So.. the mekaniak rule in the ork codex says that you can have a "free" (not foc slotted) mek for each HQ, but they have to join an infantry or artillery type unit..

So, I wanted two meks, and I want to join them BOTH to my big mek (he's an infantry type after all)... I can't see any rules that say you can't join two meks to the same unit...

???

Looks fine to me.

The only problem comes when the Big Mek tries to leave the unit... (I believe there was a discussion on this when the Codex came out)

Joining two 'Little' Meks to a Big Mek at the start of the game is no issue.

Having the Big Mek subsequently leave using his Independent Character rules and leaving the two 'Little' Meks as a small unit of two is also no issue.

It seems counterintuitive, but works just fine within the framework of the rules.

Kriswall, where I'd there permission for an IC to leave the IC unit? The Big Mek unit in this case consists of three models. The Big Mek is not attached to the Meks so would not be able to leave their unit.

 Happyjew wrote:
Kriswall, where I'd there permission for an IC to leave the IC unit? The Big Mek unit in this case consists of three models. The Big Mek is not attached to the Meks so would not be able to leave their unit.

I don't have my rulebooks with me right now. Would you be able to quote the Mekaniaks rule for me? My initial understanding is that the rules require you to Join the Meks to an Infantry unit at the start of the game. The Meks can't leave this unit as they don't have the Independent Character rule. The unit would be a "Big Mek Unit". If the Big Mek then chooses to leave the "Big Mek Unit" using his standard IC rules (which allow him to leave the unit he is attached to), you'd be left with two Meks in a "Big Mek Unit" and a Big Mek alone in a "Big Mek Unit". The name of the unit isn't really relevant. By killing off enough Fire Warriors but not Drones, you can have a "Fire Warriors Unit" composed of nothing but the attached Gun Drones. You can have a "Necron Warriors Unit" composed of Lords and Crypteks.

So, what I'm really saying is thay the IC has a permission to leave an Infantry Unit as a part of the IC rules. The fact that it's HIS initial unit doesn't seem to have any impact at all. You'd need to show a restriction preventing him from leaving.

Here's a similar situation.

1. Warboss and Big Mek are standing 6" apart.
2. Warboss moves within coherency and joins the "Big Mek Unit".
3. They krump some heads together for 3 turns.
4. Big Mek decides to leave coherency and move off on his own.

Is this allowed? Surely, yes as I can find nothing preventing it. You have another game situation where an IC is leaving "his own unit".

 Kriswall wrote:
Here's a similar situation.

1. Warboss and Big Mek are standing 6" apart.
2. Warboss moves within coherency and joins the "Big Mek Unit".
3. They krump some heads together for 3 turns.
4. Big Mek decides to leave coherency and move off on his own.

Is this allowed? Surely, yes as I can find nothing preventing it. You have another game situation where an IC is leaving "his own unit".

Not similar. The Big Mek isn't leaving the Big Mek unit, the Warboss is. We know this because the Warboss opted to end his movement phase more than 2" away from the Big Mek unit.

Thanks Guys... my main concern is that they can form a unit under the mekaniak rule... I don't intend to have them separate, but if they do I'll ask my mates to decide between us. I am way too inexperienced to do tournaments so it's all good.

Thanks again everyone!

rigeld2 wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
Here's a similar situation.

1. Warboss and Big Mek are standing 6" apart.
2. Warboss moves within coherency and joins the "Big Mek Unit".
3. They krump some heads together for 3 turns.
4. Big Mek decides to leave coherency and move off on his own.

Is this allowed? Surely, yes as I can find nothing preventing it. You have another game situation where an IC is leaving "his own unit".

Not similar. The Big Mek isn't leaving the Big Mek unit, the Warboss is. We know this because the Warboss opted to end his movement phase more than 2" away from the Big Mek unit.

To be more specific...

The Warboss remains stationary and doesn't move at all in the turn that the Big Mek moves and leaves coherency. We know from the IC rules that the act of leaving a unit requires that the IC move out of coherency with it. If the Warboss is remaining stationary, he can't possibly be the one leaving the unit as he isn't moving. For context, from the IC rules (no page because... eBook!). "An Independent Character can leave a unit during the Movement phase by moving out of unit coherency with it." Leaving a unit requires movement. If the Warboss isn't moving, he isn't the one leaving. He's being left.

 Kriswall wrote:
The Warboss remains stationary and doesn't move at all in the turn that the Big Mek moves and leaves coherency. We know from the IC rules that the act of leaving a unit requires that the IC move out of coherency with it. If the Warboss is remaining stationary, he can't possibly be the one leaving the unit as he isn't moving. For context, from the IC rules (no page because... eBook!). "An Independent Character can leave a unit during the Movement phase by moving out of unit coherency with it." Leaving a unit requires movement. If the Warboss isn't moving, he isn't the one leaving. He's being left.

Not legal. As you stated, an IC has to move out of coherency - not moving isn't moving.
The Big Mek can't leave his own unit and his move left his unit out of coherency. Either the Warboss has to move (anywhere - even half an inch forward and back would do so he doesn't move on the table) or the Big Mek has to move back to coherency.

Can you provide any sort of rule saying the Big Mek can't leave the unit? He's in A unit. He has general permission as an IC to leave A unit. Please provide a rules quote as I've done.

Because, for the life of me, I can't find any reason why he wouldn't be able to leave the unit.

 Kriswall wrote:
Can you provide any sort of rule saying the Big Mek can't leave the unit? He's in A unit. He has general permission as an IC to leave A unit. Please provide a rules quote as I've done.

Because, for the life of me, I can't find any reason why he wouldn't be able to leave the unit.

He tries to leave the Big Mek unit, this creates a Big Mek unit. Which he's leaving. Which creates one. But he's leaving that. Well then let's make one. BUT HE'S LEAVING IT. I KNOW THAT, SO LET'S CREATE THAT UNIT FOR HIM.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
Can you provide any sort of rule saying the Big Mek can't leave the unit? He's in A unit. He has general permission as an IC to leave A unit. Please provide a rules quote as I've done.

Because, for the life of me, I can't find any reason why he wouldn't be able to leave the unit.

He tries to leave the Big Mek unit, this creates a Big Mek unit. Which he's leaving. Which creates one. But he's leaving that. Well then let's make one. BUT HE'S LEAVING IT. I KNOW THAT, SO LET'S CREATE THAT UNIT FOR HIM.

why can't two Big Mek units exist simultaneously?

So it would read: He tries to leave the first Big Mek unit, which creates a Big Mek unit. So now there are two Big Mek units. Hooray!

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
Can you provide any sort of rule saying the Big Mek can't leave the unit? He's in A unit. He has general permission as an IC to leave A unit. Please provide a rules quote as I've done.

Because, for the life of me, I can't find any reason why he wouldn't be able to leave the unit.

He tries to leave the Big Mek unit, this creates a Big Mek unit. Which he's leaving. Which creates one. But he's leaving that. Well then let's make one. BUT HE'S LEAVING IT. I KNOW THAT, SO LET'S CREATE THAT UNIT FOR HIM.

why can't two Big Mek units exist simultaneously?

So it would read: He tries to leave the first Big Mek unit, which creates a Big Mek unit. So now there are two Big Mek units. Hooray!

So there's a Warboss as the only model in the Big Mek unit?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
Can you provide any sort of rule saying the Big Mek can't leave the unit? He's in A unit. He has general permission as an IC to leave A unit. Please provide a rules quote as I've done.

Because, for the life of me, I can't find any reason why he wouldn't be able to leave the unit.

