we clearly see GW's RAI.
I'm not talking about RAI. I'm talking RAW. If there is nothing in the Necron Codex/FAQ/BRB that specifically gives the chariot Model the right to join the unit, then it can't be done.
( As an aside, I would have thought that the ICUSR more clearly stated GWRAI that you can't have a unit containing vehicles and non vehicle models).
I think I may have found the way to put this to rest.
As per the current Necron FAQ: "Page 89 - Necron Overlord Add the following to the list of Options: "May take a Catacomb Command Barge (The Necron Overlord becomes the chariots rider, see page 91)."
Page 89 of the current Necron Codex is the points cost page and Options (5th ed codex) are for wargear.
This mean that the CCB is a Wargear upgrade to the Necron Overlord and not anything else, just like a Bike is an upgrade to a Space Marine Captain. So does taking a bike as a part of a IC's wargear invalidate the IC's USR or add to them? They add to them, there is nothing preventing a SM captain on a Bike from joining a Tactical Squad, just draw backs in movement. Also all the war gear that is taken as part of the IC's load out can benefit when able the Bike.
The Issue here is how to deal with a IC that has both a Armour save and an Armour value (Which is covered in the chariot rules for shooting at a Chariot)
Additionally, the Bike gives the Rider the relentless USR while the bike gets the HoWUSR.
The Chariot is part of the Overlord Model and not the other way around. The CCB is no longer a Dedicated Transport and can no longer be purchased by any of the named Necron HQ's that could purchase it before. It is literally an upgrade to the Overlord model, just like a Jump pack or Bike is a upgrade to a Sm Captain model.
BLADERIKER wrote: I think I may have found the way to put this to rest.
As per the current Necron FAQ: "Page 89 - Necron Overlord Add the following to the list of Options: "May take a Catacomb Command Barge (The Necron Overlord becomes the chariots rider, see page 91)."
Page 89 of the current Necron Codex is the points cost page and Options (5th ed codex) are for wargear.
This mean that the CCB is a Wargear upgrade to the Necron Overlord and not anything else, just like a Bike is an upgrade to a Space Marine Captain. So does taking a bike as a part of a IC's wargear invalidate the IC's USR or add to them? They add to them, there is nothing preventing a SM captain on a Bike from joining a Tactical Squad, just draw backs in movement. Also all the war gear that is taken as part of the IC's load out can benefit when able the Bike.
The Issue here is how to deal with a IC that has both a Armour save and an Armour value (Which is covered in the chariot rules for shooting at a Chariot)
The Chariot is part of the Overlord Model and not the other way around.
Good thought, except that the ICUSR specifically says that the IC cannot join units that contain vehicles or monstrous creatures. Bikes are neither, which is why you can attach a bike captain to an SM squad (if you want to).
BLADERIKER wrote: I think I may have found the way to put this to rest.
As per the current Necron FAQ: "Page 89 - Necron Overlord Add the following to the list of Options: "May take a Catacomb Command Barge (The Necron Overlord becomes the chariots rider, see page 91)."
Page 89 of the current Necron Codex is the points cost page and Options (5th ed codex) are for wargear.
This mean that the CCB is a Wargear upgrade to the Necron Overlord and not anything else, just like a Bike is an upgrade to a Space Marine Captain. So does taking a bike as a part of a IC's wargear invalidate the IC's USR or add to them? They add to them, there is nothing preventing a SM captain on a Bike from joining a Tactical Squad, just draw backs in movement. Also all the war gear that is taken as part of the IC's load out can benefit when able the Bike.
The Issue here is how to deal with a IC that has both a Armour save and an Armour value (Which is covered in the chariot rules for shooting at a Chariot)
The Chariot is part of the Overlord Model and not the other way around.
Good thought, except that the ICUSR specifically says that the IC cannot join units that contain vehicles or monstrous creatures. Bikes are neither, which is why you can attach a bike captain to an SM squad (if you want to).
okay so what units in the Necron Codex are Vehicles and or Monsters?
That leaves: Warriors, Immortals, Deathmarks, Lychguard, Praetorians, Flayed Ones, Wraiths, Scarabs, Destroyers, Tomb Blades as legal Choices for a IC to join. Do any of these units contain a Vehicle or a Monstrous Creature?
Where in the rules does it state that a Vehicle cannot join a non-vehicle unit? Or that an IC with a Vehicle as part of his Wargear cannot join a non-vehicle Unit? If you could please give page and paragraph as I would enjoy being enlightened.
There's no rule that says that a vehicle can join a unit, which is the problem. In this ruleset you have to have permission to do (or not do) something.
The IC rule contains the IC can't join vehicle/MC. I can't give a page ref because I have the electronic version and it is in the "Glossary".
But, not sure where you are going, because the Chariot is not part of the wargear....the Overlord specifically becomes the Rider of the chariot.
MarkCron wrote: There's no rule that says that a vehicle can join a unit, which is the problem. In this ruleset you have to have permission to do (or not do) something.
The IC rule contains the IC can't join vehicle/MC. I can't give a page ref because I have the electronic version and it is in the "Glossary".
But, not sure where you are going, because the Chariot is not part of the wargear....the Overlord specifically becomes the Rider of the chariot.
How in the IC rules on page 166 of the BrB does an IC join a unit? And I quote "In order to join a unit, an Independent Character simply has to move so that he is within the (2") unit coherency distance of a friendly unit at the end of their Movement Phase."
I take it that you are trying to argue that because the IC is riding a Chariot it is due to this condition that the IC has forfit it's IC status as it is joined to a Vehicle? The Overlord has not joined a Vehicle unit, but has a Vehicle as part of its model.
As the CCB is (As per the new FAQ) purchased under options just like all other pieces of Wargear. Note: That as the CCB is no longer a Dedicated Transport and cannot be taken by itself, or any of the named HQ's ever. Thus it has become (for the time being) a Vehicle Wargear choice for all intensive purposes. If it is not Wargear then what is it? it is not a Dedicated Transport, nor is it a Stand alone Vehicle, so what is it?
The IC in this case an Overlord is riding atop a CCB (Purchased in wargear Options) and is thus both a Chariot and an IC. Thus all the Overlord must do to join a friendly unit is move within 2" of it at the end of the movement phase. There is nothing that prevents this at all so long as the Unit being joined does not contain a Vehicle or is not a Monstrous Creature.
Oh, lord. Did you read any of the rest of the thread?
The Overlord becomes the vehicle's Rider. No question about that, and you end up with a Chariot.
Question...Why does the Chariot inherit the IC rule from it's Rider when it does not inherit everliving and does not inherit overwatch. Please quote the BRB reference that enables this.
At this point MarkCron, you are just filibustering.
The CCB is an upgrade option to the Necron Overlord. There needs to be a line in a FAQ that takes away IC from the Overlord when he chooses that upgrade. Otherwise the Overlord retains it and the Chariot model that he upgrades into is an IC.
"I have a Necron Overlord in play with the CCB upgrade option"
There is nothing preventing a Vehicle (or a Monstrous Creature for that matter) from being an IC. ICs are simply restricted from joining Vehicles or Monstrous Creatures. Okay so the Necron Overlord with the CCB upgrade can not join the unit of spyders like every other IC.
Please show me a line in the FAQ that takes away IC from the Necron Overlord if he chooses the CCB option.
By the way, you can find a line like the one you are looking for in the Chaos Daemon Codex. GW wanted the Heralds to lose IC if they upgraded into Chariots. They clearly do not intend for the Necron Overlord to lose IC if it chooses to upgrade.
col_impact, I can assure you I am not filibustering. I'm still waiting for anyone to provide a rule indicating that the Chariot can use the IC rule. The rules clearly show that that the Rider can have rules etc that the Chariot can't use and vice versa.
How about this. The IC rule is associated with the Rider, correct? The Chariot attribute doesn't have an IC rule. So, if you join the Chariot model to a unit, you can ONLY use the Rider profile. So, no shenanigans with allocating shooting hits etc, no HoW. You do get to keep Fearless and Relentless though.
I'm good with that.
As to your comments about the CD codex and FAQ - well they are really not relevant here are they?
If you want to get into a RAI argument, fine, but don't claim you have RAW backing.
And in fact, given that there are NO RULES which deal with shooting at mixed units, plus the IC rule which is CLEARLY designed to prevent shenanigans like the one being proposed here, PLUS the fact that they have removed it from Demon chariots, I personally think your RAI argument is really thin as well.
I'm not interested in RAI. RAW, you can't join the Chariot model to a unit.
MarkCron wrote: Oh, lord. Did you read any of the rest of the thread?
The Overlord becomes the vehicle's Rider. No question about that, and you end up with a Chariot.
Question...Why does the Chariot inherit the IC rule from it's Rider when it does not inherit everliving and does not inherit overwatch. Please quote the BRB reference that enables this.
Page 86 of the BrB clearly states that Everliving does affect the Chariot, and it can be deduced that IC does affect the Chariot due to the fact that they had to remove it from the Heralds in the Daemons codex. Just so you know The Rider cannot Overwatch as the Open Top rule no longer allows that. So it seems your points is moot.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MarkCron wrote: col_impact, I can assure you I am not filibustering. I'm still waiting for anyone to provide a rule indicating that the Chariot can use the IC rule. The rules clearly show that that the Rider can have rules etc that the Chariot can't use and vice versa.
How about this. The IC rule is associated with the Rider, correct? The Chariot attribute doesn't have an IC rule. So, if you join the Chariot model to a unit, you can ONLY use the Rider profile. So, no shenanigans with allocating shooting hits etc, no HoW. You do get to keep Fearless and Relentless though.
I'm good with that.
As to your comments about the CD codex and FAQ - well they are really not relevant here are they?
If you want to get into a RAI argument, fine, but don't claim you have RAW backing.
And in fact, given that there are NO RULES which deal with shooting at mixed units, plus the IC rule which is CLEARLY designed to prevent shenanigans like the one being proposed here, PLUS the fact that they have removed it from Demon chariots, I personally think your RAI argument is really thin as well.
I'm not interested in RAI. RAW, you can't join the Chariot model to a unit.
And by not playing it RAW you are no longer playing WH40K. You can house rule it all you like, but until GW changes the FAQ, it stands.
Hi Markcron, in your opinion, what is the purpose of removing IC status from Chaos Heralds, if, as you pointed out, having the IC rule on the riders profile doesn't do anything for him?
BLADERIKER wrote:
Page 86 of the BrB clearly states that Everliving does affect the Chariot,
Correct, but the Chariot doesn't HAVE everliving. That rule belongs to the Rider.
BLADERIKER wrote:and it can be deduced that IC does affect the Chariot due to the fact that they had to remove it from the Heralds in the Daemons codex.
Absolutely not. what you are saying is RAI, not RAW. The Demons codex is not relevant to a RAW discussion about Necron CCBs.
BLADERIKER wrote:Just so you know The Rider cannot Overwatch as the Open Top rule no longer allows that. So it seems your points is moot.
Also incorrect. Embarked units can fire overwatch ERB, page 502 "Transports and Assaults". Also see ERB 514 "Passengers Shooting from Open Topped Transports.
BLADERIKER wrote:Automatically Appended Next Post:
MarkCron wrote: col_impact, I can assure you I am not filibustering. I'm still waiting for anyone to provide a rule indicating that the Chariot can use the IC rule. The rules clearly show that that the Rider can have rules etc that the Chariot can't use and vice versa.
How about this. The IC rule is associated with the Rider, correct? The Chariot attribute doesn't have an IC rule. So, if you join the Chariot model to a unit, you can ONLY use the Rider profile. So, no shenanigans with allocating shooting hits etc, no HoW. You do get to keep Fearless and Relentless though.
I'm good with that.
As to your comments about the CD codex and FAQ - well they are really not relevant here are they?
If you want to get into a RAI argument, fine, but don't claim you have RAW backing.
And in fact, given that there are NO RULES which deal with shooting at mixed units, plus the IC rule which is CLEARLY designed to prevent shenanigans like the one being proposed here, PLUS the fact that they have removed it from Demon chariots, I personally think your RAI argument is really thin as well.
I'm not interested in RAI. RAW, you can't join the Chariot model to a unit.
And by not playing it RAW you are no longer playing WH40K. You can house rule it all you like, but until GW changes the FAQ, it stands.
And yes you are filibustering.
Ahem, I'm playing RAW. As you said, YOU can house rule, but until there is a rule or FAQ which states that you CAN join the Chariot to another unit. It stands.
col_impact wrote:You can only get a CCB as an upgrade option to a Necron Overlord.
There needs to be a line that takes away IC from the Overlord if he chooses that option.
Otherwise there is no mechanic that takes away the IC.
The Overlord is not embarking on a dedicated transport by becoming a CCB. He is not joining a vehicle by upgrading into a CCB.
Whatever he upgrades into retains IC unless some line in some FAQ removes it or some mechanic specifically takes it off.
Please show me some line or some mechanic that specifically takes away IC from the Necron Overlord when he chooses the CCB upgrade option.
col_impact. I don't think we are on the same page here. I agree that the Rider has the IC special rule. I've said that before. The thing is that the Chariot MODEL can't use it. It is exactly the same principle as saying the Rider has fearless, or overwatch. That's great, but NEITHER of those rules allow the chariot MODEL to be fearless (because it doesn't have a leadership) nor does it allow the chariot MODEL to shoot overwatch.
Can you please explain why the Chariot MODEL is not allowed to shoot overwatch, but is allowed to be an IC?
milkboy wrote:Hi Markcron, in your opinion, what is the purpose of removing IC status from Chaos Heralds, if, as you pointed out, having the IC rule on the riders profile doesn't do anything for him?
The key point here is how the IC rule is obtained by the combined model. In the case of the Necron codex, the IC rule is obtained BEFORE the Overlord converts to a Rider and because of the IC wording, that ability can only be used by the Rider. If a USR is obtained AFTER (for example put a guy on a chariot THEN upgrade to Herald) then I'm fine with that - the combined model received the power AFTER and it applies to both the Chariot and Rider profiles.
The main problem was probably that per the IC rule, the Herald was not allowed to join the squadron (because it was composed of vehicles) so removing it would be a necessity because otherwise the Herald would have had to leave the unit.
In any event, neither of those situations applies here.
The chaos heralds obtain their IC rules before obtaining a chariot as well. It is just that they were removed with their FAQ.
I think only the Slanesh chariot can start within the cavalcade. The blood throne and burning chariot have no such option. Therefore, my thinking is that the only reason for removal of IC from the khorne and tzeench era odd is to prevent them from joining units, since that is an ability conferred by the IC rule over character.
Since they felt IC rule removal necessary, they may have been doing so to remove joining units ability from te heralds.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And by extension, if they did not remove IC from the necron overlord, they are allow joining of units.
So if keeping IC doesn't allow the necron overlord to join units, there should be no problem keeping it on the heralds or khorne and tzeench?
milkboy wrote: The chaos heralds obtain their IC rules before obtaining a chariot as well. It is just that they were removed with their FAQ.
I think only the Slanesh chariot can start within the cavalcade. The blood throne and burning chariot have no such option. Therefore, my thinking is that the only reason for removal of IC from the khorne and tzeench era odd is to prevent them from joining units, since that is an ability conferred by the IC rule over character.
Since they felt IC rule removal necessary, they may have been doing so to remove joining units ability from te heralds.
Or, it was simply to address that the Herald Rider on a chariot wasn't allowed to join the unit. His chariot was fine, but the Rider wasn't. Based on this thread, I can easily see someone using this to argue that you had to pull the herald chariot out of the squadron.
milkboy wrote: Automatically Appended Next Post: And by extension, if they did not remove IC from the necron overlord, they are allow joining of units.
So if keeping IC doesn't allow the necron overlord to join units, there should be no problem keeping it on the heralds or khorne and tzeench?
Nope. Potentially incorrect on both points. The fact that the Necron FAQ doesn't have the same wording doesn't mean that GW wanted to allow joining of units. The fundamental difference between the two codexes is that CD apparently has squadrons of vehicles (and apparently you can have a herald in them) whereas the Cron codex doesn't have any squadrons. So, if the problem was that the IC rule on the RIDER was preventing the RIDER from being in a squadron, then removing it makes perfect sense.
But according to your interpretation that IC rule doesn't not pass to the chariot, it shouldn't matter that the Slanesh herald has IC, because you cannot join units, whether they are infantry or vehicle.
True. But it would be a problem if any of the heralds were supposed to be able to join the squadron. Suddenly, the rider wouldn't be allowed to, which would not only invalidate the purpose of the squadron, but also cause a gigantic debate on the interweb, much like this one
I notice everyone on the pro joining side has avoided this question because they know what they are arguing is false. Please answer this question or concede. Can you tell me which of the following two options is true in your interpretation:
1) The Chariot and unit once joined are not a chariot unit and thus assigning hits does not come into effect and the unit becomes immortal as you just assign wounds to the chariot and it doesn't care.
2) The Chariot and unit are a Chariot unit and thus all models gave all the USRs for chariots including HoW etc. Also should an infantry man be at the front of the unit it becomes immortal as assigning hits works and you simply assign all hits to his non-existent chariot.
FlingitNow wrote: I notice everyone on the pro joining side has avoided this question because they know what they are arguing is false. Please answer this question or concede. Can you tell me which of the following two options is true in your interpretation:
1) The Chariot and unit once joined are not a chariot unit and thus assigning hits does not come into effect and the unit becomes immortal as you just assign wounds to the chariot and it doesn't care.
2) The Chariot and unit are a Chariot unit and thus all models gave all the USRs for chariots including HoW etc. Also should an infantry man be at the front of the unit it becomes immortal as assigning hits works and you simply assign all hits to his non-existent chariot.
Which of those 2 statements is true?
I am having trouble making sense of what you are saying here. Can you be clearer?
Shandara wrote: Vehicles can join units, provided they have the IC rule, since the IC rule doesn't care what kind of unit the IC is.
Sorry, must have missed the page in my rulebook then. Can you give me the pg and a citation?
The IC rule places no restrictions on what unit the IC is, just on what the IC can join. Page 166
If you claim there is a restriction cite it, page and para. We cannot cite the lack of a restriction, and general permission for any IC to join has been given.
Okay guys you do all realise your arguinh in circles right you have all said the same thing like 6 times round or more. I think it time to agree to disagree and wait for an offcial FAQ and play it how you play it with friends and ask TO how they want it played
Well I've said the same thing twice now and the projoining side have refused to answer the question hence why they are going in circles because they know their rule interpretation is incorrect but don't want to give up the fight.
Aha, so you argue that as the rule prevents an IC from joining a vehicle, but there is nothing about a unit joining a vehicle, then it must be possible.
I don't agree with that as that point of view is also not supported by the rules. I argue that the infantry do not have permission to be joined with a vehicle. There is no permission to do that. Also Codex AM has examples to support my stance.
Naw wrote: Aha, so you argue that as the rule prevents an IC from joining a vehicle, but there is nothing about a unit joining a vehicle, then it must be possible.
I don't agree with that as that point of view is also not supported by the rules. I argue that the infantry do not have permission to be joined with a vehicle. There is no permission to do that. Also Codex AM has examples to support my stance.
I suspect GW will correct the FAQ soon.
Yes, I do argue that. As that is how rules work.
I have permission as an IC to join a unit. I am therefore allowed to join, barring the restrictions. Given there is no "unless the IC is a vehicle" restriction, I can still join. As , again, that would be how rules work.
Cite your examples. Cite your rules. You have, again, failed to do anything but cite an opinion.
Naw wrote: Aha, so you argue that as the rule prevents an IC from joining a vehicle, but there is nothing about a unit joining a vehicle, then it must be possible.
I don't agree with that as that point of view is also not supported by the rules. I argue that the infantry do not have permission to be joined with a vehicle. There is no permission to do that. Also Codex AM has examples to support my stance.