He tries to leave the Big Mek unit, this creates a Big Mek unit. Which he's leaving. Which creates one. But he's leaving that. Well then let's make one. BUT HE'S LEAVING IT. I KNOW THAT, SO LET'S CREATE THAT UNIT FOR HIM.

why can't two Big Mek units exist simultaneously?

So it would read: He tries to leave the first Big Mek unit, which creates a Big Mek unit. So now there are two Big Mek units. Hooray!

Except there is not a second Big Mek unit. There is a Big Mek unit composed of two Meks, and a Big Mek model who is not part of a unit (since he left his own unit). This provides some protection as you cannot target the Big Mek (since you can only target units). On the down side he cannot do anything except stand there, since you nominate units to move, and he is not in a unit.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
Can you provide any sort of rule saying the Big Mek can't leave the unit? He's in A unit. He has general permission as an IC to leave A unit. Please provide a rules quote as I've done.

Because, for the life of me, I can't find any reason why he wouldn't be able to leave the unit.

He tries to leave the Big Mek unit, this creates a Big Mek unit. Which he's leaving. Which creates one. But he's leaving that. Well then let's make one. BUT HE'S LEAVING IT. I KNOW THAT, SO LET'S CREATE THAT UNIT FOR HIM.

I don't see the problem. Units don't really have names. That's something you're adding. It's simply a unit. The IC is a member of the Unit. He has permission to leave any Unit he is a member of by moving out of coherency with the Unit.

If we start with a Unit composed of a Big Mek and two 'Little' Meks and then have the Big Mek leave, we're left with two Units... a Unit composed of a Big Mek and a Unit composed of two 'Little Meks'. The rules don't provide names for these units. If you believe this is a thing, please provide a rules quote. As much as I enjoy your all caps screaming, it just makes it sound like you're confused but have no actual rules evidence.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
Can you provide any sort of rule saying the Big Mek can't leave the unit? He's in A unit. He has general permission as an IC to leave A unit. Please provide a rules quote as I've done.

Because, for the life of me, I can't find any reason why he wouldn't be able to leave the unit.

He tries to leave the Big Mek unit, this creates a Big Mek unit. Which he's leaving. Which creates one. But he's leaving that. Well then let's make one. BUT HE'S LEAVING IT. I KNOW THAT, SO LET'S CREATE THAT UNIT FOR HIM.

why can't two Big Mek units exist simultaneously?

So it would read: He tries to leave the first Big Mek unit, which creates a Big Mek unit. So now there are two Big Mek units. Hooray!

So there's a Warboss as the only model in the Big Mek unit?

Nope. The Warboss is an IC and would default back to a unit of just himself as soon as he's alone. If you feel the need to name things, he would become a "Warboss Unit". I suggest you review the rules for ICs. This is all pretty straightforward in the BRB.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Happyjew wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
Can you provide any sort of rule saying the Big Mek can't leave the unit? He's in A unit. He has general permission as an IC to leave A unit. Please provide a rules quote as I've done.

Because, for the life of me, I can't find any reason why he wouldn't be able to leave the unit.

He tries to leave the Big Mek unit, this creates a Big Mek unit. Which he's leaving. Which creates one. But he's leaving that. Well then let's make one. BUT HE'S LEAVING IT. I KNOW THAT, SO LET'S CREATE THAT UNIT FOR HIM.

why can't two Big Mek units exist simultaneously?

So it would read: He tries to leave the first Big Mek unit, which creates a Big Mek unit. So now there are two Big Mek units. Hooray!

Except there is not a second Big Mek unit. There is a Big Mek unit composed of two Meks, and a Big Mek model who is not part of a unit (since he left his own unit). This provides some protection as you cannot target the Big Mek (since you can only target units). On the down side he cannot do anything except stand there, since you nominate units to move, and he is not in a unit.

What does this even mean? If an IC leaves the unit he's with and is now alone he exists as a unit by himself. Of course you can target a lone Big Mek and move him, etc. I can't tell if you're being serious.

 Kriswall wrote:
I don't see the problem. Units don't really have names. That's something you're adding. It's simply a unit. The IC is a member of the Unit. He has permission to leave any Unit he is a member of by moving out of coherency with the Unit.

Out of coherency with what unit? He didn't join one, so it must be his unit. How can he move out of coherency with himself?

This is pretty clear in the BRB. I suggest you review the rules for ICs instead of pretending you have some comprehensive understanding that must be correct and talking down to people who correct you.

 Kriswall wrote:
I don't see the problem. Units don't really have names. That's something you're adding.

The codex says otherwise. Please see 'Forces of the Orks' where they describe the army list entries, specifically point 3:

3. Unit Name: Here you will find the name of the unit.

Units do have names.

 Kriswall wrote:
Units don't really have names. That's something you're adding. It's simply a unit. The IC is a member of the Unit. He has permission to leave any Unit he is a member of by moving out of coherency with the Unit.

Unit's don't have names?

You appear to be a Tau player so I'll use the Tau codex.

Please open your codex to the section entitled "Army of the Third Sphere" (page 94 if using the hardback). Then find the section titled "Army List Entries".

Right below that there should be a picture of a datasheet if you will or an Army List (which ever you would prefer to call it). Below that picture there is a description of what each part is.

Please tell me what Number 1 in the picture is called.

Note that the epub version updated for 7th edition has the "1" in the wrong location.

Units are made up of 1 or more models.

Although we as players assign names to our units for ease of communication, there are no such things as named units.

A Big Mek is a unit.

You may attach meks to any artillery or infantry unit.

If the big mek is infantry (ie no bike) you can attach meks to him. There is no limitation on how many.

A big mek and 2 meks is a unit. it is not a "big mek unit", it is just a unit.

The big mek by the RAW may leave the unit as an IC if it moves out of unit coherency by its move action.

Doing so would make the big mek a unit again, of just the big mek.

and would leave the remaining models behind in their own unit, which would be the two meks.

There is no restriction on an IC leaving a unit containing meks and having to take the meks with him, and the meks are obviously models with rules.

Units are made of models, not of named dataslates.

As such the models left behind have no requirement to go with the IC, and stay as their own unit.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
I don't see the problem. Units don't really have names. That's something you're adding. It's simply a unit. The IC is a member of the Unit. He has permission to leave any Unit he is a member of by moving out of coherency with the Unit.

Out of coherency with what unit? He didn't join one, so it must be his unit. How can he move out of coherency with himself?

This is pretty clear in the BRB. I suggest you review the rules for ICs instead of pretending you have some comprehensive understanding that must be correct and talking down to people who correct you.

Is the group of models consisting of the Big Mek and two little Meks a Unit? Is the Big Mek a member of that Unit? Can the Big Mek move such that he ends his movement more than 2" away from the two little Meks and therefore leave coherency with the other models in that Unit? I would answer yes to all three questions. I can find nothing in the rules indicating a no.

If you would answer no to any of these questions, I'd like to see your rule supported argument. I'm perfectly willing to admit I'm wrong if you can provide compelling evidence. If your intent is to keep saying that it's a Big Mek unit and the Big Mek can't leave a Big Mek unit but with no rules to support your position, then please label this as HIWPI.

And to answer your question, he is out of coherency with the unit that he was a part of. He didn't join one, but two other models did join him (the Meks), which resulted in him being in a Unit composed of three models. He's not moving out of coherency with himself. He's moving out of coherency with the rest of his Unit.

blaktoof wrote:
Although we as players assign names to our units for ease of communication, there are no such things as named units.

As shown in multiple posts above yours, this is an incorrect statement. Therefore any conclusion drawn from it cannot be correct.

blaktoof, as Ghaz and I have pointed out all units have names.

For example the unit "Commander Farsight" consists of a model called "Commander Farsight". Whereas the unit named "Fire Warrior Team" consists of 6 models called "Fire Warrior" (although you can add more, or change the composition).