I suspect GW will correct the FAQ soon.
Yes, I do argue that. As that is how rules work.
I have permission as an IC to join a unit. I am therefore allowed to join, barring the restrictions. Given there is no "unless the IC is a vehicle" restriction, I can still join. As , again, that would be how rules work.
Cite your examples. Cite your rules. You have, again, failed to do anything but cite an opinion.
It is obviously a mistake by GW as otherwise there would be way too many problems with that interpretation. No other chariot works this way and ICs are specifically forbidden from joining vehicles. To me this falls into the same category as FMC's without Smash and Relentless.
So explain away how you would sort out e.g. the wound/damage allocation, wargear issues etc.
Have I pissed in your morning cereal or why are you always hostile in your messages? Maybe you should take a step back, have a deep breath and come to a realization that this is only a game and these are not life and death discussions.
Ah, so when you say it isn't supported by the rules, that was a lie?
I'm just asking you to follow the tenets, to whit backing up your assertions with something other than a vague claim. So no, it's not hostile to ask you to follow the rules of the forum, and in a debate it isn't hostile to ask the other side to cite their rules. Given you asked me to cite them, and i complied, it is more than a tad hypocritical of you to fail to do so yourself when asked.
So, when you said it wasn't supported by the rules, I'd that your opinion, or do you have a rules based argument to make? If the former please make it explicit that it is solely your opinion, as that way people won't mistakenly try to debate the rules with you.
I did explain why I think it is not supported by the rules, you can then choose not to agree with me. Does it make my interpretation less truthful than yours?
I did not ask you to cite anything, you just felt you needed to. I did not have the rules available, but I also could not remember that permission, because it is not there.
So to recap why I interpret that a chariot is not allowed to join a unit of e.g. infantry:
1) You couldn't join another vehicle even of the same type, including two ICCCB's
2) Units are not allowed to join in the first place and having them be joined to a vehicle is not supported by the rules
So explain away these points. Just because something is not specifically forbidden does not mean that you have a permission to do so.
FlingitNow wrote: I notice everyone on the pro joining side has avoided this question because they know what they are arguing is false. Please answer this question or concede. Can you tell me which of the following two options is true in your interpretation:
1) The Chariot and unit once joined are not a chariot unit and thus assigning hits does not come into effect and the unit becomes immortal as you just assign wounds to the chariot and it doesn't care.
2) The Chariot and unit are a Chariot unit and thus all models gave all the USRs for chariots including HoW etc. Also should an infantry man be at the front of the unit it becomes immortal as assigning hits works and you simply assign all hits to his non-existent chariot.
Which of those 2 statements is true?
3) The Chariot and unit are a chariot unit (and an infantry unit), but only the chariot model has unit type "chariot", and therefore it must take the hits regardless of its placement in the unit.
Your statement number 2 is insane. Would you make an entire unit have jump packs just because a jump pack IC joins it? No.
Similarly, (in response to statement 1) would you not allow said Jump IC to move 12", because it is the only model that can do so?
This is remarkably similar to mixed unit type units from last edition.
Shandara wrote: It does not become a Chariot unit, just the same as when an Infantry IC joins a unit it doesn't change.
And yes, this does break a lot of the Chariot rules.
Still you could just allocate normally and when you reach the Chariot model in the allocation step switch to the Chariot rules until it is dead...
But that's HIWPI of course.
So I put the chariot at the front of the unit you hit and wound on majority toughness and the chariot takes wounds until it dies which being a vehicle it never does. So your interpretation is that you have an immortal unit correct?
No, I was wrong, you can't allocate normally, thank you for kindly point it out.. I can't find the sentence where I say it becomes immortal though, must've misplaced it.
Basically:
You'd have to deal with each hit separately, discounting either Chariot or the rest of the unit as needed to deal with the divide between AV and Toughness, until either the Chariot or the rest of the unit is gone.
Not unworkable, but probably cumbersome for high volume shooting.
katana100 wrote: Okay guys you do all realise your arguinh in circles right you have all said the same thing like 6 times round or more. I think it time to agree to disagree and wait for an offcial FAQ and play it how you play it with friends and ask TO how they want it played
I'm not sure we are arguing in circles....The anti joining group has quoted numerous BRB references that show that RAW the Chariot can't join anything. We're currently waiting for a coherent RAW response.
In the meantime, the thread has gone off on RAI and another tangent
Sooooo.....not sure if we will ever get back to that.
Can we state that RAW applies and the CCB cannot join units now?
No you have to allocate normally unless you have rules that change that. Please tell me what rules you're suggesting using other than the normal wound pool allocation. Page and paragraph is enough.
If we use normal allocation you allocate wounds to the chariot until it dies. As it has no wounds being a vehicle it will never die no matter what you shoot it with. Hence making the unit immortal.
FlingitNow wrote: No you have to allocate normally unless you have rules that change that. Please tell me what rules you're suggesting using other than the normal wound pool allocation. Page and paragraph is enough.
If we use normal allocation you allocate wounds to the chariot until it dies. As it has no wounds being a vehicle it will never die no matter what you shoot it with. Hence making the unit immortal.
Didn't my original post contain HIWPI ? Maybe you missed it, my suggestion was a possible workaround.
Shandara wrote: Vehicles can join units, provided they have the IC rule, since the IC rule doesn't care what kind of unit the IC is.
Sorry, must have missed the page in my rulebook then. Can you give me the pg and a citation?
Naw wrote:I did explain why I think it is not supported by the rules, you can then choose not to agree with me. Does it make my interpretation less truthful than yours?
I did not ask you to cite anything, you just felt you needed to. I did not have the rules available, but I also could not remember that permission, because it is not there.
So to recap why I interpret that a chariot is not allowed to join a unit of e.g. infantry:
1) You couldn't join another vehicle even of the same type, including two ICCCB's
2) Units are not allowed to join in the first place and having them be joined to a vehicle is not supported by the rules
So explain away these points. Just because something is not specifically forbidden does not mean that you have a permission to do so.
I have fulfilled my burden.
1) irrelevant
2) irrelevant, as the IC joins the unit, not the unit joining the IC.
So, given your argument has no rules basis, and I have general permission to join my IC to any unit , with the ONLY restrictions being on the unit being joined, not on the unit type of the IC, your concession on this matter is accepted .
katana100 wrote: Okay guys you do all realise your arguinh in circles right you have all said the same thing like 6 times round or more. I think it time to agree to disagree and wait for an offcial FAQ and play it how you play it with friends and ask TO how they want it played
I'm not sure we are arguing in circles....The anti joining group has quoted numerous BRB references that show that RAW the Chariot can't join anything. We're currently waiting for a coherent RAW response.
In the meantime, the thread has gone off on RAI and another tangent
Sooooo.....not sure if we will ever get back to that.
Can we state that RAW applies and the CCB cannot join units now?
MarkCron, where do you cite from the rules that the CBB can't join anything? Do you have a specific line saying that the CCB can't join anything?
Only IC have the ability to join units.
The CCB is an upgrade option to the Necron Overlord who very clearly has IC. There is no line that takes away IC when he chooses the upgrade. Such a line exists in the Chaos Demon codex, but not in the Necron Codex. This is a critical bit of info since GW is showing here that it chooses to differentiate between the Necron chariot and the Chaos chariot.
When he upgrades to a CCB, he takes on a vehicle profile as part of a dual profile that is the Chariot. There is no incompatibility between his having a vehicle profile and IC. So there is no mechanic taking away IC. IC is still very clearly on the Chariot and invokable. There is no line anywhere that says a vehicle cannot have IC. No such restriction is placed on IC.
Other codexes have instances of Characters with IC taking on Bikes or Jetbikes as upgrade options and therewith changing their unit type from infantry to bike or jetbike. They do not lose IC in the process. So changing unit type or acquiring some new unit profile does not cause IC to be dropped.
The Chariot is a single model. The Overlord does not join the chariot, nor does he embark on the Chariot as a dedicated transport.
The Overlord simply invokes the IC which allows him to join a unit. Per IC rules, he cannot join vehicles or monstrous creatures.
Another IC may not join him as per the restriction on IC that does not allow an IC to join a vehicle.
SO . . . there needs to be a line on a FAQ that takes off IC off the Overlord when he upgrades to the CCB since it is on there and there is nothing preventing it from being invoked.
Please show me some line in a FAQ or some mechanic that takes away IC from the CCB.
FlingitNow wrote: No you have to allocate normally unless you have rules that change that. Please tell me what rules you're suggesting using other than the normal wound pool allocation. Page and paragraph is enough.
If we use normal allocation you allocate wounds to the chariot until it dies. As it has no wounds being a vehicle it will never die no matter what you shoot it with. Hence making the unit immortal.
Didn't my original post contain HIWPI ? Maybe you missed it, my suggestion was a possible workaround.
So you accept that joining doesn't work RaW thank you. Does everyone else on the pro-joining side also concede that their interpretation doesn't work RaW and can we give that idea a rest jow?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Col_impact I notice you're avoiding the question that destroys your argument. Your concession is accepted.
I don't have the Dark Angels codex with me, but as I recall, Sammael can either go into jetbike mode or AV14 skimmer mode. Does it say what happens to his IC status when he goes into skimmer mode?
FlingitNow wrote: No you have to allocate normally unless you have rules that change that. Please tell me what rules you're suggesting using other than the normal wound pool allocation. Page and paragraph is enough.
If we use normal allocation you allocate wounds to the chariot until it dies. As it has no wounds being a vehicle it will never die no matter what you shoot it with. Hence making the unit immortal.
Didn't my original post contain HIWPI ? Maybe you missed it, my suggestion was a possible workaround.
So you accept that joining doesn't work RaW thank you. Does everyone else on the pro-joining side also concede that their interpretation doesn't work RaW and can we give that idea a rest jow?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Col_impact I notice you're avoiding the question that destroys your argument. Your concession is accepted.
I am having trouble understanding what you are asking. Is english your native tongue? Can someone clarify what FlingItNow is asking?
jy2 wrote: I don't have the Dark Angels codex with me, but as I recall, Sammael can either go into jetbike mode or AV14 skimmer mode. Does it say what happens to his IC status when he goes into skimmer mode?
It's a different case because of the Jetbike being a dedicated transport and the Chariot now "fusing" two profiles into one single model.
nosferatu1001 wrote: 1) irrelevant
2) irrelevant, as the IC joins the unit, not the unit joining the IC.
Neither point was irrelevant, you'll need to try harder.
Erm, nope. Neither was relevant to the situation. Or are you now making up ANOTHER rule, that a unit joins an IC and not the other way around?
So, given you want me to "try harder " at answering your not-germane situation....
1) I'm not trying to join another vehicle, I'm trying to join a non vehicle unit. There is a specific restriction on an IC joining a vehicle unit - given you consider it relevant, can you cite a rule stating it has relevance? It would help your argument.
2) the rules on page 166 state the IC joins the unit. Not the other way around. Again, if you believe that a unit joins an IC, cite some rules.
REally, cite some rules. So far just your assertions, proven wrong or irrelevant....
naw wrote:
I have general permission to join my IC to any unit , with the ONLY restrictions being on the unit being joined, not on the unit type of the IC
So it is perfectly legal according to you to have CCB and another IC join together? Interesting way to read the rules.
Yes, if the CBC joins the IC unit. Again, this is allowed in the general allowance for joining units. It is also a correct way of reading the rules, and, for once, it would be good for you to actually provide some, for the first time...
naw wrote:
your concession on this matter is accepted .
OMG, did I lose?? Now you just made me sad.
Yay, sarcasm, helpful. Found any rules to back up your argument,as per the tenets, or will you just hand wave away, again?
This can all be summed up as those that see the absence of the Daemon's FAQ/Erratta missing from the Necron FAQ as just an oversight vs those that view it as intentional and precedence/parallel instances should never be applied in any ruling of any sort.
No matter what camp you fall into, this probably will never be resolved before the post is locked or the next batch of FAQs come out.
I am having trouble understanding what you are asking. Is english your native tongue? Can someone clarify what FlingItNow is asking?
Yes English is my first language. Is it yours? I notice you're not from England. Perhaps that is why you are struggling with such a simple question. I'll try again.
If you join the CCB to a unit you have a new unit containing say Warriors and a CCB. Are you with me at this point?
Is that unit a "Chariot unit" as laid out in the rulebook? Yes or no?
This can all be summed up as those that see the absence of the Daemon's FAQ/Erratta missing from the Necron FAQ as just an oversight vs those that view it as intentional and precedence/parallel instances should never be applied in any ruling of any sort.
No matter what camp you fall into, this probably will never be resolved before the post is locked or the next batch of FAQs come out.
The issue has been resolved pages ago. Mods want it to be kept open, so get your free +1s as long as you can
RAW: A CCB can join a unit as the Overlord keeps its ICUSR and its rules explicitely state that the CCB and the Overlord are always considered to be one model.
RAI / HYWPI suggestion: The CCB cannot join units.
I am having trouble understanding what you are asking. Is english your native tongue? Can someone clarify what FlingItNow is asking?
Yes English is my first language. Is it yours? I notice you're not from England. Perhaps that is why you are struggling with such a simple question. I'll try again.
If you join the CCB to a unit you have a new unit containing say Warriors and a CCB. Are you with me at this point?
Is that unit a "Chariot unit" as laid out in the rulebook? Yes or no?
That's not how it's laid out in the rulebook. The CCB is a Chariot that is an Independent Character and it can join the unit of Warriors and become part of the unit of Warriors. It also has the power to leave as an IC by moving away, etc. and at that point in time becomes a Chariot unit again. It's always a Chariot. It's all there in the section on Independent Character. Basically, just apply the IC rules as they are in the rulebook.
If there is some point you are trying to make, just make your point.
Regarding English . . . so there is nothing wrong with this sentence?
FlingitNow wrote: Col_impact do when the CCB joins a unit is that unit then a chariot unit? Yes or no.
FlingitNow wrote: Are you going to answer the question??? Yes or no is the unit of Warriors + CCB a chariot unit?
No as I said, the Independent Character (which would be the CCB in this instance) becomes part of the unit of warriors. Just look at the Independent Character rule and apply it.
FlingitNow wrote: Are you going to answer the question??? Yes or no is the unit of Warriors + CCB a chariot unit?
what are you getting at? a Unit of Chariots would be a unit comprised wholly of Chariots, A unit of Warriors with an Overlord with CCB upgrade is a Warrior unit with Attached IC.
If I have a SM Captain on a Bike attacked to a Centurion Devastator Squad is it counted as a Bike Squad? or as a Cen Dev Squad with a Captain in it?
In the 7th brb it states a unit with a psyker attached is a psyker unit, so following that logic, yes a unit of warriors with a attached chariot would be a chariot unit.
Edit* for the record, I don't believe a chariot joining infantry was intended. Its obviously an oversight.
Cool lets say I have a unit that fires 100 lascannons at the warrior unit (say 5 warriors) the Chariot is the nearest model. This must therefore be the sequence:
1. Roll hit, lets say I hit 66 times with my lascannons.
2. Roll to wound against majority toughness (in this case 4), lets say I roll 60 wounds
3. Wounds go to wound pool and are allocated one at a time to the chariot.
4. Either the unit takes no damage as we can't resolve wounds against the vehicle or the game breaks.
Please find fault with that sequence without using rules that require you to be targeting a Chariot unit as you say the unit is not a Chariot unit.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BarBoBot wrote: In the 7th brb it states a unit with a psyker attached is a psyker unit, so following that logic, yes a unit of warriors with a attached chariot would be a chariot unit.
Cool so if it is a Chariot unit. When a modelin a chariot unit is reduced to zero wounds or has its chariot have zero hull points it is removed. Therefore as none of the warriors have hull points on their Chariots they are all instantly removed as casualties upon the IC joining them.
BarBoBot wrote: In the 7th brb it states a unit with a psyker attached is a psyker unit, so following that logic, yes a unit of warriors with a attached chariot would be a chariot unit.
BarBoBot wrote: In the 7th brb it states a unit with a psyker attached is a psyker unit, so following that logic, yes a unit of warriors with a attached chariot would be a chariot unit.
Ehm, no. That comparison doesn't make sense here.
Its is what it is. If a psyker joined to a unit makes it a psyker unit, then its logical that a chariot joined to a warrior unit makes it a chariot unit.
BarBoBot wrote: In the 7th brb it states a unit with a psyker attached is a psyker unit, so following that logic, yes a unit of warriors with a attached chariot would be a chariot unit.
Ehm, no. That comparison doesn't make sense here.
Its is what it is. If a psyker joined to a unit makes it a psyker unit, then its logical that a chariot joined to a warrior unit makes it a chariot unit.
So you agree any unit he joins is instantly removed?
FlingitNow wrote: Cool lets say I have a unit that fires 100 lascannons at the warrior unit (say 5 warriors) the Chariot is the nearest model. This must therefore be the sequence:
1. Roll hit, lets say I hit 66 times with my lascannons.
2. Roll to wound against majority toughness (in this case 4), lets say I roll 60 wounds
3. Wounds go to wound pool and are allocated one at a time to the chariot.
4. Either the unit takes no damage as we can't resolve wounds against the vehicle or the game breaks.
Please find fault with that sequence without using rules that require you to be targeting a Chariot unit as you say the unit is not a Chariot unit.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BarBoBot wrote: In the 7th brb it states a unit with a psyker attached is a psyker unit, so following that logic, yes a unit of warriors with a attached chariot would be a chariot unit.
Cool so if it is a Chariot unit. When a modelin a chariot unit is reduced to zero wounds or has its chariot have zero hull points it is removed. Therefore as none of the warriors have hull points on their Chariots they are all instantly removed as casualties upon the IC joining them.
At no point in this scenario is the Warrior unit a Chariot unit. What are you smoking?
If the Chariot is in front, you follow the Chariot rules where the Chariot player decides to resolve hits against vehicle or rider profile.
Have you read the Chariot rules? The rider assigning hits rules requires someone to be "shooting at a Chariot unit" which you've stated is not what is happening. So which is it are they a Chariot unit or not? And please be consistent with your answer this time.
FlingitNow wrote: Have you read the Chariot rules? The rider assigning hits rules requires someone to be "shooting at a Chariot unit" which you've stated is not what is happening. So which is it are they a Chariot unit or not? And please be consistent with your answer this time.
I won't have the rules in front of me for a few hours. So feel free to quote rules and make a case and not expect me to do the work for you by leading me along with questions. Looks like they might need to FAQ away some inconsistency. So GW is definitely being sloppy. Surprise. Either they need to FAQ away the CCBsIC like they did in the Chaos Daemon codex or they need to FAQ in some clarity on wound allocation.
They wouldn't be a chariot unit as there is no rule for saying they are. It's like saying an IC who is riding in a bike who joins a terminator squad makes the terminator a bike unit. They do not. The unit is comprised of infantry and a bike model. This ensures that the biker still takes dangerous terrain and moves as slow as infantry due to the restrictions on his unit.
The reason why the rules break is because I don't think there's any kind of precedent for how to handle a vehicle joining a unit of infantry or otherwise.
Hull Points and wounds are obviously not inter changable as they function completely different in terms of benefits and abilities that can be expected from them. If I was to play a game where I was going against a chariot that was permitted to join a unit of infantry, then I would strictly abide by the shooting phase and ignore the chariot's special abilities when it comes to being shot at. I would assume that because the chariot joined the unit of infantry that it would become, for all intents and purposes, part of that unit. Or a multi-unit type unit and thus I would argue that it loses its "chariot unit type" special abilities as I would no longer consider that unit a chariot unit. However, the model would still count as a chariot model and would inherit any penalties and benefits you can see in being a chariot model that isn't in a chariot unit.