 Ghaz wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
I don't see the problem. Units don't really have names. That's something you're adding.

The codex says otherwise. Please see 'Forces of the Orks' where they describe the army list entries, specifically point 3:

3. Unit Name: Here you will find the name of the unit.

Units do have names.

Granted. They have names. Doesn't change anything since the IC rules allow leaving A unit and not a specifically named unit.

 Kriswall wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
I don't see the problem. Units don't really have names. That's something you're adding. It's simply a unit. The IC is a member of the Unit. He has permission to leave any Unit he is a member of by moving out of coherency with the Unit.

Out of coherency with what unit? He didn't join one, so it must be his unit. How can he move out of coherency with himself?

This is pretty clear in the BRB. I suggest you review the rules for ICs instead of pretending you have some comprehensive understanding that must be correct and talking down to people who correct you.

Is the group of models consisting of the Big Mek and two little Meks a Unit? Is the Big Mek a member of that Unit? Can the Big Mek move such that he ends his movement more than 2" away from the two little Meks and therefore leave coherency with the other models in that Unit? I would answer yes to all three questions. I can find nothing in the rules indicating a no.

It's almost like we were discussing a completely different example.
OH WE WERE. Thanks. You provided an example, I was addressing that example.

And to answer your question, he is out of coherency with the unit that he was a part of. He didn't join one, but two other models did join him (the Meks), which resulted in him being in a Unit composed of three models. He's not moving out of coherency with himself. He's moving out of coherency with the rest of his Unit.

Please note that I was addressing your example with the Warboss. You are moving the goalposts.

So... given that Units have names...

Big Mek is deployed and two Meks join him. This is a Big Mek Unit.

Big Mek leaves the unit by moving out of coherency. We now have two Units. A Big Mek unit consisting of 2 Meks and a Big Mek unit consisting of a Big Mek.

Where is the problem? Can you not get past the concept that the rules allow for a Big Mek unit with no Big Meks in it?

Kriswall, I have a Big Mek. He is part of the unit called "Big Mek" (unless he joins another unit). Correct?
I attach a Mek (or two) the the unit named "Big Mek" which normally consists of "1 Big Mek". The Big Mek attempts to leave the unit. What is the name of the unit the Big Mek is in, and what is the name of the unit the Mek(s) are in? Where did this other unit come from? How does the Big Mek leave the Big Mek unit? In order to do so he must end his move more than 2" away from any member of the unit, which includes himself.

You're requiring the Big Mek to leave himself.

 Kriswall wrote:
So... given that Units have names...

Yay! You can admit you were wrong!

Big Mek is deployed and two Meks join him. This is a Big Mek Unit.

Big Mek leaves the unit by moving out of coherency. We now have two Units. A Big Mek unit consisting of 2 Meks and a Big Mek unit consisting of a Big Mek.

Where is the problem? Can you not get past the concept that the rules allow for a Big Mek unit with no Big Meks in it?

What unit is the Big Mek leaving? Oh - he's leaving his unit. Not the unit he joined - *his* unit.
Please explain how an IC leaves a unit he hasn't joined.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
I don't see the problem. Units don't really have names. That's something you're adding. It's simply a unit. The IC is a member of the Unit. He has permission to leave any Unit he is a member of by moving out of coherency with the Unit.

Out of coherency with what unit? He didn't join one, so it must be his unit. How can he move out of coherency with himself?

This is pretty clear in the BRB. I suggest you review the rules for ICs instead of pretending you have some comprehensive understanding that must be correct and talking down to people who correct you.

Is the group of models consisting of the Big Mek and two little Meks a Unit? Is the Big Mek a member of that Unit? Can the Big Mek move such that he ends his movement more than 2" away from the two little Meks and therefore leave coherency with the other models in that Unit? I would answer yes to all three questions. I can find nothing in the rules indicating a no.

It's almost like we were discussing a completely different example.
OH WE WERE. Thanks. You provided an example, I was addressing that example.

And to answer your question, he is out of coherency with the unit that he was a part of. He didn't join one, but two other models did join him (the Meks), which resulted in him being in a Unit composed of three models. He's not moving out of coherency with himself. He's moving out of coherency with the rest of his Unit.

Please note that I was addressing your example with the Warboss. You are moving the goalposts.

Ah... gotcha. Still, my answers remain valid. The Big Mek left the unit he was a part of (composed of the Big Mek and Warboss). This causes the Big Mek to form a new Big Mek unit and the old unit to become a Warboss Unit as it's now composed of a single Warboss. The Big Mek never moved out of coherency with himself, he moved out of coherency with a Unit that happens to share the same name.

rigeld2 wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
Although we as players assign names to our units for ease of communication, there are no such things as named units.

As shown in multiple posts above yours, this is an incorrect statement. Therefore any conclusion drawn from it cannot be correct.

Having reviewed the quoted page I agree.

However.

The unit is not the big meks unit, it is the meks unit.

Although the meks are assigned to the Big Mek during deployment, the Big mek is an IC and the meks are not. As such the Big mek is the one attached to the unit and counts as a member of the unit for all rules purposes, and in essence is a member of the mek unit once the game begins.

as such the Big mek has permission to leave the mek unit as per the rules for independent characters as normal.

a mek cannot leave the unit it is part of, but the big mek may. as such the meks are left in the mek unit.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
So... given that Units have names...

Yay! You can admit you were wrong!

Big Mek is deployed and two Meks join him. This is a Big Mek Unit.

Big Mek leaves the unit by moving out of coherency. We now have two Units. A Big Mek unit consisting of 2 Meks and a Big Mek unit consisting of a Big Mek.

Where is the problem? Can you not get past the concept that the rules allow for a Big Mek unit with no Big Meks in it?

What unit is the Big Mek leaving? Oh - he's leaving his unit. Not the unit he joined - *his* unit.
Please explain how an IC leaves a unit he hasn't joined.

Is it your contention that if I have a Unit composed of 20 Big Meks that only 19 of them can leave the unit? That the one initial Big Mek can't leave the Unit because he's somehow magically glued into it? Can you provide literally ANY rules quote to back this up.

An IC doesn't have to Join a unit to be able to Leave a unit. He just has to be IN a Unit to Leave it. This is what the rules say. I quoted them earlier in this thread.

Kriswall, how does an IC leave a unit?

 Happyjew wrote:
Kriswall, how does an IC leave a unit?

IC rules section... "An Independent Character can leave a unit during the Movement phase by moving out of coherency with it."

Please note that there is no other qualification on unit other than A unit. The IC just has to be in A unit to be able to leave it.

 Kriswall wrote:
Is it your contention that if I have a Unit composed of 20 Big Meks that only 19 of them can leave the unit? That the one initial Big Mek can't leave the Unit because he's somehow magically glued into it? Can you provide literally ANY rules quote to back this up.

Yes, that's what the rules say.

Now - read that carefully. There are multiple distinctions between the IC and the unit. In the case of the Warboss/20 BM unit there is no distinction - the last Big Mek is the unit. It's his unit. He never joined it or left his original unit.

An IC doesn't have to Join a unit to be able to Leave a unit. He just has to be IN a Unit to Leave it. This is what the rules say. I quoted them earlier in this thread.

Incorrect.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

blaktoof wrote:
The unit is not the big meks unit, it is the meks unit.

Although the meks are assigned to the Big Mek during deployment, the Big mek is an IC and the meks are not. As such the Big mek is the one attached to the unit and counts as a member of the unit for all rules purposes, and in essence is a member of the mek unit once the game begins.

as such the Big mek has permission to leave the mek unit as per the rules for independent characters as normal.

a mek cannot leave the unit it is part of, but the big mek may. as such the meks are left in the mek unit.

Incorrect. The Meks join the Infantry unit, as defined by their actual rule. Asserting otherwise would require a rule. Please provide one.

 Kriswall wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
Kriswall, how does an IC leave a unit?

IC rules section... "An Independent Character can leave a unit during the Movement phase by moving out of coherency with it."

Please note that there is no other qualification on unit other than A unit. The IC just has to be in A unit to be able to leave it.

What does out of coherency mean?

So how does a Big Mek move out of coherency with himself? He's always going to be within 2" of himself.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
Is it your contention that if I have a Unit composed of 20 Big Meks that only 19 of them can leave the unit? That the one initial Big Mek can't leave the Unit because he's somehow magically glued into it? Can you provide literally ANY rules quote to back this up.

Yes, that's what the rules say.

Spoiler:

An Independent Character can leave a unit during the Movement phase by moving out of unit coherency with it. ...

An Independent Character cannot leave a unit while either he or the unit is in Reserves, locked in combat, Falling Back or has Gone to Ground. He cannot join a unit that is in Reserves, locked in combat or Falling Back. If an Independent Character joins a unit, and all other models in that unit are killed, he again becomes a unit of one model at the start of the following phase.[

Now - read that carefully. There are multiple distinctions between the IC and the unit. In the case of the Warboss/20 BM unit there is no distinction - the last Big Mek is the unit. It's his unit. He never joined it or left his original unit.

An IC doesn't have to Join a unit to be able to Leave a unit. He just has to be IN a Unit to Leave it. This is what the rules say. I quoted them earlier in this thread.

Incorrect.

The only restriction I see on not being able to leave a unit is that the he or the Unit can't be locked in combat, in reserves, falling back or gone to ground. I don't see that any of these things are the case in our example. Given that none of the 4 restrictions in the rules apply, what restriction are you using to prevent the Big Mek from leaving the unit he is a part of? Again, a rules quote would be nice.

And of course there is a difference between the IC and the Unit he's in. I don't think the Unit composed of the Big Mek and two Meks is a single IC model. That would be ridiculous.

Kriswall, what does "out of coherency" mean"

 Happyjew wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
Kriswall, how does an IC leave a unit?

IC rules section... "An Independent Character can leave a unit during the Movement phase by moving out of coherency with it."

Please note that there is no other qualification on unit other than A unit. The IC just has to be in A unit to be able to leave it.

What does out of coherency mean?

Moving out of coherency means moving a model such that the model ends its movement more than 2" away from the rest of the models in the unit.

 Kriswall wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
Is it your contention that if I have a Unit composed of 20 Big Meks that only 19 of them can leave the unit? That the one initial Big Mek can't leave the Unit because he's somehow magically glued into it? Can you provide literally ANY rules quote to back this up.

Yes, that's what the rules say.

Spoiler:

An Independent Character can leave a unit during the Movement phase by moving out of unit coherency with it. ...

An Independent Character cannot leave a unit while either he or the unit is in Reserves, locked in combat, Falling Back or has Gone to Ground. He cannot join a unit that is in Reserves, locked in combat or Falling Back. If an Independent Character joins a unit, and all other models in that unit are killed, he again becomes a unit of one model at the start of the following phase.[

Now - read that carefully. There are multiple distinctions between the IC and the unit. In the case of the Warboss/20 BM unit there is no distinction - the last Big Mek is the unit. It's his unit. He never joined it or left his original unit.

An IC doesn't have to Join a unit to be able to Leave a unit. He just has to be IN a Unit to Leave it. This is what the rules say. I quoted them earlier in this thread.

Incorrect.

The only restriction I see on not being able to leave a unit is that the he or the Unit can't be locked in combat, in reserves, falling back or gone to ground. I don't see that any of these things are the case in our example. Given that none of the 4 restrictions in the rules apply, what restriction are you using to prevent the Big Mek from leaving the unit he is a part of? Again, a rules quote would be nice.

Pretending I haven't provided one is rude.
Please cite the rule saying an IC can leave himself. I'll wait. That's what you're attempting to do here and have provided zero rules support.

incorrect, the meks are "asigned" to the unit, nothing states they join the unit.

BigMek+Meks= Mek unit+IC

or

BigMek+Meks =IC+models?

The first has rules for how it works on the tabletop, the second doesn't.

Only one of the above has rules for how they are joined, and that is an IC joining a unit and being part of it for all purposes.

 Kriswall wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
Kriswall, how does an IC leave a unit?

IC rules section... "An Independent Character can leave a unit during the Movement phase by moving out of coherency with it."

Please note that there is no other qualification on unit other than A unit. The IC just has to be in A unit to be able to leave it.

What does out of coherency mean?

Moving out of coherency means moving a model such that the model ends its movement more than 2" away from the rest of the models in the unit.

Which unit?

 Kriswall wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
Kriswall, how does an IC leave a unit?

IC rules section... "An Independent Character can leave a unit during the Movement phase by moving out of coherency with it."

Please note that there is no other qualification on unit other than A unit. The IC just has to be in A unit to be able to leave it.

What does out of coherency mean?

Moving out of coherency means moving a model such that the model ends its movement more than 2" away from the rest of the models in the unit.

OK, so how do you move the Big Mek so he is more than 2" away from himself (in order to leave his unit)?

 Ghaz wrote:
So how does a Big Mek move out of coherency with himself? He's always going to be within 2" of himself.

He doesn't. He moves out of coherency with the two Big Meks... i.e., the other models in his Unit.

blaktoof wrote:
incorrect, the meks are "asigned" to the unit, nothing states they join the unit.

BigMek+Meks= Mek unit+IC

or

BigMek+Meks =IC+models?

The first has rules for how it works on the tabletop, the second doesn't.

Only one of the above has rules for how they are joined, and that is an IC joining a unit and being part of it for all purposes.

To follow your argument, cite the rules for "assigned to" in reference to a Boyz squad.

 Happyjew wrote:
Kriswall, what does "out of coherency" mean"

In what context? Generally speaking it means that a model is more than 2" away from the other models in its Unit. I've also already defined "moving out of coherency", which is what is in the rule.

 Kriswall wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
Kriswall, what does "out of coherency" mean"

In what context? Generally speaking it means that a model is more than 2" away from the other models in its Unit. I've also already defined "moving out of coherency", which is what is in the rule.

I asked you earlier. You responded to rigeld, so I assumed you missed my question. So I asked again. You've already answered this question.

 Kriswall wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
So how does a Big Mek move out of coherency with himself? He's always going to be within 2" of himself.

He doesn't. He moves out of coherency with the two Big Meks... i.e., the other models in his Unit.

Which isn't correct.

It's a Big Mek unit. Agreed? (I hope so - you agreed previously)
The unit consists of a Big Mek that was joined by 2 Meks. Agreed? (again, you've said as much previously)
The Big Mek attempts to move away from the Big Mek unit. Agreed?
Since it's a Big Mek unit because of the Big Mek that is trying to leave how do you measure 2" from yourself to prove you've left coherency? You have to be out of coherency of every model in the unit and the Big Mek is indisputably part of the unit (since it is his unit).

rigeld2 wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
Is it your contention that if I have a Unit composed of 20 Big Meks that only 19 of them can leave the unit? That the one initial Big Mek can't leave the Unit because he's somehow magically glued into it? Can you provide literally ANY rules quote to back this up.

Yes, that's what the rules say.

Spoiler:

An Independent Character can leave a unit during the Movement phase by moving out of unit coherency with it. ...