Thus, as per the normal shooting sequence when not shooting at a chariot unit, I would roll against majority toughness and the chariot rider would be forced to take the wounds on his overlord if a wound is allocated to his model.
If 2 chariots joined a unit together, they would still count as being a chariot unit. This is the only way that I can see these rules functioning without fundamentally breaking the game. Ofcourse the other option is to simply make chariots lose their IC rule.
FlingitNow wrote: Cool lets say I have a unit that fires 100 lascannons at the warrior unit (say 5 warriors) the Chariot is the nearest model. This must therefore be the sequence:
1. Roll hit, lets say I hit 66 times with my lascannons.
2. Roll to wound against majority toughness (in this case 4), lets say I roll 60 wounds
3. Wounds go to wound pool and are allocated one at a time to the chariot.
4. Either the unit takes no damage as we can't resolve wounds against the vehicle or the game breaks.
Please find fault with that sequence without using rules that require you to be targeting a Chariot unit as you say the unit is not a Chariot unit.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BarBoBot wrote: In the 7th brb it states a unit with a psyker attached is a psyker unit, so following that logic, yes a unit of warriors with a attached chariot would be a chariot unit.
Cool so if it is a Chariot unit. When a modelin a chariot unit is reduced to zero wounds or has its chariot have zero hull points it is removed. Therefore as none of the warriors have hull
points on their Chariots they are all instantly removed as casualties upon the IC joining them.
I have seen this logic and it needs to end.
You are not even looking at how to resolve shooting against a Chariot. Regardless of whether or not CCB is attached to a Unit or not the Shooting is resolved the exact same way.
As per page 86 BRB "When shooting at a Chariot unit, total up the number of successful hits that have been caused. Keep the dice that have scored hits and create a 'pool' where each dice represents a hit.- The player controlling the Chariot unit then allocates each hit pool either to the rider or the chariot of the closest model in the unit."
Your Logic: Choose target, choose weapon, roll to hit, roll to wound, allocate wounds, make saves, choose next weapon. (This is not wrong if shooting phase is unaltered) However, this logic does not work against a Chariot as before any rolls to wound or Armour pen are made the controlling player decides which pool is allocated to which profile.
Example: 10 man Devastator Squad with 4 Lazcannons, Melta Gun, 5 boltguns. shooting at a 20 man Warrior Squad with attached Overlord upgraded with CCB closest model is the chariot.
So the SM player fires his Lazcannons first and hit with all 4, The Necron player decides that those wounds will hit the rider and thus the Hits from that pool roll to wound against majority toughness, wounding on 2+, The Overlord's phase shifter saves all but one wound caused and his total wounds is reduced by 1. Then the SM measures to see that his Melta Gun is out of range and thus can not affect the target unit. Then the Sm player fires hit Bolt guns, The Necron player allocates those hit to the Chariot and as Str 4 cannot hurt AV 13 nothing else happens.
And thus we have resolved shooting against a Chariot from an attacking Unit in game.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sonicaucie wrote: They wouldn't be a chariot unit as there is no rule for saying they are. It's like saying an IC who is riding in a bike who joins a terminator squad makes the terminator a bike unit. They do not. The unit is comprised of infantry and a bike model. This ensures that the biker still takes dangerous terrain and moves as slow as infantry due to the restrictions on his unit.
The reason why the rules break is because I don't think there's any kind of precedent for how to handle a vehicle joining a unit of infantry or otherwise.
Hull Points and wounds are obviously not inter changable as they function completely different in terms of benefits and abilities that can be expected from them. If I was to play a game where I was going against a chariot that was permitted to join a unit of infantry, then I would strictly abide by the shooting phase and ignore the chariot's special abilities when it comes to being shot at. I would assume that because the chariot joined the unit of infantry that it would become, for all intents and purposes, part of that unit. Or a multi-unit type unit and thus I would argue that it loses its "chariot unit type" special abilities as I would no longer consider that unit a chariot unit. However, the model would still count as a chariot model and would inherit any penalties and benefits you can see in being a chariot model that isn't in a chariot unit.
Thus, as per the normal shooting sequence when not shooting at a chariot unit, I would roll against majority toughness and the chariot rider would be forced to take the wounds on his overlord if a wound is allocated to his model.
If 2 chariots joined a unit together, they would still count as being a chariot unit. This is the only way that I can see these rules functioning without fundamentally breaking the game. Ofcourse the other option is to simply make chariots lose their IC rule.
Can you show where a Model joining a unit loses its special rules when it has different special rules in regard to the unit it is joining. I have seen in the BRB several times where a unit is restricted from benefiting from the full effect of its Special rules (SMIC on BIke joined to non-bike unit must remain within unit coherency).
This is not 6th ed anymore this is 7th ed and there are new things we have to adjust to, I know that many are opposed to change. This does not change the fact that at this time this is RAW, and we have to adjust to it or not play the game.
Didn't say it was a pretty solution, but there is RAW no issue with kpjoining the IC chariot, as proven
That is so, so wrong. Let me summarise the RAW positions for you.
RAW - ANTI JOINING
RAW : Treat 2 characteristic profiles as one model
RAW - ERB Pg 510, first para under "Chariots" = "A Chariot is an unusual unit with a dual profile - a non vehicle profile for the rider of the Chariot (see below), and a vehicle profile for the Chariot itself. However a Chariot is always treated as a single model." For reference the "see below" is to a diagram showing CHARACTERISTIC profiles, with no reference at all to either wargear or special rules. It also does not say "model" anywhere in the example.
RAW : The Rider and Chariot have separate USR which cannot be used by each other
ERB pg 510 under heading "Characters Riding Chariots" = "If the rider has a special rule that returns it to play after it has been removed as a casualty, such as Necron's Ever-living special rule, that model's Chariot is also returned to play with a single Hull Point."
ERB pg 512 "Challenges" = "A Rider who is a character can issue and accept challenges as normal, but cannot perform a glorious intervention".
ERB pg 513 "Special Rules" = "A Chariot has the hammer of wrath special rule ...." and also "A Rider has the Fearless and Relentless special rules. A rider can fire Overwatch if its Chariot is charged, but cannot shoot any of the weapons mounted on the Chariot itself"
Anti Joining RAW Summary
To avoid confusion here are defined terms applicable to the Chariot rules in the ruleboo.:
"Profile" - a representation of CHARACTERISTICS excluding wargear and special rules as shown in the example profile under the Chariot rules in the ERB.
"Model" - a term defined to mean one or more profiles, together with wargear/USR and or other special rules. Note that USR can only be assigned to a model and must be explicity assigned.
"CCB" - a model which is the result of applying the Chariot rules per the ERB. It consists of a Chariot and a Rider.
"Chariot" - The Chariot characteristic profile plus the following wargear and special rules as assigned in the rulebook/Codex: Tesla Cannon/Gauss Cannon, Relentless, Open Topped, Skimmer, Living Metal, Symbiotic Repair, Quantum shielding
"Rider" - The Rider model consisting of the Rider characteristic profile and wargear and special rules as assigned in the rulebook/Codex : Wargear as selected on the Overlord, Independent Character, Ever-Living, Ability to issue and accept challenges, ability to overwatch, Relentless, Fearless, ability to Sweep attack
In summary: RAW - the combination of Characteristic profiles into the CCB does not combine "models". USR and special rules available to the Rider or the Chariot CANNOT be used by the other. The Chariot for example cannot overwatch, nor can it use it's weapon to perform sweep attacks, nor can it accept challenges. The Rider cannot use symbiotic repair or the weapon on the Chariot.
Yes, the RIDER has IC. However, the CCB DOES NOT have it. IC cannot be transferred to any other unit, or model under any circumstances. IF the rider could disembark, then they would be able to join another unit.
Remember, you have to have EXPRESS permission to do something in this rule set.
RAW - PRO JOINING
RAW - ERB Pg 510, EXTRACT from first paragraph "Chariots" = "However a Chariot is always treated as a single model."
Pro Joining RAW Summary The sentence says the Chariot is a single model. Hence all USR for the Rider and Chariot are available to the CCB. This means:
A) The CCB (not the Rider) can issue and accept challenges (in contravention of the BRB)
b) The CCB (not the Rider) can fire overwatch with the Chariot Weapon (in contravention of the BRB)
c) The CCB (Not the Rider) can sweep attack with the Chariot Weapon (Contravening the FAQ and Codex)
d) All references to the "Rider" in the ERB are incorrect as it should say "Chariot" because all special rules need to be assigned to a model, ie the CCB. Therefore the Rider is NOT Fearless and the CCB can be swept in combat. Further the CCB is unable to issue or accept challenges as this authority was granted to a Rider, which doesn't exist.
e) The everliving rule does not apply to the CCB because the ERB clearly states "that model's chariot ...". As there is no Rider Model, this can never happen.
f) The CCB is an independent character and can join units.
* * * * *
So considering the above, do you still think that RAWCCB can join units?
If so, then by definition you accept that a-e above are also true?
Can you show where a Model joining a unit loses its special rules when it has different special rules in regard to the unit it is joining. I have seen in the BRB several times where a unit is restricted from benefiting from the full effect of its Special rules (SMIC on BIke joined to non-bike unit must remain within unit coherency).
This is not 6th ed anymore this is 7th ed and there are new things we have to adjust to, I know that many are opposed to change. This does not change the fact that at this time this is RAW, and we have to adjust to it or not play the game.
My point wasn't that it would lose its special rules; rather the opposite. But simply that if a chariot joined a unit of infantry, it would no longer fufill the requirements in order for it to make use of the rule "shooting at a chariot" in its profile.
It makes a direct reference to "chariot unit". a CCB joined to a warrior squad is not a chariot unit as joining the warrior unit makes the chariot a part of the unit for all intents and purposes. What you now have is an infantry unit with a chariot model in it and thus the normal shooting sequence applies to it. Thus the attacking player is free to use majority toughness from all the models in the unit.
It only starts to break when a wound is assigned to the chariot model since there is no clear rule defining what happens if a wound is assigned to the model in general and not allocated through its specific shooting sequence. However, most people would take it to assume that the overlord has now taken a wound because any other outcome would cause the game to halt.
Didn't say it was a pretty solution, but there is RAW no issue with kpjoining the IC chariot, as proven
That is so, so wrong. Let me summarise the RAW positions for you.
RAW - ANTI JOINING
RAW : Treat 2 characteristic profiles as one model
RAW - ERB Pg 510, first para under "Chariots" = "A Chariot is an unusual unit with a dual profile - a non vehicle profile for the rider of the Chariot (see below), and a vehicle profile for the Chariot itself. However a Chariot is always treated as a single model." For reference the "see below" is to a diagram showing CHARACTERISTIC profiles, with no reference at all to either wargear or special rules. It also does not say "model" anywhere in the example.
RAW : The Rider and Chariot have separate USR which cannot be used by each other
ERB pg 510 under heading "Characters Riding Chariots" = "If the rider has a special rule that returns it to play after it has been removed as a casualty, such as Necron's Ever-living special rule, that model's Chariot is also returned to play with a single Hull Point."
ERB pg 512 "Challenges" = "A Rider who is a character can issue and accept challenges as normal, but cannot perform a glorious intervention".
ERB pg 513 "Special Rules" = "A Chariot has the hammer of wrath special rule ...." and also "A Rider has the Fearless and Relentless special rules. A rider can fire Overwatch if its Chariot is charged, but cannot shoot any of the weapons mounted on the Chariot itself"
Anti Joining RAW Summary
To avoid confusion here are defined terms applicable to the Chariot rules in the ruleboo.:
"Profile" - a representation of CHARACTERISTICS excluding wargear and special rules as shown in the example profile under the Chariot rules in the ERB.
"Model" - a term defined to mean one or more profiles, together with wargear/USR and or other special rules. Note that USR can only be assigned to a model and must be explicity assigned.
"CCB" - a model which is the result of applying the Chariot rules per the ERB. It consists of a Chariot and a Rider.
"Chariot" - The Chariot characteristic profile plus the following wargear and special rules as assigned in the rulebook/Codex: Tesla Cannon/Gauss Cannon, Relentless, Open Topped, Skimmer, Living Metal, Symbiotic Repair, Quantum shielding
"Rider" - The Rider model consisting of the Rider characteristic profile and wargear and special rules as assigned in the rulebook/Codex : Wargear as selected on the Overlord, Independent Character, Ever-Living, Ability to issue and accept challenges, ability to overwatch, Relentless, Fearless, ability to Sweep attack
In summary: RAW - the combination of Characteristic profiles into the CCB does not combine "models". USR and special rules available to the Rider or the Chariot CANNOT be used by the other. The Chariot for example cannot overwatch, nor can it use it's weapon to perform sweep attacks, nor can it accept challenges. The Rider cannot use symbiotic repair or the weapon on the Chariot.
Yes, the RIDER has IC. However, the CCB DOES NOT have it. IC cannot be transferred to any other unit, or model under any circumstances. IF the rider could disembark, then they would be able to join another unit.
Remember, you have to have EXPRESS permission to do something in this rule set.
RAW - PRO JOINING
RAW - ERB Pg 510, EXTRACT from first paragraph "Chariots" = "However a Chariot is always treated as a single model."
Pro Joining RAW Summary The sentence says the Chariot is a single model. Hence all USR for the Rider and Chariot are available to the CCB. This means:
A) The CCB (not the Rider) can issue and accept challenges (in contravention of the BRB)
b) The CCB (not the Rider) can fire overwatch with the Chariot Weapon (in contravention of the BRB)
c) The CCB (Not the Rider) can sweep attack with the Chariot Weapon (Contravening the FAQ and Codex)
d) All references to the "Rider" in the ERB are incorrect as it should say "Chariot" because all special rules need to be assigned to a model, ie the CCB. Therefore the Rider is NOT Fearless and the CCB can be swept in combat. Further the CCB is unable to issue or accept challenges as this authority was granted to a Rider, which doesn't exist.
e) The everliving rule does not apply to the CCB because the ERB clearly states "that model's chariot ...". As there is no Rider Model, this can never happen.
f) The CCB is an independent character and can join units.
* * * * *
So considering the above, do you still think that RAWCCB can join units?
If so, then by definition you accept that a-e above are also true?
Your summarizing of the CCB retains IC position is silly and does not deserve a response. Quit filibustering with silly straw man lines of argumentation.
My view towards this issue is on the fence but leaning towards "IC is OK". Unfortunately they don't directly spell it out in the brb otherwise we wouldn't be here. Here's some of my issues that make me lean towards the IC side of the house:
#1. Second paragraph on page 86 says: "However, a Chariot is always treated as a single model." This is a problem since all USRs apply to "the model" which means to me that any USR the overlord drags along with it, if possible, should apply to the model - hence what he's driving around on since it's all technically the same model and the rider can't exist without the chariot they are ostensibly inseparable. In a few places where I guess GW thought it would be an issue they clarified mechanics (see #2 and also about overwatch, etc).
#2. Also on page 86 under the Characters Riding Chariots paragraph. They're already allowing special rules to flow from one profile to another mostly I think here to clear up a mechanic that would otherwise be left to interpretation (i.e the rider cannot exist without the chariot therefore the chariot must get ever living otherwise the overlord loses it).
#3. The removal of IC from the heralds in the Daemon FAQ.
Didn't say it was a pretty solution, but there is RAW no issue with kpjoining the IC chariot, as proven
That is so, so wrong. Let me summarise the RAW positions for you.
RAW - ANTI JOINING
RAW : Treat 2 characteristic profiles as one model
RAW - ERB Pg 510, first para under "Chariots" = "A Chariot is an unusual unit with a dual profile - a non vehicle profile for the rider of the Chariot (see below), and a vehicle profile for the Chariot itself. However a Chariot is always treated as a single model." For reference the "see below" is to a diagram showing CHARACTERISTIC profiles, with no reference at all to either wargear or special rules. It also does not say "model" anywhere in the example.
RAW : The Rider and Chariot have separate USR which cannot be used by each other
ERB pg 510 under heading "Characters Riding Chariots" = "If the rider has a special rule that returns it to play after it has been removed as a casualty, such as Necron's Ever-living special rule, that model's Chariot is also returned to play with a single Hull Point."
ERB pg 512 "Challenges" = "A Rider who is a character can issue and accept challenges as normal, but cannot perform a glorious intervention".
ERB pg 513 "Special Rules" = "A Chariot has the hammer of wrath special rule ...." and also "A Rider has the Fearless and Relentless special rules. A rider can fire Overwatch if its Chariot is charged, but cannot shoot any of the weapons mounted on the Chariot itself"
Anti Joining RAW Summary
To avoid confusion here are defined terms applicable to the Chariot rules in the ruleboo.:
"Profile" - a representation of CHARACTERISTICS excluding wargear and special rules as shown in the example profile under the Chariot rules in the ERB.
"Model" - a term defined to mean one or more profiles, together with wargear/USR and or other special rules. Note that USR can only be assigned to a model and must be explicity assigned.
"CCB" - a model which is the result of applying the Chariot rules per the ERB. It consists of a Chariot and a Rider.
"Chariot" - The Chariot characteristic profile plus the following wargear and special rules as assigned in the rulebook/Codex: Tesla Cannon/Gauss Cannon, Relentless, Open Topped, Skimmer, Living Metal, Symbiotic Repair, Quantum shielding
"Rider" - The Rider model consisting of the Rider characteristic profile and wargear and special rules as assigned in the rulebook/Codex : Wargear as selected on the Overlord, Independent Character, Ever-Living, Ability to issue and accept challenges, ability to overwatch, Relentless, Fearless, ability to Sweep attack
In summary: RAW - the combination of Characteristic profiles into the CCB does not combine "models". USR and special rules available to the Rider or the Chariot CANNOT be used by the other. The Chariot for example cannot overwatch, nor can it use it's weapon to perform sweep attacks, nor can it accept challenges. The Rider cannot use symbiotic repair or the weapon on the Chariot.
Yes, the RIDER has IC. However, the CCB DOES NOT have it. IC cannot be transferred to any other unit, or model under any circumstances. IF the rider could disembark, then they would be able to join another unit.
Remember, you have to have EXPRESS permission to do something in this rule set.
RAW - PRO JOINING
RAW - ERB Pg 510, EXTRACT from first paragraph "Chariots" = "However a Chariot is always treated as a single model."
Pro Joining RAW Summary The sentence says the Chariot is a single model. Hence all USR for the Rider and Chariot are available to the CCB. This means:
A) The CCB (not the Rider) can issue and accept challenges (in contravention of the BRB)
b) The CCB (not the Rider) can fire overwatch with the Chariot Weapon (in contravention of the BRB)
c) The CCB (Not the Rider) can sweep attack with the Chariot Weapon (Contravening the FAQ and Codex)
d) All references to the "Rider" in the ERB are incorrect as it should say "Chariot" because all special rules need to be assigned to a model, ie the CCB. Therefore the Rider is NOT Fearless and the CCB can be swept in combat. Further the CCB is unable to issue or accept challenges as this authority was granted to a Rider, which doesn't exist.
e) The everliving rule does not apply to the CCB because the ERB clearly states "that model's chariot ...". As there is no Rider Model, this can never happen.
f) The CCB is an independent character and can join units.
* * * * *
So considering the above, do you still think that RAWCCB can join units?
If so, then by definition you accept that a-e above are also true?
Your summarizing of the CCB retains IC position is silly and does not deserve a response. Quit filibustering with silly straw man lines of argumentation.
You are correct, the CCB gets IC position is silly. Thanks for agreeing.
So, to be clear, you are saying that one line taken out of context in the rulebook magically allows the CCB to be an IC, but all the rest of the rules are still ok? Are you combining models so there is only one model or not? And, are you allocating special rules to a "model" or not?