An Independent Character cannot leave a unit while either he or the unit is in Reserves, locked in combat, Falling Back or has Gone to Ground. He cannot join a unit that is in Reserves, locked in combat or Falling Back. If an Independent Character joins a unit, and all other models in that unit are killed, he again becomes a unit of one model at the start of the following phase.[

Now - read that carefully. There are multiple distinctions between the IC and the unit. In the case of the Warboss/20 BM unit there is no distinction - the last Big Mek is the unit. It's his unit. He never joined it or left his original unit.

An IC doesn't have to Join a unit to be able to Leave a unit. He just has to be IN a Unit to Leave it. This is what the rules say. I quoted them earlier in this thread.

Incorrect.

The only restriction I see on not being able to leave a unit is that the he or the Unit can't be locked in combat, in reserves, falling back or gone to ground. I don't see that any of these things are the case in our example. Given that none of the 4 restrictions in the rules apply, what restriction are you using to prevent the Big Mek from leaving the unit he is a part of? Again, a rules quote would be nice.

Pretending I haven't provided one is rude.
Please cite the rule saying an IC can leave himself. I'll wait. That's what you're attempting to do here and have provided zero rules support.

The Big Mek is leaving a UNIT composed of the Big Mek and two Meks by moving out of coherency with the other members of the UNIT. I'm not saying a Big Mek is leaving himself. You're saying that. I'm not saying a Big Mek is the same thing as the Unit composed of a Big Mek and two Meks. You're saying that. I can't provide rules quotes for something I don't believe the rules supports. You can't provide rules quotes for the same reason. You provided a quote showing me 4 restrictions on an IC leaving a unit. None apply to this situation. Please provide me with a relevant restriction.

 Kriswall wrote:
The Big Mek is leaving a UNIT composed of the Big Mek and two Meks by moving out of coherency with the other members of the UNIT. I'm not saying a Big Mek is leaving himself. You're saying that.

Except you are. As demonstrated.

I'm not saying a Big Mek is the same thing as the Unit composed of a Big Mek and two Meks. You're saying that.

Erm. No I'm not?

You provided a quote showing me 4 restrictions on an IC leaving a unit. None apply to this situation. Please provide me with a relevant restriction.

Incorrect. You've failed to actually read the rules I quoted and focused on those 4 things. Here, I'll emphasize important bits:

So we know that the IC and the unit it's leaving must be different, right?
Except in the case you're arguing for, the IC and the unit it's leaving are the same - the Big Mek's unit is the one he's trying to leave.

 Kriswall wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
So how does a Big Mek move out of coherency with himself? He's always going to be within 2" of himself.

He doesn't. He moves out of coherency with the two Big Meks... i.e., the other models in his Unit.

And where do the rules say that these Meks suddenly become Big Meks? You have one Big Mek in the unit.

I'm beginning to think you don't understand coherency. Let me quote the relevant rule form the Movement section under the Unit Coherency heading...

"So, once a unit has finished moving, the models in it must form an imaginary chain where the distance between one model and the next is no more than 2" horizontally and up to 6" vertically. We call this 'unit coherency'."

If I start with a Big Mek and two Meks in a unit, move them all and end up with a situation where the two Meks are within 2" of each other, but the Big Mek is 3" away... then the Big Mek has moved Out of Coherency with the rest of the Unit. I honestly don't know how else to explain this.

ICs leave a Unit. The Big Mek is in a Unit.
Leaving coherency involves moving such that you're more than 2" away from other models in the Unit. There are other models in the Unit, so moving out of coherency with them is no problem.

The Big Mek is the Big Mek. The Big Mek is not the Big Mek Unit. I feel like you think the Big Mek and the Big Mek Unit are the same thing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ghaz wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
So how does a Big Mek move out of coherency with himself? He's always going to be within 2" of himself.

He doesn't. He moves out of coherency with the two Big Meks... i.e., the other models in his Unit.

And where do the rules say that these Meks suddenly become Big Meks? You have one Big Mek in the unit.

The rules don't say that. I don't think the rules say that. I think the rules say the Meks are part of a Big Mek unit. They started in that Unit and never left that Unit. Why in the world would you think they'd become Big Meks?

 Kriswall wrote:
I'm beginning to think you don't understand coherency. Let me quote the relevant rule form the Movement section under the Unit Coherency heading...

"So, once a unit has finished moving, the models in it must form an imaginary chain where the distance between one model and the next is no more than 2" horizontally and up to 6" vertically. We call this 'unit coherency'."

If I start with a Big Mek and two Meks in a unit, move them all and end up with a situation where the two Meks are within 2" of each other, but the Big Mek is 3" away... then the Big Mek has moved Out of Coherency with the rest of the Unit. I honestly don't know how else to explain this.

ICs leave a Unit. The Big Mek is in a Unit.
Leaving coherency involves moving such that you're more than 2" away from other models in the Unit. There are other models in the Unit, so moving out of coherency with them is no problem.

The Big Mek is the Big Mek. The Big Mek is not the Big Mek Unit. I feel like you think the Big Mek and the Big Mek Unit are the same thing.

So out of:

It's a Big Mek unit. Agreed? (I hope so - you agreed previously)
The unit consists of a Big Mek that was joined by 2 Meks. Agreed? (again, you've said as much previously)
The Big Mek attempts to move away from the Big Mek unit. Agreed?
Since it's a Big Mek unit because of the Big Mek that is trying to leave how do you measure 2" from yourself to prove you've left coherency? You have to be out of coherency of every model in the unit and the Big Mek is indisputably part of the unit (since it is his unit).

You disagree with step 3?

rigeld2 wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
The Big Mek is leaving a UNIT composed of the Big Mek and two Meks by moving out of coherency with the other members of the UNIT. I'm not saying a Big Mek is leaving himself. You're saying that.

Except you are. As demonstrated.

I'm not saying a Big Mek is the same thing as the Unit composed of a Big Mek and two Meks. You're saying that.

Erm. No I'm not?

You provided a quote showing me 4 restrictions on an IC leaving a unit. None apply to this situation. Please provide me with a relevant restriction.

Incorrect. You've failed to actually read the rules I quoted and focused on those 4 things. Here, I'll emphasize important bits:

Spoiler:

An Independent Character cannot leave a unit while either he or the unit is in Reserves, locked in combat, Falling Back or has Gone to Ground. He cannot join a unit that is in Reserves, locked in combat or Falling Back. If an Independent Character joins a unit, and all other models in that unit are killed, he again becomes a unit of one model at the start of the following phase.

So we know that the IC and the unit it's leaving must be different, right?
Except in the case you're arguing for, the IC and the unit it's leaving are the same - the Big Mek's unit is the one he's trying to leave.

They're absolutely different things. We have an IC named BIG MEK. We have a unit named BIG MEK UNIT. BIG MEK UNIT has three members... BIG MEK, MEK and MEK. Neither BIG MEK nor BIG MEK UNIT are in reserves, locked in combat, falling back or gone to ground.

Why can't BIG MEK leave BIG MEK UNIT? We both agree that BIG MEK and BIG MEK UNIT aren't the same thing, so BIG MEK isn't leaving himself, he's leaving BIG MEK UNIT.

Of which, he's a "founding member". Agreed? In other words, it's a Big Mek unit because of him.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
I'm beginning to think you don't understand coherency. Let me quote the relevant rule form the Movement section under the Unit Coherency heading...

"So, once a unit has finished moving, the models in it must form an imaginary chain where the distance between one model and the next is no more than 2" horizontally and up to 6" vertically. We call this 'unit coherency'."

If I start with a Big Mek and two Meks in a unit, move them all and end up with a situation where the two Meks are within 2" of each other, but the Big Mek is 3" away... then the Big Mek has moved Out of Coherency with the rest of the Unit. I honestly don't know how else to explain this.

ICs leave a Unit. The Big Mek is in a Unit.
Leaving coherency involves moving such that you're more than 2" away from other models in the Unit. There are other models in the Unit, so moving out of coherency with them is no problem.

The Big Mek is the Big Mek. The Big Mek is not the Big Mek Unit. I feel like you think the Big Mek and the Big Mek Unit are the same thing.

So out of:

It's a Big Mek unit. Agreed? (I hope so - you agreed previously)
The unit consists of a Big Mek that was joined by 2 Meks. Agreed? (again, you've said as much previously)
The Big Mek attempts to move away from the Big Mek unit. Agreed?
Since it's a Big Mek unit because of the Big Mek that is trying to leave how do you measure 2" from yourself to prove you've left coherency? You have to be out of coherency of every model in the unit and the Big Mek is indisputably part of the unit (since it is his unit).

You disagree with step 3?

I disagree with your understanding of moving out of coherency. Moving out of coherency of a unit involves ending your movement more than 2" away from the other models in the unit. The Big Mek needs to end his movement more than 2" away from the other models in the unit (the two Meks) to successfully leave the Big Mek unit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:
Of which, he's a "founding member". Agreed? In other words, it's a Big Mek unit because of him.

Irrelevant? If you believe otherwise, please provide a rules quote. The rules simply specify how to leave a unit and that you can't leave a unit if one of 4 restrictions are in place. There is no other restriction on the type of unit you can leave.

So you're not going to actually try and address my argument, but talk about things that aren't relevant to my position?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kriswall wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Of which, he's a "founding member". Agreed? In other words, it's a Big Mek unit because of him.

Irrelevant? If you believe otherwise, please provide a rules quote. The rules simply specify how to leave a unit and that you can't leave a unit if one of 4 restrictions are in place. There is no other restriction on the type of unit you can leave.

It's not irrelevant. I'm attempting (apparently futilely) to step you through the thought process since you haven't been able to grasp it so far.

It's because the Big Mek and and the other Meks are a single unit due to the way the Meks are added to the Big Mek pre-game. Almost any other unit joined by an IC is still two units, but you're trying to make one unit into two. What are the rules that allow you to do so?

rigeld2 wrote:
So you're not going to actually try and address my argument, but talk about things that aren't relevant to my position?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kriswall wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Of which, he's a "founding member". Agreed? In other words, it's a Big Mek unit because of him.

Irrelevant? If you believe otherwise, please provide a rules quote. The rules simply specify how to leave a unit and that you can't leave a unit if one of 4 restrictions are in place. There is no other restriction on the type of unit you can leave.

It's not irrelevant. I'm attempting (apparently futilely) to step you through the thought process since you haven't been able to grasp it so far.

I don't need you to step me through your thought process. I need you to provide a rules quote saying that an IC can't leave a unit where he was the initial member. I can't find that in the rules and you haven't provided a rules quote.

You've provided a rules quote showing that the IC and the Unit aren't the same thing. I agree with you on this.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ghaz wrote:
It's because the Big Mek and and the other Meks are a single unit due to the way the Meks are added to the Big Mek pre-game. Almost any other unit joined by an IC is still two units, but you're trying to make one unit into two. What are the rules that allow you to do so?

Any other unit joined by an IC is a single unit, because the IC is considered to be a part of that unit for all rules purposes. If he chooses to leave, then he becomes a unit by himself again after leaving coherency.

One unit becomes two units when an IC leave a unit. The unit he left is still a unit and he becomes a unit himself. This is IC 101 stuff.

And perhaps you can provide a rules quote that allows you to make two units out of one just because one of them is an IC. The rules don't support it. When an IC leaves a unit, they go back to their two original units. They don't create a new unit that never existed.

 Ghaz wrote:
And perhaps you can provide a rules quote that allows you to make two units out of one just because one of them is an IC.

I'm not sure I understand your question.

When the Big Mek is with the two Meks, they form a single Unit. If the Big Mek is still in the Unit, of course there aren't two Units. The Big Mek is a part of the Unit for all rules purposes.

When the Big Mek leaves the two Meks, there are now two Units on the table.

When ANY IC leaves the Unit he is a part of, there are now two Units on the table.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ghaz wrote:
And perhaps you can provide a rules quote that allows you to make two units out of one just because one of them is an IC. The rules don't support it. When an IC leaves a unit, they go back to their two original units. They don't create a new unit that never existed.

So, am I to understand that you believe the following scenario to be true?

During deployment, I choose to deploy a Space Marine Captain with a Space Marine Tactical Squad. During the course of the game, I can never have the Captain leave the Tac Squad, because the Captain never existed as his own unit?

This is basically an identical situation. The game starts with an IC in a unit and the IC was never by himself.

 Kriswall wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
So you're not going to actually try and address my argument, but talk about things that aren't relevant to my position?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kriswall wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Of which, he's a "founding member". Agreed? In other words, it's a Big Mek unit because of him.

Irrelevant? If you believe otherwise, please provide a rules quote. The rules simply specify how to leave a unit and that you can't leave a unit if one of 4 restrictions are in place. There is no other restriction on the type of unit you can leave.

It's not irrelevant. I'm attempting (apparently futilely) to step you through the thought process since you haven't been able to grasp it so far.

I don't need you to step me through your thought process. I need you to provide a rules quote saying that an IC can't leave a unit where he was the initial member. I can't find that in the rules and you haven't provided a rules quote.

Except I have, and you're failing to understand why it applies. Which is why I'm stepping you through the thought process. I'm not attempting to be rude, I'm just debating.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kriswall wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
And perhaps you can provide a rules quote that allows you to make two units out of one just because one of them is an IC.

I'm not sure I understand your question.

When the Big Mek is with the two Meks, they form a single Unit.

Incorrect thought process - the Meks are with the Big Mek, not the other way around.
Yes, it's relevant.

 Kriswall wrote:
So, am I to understand that you believe the following scenario to be true?

During deployment, I choose to deploy a Space Marine Captain with a Space Marine Tactical Squad. During the course of the game, I can never have the Captain leave the Tac Squad, because the Captain never existed as his own unit?

This is basically an identical situation. The game starts with an IC in a unit and the IC was never by himself.

They are not identical situations. One is a unit with an attached IC. The other is an IC with attached models. Even if there were some way for the Big Mek to move out of coherency of the Meks, the Meks (as part of the Big Mek unit) must maintain coherency with the Big Mek.

 Happyjew wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
So, am I to understand that you believe the following scenario to be true?

During deployment, I choose to deploy a Space Marine Captain with a Space Marine Tactical Squad. During the course of the game, I can never have the Captain leave the Tac Squad, because the Captain never existed as his own unit?

This is basically an identical situation. The game starts with an IC in a unit and the IC was never by himself.

They are not identical situations. One is a unit with an attached IC. The other is an IC with attached models. Even if there were some way for the Big Mek to move out of coherency of the Meks, the Meks (as part of the Big Mek unit) must maintain coherency with the Big Mek.

The rules that grant permission for an IC to leave a unit don't differentiate between whether the IC joined the unit, or other models joined the IC. There is nothing about how the unit was formed. If you believe there is a restriction removing the permission for an IC to leave a Unit that is based on how the Unit came to be, please quote it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
So you're not going to actually try and address my argument, but talk about things that aren't relevant to my position?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kriswall wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Of which, he's a "founding member". Agreed? In other words, it's a Big Mek unit because of him.

Irrelevant? If you believe otherwise, please provide a rules quote. The rules simply specify how to leave a unit and that you can't leave a unit if one of 4 restrictions are in place. There is no other restriction on the type of unit you can leave.