This is the entire problem with the pro-joining argument. As soon as your position is logically extended to the rest of the USR and the rest of the chariot rules in the BRB, it fails spectacularly and creates situations which you don't want to see. So, you promptly ignore them and choose not to respond.
As soon as you quote a RAW rule (in context) I'll stop and the thread can become a RAI/HIWPI argument.
necron99 wrote:My view towards this issue is on the fence but leaning towards "IC is OK". Unfortunately they don't directly spell it out in the brb otherwise we wouldn't be here. Here's some of my issues that make me lean towards the IC side of the house:
#1. Second paragraph on page 86 says: "However, a Chariot is always treated as a single model." This is a problem since all USRs apply to "the model" which means to me that any USR the overlord drags along with it, if possible, should apply to the model - hence what he's driving around on since it's all technically the same model and the rider can't exist without the chariot they are ostensibly inseparable. In a few places where I guess GW thought it would be an issue they clarified mechanics (see #2 and also about overwatch, etc).
That sentence is continually being taken out of context. The full paragraph clearly refers to profiles being combined and does not, anywhere, refer to models being combined. In fact there are later rules (the ever living rule for example) which refer to a Rider "model" which clearly means that the "models" are not combined.
necron99 wrote:#2. Also on page 86 under the Characters Riding Chariots paragraph. They're already allowing special rules to flow from one profile to another mostly I think here to clear up a mechanic that would otherwise be left to interpretation (i.e the rider cannot exist without the chariot therefore the chariot must get ever living otherwise the overlord loses it).
The special rules don't flow between profiles. They simply affect different models. So the Rider exercises the special rule, which then has an effect on the chariot profile. It is not the same as the chariot being able to use ever-living.
necron99 wrote:#3. The removal of IC from the heralds in the Daemon FAQ.
Which is unrelated to RAW for the Necron codex. In particular there are no squadrons in the Necron codex. This is a key point because the IC rule does not play well with vehicle squadrons.
No one is magically allocating special rules to anything. You are failing to show how IC is dropped or how it can not be simply invoked since nothing is in fact preventing the IC rule from being simply invoked.
The CCB is an upgrade option to the Necron Overlord. You can only get the CCB as an upgrade option to the Necron Overlord.
The Necron Overlord very clearly has IC. There is no line that takes away IC when he chooses the upgrade. Such a line exists in the Chaos Demon codex, but not in the Necron Codex. This is a critical bit of info since GW is showing here that it chooses to differentiate between the Necron chariot and the Chaos chariot.
When he upgrades to a CCB, he takes on a vehicle profile as part of a dual profile that is the Chariot. There is no incompatibility between his having a vehicle profile and IC. So there is no mechanic taking away IC. IC is still very clearly on the Chariot and invokable. There is no line anywhere that says a vehicle cannot have IC. No such restriction is placed on IC.
Other codexes have instances of Characters with IC taking on Bikes or Jetbikes as upgrade options and therewith changing their unit type from infantry to bike or jetbike. Their model changes. They do not lose IC in the process. So changing unit type or acquiring some new profile like a bike profile or change in model does not cause IC to be dropped.
We are told in the BRB that "the Chariot is always treated as a single model". The Overlord does not join the chariot, nor does he embark on the Chariot as a dedicated transport. He is fused into the Chariot.
The Overlord simply invokes the IC which allows him to join a unit. Nothing is preventing a simple invoking and application of the rule.
Per IC rules, he cannot join vehicles or monstrous creatures.
Another IC may not join him as per the restriction on IC that does not allow an IC to join a vehicle.
SO . . . there needs to be a line on a FAQ that takes off IC off the Overlord when he upgrades to the CCB since it is on there and there is nothing preventing it from being invoked and simply applied as in the rules.
Please show me some line in a FAQ or some mechanic that takes away IC from the CCB.
No one is magically allocating special rules to anything. You are failing to show how IC is dropped or how it can not be simply invoked since nothing is in fact preventing the IC rule from being simply invoked.
I have clearly said that IC is not dropped. Further, from RAW, the RIDER is able to exercise it, but the CCB is not. So if the RIDER could get off (which he can't) then he could exercise it. As it is, it is useless.
col_impact wrote: The CCB is an upgrade option to the Necron Overlord. You can only get the CCB as an upgrade option to the Necron Overlord. You do not purchase a CCB and take a Necron Overlord as a rider.
The Necron Overlord very clearly has IC. There is no line that takes away IC when he chooses the upgrade.
Correct. There is also no line that provides that to the CCB when the Overlord becomes the rider. This simple fact is the entire problem. You have yet to show any RAW which gives the CCBIC.
And, before you go off about "there is only 1 model" meaning that you combine models, please quote from the rulebook where it says that. The rulebook says you combine 2 CHARACTERISTIC profiles into 1 model. It does not "combine models" and it specifically refers to the RIDER's model later on.
col_impact wrote: Such a line exists in the Chaos Demon codex, but not in the Necron Codex. This is a critical bit of info since GW is showing here that it chooses to differentiate between the Necron chariot and the Chaos chariot.
RAI. This is not relevant to a Rules As Written argument. Is the Overlord a Herald? No.
col_impact wrote: When he upgrades to a CCB, he takes on a vehicle profile as part of a dual profile that is the Chariot. There is no incompatibility between his having a vehicle profile and IC. So there is no mechanic taking away IC. IC is still very clearly on the Chariot and invokable. There is no line anywhere that says a vehicle cannot have IC. No such restriction is placed on IC.
Ahem. Have you read the chariot rules? The Overlord does not "take on" the vehicle profile. The Chariot obtains a RIDER, and has a RIDER characteristic profile added.
col_impact wrote: Other codexes have instances of Characters with IC taking on Bikes or Jetbikes as upgrade options and therewith changing their unit type from infantry to bike or jetbike. Their model changes. They do not lose IC in the process. So changing unit type or acquiring some new profile like a bike profile or change in model does not cause IC to be dropped.
Again, you are quoting RAI. None of the examples you quoted end up with dual profiles, nor are any of them vehicles. Further, I have already agreed that IC is not lost, only that the RIDER is the only model that can use it. (and before you go off about there not being a rider model, refer to the rule book and the statement about everliving).
What you are proposing is the same as this scenario. A Wolf Guard in terminator armour is detached to join a grey hunter squad. The Wolf Guard is inseparable from the Grey hunters. Under your logic, the entire squad can now deep strike, because the wolf guard had the rule before he joined, once they joined the rule auto transfers to the grey hunters, so therefore everyone in the unit has deep strike.
col_impact wrote: We are told in the BRB that "the Chariot is always treated as a single model". The Overlord does not join the chariot, nor does he embark on the Chariot as a dedicated transport. He is fused into the Chariot.
Yes, when you continually misquote the rulebook and take things out of context, things sound much more reasonable. Shall we reproduce the entire paragraph?
"A Chariot is an unusual unit with a dual profile - a non vehicle profile for the rider of the Chariot (see below), and a vehicle profile for the Chariot itself. However a Chariot is always treated as a single model. For the purposes of characteristics tests, always use the rider's profile. Furthermore, any characteristics modifiers that affect a Chariot model apply to both rider and Chariot."
For reference the "see below" is to a diagram showing CHARACTERISTIC profiles, with no reference at all to either wargear or special rules. It also does not say "model" anywhere in the example.
So, please show where, RAW, you get authority to combine models? Also, what is your explanation for the Everliving rule which specifically refers to the RIDER's model?
col_impact wrote: The Overlord simply invokes the IC which allows him to join a unit. Nothing is preventing a simple invoking and application of the rule.
You mean, the RIDER simply invokes IC. Sure, all he has to do is disembark and he can do it.
col_impact wrote: Please show me some line in a FAQ or some mechanic that takes away IC from the CCB.
I don't need to because the CCB NEVER had the rule in the first place. That rule was and is available to the RIDER, in exactly the same way as the RIDER can overwatch and the RIDER can issue a challenge. So, the CCB can't overwatch, it can't challenge and it can't join a unit.
Yes, if the CBC joins the IC unit. Again, this is allowed in the general allowance for joining units. It is also a correct way of reading the rules, and, for once, it would be good for you to actually provide some, for the first time...
..and this, of course, is incorrect. The joining is not asymmetric, no matter how hard you try.
any rules to back up your argument,as per the tenets, or will you just hand wave away, again?
Show me the permission for an IC to join a vehicle.
I have explained my position on this. I will categorize this inder "to be corrected" by GW and leave it at that.
You mean, the RIDER simply invokes IC. Sure, all he has to do is disembark and he can do it.
Why would he have to disembark? It's just invoked and then it happens. The model joins another unit. And he couldn't disembark anyway. The rider is not a separate model. It is one of two profiles. You are providing the restriction that the rider profile would somehow have to separate from the CCB model first, not the rules. The CCB is all treated as one model by definition. I am explicitly told to treat it as a single model. You point out some places where it seems to break with the handling of the Chariot as a single model, where there are places where it mentions a "rider model". So? We are still told explicitly to treat it as a single model. If they are sloppy/inconsistent with their handling of terminology it doesn't mean we get to toss out a clear directive.
As you admit, IC is on the dual profile of the CCB, specifically on the rider profile. The CCB invokes it via its rider profile and it simply happens since nothing prevents it from doing its thing.
You mean, the RIDER simply invokes IC. Sure, all he has to do is disembark and he can do it.
Why would he have to disembark? It's just invoked and then it happens. The model joins another unit. And he couldn't disembark anyway. The rider is not a separate model. It is one of two profiles. You are providing the restriction that the rider profile would somehow have to separate from the CCB model first, not the rules. The CCB is all treated as one model by definition. I am explicitly told to treat it as a single model. You point out some places where it seems to break with the handling of the Chariot as a single model, where there are places where it mentions a "rider model". So? We are still told explicitly to treat it as a single model. If they are sloppy/inconsistent with their handling of terminology it doesn't mean we get to toss out a clear directive.
As you admit, IC is on the dual profile of the CCB, specifically on the rider profile. The CCB invokes it via its rider profile and it simply happens since nothing prevents it from doing its thing.
I think he is saying that similar to if you upgrade your Overlord with a warscythe, the warscythe cannot issue challenges, cannot join units. So to join a unit, your Overlord has to leave the warscythe behind. Sounds so simple eh?
The IC Rule isn't attached to the Rider profile. It's attached to the Rider, which are not the same thing.
The Rider can challenge, the Rider can overwatch, the Rider is fearless, the Rider is IC and can join a unit. These rules are explicitly assigned to the Rider in the same way that a warscythe is only useable by a Rider.
As much as you'd like the famously misquoted sentence to mean "mash the models wargear, profile and special rules together" that isn't what the rulebook says.
So, the CCB can't overwatch, it can't challenge or accept challenges and it can't join a unit because it doesn't have any of the special rules necessary.
The fact that the Rider has the special rule doesn't help, because the CCB itself has no authority to be able to join the unit.
I think an IC can join a non vehicle/non MC unit. The Hive tyrant can join hive guard just as if it were an IC. There is an example of a MC treated as an IC can join a unit and why they took it away from demons and should do the same for Necrons. I don't know why they left it on.
You are not even looking at how to resolve shooting against a Chariot. Regardless of whether or not CCB is attached to a Unit or not the Shooting is resolved the exact same way.
As per page 86 BRB "When shooting at a Chariot unit, total up the number of successful hits that have been caused. Keep the dice that have scored hits and create a 'pool' where each dice represents a hit.- The player controlling the Chariot unit then allocates each hit pool either to the rider or the chariot of the closest model in the unit."
Your Logic: Choose target, choose weapon, roll to hit, roll to wound, allocate wounds, make saves, choose next weapon. (This is not wrong if shooting phase is unaltered) However, this logic does not work against a Chariot as before any rolls to wound or Armour pen are made the controlling player decides which pool is allocated to which profile.
Example: 10 man Devastator Squad with 4 Lazcannons, Melta Gun, 5 boltguns. shooting at a 20 man Warrior Squad with attached Overlord upgraded with CCB closest model is the chariot.
So the SM player fires his Lazcannons first and hit with all 4, The Necron player decides that those wounds will hit the rider and thus the Hits from that pool roll to wound against majority toughness, wounding on 2+, The Overlord's phase shifter saves all but one wound caused and his total wounds is reduced by 1. Then the SMmeasures to see that his Melta Gun is out of range and thus can not affect the target unit. Then the Sm player fires hit Bolt guns, The Necron player allocates those hit to the Chariot and as Str 4 cannot hurt AV 13 nothing else happens.
And thus we have resolved shooting against a Chariot from an attacking Unit in game.
Wow just wow. You even quote the rules that proves you wrong. What is the first sentence of the rule you quoted? "When shooting at a CHARIOT UNIT". We know the unit isn't a chariot unit so we know this rule can not be used. So try again without using that rule. I have explained this what 5 times now?
@Mythra, those examples aren't the same, because the Hive Tyrant is specifically granted the rule to enable him to do that. In this case, the CCB is not granted the IC rule. The rule is granted to the Rider.
The debate is essentially whether the Rider having it permits the CCB to do it. RAW, the answer appears to be no.
BarBoBot wrote: In the 7th brb it states a unit with a psyker attached is a psyker unit, so following that logic, yes a unit of warriors with a attached chariot would be a chariot unit.
Edit* for the record, I don't believe a chariot joining infantry was intended. Its obviously an oversight.
juat want to point out this is incorrect we are never given permission to do this the only psyker units are brotherhood, pysker is just a psyker rule doesnt confer same as IC doesnt confer.
MarkCron wrote: @Mythra, those examples aren't the same, because the Hive Tyrant is specifically granted the rule to enable him to do that. In this case, the CCB is not granted the IC rule. The rule is granted to the Rider.
The debate is essentially whether the Rider having it permits the CCB to do it. RAW, the answer appears to be no.
Should I leave my Warscythe behind too? Since it does not have the IC rule?
[sarcasm]Leave the CCB and take the warscythe. Oh wait, you can't do that - Don't join, give the warscythe IC and throw them the warscythe. Then they'll be independent characters and can join you. Don't worry about the IC restriction on joining vehicles, because they are joining the Rider profile, so that is all ok.[/sarcasm]
But more seriously, RAW the Rider is not wargear, and it is a separable model for USR and wargear purposes, notwithstanding the misquoted sentence the pro-joining crew throw around. The constraint is the written rule that says that the Rider can't get off. It doesn't say anywhere in the Chariot rules that the Rider is not a model (in fact, the BRB specifically refers to it as a model) - it just says that you can't get off.
So your are saying that the IC rule passes on to the war scythe but not the CCB? And both are listed as options for the overlord? And when equipped, both become one model? Did I get you right?
MarkCron wrote:[sarcasm]Leave the CCB and take the warscythe. Oh wait, you can't do that - Don't join, give the warscythe IC and throw them the warscythe. Then they'll be independent characters and can join you. Don't worry about the IC restriction on joining vehicles, because they are joining the Rider profile, so that is all ok.[/sarcasm]
But more seriously, RAW the Rider is not wargear, and it is a separable model for USR and wargear purposes, notwithstanding the misquoted sentence the pro-joining crew throw around. The constraint is the written rule that says that the Rider can't get off. It doesn't say anywhere in the Chariot rules that the Rider is not a model (in fact, the BRB specifically refers to it as a model) - it just says that you can't get off.
milkboy wrote:So your are saying that the IC rule passes on to the war scythe but not the CCB? And both are listed as options for the overlord? And when equipped, both become one model? Did I get you right?
Oops. Left off the sarcasm tags. I've fixed it.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And just in case you were serious IC can't be passed by any model to any model. Hence the problem.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh, and when you buy a CCB for the overlord, the TWO models remain separate, but the Overlord mounts (!) the Chariot to become the Rider.
MarkCron wrote: Sure, all he has to do is disembark and he can do it.
It can't disembark as it is not in a vehicle. You can only disembark from a transport (vehicle) and a Chariot isn't a Transport, it's a model type like Infantry or Cavalry. The sole difference is that it has two profiles instead of one. Actually, pretty much like cavalry. Just that the "horse" is an actual vehicle.
Oh, and when you buy a CCB for the overlord, the TWO models remain separate, but the Overlord mounts (!) the Chariot to become the Rider.
Not correct, as above. You still think the CCB is a dedicated transport like it used to, but it now is a Chariot and an upgrade for the Necron Overlord.
MarkCron wrote: Sure, all he has to do is disembark and he can do it.
It can't disembark as it is not in a vehicle. You can only disembark from a transport (vehicle) and a Chariot isn't a Transport, it's a model type like Infantry or Cavalry. The sole difference is that it has two profiles instead of one. Actually, pretty much like cavalry. Just that the "horse" is an actual vehicle.
I know that. However in order to use the ICUSR, he has to disembark to use it.
Oh, and when you buy a CCB for the overlord, the TWO models remain separate, but the Overlord mounts (!) the Chariot to become the Rider.
Not correct, as above. You still think the CCB is a dedicated transport like it used to, but it now is a Chariot and an upgrade for the Necron Overlord.
ERB Pg 510 "Characters Riding Chariots" = "A character mounted on a chariot is referred to as its rider. A rider cannot disembark from his chariot".
I don't think the CCB is a dedicated transport. Mounts was the only word I could think of to describe what was happening - I buy an overlord, grab him a CCB and he "mounts" it, so now he is "mounted".
Oh wait, it is the chariot that got mounted, right? Really good thing this wasn't about a horse. Things could go off track really quickly
Automatically Appended Next Post: Actually, serious question - does anyone have a rulebook that is not in English? I read somewhere that the German rulebook has a different rule for "Objective Secured" - apparently in German rulebook Objective Secured goes to all units, not just troops in a battleforged army.
In non-english rulebooks, what does it say in the contentious first para under Chariots?
It can't disembark as it is not in a vehicle. You can only disembark from a transport (vehicle) and a Chariot isn't a Transport, it's a model type like Infantry or Cavalry. The sole difference is that it has two profiles instead of one. Actually, pretty much like cavalry. Just that the "horse" is an actual vehicle.
And therin lies the problem the "horse" is a vehicle haha damn those horse growing wheels and hover plates.
RAW is very sticky in this case as much as one side or the other says it is not there would be no debate if it wasn't and it comes down to a couple of badly used words
pg.8 The citadel minitures used to play games of warhammer 40,000 are refered to as 'models' in the rules that follow. Models represent a huge variety of troops, from noble Space Marines and Brutal Orks to Warp-Spawned Daemons. To reflect all their difference, each model has its own characteristic profile.
This would suggest they are two serparate models sharing one base but...
pg. 86 A chariot is an unusual unit with a dual profile (by there defination to start with two models) - a non-vehicle profile for the rider of the chariot, and a vehicle profile for the Chariot itself. However a Chariot is always treated as a single model (so now they are one model with two profile breaking there previous rule :/ )
pg.86 If either the rider is reduced to 0 Wounds or his Chariot is destoryed, then the entire model is removed from play as a casualty (why the word entire unless each component is seperated not even sure GW knew what they where getting at). Your guess is a good as anyones on this part.
I can help with the "immortal" chariot thingy pg86 tells you how to deal with this you allocate hits not wounds as people have been saying once the hits have been allocated you then roll to pen or wound and it always the closet model so other units in it can die first then make sure you firing heavy weapons to kill chariot same as any other time
MarkCron wrote: Sure, all he has to do is disembark and he can do it.
It can't disembark as it is not in a vehicle. You can only disembark from a transport (vehicle) and a Chariot isn't a Transport, it's a model type like Infantry or Cavalry. The sole difference is that it has two profiles instead of one. Actually, pretty much like cavalry. Just that the "horse" is an actual vehicle.
I know that. However in order to use the ICUSR, he has to disembark to use it.
You got no rules to back your assertion up. Where exactly does it state that a IC loses its USR when it's a Chariot?
I don't think the CCB is a dedicated transport. Mounts was the only word I could think of to describe what was happening - I buy an overlord, grab him a CCB and he "mounts" it, so now he is "mounted".
Oh wait, it is the chariot that got mounted, right? Really good thing this wasn't about a horse. Things could go off track really quickly
Precision. The Overlord does not mount a CCB, it is mounted on one. This is a major difference because mounting describes an action it takes whereas "mounted on" describes it as already being on it. The CCB isn't a vehicle you buy for an Overlord, it's an upgrade similar to how wargear works.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Actually, serious question - does anyone have a rulebook that is not in English? I read somewhere that the German rulebook has a different rule for "Objective Secured" - apparently in German rulebook Objective Secured goes to all units, not just troops in a battleforged army.
In non-english rulebooks, what does it say in the contentious first para under Chariots?
Doesn't matter, the English versions are always binding.
It can't disembark as it is not in a vehicle. You can only disembark from a transport (vehicle) and a Chariot isn't a Transport, it's a model type like Infantry or Cavalry. The sole difference is that it has two profiles instead of one. Actually, pretty much like cavalry. Just that the "horse" is an actual vehicle.
And therin lies the problem the "horse" is a vehicle haha damn those horse growing wheels and hover plates.
MarkCron wrote: Sure, all he has to do is disembark and he can do it.
It can't disembark as it is not in a vehicle. You can only disembark from a transport (vehicle) and a Chariot isn't a Transport, it's a model type like Infantry or Cavalry. The sole difference is that it has two profiles instead of one. Actually, pretty much like cavalry. Just that the "horse" is an actual vehicle.
I know that. However in order to use the ICUSR, he has to disembark to use it.
You got no rules to back your assertion up. Where exactly does it state that a IC loses its USR when it's a Chariot?
I don't think the CCB is a dedicated transport. Mounts was the only word I could think of to describe what was happening - I buy an overlord, grab him a CCB and he "mounts" it, so now he is "mounted".
Oh wait, it is the chariot that got mounted, right? Really good thing this wasn't about a horse. Things could go off track really quickly
Precision. The Overlord does not mount a CCB, it is mounted on one. This is a major difference because mounting describes an action it takes whereas "mounted on" describes it as already being on it. The CCB isn't a vehicle you buy for an Overlord, it's an upgrade similar to how wargear works.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Actually, serious question - does anyone have a rulebook that is not in English? I read somewhere that the German rulebook has a different rule for "Objective Secured" - apparently in German rulebook Objective Secured goes to all units, not just troops in a battleforged army.
In non-english rulebooks, what does it say in the contentious first para under Chariots?
Doesn't matter, the English versions are always binding.
It can't disembark as it is not in a vehicle. You can only disembark from a transport (vehicle) and a Chariot isn't a Transport, it's a model type like Infantry or Cavalry. The sole difference is that it has two profiles instead of one. Actually, pretty much like cavalry. Just that the "horse" is an actual vehicle.
And therin lies the problem the "horse" is a vehicle haha damn those horse growing wheels and hover plates.
How many IC can dismount from a horse?
I know right why can't IC's figure this out maybe they are all have balance issues and getting down is a problem ... I just thought is there any IC on a horse? not that is makes any difference cavalry is easy just those damn vehicle rules getting in the way
I can help with the "immortal" chariot thingy pg86 tells you how to deal with this you allocate hits not wounds as people have been saying once the hits have been allocated you then roll to pen or wound and it always the closet model so other units in it can die first then make sure you firing heavy weapons to kill chariot same as any other time
Please read the thread before posting ludicrous statements like this. Go back read what has been read and retract this obviously false statement or admit you were intentionally lying.
I can help with the "immortal" chariot thingy pg86 tells you how to deal with this you allocate hits not wounds as people have been saying once the hits have been allocated you then roll to pen or wound and it always the closet model so other units in it can die first then make sure you firing heavy weapons to kill chariot same as any other time
Please read the thread before posting ludicrous statements like this. Go back read what has been read and retract this obviously false statement or admit you were intentionally lying.
I believe one of the YMDC tenets mentioned to talk about the argument and not attack the person. Chill a little, and listen.
I can help with the "immortal" chariot thingy pg86 tells you how to deal with this you allocate hits not wounds as people have been saying once the hits have been allocated you then roll to pen or wound and it always the closet model so other units in it can die first then make sure you firing heavy weapons to kill chariot same as any other time
Please read the thread before posting ludicrous statements like this. Go back read what has been read and retract this obviously false statement or admit you were intentionally lying.
lol chill out haha
pg.86 Shooting at chariots
When shooting at a chariot unit total up the number of success hits that have been caused. Keep the dice that have scored hits and create a pool where each dice represents a hit
The player controlling the chariot unit then allocates each hit pool either to the rider or the chariot of the closet model in the unit
the only slight issue is the whole chariot unit thing is that a unit with a chariot in or unit entirely made out of chariots but it could be applied either and the only real way i can see it working, doesnt really change what I said you allocate it not wounds as people have been saying
Yup agreed this discussion seems to be getting to people a lot it might be time to leave it for a bit and wait for an faq or come back to it again later
I can help with the "immortal" chariot thingy pg86 tells you how to deal with this you allocate hits not wounds as people have been saying once the hits have been allocated you then roll to pen or wound and it always the closet model so other units in it can die first then make sure you firing heavy weapons to kill chariot same as any other time
Please read the thread before posting ludicrous statements like this. Go back read what has been read and retract this obviously false statement or admit you were intentionally lying.
lol chill out haha
pg.86 Shooting at chariots
When shooting at a chariot unit total up the number of success hits that have been caused. Keep the dice that have scored hits and create a pool where each dice represents a hit
The player controlling the chariot unit then allocates each hit pool either to the rider or the chariot of the closet model in the unit
the only slight issue is the whole chariot unit thing is that a unit with a chariot in or unit entirely made out of chariots but it could be applied either and the only real way i can see it working, doesnt really change what I said you allocate it not wounds as people have been saying
Slight issue again please read the thread this has been explain several times. If the CCB+Unit is a Chariot unit then this rule applies however as any model without a chariot in the unit has 0 HPs on their Chariot they are all instantly removed. If the CCB+Unit isn't a Chariot Unit (as most contend) then that rule can not apply. This has now been explained about 7 times which gets frustrating.
So in future please read the thread where this has been fully explained and you'd understand. If you disagree with the explanation then attack that rather than just repeat already repeatedly debunked ideas.
I can help with the "immortal" chariot thingy pg86 tells you how to deal with this you allocate hits not wounds as people have been saying once the hits have been allocated you then roll to pen or wound and it always the closet model so other units in it can die first then make sure you firing heavy weapons to kill chariot same as any other time
Please read the thread before posting ludicrous statements like this. Go back read what has been read and retract this obviously false statement or admit you were intentionally lying.
lol chill out haha
pg.86 Shooting at chariots
When shooting at a chariot unit total up the number of success hits that have been caused. Keep the dice that have scored hits and create a pool where each dice represents a hit
The player controlling the chariot unit then allocates each hit pool either to the rider or the chariot of the closet model in the unit
the only slight issue is the whole chariot unit thing is that a unit with a chariot in or unit entirely made out of chariots but it could be applied either and the only real way i can see it working, doesnt really change what I said you allocate it not wounds as people have been saying
Slight issue again please read the thread this has been explain several times. If the CCB+Unit is a Chariot unit then this rule applies however as any model without a chariot in the unit has 0 HPs on their Chariot they are all instantly removed. If the CCB+Unit isn't a Chariot Unit (as most contend) then that rule can not apply. This has now been explained about 7 times which gets frustrating.
So in future please read the thread where this has been fully explained and you'd understand. If you disagree with the explanation then attack that rather than just repeat already repeatedly debunked ideas.
So that does kind of make sense in a demented way haha.
I would like to point out I have been following this thread since the start its just he arguements have been going to round and round kind of lost track of some parts and was trying to get a new spin obs just picked up on an old spin in my head and reguritated it again haha. But a quick look what you just said is the most sensible way of putting it so far instead od the attacks people have been making at each other with hundreds of quotes in them so thank you
katana100 wrote: But a quick look what you just said is the most sensible way of putting it so far instead od the attacks people have been making at each other with hundreds of quotes in them so thank you
Hey I'm offended! What about the IC rule cannot pass to CCB (and thus is you have a CCB you cannot join units) but can pass to warscythe/MSS/left arm/right foot argument? I thought that was short and sweet!
Interesting thoughts to ponder on: How does one prove a non-existence chariot has a Hull Point count of 0 if one does not have a Profile to reference for evidence?
Then there is also the 6th edition issue where 'Reduced to 0' was distinct instructions requiring the number to go from 1 to 0 before it would trigger. Though now I am unsure as to which broken situation the ideal that starting with a - or 0 meant automatic removal as casualty caused in the past... damn memory.
MarkCron wrote: Sure, all he has to do is disembark and he can do it.
It can't disembark as it is not in a vehicle. You can only disembark from a transport (vehicle) and a Chariot isn't a Transport, it's a model type like Infantry or Cavalry. The sole difference is that it has two profiles instead of one. Actually, pretty much like cavalry. Just that the "horse" is an actual vehicle.
I know that. However in order to use the ICUSR, he has to disembark to use it.
You got no rules to back your assertion up. Where exactly does it state that a IC loses its USR when it's a Chariot?
Which assertion? I'm saying that the Rider still has IC. The issue is that the CCB doesn't. So, if the Rider wants to use it, he has to disembark, which he can't. So, IC is useless.
MarkCron wrote: The IC Rule isn't attached to the Rider profile. It's attached to the Rider, which are not the same thing.
The Rider can challenge, the Rider can overwatch, the Rider is fearless, the Rider is IC and can join a unit. These rules are explicitly assigned to the Rider in the same way that a warscythe is only useable by a Rider.
As much as you'd like the famously misquoted sentence to mean "mash the models wargear, profile and special rules together" that isn't what the rulebook says.
So, the CCB can't overwatch, it can't challenge or accept challenges and it can't join a unit because it doesn't have any of the special rules necessary.
The fact that the Rider has the special rule doesn't help, because the CCB itself has no authority to be able to join the unit.
When I upgrade the Necron Overlord to a CCB, I replace his model with the Chariot (CCB). We are told explicitly that the Chariot (CCB) is treated as a single model and that it has a dual profile (rider and vehicle).
The rules provide ways in which the dual profiles interoperate and which profile kicks in for which circumstance. The profiles operate in different domains for the single CCB model.
So the single CCB model can overwatch and can accept challenges via the rider profile, for example. It's not the rider as a model who does these things, but the CCB via a profile that does these things. When the rider accepts a challenge I do not take the rider out of the CCB and have him fight the challenge outside of the CCB. That would be 6th edition (where the rider has to disembark from a dedicated transport to do that).
MarkCron, your problem is that you are being told explicitly by the rules to treat the CCB as a single model with a dual profile and you somehow want to retain that you have 2 models. You are not accepting RAW. I am not misquoting the line. I am accepting it RAW. You are not accepting the definition laid out before you by the rules of the Chariot when it is defined as a single model with a dual profile.
From the BRB,
"A Chariot is an unusual unit with a dual profile - a non vehicle profile for the rider of the Chariot (see below), and a vehicle profile for the Chariot itself. However a Chariot is always treated as a single model. For the purposes of characteristics tests, always use the rider's profile. Furthermore, any characteristics modifiers that affect a Chariot model apply to both rider and Chariot."
Your response to RAW . . . " Nah, I still got two models, I don't have to follow that line because it's contradicted by their choice of words later"
My response to RAW . . . "Okay, by definition I now have a single model with a dual profile. Got it."
col_impact wrote: You are not accepting the definition laid out before you by the rules of the Chariot when it is defined as a single model with a dual profile.
Has it been proven that dual characteristic profile == shared special rules and wargear?
Col_impact : I can certainly see your reasoning and the logic that it is actually the profile which is activated when a particular event occurs.
However, there are two key RAW questions remaining:
A) how do you explain the diagram which clearly shows that the profile you refer to is a characteristic profile only and does not contain the special rules? There is no reference to combining models at all, merely that the chariot has a dual profile, with those profiles being treated as a separate model.
b) How do you explain the rules wording in the rest of the section? For example, the allocation of fearless and relentless to the rider, the ability of a character rider to issue a challenge and the specific reference to the Rider's model in the ever living rule?
RAW, it appears that there continues to be two separate models, One for the CCB (which has the dual characteristic profiles, but not the Rider special rules, wargear or weaponry) and one for the Rider (and this model is specifically referred to).
This theme of the Rider (as distinct from the Rider profile) being separate is consistent through the entire Chariot rules section.
It is entirely weird that GW bothered to put the dual profiles comment in at all, as the entire section would have worked equally well without it. However, speculation about that is RAI.
If there was any doubt that the profile referred to in the first para was only a characteristic profile I think RAW is fine and RAI or HIWPI would apply. But I don't see that doubt RAW.
Hey Markcron, I've got an example of dual characteristics becoming one model. See if you accept this comparison.
A marine captain has one profile. A power sword has one profile. When you put them together, they are one model. But according to your reasoning that the captains IC rule doesn't get transferred to the other profile, means this poor dude will have to throw away(dismount) his power weapon before joining his brother marines?
milkboy wrote: Hey Markcron, I've got an example of dual characteristics becoming one model. See if you accept this comparison.
A marine captain has one profile. A power sword has one profile. When you put them together, they are one model. But according to your reasoning that the captains IC rule doesn't get transferred to the other profile, means this poor dude will have to throw away(dismount) his power weapon before joining his brother marines?
oh my god I would not want to mount a power sword that just sounds.....
milkboy wrote: Hey Markcron, I've got an example of dual characteristics becoming one model. See if you accept this comparison.
A marine captain has one profile. A power sword has one profile. When you put them together, they are one model. But according to your reasoning that the captains IC rule doesn't get transferred to the other profile, means this poor dude will have to throw away(dismount) his power weapon before joining his brother marines?
Not comparable at all. One is a model/unit/characteristic profile, the other is a weapon profile.
milkboy wrote: Hey Markcron, I've got an example of dual characteristics becoming one model. See if you accept this comparison.
A marine captain has one profile. A power sword has one profile. When you put them together, they are one model. But according to your reasoning that the captains IC rule doesn't get transferred to the other profile, means this poor dude will have to throw away(dismount) his power weapon before joining his brother marines?
oh my god I would not want to mount a power sword that just sounds.....
That's why he's a poor dude. Not only did he have to mount it, now RAW apparently forces him to pul it out again! After all the effort getting it in! Is there a proctologist in the house?
MarkCron wrote: Col_impact : I can certainly see your reasoning and the logic that it is actually the profile which is activated when a particular event occurs.
However, there are two key RAW questions remaining:
A) how do you explain the diagram which clearly shows that the profile you refer to is a characteristic profile only and does not contain the special rules? There is no reference to combining models at all, merely that the chariot has a dual profile, with those profiles being treated as a separate model.
b) How do you explain the rules wording in the rest of the section? For example, the allocation of fearless and relentless to the rider, the ability of a character rider to issue a challenge and the specific reference to the Rider's model in the ever living rule?
RAW, it appears that there continues to be two separate models, One for the CCB (which has the dual characteristic profiles, but not the Rider special rules, wargear or weaponry) and one for the Rider (and this model is specifically referred to).
This theme of the Rider (as distinct from the Rider profile) being separate is consistent through the entire Chariot rules section.
It is entirely weird that GW bothered to put the dual profiles comment in at all, as the entire section would have worked equally well without it. However, speculation about that is RAI.
If there was any doubt that the profile referred to in the first para was only a characteristic profile I think RAW is fine and RAI or HIWPI would apply. But I don't see that doubt RAW.
So yes there are contradictions in the way the Chariot section is handled. In that case you have to decide whether to weigh the definitional statements as having more weight or the places where there are slips in terminology as having more weight. I take the definitional section as having more weight since the language is very clear and explicit and intentional, ie the writers are literally giving that statement more weight. If you replace slip ups in their terminology with statements like the "Chariot (via the rider profile)" then everything starts to adhere together.
Which assertion? I'm saying that the Rider still has IC. The issue is that the CCB doesn't. So, if the Rider wants to use it, he has to disembark, which he can't. So, IC is useless.
You got nothing to back up your points from a RAW point of view. That is the problem. RAI, I am with you. I think it's stupid to think of a Chariot joining a regular unit and everyone who does so, especially to get totally overpowered combos like Wraiths / Chariots running.
RAW is another issue. You see a conflict in the rules when there isn't. The Overlord has the ICUSR. The Chariot doesn't. It doesn't have a rule that disallows joining units either, though. There aren't any rules in conflict. IC does not "go away", it stays and the BRB explicitely says that the CCB / Chariot is considered a single model for all purposes. For all purposes. As a consequence, again, RAW-wise, it shares USRs as well and IC allows it to technically join units.
Which assertion? I'm saying that the Rider still has IC. The issue is that the CCB doesn't. So, if the Rider wants to use it, he has to disembark, which he can't. So, IC is useless.
You got nothing to back up your points from a RAW point of view. That is the problem. RAI, I am with you. I think it's stupid to think of a Chariot joining a regular unit and everyone who does so, especially to get totally overpowered combos like Wraiths / Chariots running.
RAW is another issue. You see a conflict in the rules when there isn't. The Overlord has the ICUSR. The Chariot doesn't. It doesn't have a rule that disallows joining units either, though. There aren't any rules in conflict. IC does not "go away", it stays and the BRB explicitely says that the CCB / Chariot is considered a single model for all purposes. For all purposes. As a consequence, again, RAW-wise, it shares USRs as well and IC allows it to technically join units.
Which either makes the unit invulnerable or breaks the game as we have no way of resolving shooting at it.
Under the FAQ for the necrons it's still listed as a vehicle fast skimmer. I'm in the no crowd that the catacomb command barge cannot join other units.
I know I know they become one when the overlord buys it, that being said he's referred to as the rider, though he can never disembark, and if ever living comes Into play they both come back. It can be confusing but it simplifies the rules for them and makes me much better.
Which either makes the unit invulnerable or breaks the game as we have no way of resolving shooting at it.
Precisely.
RAW, it's correct. At the same time, playing it that way is just stupid.
It's simple enough, but somewhat laborious, to resolve the hits against the vehicle one at a time if a pen is possible. You do that so once the Overlord dies you can then have hits spill over to the rest of the unit. This is not RAW but a commonsensical patch of a hole.
erick99 wrote: Vehicles that are characters yes. Bjorn for sure.
Vehicles that are ICs? Not that I'm aware of.
Ok so Bjorn is the only other character that is also a vehicle, but he cannot join other units or be joined by other ICs.
I ask because in the rules for Look out sir, they make the distinction between non-vehicle characters.
here is the quote:
“Look Out, Sir
When a Wound is allocated to one of your non-vehicle characters”
HIWPI is he can join other units since there is more evidence for him not losing the IC status than not.
Good find. This is interesting. So were they tidying up a loose end to take care of one corner case of one obscure character, or were they making way for the Chariot joining units?
Which either makes the unit invulnerable or breaks the game as we have no way of resolving shooting at it.
Precisely.
RAW, it's correct. At the same time, playing it that way is just stupid.
It's simple enough, but somewhat laborious, to resolve the hits against the vehicle one at a time if a pen is possible. You do that so once the Overlord dies you can then have hits spill over to the rest of the unit. This is not RAW but a commonsensical patch of a hole.
erick99 wrote: Vehicles that are characters yes. Bjorn for sure.
Vehicles that are ICs? Not that I'm aware of.
Ok so Bjorn is the only other character that is also a vehicle, but he cannot join other units or be joined by other ICs.