It's not irrelevant. I'm attempting (apparently futilely) to step you through the thought process since you haven't been able to grasp it so far.

I don't need you to step me through your thought process. I need you to provide a rules quote saying that an IC can't leave a unit where he was the initial member. I can't find that in the rules and you haven't provided a rules quote.

Except I have, and you're failing to understand why it applies. Which is why I'm stepping you through the thought process. I'm not attempting to be rude, I'm just debating.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kriswall wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
And perhaps you can provide a rules quote that allows you to make two units out of one just because one of them is an IC.

I'm not sure I understand your question.

When the Big Mek is with the two Meks, they form a single Unit.

Incorrect thought process - the Meks are with the Big Mek, not the other way around.
Yes, it's relevant.

Sounds good. I'm also debating. Feel free to step me through your thought process. It would be super helpful to quote rules as you do so.

 Kriswall wrote:
Sounds good. I'm also debating. Feel free to step me through your thought process. It would be super helpful to quote rules as you do so.

So... answer the question instead of calling it irrelevant?

rigeld2 wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
Sounds good. I'm also debating. Feel free to step me through your thought process. It would be super helpful to quote rules as you do so.

So... answer the question instead of calling it irrelevant?

Which question?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Here's my issue. There are precisely four restriction that would prevent an IC from leaving a unit. How the unit came to be initially is not one of them. I understand your line of thought. I understand that you don't want the IC to be able to leave a unit where he was the founding member, but ultimately this restriction is not in the rules. I haven't seen a single quote giving a fifth restriction that would cover situations where the IC was the founding member.

stating that a big mek +meks is a big mek unit is plainly wrong by the RAW.

there is no RAW anywhere that shows an IC joined to a unit, is the IC as the unit and the unit is part of the IC for all rules purposes. Furthermore there is no RAW anywhere that an unit joins an IC and becomes the ICs unit. Such rules do not exist in the main rulebook, nor do they exist in codex orks, nor is it stated as such in the entry for meks.

as such a big mek +meks is an unit of meks with a Big mek attached.

that the meks are assigned to the big mek does not mean the meks are joined to the IC, it means they are a unit. The only way for an IC to be part of a unit is to be joined to the unit and count as the unit for all intents and purposes, not for the unit to be joined to the IC and count as the IC for all intents and purposes.

There are just no rules at all for an unit being able to join an IC, and further the rules for meks never state they join the unit, they state assigned to the unit. We are not told that this invalidates the normal rules for ICs. As such the IC is attached to the unit of meks, even if the meks are assigned to the IC, because assigned has no real rules meaning other than they start the game as a unit.

There is the further caveat that the meks cannot leave the unit, but as the unit has to be "meks" and not big meks, and the big mek is not a mek, by all the RAW the IC big mek can leave the unit of meks, and the meks remain in their unit so all the RAW are satisfied.

cite some if there are.

Ultimately it doesn't matter what kind of unit it is because there is no restriction in the rulebook preventing an IC from leaving a unit so long as the unit or IC are not in reserves, in combat, falling back or gone to ground.

Ergo, the Big Mek can leave. Until someone cites a rule that adds additional restrictions, RaW dictates the Big Mek, as an IC, can leave the unit.

Whether the resulting unit of two Meks is a Meks unit or a Big Mek unit without a Big Mek is a more or less academic debate that has little practical impact on the game.

I agree, there is no actual rule preventing the IC from moving out of coherency of the unit, and being a separate unit from the prior unit.

There are no rules preventing the IC from moving out of coherency of the meks which ICs are allowed to do by virtue of being an IC, which results in the IC leaving the unit.

saying such is similar to saying two chapter masters joined together means neither can leave the unit because the unit is "chapter master".

Obviously the model with the IC rule is able to move out of coherency of the other models that formed the unit.

blaktoof wrote:
stating that a big mek +meks is a big mek unit is plainly wrong by the RAW.

there is no RAW anywhere that shows an IC joined to a unit, is the IC as the unit and the unit is part of the IC for all rules purposes. Furthermore there is no RAW anywhere that an unit joins an IC and becomes the ICs unit. Such rules do not exist in the main rulebook, nor do they exist in codex orks, nor is it stated as such in the entry for meks.

as such a big mek +meks is an unit of meks with a Big mek attached.

So if a Mek is attached to a unit of Boyz, what is the unit?

So you think the rules for IC are the same as the rules for a normal unit without the IC rule?

mek assigned to boyz = boyz. [ logic= boyz (not IC) with attached meks (not IC) equals unit of boyz ]

mek attached to IC = meks [ logic = big mek (IC) with attached meks(not IC) = unit IC is attached to because of how IC rules work]

because the rules for IC say an IC joined to something counts as a member of -that- unit for all rules purposes. There are no rules saying an IC joined to something counts the IC as the unit.

regardless, there is no restriction in the mek rules for ICs being able to leave the unit, nor is there anything saying they may not move out of coherency of the meks-which ICs are allowed to do.

blaktoof wrote:
So you think the rules for IC are the same as the rules for a normal unit without the IC rule?

I think the rules for IC have no bearing on how a non-IC is attached to a unit. Such as the case for Meks, Warlocks, and Crypteks.

its unfortunate that the rules say otherwise and you have no actual rules support for your stance.

the units you quoted do not have permission to join an IC, so obviously they cannot leave the unit as RC/Warlocks do not have permission to do so, and the unit cannot leave them as units are not ICs generally.

The unit in question for this topic Meks, can be joined with ICs that are infantry, and ICs do have permission to leave the unit, and count as the unit they are joined with - not the other way around which has been pushed by certain people in this discussion.

as such this is not the same in that regard.

blaktoof wrote:
The unit in question for this topic Meks, can be joined with ICs that are infantry, and ICs do have permission to leave the unit, and count as the unit they are joined with - not the other way around which has been pushed by certain people in this discussion.

Perhaps you can quote where in the 'Mekaniaks' rule that says that the Independent Character joins the Meks, when the rule itself clearly says that the Meks are "... assigned to any unit with the Infantry or Artillery type in their Detachment".

perhaps you can quote where assigned means the meks are joined to something and not the models are in a unit?

or where any non-IC joined to an IC counts as the ICs unit and not the normal IC rules where the IC counts as a member of the unit it is joined to.

blaktoof,

1. A Mek is assigned to a unit of Boyz. All of the Boyz are killed leaving the Mek. Is the Mek still part of the Boyz unit or does he form a new unit of just "Mek"?

2. Same scenario except replace unit of Boyz with Big Mek.

your scenario 1 and 2 are vastly different

one the whole unit is a boyz unit.

two the whole unit is a mek unit, not the big mek unit.

an IC joined with another unit is not the unit of the IC.

Is a chapter master joined with a tac squad a chapter master squad?

that the meks are assigned to the big mek does not mean the unit is the big meks unit, and you have no rules support for that.

further there is no support for an IC joining a unit and the unit being the IC unit and not the unit the IC is joined to.

that an IC joined to models in a unit, the unit identity being "the IC" and not "The unit IC is attached to" is a purely made up stance with no actual rules support anywhere in any book.

blaktoof wrote:
that the meks are assigned to the big mek does not mean the unit is the big meks unit, and you have no rules support for that.

And do you have any support that its not? Do you have any support that assigning the Meks to the Big Mek somehow changes his unit so that it is no longer a 'Big Mek Unit'? Sorry, but you're the one who has no rules support for your claims. The Meks were assigned to the 'Big Mek Unit'.

blaktoof, is your argument is that when a Mek is assigned to a unit he is a model from that unit, he does not join the unit?