I ask because in the rules for Look out sir, they make the distinction between non-vehicle characters.
here is the quote:
“Look Out, Sir
When a Wound is allocated to one of your non-vehicle characters”
HIWPI is he can join other units since there is more evidence for him not losing the IC status than not.
Good find. This is interesting. So were they tidying up a loose end to take care of one corner case of one obscure character, or were they making way for the Chariot joining units?
Yeah if Bjorn isn't able to join units because of his lack of IC, then the only other character who can join units and also has a vehicle profile is the CCB Lord. Kinda weird that they would add that exception if no vehicle character is ever able to join a unit don't you think? seems there is no restriction for vehicle characters to join a unit if we go by the wording on LoS.
Which either makes the unit invulnerable or breaks the game as we have no way of resolving shooting at it.
Precisely.
RAW, it's correct. At the same time, playing it that way is just stupid.
It's simple enough, but somewhat laborious, to resolve the hits against the vehicle one at a time if a pen is possible. You do that so once the Overlord dies you can then have hits spill over to the rest of the unit. This is not RAW but a commonsensical patch of a hole.
erick99 wrote: Vehicles that are characters yes. Bjorn for sure.
Vehicles that are ICs? Not that I'm aware of.
Ok so Bjorn is the only other character that is also a vehicle, but he cannot join other units or be joined by other ICs.
I ask because in the rules for Look out sir, they make the distinction between non-vehicle characters.
here is the quote:
“Look Out, Sir
When a Wound is allocated to one of your non-vehicle characters”
HIWPI is he can join other units since there is more evidence for him not losing the IC status than not.
Good find. This is interesting. So were they tidying up a loose end to take care of one corner case of one obscure character, or were they making way for the Chariot joining units?
Yeah if Bjorn isn't able to join units because of his lack of IC, then the only other character who can join units and also has a vehicle profile is the CCB Lord. Kinda weird that they would add that exception if no vehicle character is ever able to join a unit don't you think? seems there is no restriction for vehicle characters to join a unit if we go by the wording on LoS.
Yea, if it is indeed the case that this rule change can only possibly affect the CCB Lord then it really is very strong supporting evidence that the CCB Lord can join units.
Hmmm I hate to say it but I just realized there could be an example of a vehicle character in a unit. Can a herald on a chariot start off as part of a cavalcade?
It says replace the enchantress with the herald. Does that mean he replaces an enchantress ofnancavalcade?
It's simple enough, but somewhat laborious, to resolve the hits against the vehicle one at a time if a pen is possible. You do that so once the Overlord dies you can then have hits spill over to the rest of the unit. This is not RAW but a commonsensical patch of a hole.
Or you could go with the more common sense approach of nit letting the CCB join units. Essentially your argument is RaW is broken so I'm going to do what I want and expect my opponent to just take it...
Good find. This is interesting. So were they tidying up a loose end to take care of one corner case of one obscure character, or were they making way for the Chariot joining units?
Or more likely they are covering for the case of Vehicle Characters in Vehicle units (like Russ tank commanders).
It's simple enough, but somewhat laborious, to resolve the hits against the vehicle one at a time if a pen is possible. You do that so once the Overlord dies you can then have hits spill over to the rest of the unit. This is not RAW but a commonsensical patch of a hole.
Or you could go with the more common sense approach of nit letting the CCB join units. Essentially your argument is RaW is broken so I'm going to do what I want and expect my opponent to just take it...
Good find. This is interesting. So were they tidying up a loose end to take care of one corner case of one obscure character, or were they making way for the Chariot joining units?
Or more likely they are covering for the case of Vehicle Characters in Vehicle units (like Russ tank commanders).
Maybe he is pausing for dramatic silence before revealing to us.....the TRUTH!
Automatically Appended Next Post: Back to the topic. Does anyone know whether a herald can be part of a cavalcade? That could be what the look out sir was referencing, not a IC in a vehicle, as some might think.
Having the game come to a screeching halt is not the same thing as making the joined unit 'immortal'. Hyperbole much?
As it stand, assigning a wound (rather than a glancing or penetrating hit) to a vehicle fundamentally 'breaks' the game. While this interaction is terrible and almost certainly unaccounted for by whatever genius wrote the rules for the 7th edition chariot, that does not make it any less what is currently written in the rules themselves.
I for one, call for a FAQ to either remove the ICUSR from the overlord upon deploying with the CCB, or adding an additional rule to the 'To Wound' sections of the book which would allow for converting a wound to a glancing or penetrating hit (depending on it's strength and applicable USRs) when it is allocated to a vehicle and vice versa.
The removal of the ICUSR is the much simpler fix though, so that is what I expect will eventually happen.
We have no way to resolve wounds against a normal vehicle but in this case we have options...... As usual they have not covered things as well as they should have. If they covered that models lost IC it wouldn't be an issue or that if chariots are in a non-vehicle unit all wounds are allocated to the rider..... Just because something is new or different doesn't mean it can not work. If GW has proven one thing it's that they don't think everything or possibility through. Currently we actually have immortal artillery units...... We just spent 8 pages talking about how there are two profiles so to claim there is no way to resolve wounds against this model is...... something, not sure what but something.....
milkboy wrote:Hey Markcron, I've got an example of dual characteristics becoming one model. See if you accept this comparison.
A marine captain has one profile. A power sword has one profile. When you put them together, they are one model. But according to your reasoning that the captains IC rule doesn't get transferred to the other profile, means this poor dude will have to throw away(dismount) his power weapon before joining his brother marines?
I was waiting for this one! The answer is that the weapon is not and was never a model, whereas the Overlord/Rider is.
col_impact wrote:So yes there are contradictions in the way the Chariot section is handled. In that case you have to decide whether to weigh the definitional statements as having more weight or the places where there are slips in terminology as having more weight. I take the definitional section as having more weight since the language is very clear and explicit and intentional, ie the writers are literally giving that statement more weight. If you replace slip ups in their terminology with statements like the "Chariot (via the rider profile)" then everything starts to adhere together.
I agree completely. But the definitional statements *as written* don't support transfer of the ICUSR from the Rider to the CCB. I've reproduced all the relevant rules from the Chariot section per the rulebook a couple of times now.
Which assertion? I'm saying that the Rider still has IC. The issue is that the CCB doesn't. So, if the Rider wants to use it, he has to disembark, which he can't. So, IC is useless.
You got nothing to back up your points from a RAW point of view. That is the problem. RAI, I am with you. I think it's stupid to think of a Chariot joining a regular unit and everyone who does so, especially to get totally overpowered combos like Wraiths / Chariots running.
RAW is another issue. You see a conflict in the rules when there isn't. The Overlord has the ICUSR. The Chariot doesn't. It doesn't have a rule that disallows joining units either, though. There aren't any rules in conflict. IC does not "go away", it stays and the BRB explicitely says that the CCB / Chariot is considered a single model for all purposes. For all purposes. As a consequence, again, RAW-wise, it shares USRs as well and IC allows it to technically join units.
Actually Sigvatr, I have a load of rules which I've quoted previously (and all my quotes are full and in context, unlike your reference to the "single model"). One of the many flaws in your chain of reasoning is that the Chariot explicitly needs a rule to allow it to join. The fact that it is not disallowed from joining doesn't, in this rule set, mean that it can join. If that were true, I could join a landraider to an MC because there is no rule specifically disallowing that.
milkboy wrote:Hmmm I hate to say it but I just realized there could be an example of a vehicle character in a unit. Can a herald on a chariot start off as part of a cavalcade?
It says replace the enchantress with the herald. Does that mean he replaces an enchantress ofnancavalcade?
IF that is the case, then what I was saying earlier is true. The removal of IC from the Herald was required to prevent breaking the squadron per the codex, as an IC Herald would not be able to be in it, which would be stupid considering it was an upgrade. It isn't applicable to the Cron codex, because we can't have squadrons (Squadron of Anni Barges anyone?)
*********
We've been going around for pages now, and RAW, while possibly confusing, is clear and consistent in the Chariot section as written - There are two models, one Chariot, One Rider, and the Chariot model has dual profiles - hence CCB can't join the unit. However, as people are continuing to use part of a single sentence out of context, I suggest we do something constructive and work out how a joined unit would work.
So, lets go back to col_impacts point about reading the rules as if they said "rider profile". IF we assume that, then the chariot becomes exactly the same as Fateweaver or Orikan. There are two profiles, with different abilities, and you use them at certain times. In the case of Fatey, you pick a head, and use that for your turn. In the case of Orikan, the dice roll effectively determines which profile is active.
For the CCB, again, IF you change all the rulebook wording to refer to rider/chariot profile, nothing is broken. The Chariot profile can't overwatch because you have to use the rider profile for that, same with challenges.
Now, as col-impact suggested, you use the rider profile to join a unit. Logically, as the Chariot profile CAN"T join the unit, that rider profile has to be active for the entire time you are joined to that unit (because the rider profile is the only one with IC). And, somewhat conveniently, that also solves all the problems with shooting at the unit, because the Rider profile has wounds. That also doesn't break the chariot rules per se, because you auto allocate hits to the Rider profile (effectively you have chosen the Rider profile to be permanently active when you choose to join the unit) and roll to wound as normal.
In respect of FlingItNows concern, I suggest that a unit with a joined CCB (in rider profile mode) is actually a mixed unit, similar to joining an IC on foot to a unit of bikes - or Obyron to a unit of Spyders. As a mixed unit, each part (ie the IC vs the Joined unit) retains its original unit type. So, the infantry unit joined doesn't auto disappear because their chariot doesn't exist, and the CCB is not immortal because the Rider profile is active (and auto allocation of hits to the rider profile means you can skip this step and go straight to wound allocation).
If the rider profile is permanently active while joined to a unit then:
a) The chariot can't shoot the chariot weapons.
b) you can't allocate hits against the chariot profile (as noted above, you've chosen the rider profile to be active)
c) for obvious reasons, you can't sweep attack
d) the joined units moves and assaults at the speed of the unit joined or the Rider profile whichever is lower
Looking at it, effectively, you just end up with an overlord tanking. That doesn't break the game, but does make joining the chariot a bit pointless (although you can hide it in a unit if you wanted to).
So, to summarise my post. RAW, no, the unit can't join. RAI (using col_impacts allocation to rider profile argument) you can, but you'd have to use exclusively use the Rider profile while joined.
milkboy wrote:Hey Markcron, I've got an example of dual characteristics becoming one model. See if you accept this comparison.
A marine captain has one profile. A power sword has one profile. When you put them together, they are one model. But according to your reasoning that the captains IC rule doesn't get transferred to the other profile, means this poor dude will have to throw away(dismount) his power weapon before joining his brother marines?
I was waiting for this one! The answer is that the weapon is not and was never a model, whereas the Overlord/Rider is.
col_impact wrote:So yes there are contradictions in the way the Chariot section is handled. In that case you have to decide whether to weigh the definitional statements as having more weight or the places where there are slips in terminology as having more weight. I take the definitional section as having more weight since the language is very clear and explicit and intentional, ie the writers are literally giving that statement more weight. If you replace slip ups in their terminology with statements like the "Chariot (via the rider profile)" then everything starts to adhere together.
I agree completely. But the definitional statements *as written* don't support transfer of the ICUSR from the Rider to the CCB. I've reproduced all the relevant rules from the Chariot section per the rulebook a couple of times now.
Which assertion? I'm saying that the Rider still has IC. The issue is that the CCB doesn't. So, if the Rider wants to use it, he has to disembark, which he can't. So, IC is useless.
You got nothing to back up your points from a RAW point of view. That is the problem. RAI, I am with you. I think it's stupid to think of a Chariot joining a regular unit and everyone who does so, especially to get totally overpowered combos like Wraiths / Chariots running.
RAW is another issue. You see a conflict in the rules when there isn't. The Overlord has the ICUSR. The Chariot doesn't. It doesn't have a rule that disallows joining units either, though. There aren't any rules in conflict. IC does not "go away", it stays and the BRB explicitely says that the CCB / Chariot is considered a single model for all purposes. For all purposes. As a consequence, again, RAW-wise, it shares USRs as well and IC allows it to technically join units.
Actually Sigvatr, I have a load of rules which I've quoted previously (and all my quotes are full and in context, unlike your reference to the "single model"). One of the many flaws in your chain of reasoning is that the Chariot explicitly needs a rule to allow it to join. The fact that it is not disallowed from joining doesn't, in this rule set, mean that it can join. If that were true, I could join a landraider to an MC because there is no rule specifically disallowing that.
milkboy wrote:Hmmm I hate to say it but I just realized there could be an example of a vehicle character in a unit. Can a herald on a chariot start off as part of a cavalcade?
It says replace the enchantress with the herald. Does that mean he replaces an enchantress ofnancavalcade?
IF that is the case, then what I was saying earlier is true. The removal of IC from the Herald was required to prevent breaking the squadron per the codex, as an IC Herald would not be able to be in it, which would be stupid considering it was an upgrade. It isn't applicable to the Cron codex, because we can't have squadrons (Squadron of Anni Barges anyone?)
*********
We've been going around for pages now, and RAW, while possibly confusing, is clear and consistent in the Chariot section as written - There are two models, one Chariot, One Rider, and the Chariot model has dual profiles - hence CCB can't join the unit. However, as people are continuing to use part of a single sentence out of context, I suggest we do something constructive and work out how a joined unit would work.
So, lets go back to col_impacts point about reading the rules as if they said "rider profile". IF we assume that, then the chariot becomes exactly the same as Fateweaver or Orikan. There are two profiles, with different abilities, and you use them at certain times. In the case of Fatey, you pick a head, and use that for your turn. In the case of Orikan, the dice roll effectively determines which profile is active.
For the CCB, again, IF you change all the rulebook wording to refer to rider/chariot profile, nothing is broken. The Chariot profile can't overwatch because you have to use the rider profile for that, same with challenges.
Now, as col-impact suggested, you use the rider profile to join a unit. Logically, as the Chariot profile CAN"T join the unit, that rider profile has to be active for the entire time you are joined to that unit (because the rider profile is the only one with IC). And, somewhat conveniently, that also solves all the problems with shooting at the unit, because the Rider profile has wounds. That also doesn't break the chariot rules per se, because you auto allocate hits to the Rider profile (effectively you have chosen the Rider profile to be permanently active when you choose to join the unit) and roll to wound as normal.
In respect of FlingItNows concern, I suggest that a unit with a joined CCB (in rider profile mode) is actually a mixed unit, similar to joining an IC on foot to a unit of bikes - or Obyron to a unit of Spyders. As a mixed unit, each part (ie the IC vs the Joined unit) retains its original unit type. So, the infantry unit joined doesn't auto disappear because their chariot doesn't exist, and the CCB is not immortal because the Rider profile is active (and auto allocation of hits to the rider profile means you can skip this step and go straight to wound allocation).
If the rider profile is permanently active while joined to a unit then:
a) The chariot can't shoot the chariot weapons.
b) you can't allocate hits against the chariot profile (as noted above, you've chosen the rider profile to be active)
c) for obvious reasons, you can't sweep attack
d) the joined units moves and assaults at the speed of the unit joined or the Rider profile whichever is lower
Looking at it, effectively, you just end up with an overlord tanking. That doesn't break the game, but does make joining the chariot a bit pointless (although you can hide it in a unit if you wanted to).
So, to summarise my post. RAW, no, the unit can't join. RAI (using col_impacts allocation to rider profile argument) you can, but you'd have to use exclusively use the Rider profile while joined.
I like your line of thought and the jist of what you are doing, I just think you do too much and it seems like you are nerfing for no reason. If the only problem is wound allocation, then apply a narrow fix to that. You could say that by joining a unit the CCB Lord loses the ability to invoke his vehicle profile during wound allocation (ie he cannot maneuver his Chariot to ward off incoming blows or maybe he purposefully juts himself out as a leader of the unit). Problem elegantly avoided and with surgical precision.
milkboy wrote:Hey Markcron, I've got an example of dual characteristics becoming one model. See if you accept this comparison.
A marine captain has one profile. A power sword has one profile. When you put them together, they are one model. But according to your reasoning that the captains IC rule doesn't get transferred to the other profile, means this poor dude will have to throw away(dismount) his power weapon before joining his brother marines?
I was waiting for this one! The answer is that the weapon is not and was never a model, whereas the Overlord/Rider is.
Glad I could make you happy.
But I was not comparing the weapon to the Overlord. I was comparing the weapon to the chariot.
Both are bought as upgrades
Both cannot exist alone (No floating weapon nor riderless chariot)
When I give the Overlord the sword, he can join units. Yet when I give him a chariot, you say he cannot he cannot because the chariot does not receive the IC UDSR. But neither does the sword..
In both cases, the ICUSR does not get passed around like cocktail punch. Yet you handle both situations differently.
Also, I am really curious how efffective a CCB Lord is when he joins a unit if you simply let the CCB invoke either the vehicle or the rider profile and followed a commonsense approach to wound allocation (one at a time resolving of any hit to the vehicle profile that could glance or pen).
Keep in mind that with the changes to the LOS rule, you can no longer LOS a character that is a vehicle. This is a huge throttling.
milkboy wrote:Hey Markcron, I've got an example of dual characteristics becoming one model. See if you accept this comparison.
A marine captain has one profile. A power sword has one profile. When you put them together, they are one model. But according to your reasoning that the captains IC rule doesn't get transferred to the other profile, means this poor dude will have to throw away(dismount) his power weapon before joining his brother marines?
I was waiting for this one! The answer is that the weapon is not and was never a model, whereas the Overlord/Rider is.
Glad I could make you happy.
But I was not comparing the weapon to the Overlord. I was comparing the weapon to the chariot.
Both are bought as upgrades
Both cannot exist alone (No floating weapon nor riderless chariot)
When I give the Overlord the sword, he can join units. Yet when I give him a chariot, you say he cannot he cannot because the chariot does not receive the IC UDSR. But neither does the sword..
In both cases, the ICUSR does not get passed around like cocktail punch. Yet you handle both situations differently.
Perhaps you can explain the rationale?
Sure. The chariot, when purchased, is a separate model. Think of the chariot in the same way as a Cryptek or a Lord. The Chariot is capable of separable actions (eg shooting with the chariot weapon) whereas the weapon isn't.
So, because it is a separable model, you have to transfer the IC rule. The fact that the Overlord can't disembark doesn't mean that the models are combined (and PLEASE don't misquote the sentence from the chariot rules again ) It's absolutely clear that an Overlord with a pair of Royal Court Crypteks (or even 1 Cryptek, just to keep the number of models the same) are unable to join a unit, why would a CCB be different?
col_impact wrote: Also, I am really curious how efffective a CCB Lord is when he joins a unit if you simply let the CCB invoke either the vehicle or the rider profile and followed a commonsense approach to wound allocation (one at a time resolving of any hit to the vehicle profile that could glance or pen).
Keep in mind that with the changes to the LOS rule, you can no longer LOS a character that is a vehicle. This is a huge throttling.
Thing is, as FlingItNow has pointed out, if you allow the vehicle profile to be used you end up breaking the game because the unit being shot at is not a "chariot unit". Restricting to the Rider profile doesn't break the game and is a logical follow on from the pro-joining argument.
Much, much easier just to go with RAW - you can't join the unit in the first place
Automatically Appended Next Post:
milkboy wrote: But the chariot can never be a separate model, as much as a sword can be a separate model. It just does not exist in this edition.
I think you have that confused. The Chariot IS the separable model according to the pro joining argument.
Anyway, this is why RAW not joining works. In the Chariot section of the rules there are references to both the Chariot model (dual profiles treated as a single model) and the Rider's model (in the everliving rule adjustment "that model's Chariot").
This whole argument comes down to the definition of the "profile" that gets treated as one. RAW, that doesn't include the special rules or wargear. RAW there is no reference to combining/joining/treating models as one. So the Chariot model and the Rider model are separate. Hence, the Chariot is in the same category as an RC Lord/Cryptek (but a different category to a warscythe ).
col_impact wrote: Also, I am really curious how efffective a CCB Lord is when he joins a unit if you simply let the CCB invoke either the vehicle or the rider profile and followed a commonsense approach to wound allocation (one at a time resolving of any hit to the vehicle profile that could glance or pen).
Keep in mind that with the changes to the LOS rule, you can no longer LOS a character that is a vehicle. This is a huge throttling.
Thing is, as FlingItNow has pointed out, if you allow the vehicle profile to be used you end up breaking the game because the unit being shot at is not a "chariot unit". Restricting to the Rider profile doesn't break the game and is a logical follow on from the pro-joining argument.
Much, much easier just to go with RAW - you can't join the unit in the first place
Wound allocation only breaks if you are a Robot requiring explicit commands coming from the BRB every step of the way.
"Chariot unit . . . does not compute! does not compute! Fzzzzz Pop!"
It's real easy to sort out a commonsense solution. Sure you have to break a little from the exact steps laid out in the BRB, but its easily, easily dealt with.
col_impact wrote: Also, I am really curious how efffective a CCB Lord is when he joins a unit if you simply let the CCB invoke either the vehicle or the rider profile and followed a commonsense approach to wound allocation (one at a time resolving of any hit to the vehicle profile that could glance or pen).
Keep in mind that with the changes to the LOS rule, you can no longer LOS a character that is a vehicle. This is a huge throttling.
Thing is, as FlingItNow has pointed out, if you allow the vehicle profile to be used you end up breaking the game because the unit being shot at is not a "chariot unit". Restricting to the Rider profile doesn't break the game and is a logical follow on from the pro-joining argument.
Much, much easier just to go with RAW - you can't join the unit in the first place
Automatically Appended Next Post:
milkboy wrote: But the chariot can never be a separate model, as much as a sword can be a separate model. It just does not exist in this edition.
I think you have that confused. The Chariot IS the separable model according to the pro joining argument.
Anyway, this is why RAW not joining works. In the Chariot section of the rules there are references to both the Chariot model (dual profiles treated as a single model) and the Rider's model (in the everliving rule adjustment "that model's Chariot").
This whole argument comes down to the definition of the "profile" that gets treated as one. RAW, that doesn't include the special rules or wargear. RAW there is no reference to combining/joining/treating models as one. So the Chariot model and the Rider model are separate. Hence, the Chariot is in the same category as an RC Lord/Cryptek (but a different category to a warscythe ).
So you are saying I can purchase a riderless chariot and field it under heavy support? Since it is a separate model like crypteks, who can be bought without an overlord? That's why they are the same category to you?
Automatically Appended Next Post: That would be exciting if possible. Almost like the headless horseman.
Hmmm. Not sure you should raise common sense here. After all, common sense tells us that joining a vehicle to a unit was clearly not intended....so why are we having this debate?
So you are saying I can purchase a riderless chariot and field it under heavy support? Since it is a separate model like crypteks, who can be bought without an overlord? That's why they are the same category to you?
That would be exciting if possible. Almost like the headless horseman.
Well, you can't actually purchase a cryptek without an overlord. Also, the CCB is not a unit choice in heavy support. So, no . Also, while there are clearly riderless chariots envisaged, the CCB isn't one.
So the now the argument is regarding how to Wound a Chariot that may or may not be joined to a unit? and why or why not it breaks the game...
Let me see, Vehicle (Chariot): Special unit that has two profiles. one profile for the Rider(in this case a Necron Overlord) and one for the Chariot (The CCB) but this unique vehicle is treated as one model. The CCB cannot be purchased in any way shape of form without an Overlord (Rider) while the Overlord can be purchased without the CCB. This parallels a SMIC buying a Bike/Terminator Armour/Jump Pack as part of their profile.
The Player controlling the Chariot Allocates which HIT POOLS go where, unless a Precision shot is landed then the Shouting player allocate that hit. I spelt this out earlier.
As for things like Blasts, Tamplates, and Shooting from a Side that the CCB is not on we would have to treat this the exact same way we treat making saves against a Mixed unit, but in this case we have to shoot/hit/Wound and kill all the models in the unit until the Chariot is the closest model and then resolve shooting against the Chariot as per the Chariot rules. Will this slow down the shooting Phase? yes it will. Will it be annoying for the player shooting? yes it will.
Does it break how to wound the unit? No it does not. It does complicate it, but it does not break it, if you follow simple logic.
This argument reminds me of one regarding FNP and force weapons, two years ago, and look what happened there. IT took an FAQ to resolve it, and it will take nothing less than an FAQ to resolve this.
My question is this... the chariot rules specify it is a model with a dual profile, and if the rider is a character then he cannot desembark or seperate. But where does it say that the new dual profile benefits from the special rules of the character? The only special rule that it mentions having an effect on the chariot model as a whole is one that returns the entire model to play.
So you are saying I can purchase a riderless chariot and field it under heavy support? Since it is a separate model like crypteks, who can be bought without an overlord? That's why they are the same category to you?
That would be exciting if possible. Almost like the headless horseman.
Well, you can't actually purchase a cryptek without an overlord. Also, the CCB is not a unit choice in heavy support. So, no . Also, while there are clearly riderless chariots envisaged, the CCB isn't one.
Well I asked that because you stated that CBC should be in the same category as Cryptek. From what I see that are pretty different and the CBC has more in common with a war scythe. And a Cryptek can be bought with zandrekh, Imotekh as well I think? Whereas the CBC can only be bought by an overlord. With the Overlord shot dead, the Cryptek is still able to move on its own whereas the CCB is unable to. Thus I believe they are different.
Both the CCB and the war scythe are found under options for the Overlords entry in the codex. Both cannot standalone without the Overlord. I cannot understand why you would feel that the CCB needs to receive the IC rule before the mounted Overlord can join a unit, but the war scythe does not need to receive it. I cannot find a rule saying which character upgrade needs to receive ICUSR and which do not.
Thus my point that neither the war scythe nor the CCB need to have the ICUSR transferred, as you have said it must, on quite a few occasion, and is one of the basis for your arguments. For they are the same and what affects one in terms of joining units, should affect another.
chanceafs wrote: War scythe does not change the unit type... CCB does. Thus they are very different.
That's interesting that you mentioned it. When you upgrade a Herald of Khorne with a Juggernaught, it becomes a cavalry type. So I guess he cannot join his Bloodcrushers? That would be a mightily lonely Herald.
@milkboy, can you please clarify what your question about the warscythe is? I'm getting a little confused.
Crypteks, Lords and CCBs are separate models. They are all listed as options for Overlords as well as phase shifters, weapons and other wargear.
Wargear, weapons and special rules attach to models (eg, overlord, cryptek or CCB).
There are clear rules associated with the transfer of special rules between models.
So, can you please quote a rule where weapons and/or wargear are considered as a model? The current situation of comparing non-models with models isn't really progressing the argument anywhere.
Well Markcron, after 9 pages of this, I'm sure you are not the only confused one! Lol
I'll try to explain it simpler for you.
You mentioned that crypteks and CCB are in the same category sp deserve the same treatment when it comes to overlord joining units.
However, crypteks are not listed as options under the Overlord's entry. I'm not sure if you have the Necron codex. Perhaps that is what is causing you confusion.
Only the warscythe and the CCB (after the FAQ hit) are found under the Overlords entry. So I asked why you treated the warscythe and CCB differently, even though both of them are found under the Overlord's entry as options.
BLADERIKER why are you posting that inapplicable rule again. You know why that rule can't be used unless you are claiming that you can cherry pick which rules to use when? Could I for instance start shooting in the middle of your psychic phase? Is that what you are claiming?
If you are claiming that there are two models that must be treated differently in all aspects are you treating the chariot as a single model? I look at the chariot model and it tells me there is a rider and the chariot which are one model. All equipment and USR's have to be part of the chariot else they cannot be used at all. If that wasn't true then when the vehicle moves more than 6" the rider would force it to stop as he can only move infantry speed, the same would apply to skimmer rules.
Re-animation Protocols had to be mentioned due to only adding wounds and would have brought the rider back only to have the rider die again because the chariot rules state without hull points the chariot part is removed taking away the rider.
Gravmyr wrote: If you are claiming that there are two models that must be treated differently in all aspects are you treating the chariot as a single model? I look at the chariot model and it tells me there is a rider and the chariot which are one model. All equipment and USR's have to be part of the chariot else they cannot be used at all. If that wasn't true then when the vehicle moves more than 6" the rider would force it to stop as he can only move infantry speed, the same would apply to skimmer rules.
Re-animation Protocols had to be mentioned due to only adding wounds and would have brought the rider back only to have the rider die again because the chariot rules state without hull points the chariot part is removed taking away the rider.
The same way we did for the mawloc when 5th first came out.... We have no concrete evidence either way.... Simplest is just as has been put fourth with the toughness of the rider being used.
Our problem is that they didn't define what a dual profile is or what does or doesn't affect it, so I would say your treat it as you would a single model and one can only not use something the other has if specifically denies him from using it since it is one model. It does say his Lord profile can't shot the gun b/c it gives us that specific exception.
Like I said if a Hive Tyrant can join a unit of guard exactly like it was an IC and that hasn't been FAQ ed I would have to assume a single model IC that is a Vehicle or MC can join a unit. It is just forbidden to join a unit of vehicles or MCs.
nosferatu1001 wrote: Naw - you failed to support your assertions with rules, again. Concession accepted
I just love these oneliners of yours that contain no substance.
As I don't have now the BRB available, citation "an IC can't join a vehicle (unit)". Look it up.
Now I advice you to back up your claim of an overlord/CCB and another IC joining together with an actual rule quote.
Contained as much substance as your prior post, where you "conveniently" didn't quote the rebuttals which showed your irrelevant arguments to be just that, and destroyed your "argument" ( in quotes, as at no point did you cite a relevant rule) as having any basis.
Page 166 only references the IC joining another unit. At no point does it state the unit has joined the IC. I know this may come as a shock, but going by what is actually written, joining is one directional, and restrictions on joining only apply to the IC joining the unit.
as such, page 166 is my citation. Try again finding YOUR argument where an IC vehicle cannot join a unit.
You have handwaved away this requirement for a few pages now, so a rules quote would be useful. Until you find one, your concessions remains accepted.
With regards to the change in LOS to not be able to be taken by Vehicle characters, do we know for sure if there is anything that this impacts besides possibly the CCB Overlord?
col_impact wrote: With regards to the change in LOS to not be able to be taken by Vehicle characters, do we know for sure if there is anything that this impacts besides possibly the CCB Overlord?
col_impact wrote: With regards to the change in LOS to not be able to be taken by Vehicle characters, do we know for sure if there is anything that this impacts besides possibly the CCB Overlord?
Pask.
not pask since wounds are not allocated to vehicles and he doesn't have wounds, nor the vehicles in his squadron.
col_impact wrote: With regards to the change in LOS to not be able to be taken by Vehicle characters, do we know for sure if there is anything that this impacts besides possibly the CCB Overlord?
Pask.
not pask since wounds are not allocated to vehicles and he doesn't have wounds, nor the vehicles in his squadron.
Only CCB overlord so far.
Without the rule, there'd be a question as to how LOS works in that situation.
There's a rule. There's no question.
col_impact wrote: With regards to the change in LOS to not be able to be taken by Vehicle characters, do we know for sure if there is anything that this impacts besides possibly the CCB Overlord?
Pask.
not pask since wounds are not allocated to vehicles and he doesn't have wounds, nor the vehicles in his squadron.
Only CCB overlord so far.
Without the rule, there'd be a question as to how LOS works in that situation.
There's a rule. There's no question.
But, LOS never worked with Pask and in the 7th edition it still doesn't work, with or without the wording change, since it only works with wounds, correct? So the change didn't impact him since LOS never applied to him, right? Am I missing something? Or are you saying that GW just wanted everything to be extra, extra and gratuitously clear in the case of Pask?
col_impact wrote: With regards to the change in LOS to not be able to be taken by Vehicle characters, do we know for sure if there is anything that this impacts besides possibly the CCB Overlord?
Pask.
not pask since wounds are not allocated to vehicles and he doesn't have wounds, nor the vehicles in his squadron.
Only CCB overlord so far.
Without the rule, there'd be a question as to how LOS works in that situation.
There's a rule. There's no question.
But, LOS never worked with Pask and in the 7th edition it still doesn't work, with or without the wording change. So the change didn't impact him, right? Am I missing something? Or are you saying that GW just wanted everything to be extra, extra clear in the case of Pask?
Yes. Without that rule there'd be confusion. Just like with invul saves for vehicles in 6th, and invul and cover saves for vehicles in 5th, and Hive Guard's ignoring vehicle cover in the 5th ed codex, and Ignores Cover in 6th...
With the current rule there's no confusion, no question.
milkboy wrote:
Only the warscythe and the CCB (after the FAQ hit) are found under the Overlords entry. So I asked why you treated the warscythe and CCB differently, even though both of them are found under the Overlord's entry as options.
I've already explained that. The CCB is a separate model, the warscythe isn't.
Gravmyr wrote:If you are claiming that there are two models that must be treated differently in all aspects are you treating the chariot as a single model? I look at the chariot model and it tells me there is a rider and the chariot which are one model.
Mythra wrote:Our problem is that they didn't define what a dual profile is or what does or doesn't affect it, so I would say your treat it as you would a single model and one can only not use something the other has if specifically denies him from using it since it is one model. It does say his Lord profile can't shot the gun b/c it gives us that specific exception.
Seriously, after 9 pages where the actual, full, paragraph containing the words "treated as a single model" has been reproduced numerous times it's hard to understand why people think the Rider model doesn't exist (especially as it is specifically referred to later on in the rules ). As to definition of profiles, I'd draw picture to illustrate, but GW already did that, so not sure how else to explain a characteristic profile.
For the pro joining crew that persist in taking partial rules out of context, I've found some more benefits of the CCB for you. I'm looking forward to the YMDC thread on these ones!
Tesla weapons roll +2 on the damage table : ERB pg 490 "scores a penetrating hit add a +2 modifier to the roll on the vehicle damage table"
CCB can thunderblitz : ERB pg 527, first para "vehicles may tank shock or ram. When they do so, roll once on the Thunderblitz table"
For the readers with the popcorn the summary of the RAW arguments is in the spoiler below. I hid it in a spoiler because the pro-joining crew don't read it anyway. On with the show!
One more thing, @nosferatu, can you please provide a rulebook reference showing the Chariot is an IC?
Spoiler:
RAW - ANTI JOINING
RAW : Treat 2 characteristic profiles as one model
RAW - ERB Pg 510, first para under "Chariots" = "A Chariot is an unusual unit with a dual profile - a non vehicle profile for the rider of the Chariot (see below), and a vehicle profile for the Chariot itself. However a Chariot is always treated as a single model." For reference the "see below" is to a diagram showing CHARACTERISTIC profiles, with no reference at all to either wargear or special rules. It also does not say "model" anywhere in the example.
RAW : The Rider and Chariot have separate USR which cannot be used by each other
ERB pg 510 under heading "Characters Riding Chariots" = "If the rider has a special rule that returns it to play after it has been removed as a casualty, such as Necron's Ever-living special rule, that model's Chariot is also returned to play with a single Hull Point."
ERB pg 512 "Challenges" = "A Rider who is a character can issue and accept challenges as normal, but cannot perform a glorious intervention".
ERB pg 513 "Special Rules" = "A Chariot has the hammer of wrath special rule ...." and also "A Rider has the Fearless and Relentless special rules. A rider can fire Overwatch if its Chariot is charged, but cannot shoot any of the weapons mounted on the Chariot itself"
Anti Joining RAW Summary
To avoid confusion here are defined terms applicable to the Chariot rules in the ruleboo.:
"Profile" - a representation of CHARACTERISTICS excluding wargear and special rules as shown in the example profile under the Chariot rules in the ERB.
"Model" - a term defined to mean one or more profiles, together with wargear/USR and or other special rules. Note that USR can only be assigned to a model and must be explicity assigned.
"CCB" - a model which is the result of applying the Chariot rules per the ERB. It consists of a Chariot and a Rider.
"Chariot" - The Chariot characteristic profile plus the following wargear and special rules as assigned in the rulebook/Codex: Tesla Cannon/Gauss Cannon, Relentless, Open Topped, Skimmer, Living Metal, Symbiotic Repair, Quantum shielding
"Rider" - The Rider model consisting of the Rider characteristic profile and wargear and special rules as assigned in the rulebook/Codex : Wargear as selected on the Overlord, Independent Character, Ever-Living, Ability to issue and accept challenges, ability to overwatch, Relentless, Fearless, ability to Sweep attack
In summary: RAW - the combination of Characteristic profiles into the CCB does not combine "models". USR and special rules available to the Rider or the Chariot CANNOT be used by the other. The Chariot for example cannot overwatch, nor can it use it's weapon to perform sweep attacks, nor can it accept challenges. The Rider cannot use symbiotic repair or the weapon on the Chariot.
Yes, the RIDER has IC. However, the CCB DOES NOT have it. IC cannot be transferred to any other unit, or model under any circumstances. IF the rider could disembark, then they would be able to join another unit.
Remember, you have to have EXPRESS permission to do something in this rule set.
RAW - PRO JOINING
RAW - ERB Pg 510, EXTRACT from first paragraph "Chariots" = "However a Chariot is always treated as a single model."
Pro Joining RAW Summary The sentence says the Chariot is a single model. Hence all USR for the Rider and Chariot are available to the CCB. This means:
A) The CCB (not the Rider) can issue and accept challenges (in contravention of the BRB)
b) The CCB (not the Rider) can fire overwatch with the Chariot Weapon (in contravention of the BRB)
c) The CCB (Not the Rider) can sweep attack with the Chariot Weapon (Contravening the FAQ and Codex)
d) All references to the "Rider" in the ERB are incorrect as it should say "Chariot" because all special rules need to be assigned to a model, ie the CCB. Therefore the Rider is NOT Fearless and the CCB can be swept in combat. Further the CCB is unable to issue or accept challenges as this authority was granted to a Rider, which doesn't exist.
e) The everliving rule does not apply to the CCB because the ERB clearly states "that model's chariot ...". As there is no Rider Model, this can never happen.
f) The CCB is an independent character and can join units.
One more thing, @nosferatu, can you please provide a rulebook reference showing the Chariot is an IC?
Necron codex, p. 30 / 89. The Chariot isn't a IC, it's a Chariot. It has the ICUSR.
Tesla weapons roll +2 on the damage table : ERB pg 490 "scores a penetrating hit add a +2 modifier to the roll on the vehicle damage table" CCB can thunderblitz : ERB pg 527, first para "vehicles may tank shock or ram. When they do so, roll once on the Thunderblitz table"
This simply proves that you severely lack a very basic understanding of rules. Read the BRB first and ask questions on parts you don't understand before trying to argue, especially from a RAW perspective.
Tesla weapons roll +2 on the damage table : ERB pg 490 "scores a penetrating hit add a +2 modifier to the roll on the vehicle damage table"
CCB can thunderblitz : ERB pg 527, first para "vehicles may tank shock or ram. When they do so, roll once on the Thunderblitz table"
This simply proves that you severely lack a very basic understanding of rules. Read the BRB first and ask questions on parts you don't understand before trying to argue, especially from a RAW perspective.
Apparently you think it is silly when people take only partial statements and use them out of context?
I assume that you are in the anti-joining camp then.
milkboy wrote:
Only the warscythe and the CCB (after the FAQ hit) are found under the Overlords entry. So I asked why you treated the warscythe and CCB differently, even though both of them are found under the Overlord's entry as options.
I've already explained that. The CCB is a separate model, the warscythe isn't.
Pray tell, where is the rule that says the chariot is a separate model? Perhaps you have mentioned it but 9 pages is rather long. Could you quote it again?
And this rule that you quote, does it also mention if the Juggernaut of Khorne is also a separate model?
Actually, that shows the OVERLORD has IC. Please show that the CHARIOT has IC.
Buy the rulebook for 7th and look up the Chariot chapter. It's been stated so often already. Don't discuss stuff when you don't have the rules handy.
I assume that you are in the anti-joining camp then.
I have made my point clear multiple times already in this thread. Read up on it. Not repeating everything for people unwilling to read the rules before talking about them.
Pro Joining RAW Summary The sentence says the Chariot is a single model. Hence all USR for the Rider and Chariot are available to the CCB. This means:
A) The CCB (not the Rider) can issue and accept challenges (in contravention of the BRB)
b) The CCB (not the Rider) can fire overwatch with the Chariot Weapon (in contravention of the BRB)
c) The CCB (Not the Rider) can sweep attack with the Chariot Weapon (Contravening the FAQ and Codex)
d) All references to the "Rider" in the ERB are incorrect as it should say "Chariot" because all special rules need to be assigned to a model, ie the CCB. Therefore the Rider is NOT Fearless and the CCB can be swept in combat. Further the CCB is unable to issue or accept challenges as this authority was granted to a Rider, which doesn't exist.
e) The everliving rule does not apply to the CCB because the ERB clearly states "that model's chariot ...". As there is no Rider Model, this can never happen.
f) The CCB is an independent character and can join units.
Points A through E are a ridiculous summarizing of the "CCB can join units" position. Why do you feel you need to stoop to making a Straw Man argument out of the opposite position? Is your own position that weak?
It's the CCB (via the rider profile) . . . etc. Clean up this summary if you are going to continue posting it.
milkboy wrote:
Only the warscythe and the CCB (after the FAQ hit) are found under the Overlords entry. So I asked why you treated the warscythe and CCB differently, even though both of them are found under the Overlord's entry as options.
I've already explained that. The CCB is a separate model, the warscythe isn't.
Pray tell, where is the rule that says the chariot is a separate model? Perhaps you have mentioned it but 9 pages is rather long. Could you quote it again?
And this rule that you quote, does it also mention if the Juggernaut of Khorne is also a separate model?
RAW - ERB Pg 510, first para under "Chariots" = "A Chariot is an unusual unit with a dual profile - a non vehicle profile for the rider of the Chariot (see below), and a vehicle profile for the Chariot itself. However a Chariot is always treated as a single model."
Not sure what a Juggernaut of Khorne has to do with this? Can you restate the concern again?
I've already explained that. The CCB is a separate model, the warscythe isn't.
not according to the rules.
Please quote the rule you are referring to.
MarkCron wrote: RAW - ERB Pg 510, first para under "Chariots" = "A Chariot is an unusual unit with a dual profile - a non vehicle profile for the rider of the Chariot (see below), and a vehicle profile for the Chariot itself. However a Chariot is always treated as a single model."
Pro Joining RAW Summary The sentence says the Chariot is a single model. Hence all USR for the Rider and Chariot are available to the CCB. This means:
A) The CCB (not the Rider) can issue and accept challenges (in contravention of the BRB)
b) The CCB (not the Rider) can fire overwatch with the Chariot Weapon (in contravention of the BRB)
c) The CCB (Not the Rider) can sweep attack with the Chariot Weapon (Contravening the FAQ and Codex)
d) All references to the "Rider" in the ERB are incorrect as it should say "Chariot" because all special rules need to be assigned to a model, ie the CCB. Therefore the Rider is NOT Fearless and the CCB can be swept in combat. Further the CCB is unable to issue or accept challenges as this authority was granted to a Rider, which doesn't exist.
e) The everliving rule does not apply to the CCB because the ERB clearly states "that model's chariot ...". As there is no Rider Model, this can never happen.
f) The CCB is an independent character and can join units.
Points A through E are a ridiculous summarizing of the "CCB can join units" position. Why do you feel you need to stoop to making a Straw Man argument out of the opposite position? Is your own position that weak?
It's the CCB (via the rider profile) . . . etc. Clean up this summary if you are going to continue posting it.
col_impact, I think you need to look up the definition of straw man. If anything, taking part of a single sentence out of context is a straw man argument. As to the other points they are logical consequences of transferring the rider special rules to the CCB.
And, as we've previously discussed I agree with you that the situation would be different (and can be *interpreted* to be different) if GW had referred to "profiles" everywhere. Fact is they didn't. So you don't have a RAW argument.
Sigvatr wrote:I'm not going to even think about reading the "summary" of someone without a rulebook.
Well played. Make a false assumption then use that to justify not considering the other sides argument.
Oh, and in case you're confused ERB means electronic rule book.
The so-called typical "attacking a straw man" implies an adversarial, polemic, or combative debate, and creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and then to refute or defeat that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the original proposition.
I've already explained that. The CCB is a separate model, the warscythe isn't.
not according to the rules.
Please quote the rule you are referring to.
MarkCron wrote: RAW - ERB Pg 510, first para under "Chariots" = "A Chariot is an unusual unit with a dual profile - a non vehicle profile for the rider of the Chariot (see below), and a vehicle profile for the Chariot itself. However a Chariot is always treated as a single model."
Which part is hilarious? The part where you quote the rule that shows that you only combine the characteristic profiles and effectively disprove the pro-joining theory?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ashikenshin wrote:lol you just quoted the rule itself.
"however a chariot is always treated as a single model."
is it treated as two models? nope, just one. Do you have a rule that states that they are treated as two models?
And for those following along at home, ahsikenshin is perfectly happy with the suggestion that tesla weapons get +2 on the damage roll, and the CCB gets a thunderblitz.
Seriously, where does it say combine 2 MODELS into 1? Sure, as I have always said, you combine two CHARACTERISTIC PROFILES into 1 model. The example shown CLEARLY does not include weapons, wargear or special rules. Later on, the rule book also specifically refers to the rider's MODEL. So, I'll ask the question again - please quote the rule where we combine the two MODELS.
col_impact wrote:STRAW MAN
The so-called typical "attacking a straw man" implies an adversarial, polemic, or combative debate, and creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and then to refute or defeat that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the original proposition.
So I am dead on accurate with my use of the term.
Really? The anti joining argument is clear - you join profiles, not models. It's supported by definitions, references to rider models and is consistent with the rest of the rulebook.
The entire pro-joining argument is based on the proposition that a characteristic profile = model, which is a demonstrably false. So, you set up a different propositiion (profile=model) in order to defeat the "you can't join" proposition. who is running the straw man?
The entire pro-joining argument is based on the proposition that a characteristic profile = model, which is a demonstrably false. So, you set up a different propositiion (profile=model) in order to defeat the "you can't join" proposition.
This is also a Straw Man argument. My argument is not based on that proposition.
I have never used Straw Man tactics. In fact, I have never summarized your argument.
Now you go about summarizing the opposing argument and doing so in a way that misconstrues the argument, so that you can then defeat it. Your A-F point summary is a perfect example of this pathetic argument strategy.
I've already explained that. The CCB is a separate model, the warscythe isn't.
not according to the rules.
Please quote the rule you are referring to.
MarkCron wrote: RAW - ERB Pg 510, first para under "Chariots" = "A Chariot is an unusual unit with a dual profile - a non vehicle profile for the rider of the Chariot (see below), and a vehicle profile for the Chariot itself. However a Chariot is always treated as a single model."
Which part is hilarious? The part where you quote the rule that shows that you only combine the characteristic profiles and effectively disprove the pro-joining theory?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ashikenshin wrote:lol you just quoted the rule itself.
"however a chariot is always treated as a single model."
is it treated as two models? nope, just one. Do you have a rule that states that they are treated as two models?
And for those following along at home, ahsikenshin is perfectly happy with the suggestion that tesla weapons get +2 on the damage roll, and the CCB gets a thunderblitz.
Seriously, where does it say combine 2 MODELS into 1? Sure, as I have always said, you combine two CHARACTERISTIC PROFILES into 1 model. The example shown CLEARLY does not include weapons, wargear or special rules. Later on, the rule book also specifically refers to the rider's MODEL. So, I'll ask the question again - please quote the rule where we combine the two MODELS.
you are on a row with the straw man.
How would tesla get +2 on the damage roll? and why the hell would the CCB get thunderblitz? is it a super-heavy?
here are the rules in full:
“A Chariot is an unusual unit with a dual profile – a non-vehicle profile for the rider of the Chariot (see below), and a vehicle profile for the Chariot itself. However, a Chariot is always treated as a single model. For the purposes of characteristics tests, always use the rider’s profile. Furthermore, any characteristics modifiers that affect a Chariot model apply to both rider and Chariot.”
Excerpt From: Games Workshop. “Warhammer 40,000 (Interactive Edition).” Games Workshop, 2014. iBooks. https://itun.es/us/kNVz0.l
@MarkCron It's very simple, despite your insistence that there are two models per the rules there can't be via the rule you have quoted multiple times. To help us understand what you are attempting to say exactly please explain your stance on these questions.
What does the line about being treated as a single model mean?
If it is two models how do you move the rider at a speed or using abilities (skimmer) different that it's type (infantry)? Per the movement section models move at the speed of their type.
“A Chariot is an unusual unit with a dual profile – a non-vehicle profile for the rider of the Chariot (see below), and a vehicle profile for the Chariot itself. However, a Chariot is always treated as a single model. For the purposes of characteristics tests, always use the rider’s profile. Furthermore, any characteristics modifiers that affect a Chariot model apply to both rider and Chariot.”
Excerpt From: Games Workshop. “Warhammer 40,000 (Interactive Edition).” Games Workshop, 2014. iBooks. https://itun.es/us/kNVz0.l
where does it say it's two models? pray tell
THANK YOU!!!
At last, the rule in full and a sensible question.
Per the rule above, the Chariot MODEL has two characteristic profiles, one for the Rider, and one for the Chariot.
ERB pg 510 "a character mounted on a chariot is referred to as a rider. A rider cannot disembark from his chariot nor can he be targetted separately from his Chariot. If either the rider is reduced to 0 wounds or the Chariot is destroyed, then the entire model is removed from play as a casualty. It the rider has a special rule that returns it to play after it has been removed as a casualty, such as a Necrons Ever-living special rule, that model's Chariot is also returned to play with a single hull point." (emphasis added)
From the above rule, the Rider IS a separate model and can have special rules that the Chariot does not have.
ERB pg 640, "What Special Rules Do I Have" : "It may seem obvious, but unless stated otherwise a model does not have a special rule. Most special rules are given to a model by the relevant Army List
Entry or it's Unit Type."
a) The Necron Codex is an old codex, and the army list entry for the CCB was designed for a dedicated transport, which is obviously incorrect. However, the entry does not grant the CCB model the ICUSR.
b) the allocation of Fearless, Relentless and Overwatch to the Rider (ERB pg 513 " Special Rules") is in accordance with the rule governing allocation of special rules - and is allocated to the Rider model.
Therefore,
The Chariot is a "Model" with two characteristic profiles.
The Chariot may optionally have a Rider, which is a separate model, however the rider cannot disembark.
It is necessary for the rules to specifically assign the ICUSR to the Chariot Model.
Combination of characteristic profiles will ONLY do that if characteristic profile = model.
So, in order for IC to transfer there either needs to be a rule stating that Characteristic profile = model OR for the Chariot model to be specifically assigned the IC.
The Chariot may optionally have a Rider, which is a separate model, however the rider cannot disembark.
This statement is completely against RAW. You are told explicitly that the Chariot is always to be treated as a SINGLE model. The Rider is always a profile and never a separate model.
Let's reiterate my take . . .
Spoiler:
When I upgrade the Necron Overlord to a CCB, I replace his model with the Chariot (CCB). We are told explicitly that the Chariot (CCB) is treated as a single model and that it has a dual profile (rider and vehicle).
The rules provide ways in which the dual profiles interoperate and which profile kicks in for which circumstance. The profiles operate in different domains for the single CCB model.
So the single CCB model can overwatch and can accept challenges via the rider profile, for example. It's not the rider as a model who does these things, but the CCB via a profile that does these things. When the rider accepts a challenge I do not take the rider out of the CCB and have him fight the challenge outside of the CCB. That would be 6th edition (where the rider has to disembark from a dedicated transport to do that).
MarkCron, your problem is that you are being told explicitly by the rules to treat the CCB as a single model with a dual profile and you somehow want to retain that you have 2 models. You are not accepting RAW. I am not misquoting the line. I am accepting it RAW. You are not accepting the definition laid out before you by the rules of the Chariot when it is defined as a single model with a dual profile.
From the BRB,
"A Chariot is an unusual unit with a dual profile - a non vehicle profile for the rider of the Chariot (see below), and a vehicle profile for the Chariot itself. However a Chariot is always treated as a single model. For the purposes of characteristics tests, always use the rider's profile. Furthermore, any characteristics modifiers that affect a Chariot model apply to both rider and Chariot."
Your response to RAW . . . " Nah, I still got two models, I don't have to follow that line because it's contradicted by their choice of words later"
My response to RAW . . . "Okay, by definition I now have a single model with a dual profile. Got it."
OK now that we have covered that a chariot is one model and you have stated that the rider is part of that model we have a basis. I look at the chariot model, which the rider is part of, so the model has IC...
Gravmyr wrote: OK now that we have covered that a chariot is one model and you have stated that the rider is part of that model we have a basis. I look at the chariot model, which the rider is part of, so the model has IC...
@col_impact, @gravmyr.
Please read the posts in full, before you take statements out of context. The Rider is a separate model (granted, you can move it separately, but being unable to disembark does not make it "not a model". The Chariot is a separate model. The Rider (as a model) has special rules. The Chariot (as a model) has special rules.
I understand completely what you are saying. The instruction to treat 2 characteristic profiles as one model actually removes "the model" from the Rider.
You are implicitly making 2 assumptions:
1) Characteristic profile = model
2) Special rules combine and are not lost.
As has been posted many times, including by yourself, a Chariot is always treated as a single model. They did not state for only part of each model or just as far as the profiles are concerned. Since there is no limit to this all abilities had by rider or chariot are part of the Chariot. Special rules would need to be removed from both rider and chariot for them to not apply to the Chariot. How do you determine what USR's a model has? To speed this up, you look at it's army list entry and unit type. As a Chariot we would have to look at both the Overlord and CCB, on which IC resides.
In the case of the CCB, all the stuff that you find in the codex for the Necron Overlord goes on the rider profile and all the stuff you find on the CCB goes on the vehicle profile and the Chariot is the single model with these two profiles. There are rules laid out for how the two profiles interoperate.
chanceafs wrote: War scythe does not change the unit type... CCB does. Thus they are very different.
Same goes for these other Options found in other Codex's.
Bike: Changes unit type to Bike
Jet Bike: Changes unit type to jet bike.
Jump Pack: changes unit type to Jump Infantry.
Calvary: Changes unit type to Calvary.
Wings: Changes unit type to Jump Monstrous Creature/Flying Monstrous Creature.
Of the above no one will question whether or not an IC taking one of these unit changing upgrades is still an IC, there are exceptions to this given in both the FAQ's and the relevant codex's but those are few and far between.
Why then, if just like all of the above mentioned upgrades taken by a model retains all of purchasing models USR's, is it prohibited or expressly stated anywhere that a Chariot is exempt to this effect?
Chariot: changes unit type to Chariot.
This is 7th Ed and this is an old unit type getting an overhaul, and here is something very new and confusing to many people.
"The CCB (Not the Rider) can sweep attack with the Chariot Weapon (Contravening the FAQ and Codex)"
Don't you get why they had to put these exceptions in? B/c they are a single model and if they didn't we would be able to do all these things restricted.
Single model can use all his war gear and abilities unless a rule restricts him from doing so.
Are you saying a single model can't use it's war gear or special abilities unless given permission to do so? Any single model CAN use all its war gear and special abilities.
The rules clearly state a MC uses all his rules and if you add Jump he uses all those rules too.
This is incorrect as stated before and IC cannot join a vehicle or MC but a ICMC or Vehicle can join units as happens quite a lot its a one directional joining. There is no rule stating a vehicle cannot join a unit or we wouldnt have vehicle units :/
Also @BLADERIKER the examples your giving while making a kond of sense to give dont really apply as the model is still a single profile this arguement is over the fact that it is a dual profile model which os where the confusion comes from so isn't really like getting wings or a bike.
Cant remeber who said it as on phone but Markcron has proven time and again he has the rulebook and is taking quotes from it so no need to attack him saying he doesnt have it instead actually debate his arguements as the attacks arent helping.
The only other arguement ive seen come close to this is the naestra and arahan on eagle which is a dual peofile considered as one model and there was no real conclusion on.that Gw just dont write dual profiles very well and dont take into full consideration the implications it seems.
Sorry I cant be more help people like milksop and markcron have more logical arguments than mine
It's true vehicles can join other vehicles as long as they have the squadron rule, a chariot does not have that rule.
Also no where in the chariot section does it mention the word IC. JUST rider and chariot. Every rule quoted there are for the rider and chariot and how those two things interact with each other. Absolutely nothing on how the chariot interacts with rider, chariot, and unit it joins. There's no permission to join a unit of wraiths, or anything else for that matter, not even another chariot . You do have permission to use the riders characteristics, but not it's special rules. It's not hard to understand if you just stop trying to break the game.
It even acknowledges every living from the necron codex and how it interacts with the rider and the chariot.
Lungpickle wrote: It's true vehicles can join other vehicles as long as they have the squadron rule, a chariot does not have that rule.
Also no where in the chariot section does it mention the word IC. JUST rider and chariot. Every rule quoted there are for the rider and chariot and how those two things interact with each other. Absolutely nothing on how the chariot interacts with rider, chariot, and unit it joins. There's no permission to join a unit of wraiths, or anything else for that matter, not even another chariot . You do have permission to use the riders characteristics, but not it's special rules. It's not hard to understand if you just stop trying to break the game.
It even acknowledges every living from the necron codex and how it interacts with the rider and the chariot.
If, as you feel, there is no permission for the chariot to join units, why was it necessary for the daemon faq to mentioned that the IC rule is removed?
I gotta give one thing to Shadar: the rule "A Chariot is always treated as a single model." is a typical ambigious GW rule that's open for all kinds of interpretations. For example, what the hell is that "always" supposed to mean?! Goddamn it GW!
milkboy wrote:
Only the warscythe and the CCB (after the FAQ hit) are found under the Overlords entry. So I asked why you treated the warscythe and CCB differently, even though both of them are found under the Overlord's entry as options.
I've already explained that. The CCB is a separate model, the warscythe isn't.
Pray tell, where is the rule that says the chariot is a separate model? Perhaps you have mentioned it but 9 pages is rather long. Could you quote it again?
And this rule that you quote, does it also mention if the Juggernaut of Khorne is also a separate model?
Not sure what a Juggernaut of Khorne has to do with this? Can you restate the concern again?
Hmmmm I would like to restate the concern but it is very hard to do so when you keep interpreting single models as two separate models.
I think I will end my discussion with you because I cannot discuss when your logical leaps (since the overlord is a single model, therefore the chariot is also a separate model etc) seem to be quite a large leap in this case. Our initial premise never coincides, as you have chosen your interpretation of "chariot and rider are a single model"
You can have the last word; that is perfectly fine with me. I hope your group of friends/FLGS support your interpretation because I'm sure you'll have more fun playing the game than trying to convince everyone that the Overlord and Chariot are two separate models.
Don't you hate cleaning up after other peoples work?
Shall we reproduce the entire paragraph?
What about the 