If so, then when a Mek is assigned to a Big Mek unit he is a model in the Big Mek unit. As such, he must maintain coherency with the Big Mek, even if the Big Mek could leave the Big Mek unit.

an IC cannot be a unit when other models are in the unit.

there is no rules support for it.

if an IC is attached to a unit, the IC counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes.

if an IC is joined with another unit the unit is not the IC unit, but the unit is joined to.

even if you were correct, which you are not as indicated by your continued inability to actually post a single piece of rules that support that assigned = the unit has to be what they are attached to always, which would invaldiate the rulebook rules for ICs being in a unit....

you have still completely failed to show how the Big mek does not have permission to move out of coherency as the rules for ICs state.

The big mek can move out of coherency of the unit, because the IC rules state so, no rule states otherwise, and the model can move away from the other models.

An Independent Character can leave a unit during the Movement phase by moving out of unit coherency with it. He cannot join or leave during any other phase – once shots are fired or charges are declared, it is too late to join in or duck out!

the big mek is still itself, so is always in coherency with itself. If a lone big mek moves at all, is it still in coherency with itself? Its not even required to be as it is a lone model...but regardless yes, it is still within 2" of itself. Ie whereve i go here I am.

so yes, that's three things you are wrong on.

blaktoof wrote:
an IC cannot be a unit when other models are in the unit.

Care to provide a rule to back this up.

blaktoof wrote:
an IC cannot be a unit when other models are in the unit.

So a Commander with 2 Gun Drones is what then?

What about a Wolf Lord with 2 Fenrisian Wolves?

 Ghaz wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
that the meks are assigned to the big mek does not mean the unit is the big meks unit, and you have no rules support for that.

And do you have any support that its not? Do you have any support that assigning the Meks to the Big Mek somehow changes his unit so that it is no longer a 'Big Mek Unit'? Sorry, but you're the one who has no rules support for your claims. The Meks were assigned to the 'Big Mek Unit'.

simple, the rules are permissive.

there are no rules telling us that meks joined to an IC count as the ICs unit.

There are no rules telling us that assigned means anything other than being in a unit with.

there are rules telling us that an IC joined to a non IC unit count as they the unit they are joined to for all rules purposes.

the meks are always part of the unit they join for all rules purposes, the IC is always part of the unit they join for all rules purposes. If the unit were to have an identity it would be both or neither, neither of which are actually against the rules. Which oddly is not addressed in the rules. If both were to be applied, I would imagine they would be applied at the same time, as such the player whos turn it is gets to pick the order and the ork player could always pick the big meks rule to resolve first, and the unit is now the mek unit.

The meks may not leave the unit, as per their rules. There are no rules preventing the big mek from leaving the unit.

it would be nice if someone would post some actual rules support for the stance that the unit is the big mek unit, and assigned means something in particular other than they are in a unit together.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Happyjew wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
an IC cannot be a unit when other models are in the unit.

So a Commander with 2 Gun Drones is what then?

What about a Wolf Lord with 2 Fenrisian Wolves?

dont have the tau codex so cannot comment on that.

in the case of the wolf lord theres about 5 paragraphs of rules for that.

in summation the wolves are wargear that joins/leaves units with the IC as called out by their rules specifically. Such is not indicated in the ork codex.

They are treated as a single unit.

which you should note has no identity of "wolf lord unit", its just a unit.

I just can't see how the Mekaniaks rule has ANY impact on whether or not an IC can leave a unit.

Codex: Orks, Mek Entry - "Mekaniaks: For each HQ choice in a Detachment (not including other Meks) you may include a single Mek chosen from this datasheet. These selections do not use up Force Organisation slots. Before the battle, immediately after determining Warlord Traits, any Mek that is not already part of another unit must, if possible, be assigned to any unit with the Infantry or Artillery type in their Detachment; a Mek cannot leave his unit and is treated as part of it for the entire battle for all rules purposes."

The Mekaniaks rule tells us that we can assign the Mek to any unit with the Infantry or Artillery type. The Mek cannot leave the unit and is treated as part of it for the entire battle for all rules purposes.

No argument. The Mekaniaks rule tells us how to assign a Mek to a Big Mek. If we take two Meks, we can assign two Meks to the Big Mek Unit.

At this point, the game begins and we have a single unit composed of two Meks and one Big Mek. The Meks don't have the IC rule. The bit in the Mekaniaks rule saying that they can't leave the Unit is redundant since models without the IC rule can't leave Units. The Big Mek DOES have the IC rule and CAN still leave Units.

Remember that Leaving a Unit is an active thing. If the Big Mek moves out of coherency, he has left the Unit. The Meks he's left haven't. They are still part of "the Unit". The Big Mek simply leaves and counts as his own Unit at the end of the Movement Phase.

To sum up...

Mekaniaks allows Meks to be assigned to a Big Mek.
IC rules in the BRB allow the Big Mek to leave the Meks.

Noone is saying that the Meks can leave the Big Mek. The obviously can't. They aren't ICs and the Mekaniaks rule specifically forbids it. The can, however, be left. The Big Mek can leave. Nothing in the Mekaniaks rule prevents an IC from leaving the Meks.

blaktoof, I'm still struggling to understand your argument.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

If a Mek is assigned to unit, for all intents and purposes he is a just another model in that unit.

 Happyjew wrote:
blaktoof, is your argument is that when a Mek is assigned to a unit he is a model from that unit, he does not join the unit?

If so, then when a Mek is assigned to a Big Mek unit he is a model in the Big Mek unit. As such, he must maintain coherency with the Big Mek, even if the Big Mek could leave the Big Mek unit.

Why can't the Big Mek leave the unit? Can you provide an actual rules quote that overrides the permission granted in the BRB under the IC rules? The Mekaniak rule prevents the Meks from leaving, but doesn't prevent an IC in the Unit from leaving, so the Mekaniaks rule does not add a restriction to the IC permission to leave.

 Kriswall wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
blaktoof, is your argument is that when a Mek is assigned to a unit he is a model from that unit, he does not join the unit?

If so, then when a Mek is assigned to a Big Mek unit he is a model in the Big Mek unit. As such, he must maintain coherency with the Big Mek, even if the Big Mek could leave the Big Mek unit.

Why can't the Big Mek leave the unit? Can you provide an actual rules quote that overrides the permission granted in the BRB under the IC rules? The Mekaniak rule prevents the Meks from leaving, but doesn't prevent an IC in the Unit from leaving, so the Mekaniaks rule does not add a restriction to the IC permission to leave.

Kriswall, my statement is under the assumption that the Big Mek can somehow leave the unit.

You have a unit called "Big Mek" it is normally composed of "1 Big Mek". If the Mek is assigned to the Big Mek unit, you have a Big Mek unit composed of "! Big Mek and 1 Mek".

The Big Mek leaves the unit called "Big Mek" he is no longer part of the unit he composes as he has left it, or since the Mek is part of his unit (after all the Mek cannot leave the Big Mek unit), then the Mek must maintain coherency with the Big Mek.

 Happyjew wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
blaktoof, is your argument is that when a Mek is assigned to a unit he is a model from that unit, he does not join the unit?

If so, then when a Mek is assigned to a Big Mek unit he is a model in the Big Mek unit. As such, he must maintain coherency with the Big Mek, even if the Big Mek could leave the Big Mek unit.

Why can't the Big Mek leave the unit? Can you provide an actual rules quote that overrides the permission granted in the BRB under the IC rules? The Mekaniak rule prevents the Meks from leaving, but doesn't prevent an IC in the Unit from leaving, so the Mekaniaks rule does not add a restriction to the IC permission to leave.

Kriswall, my statement is under the assumption that the Big Mek can somehow leave the unit.

You have a unit called "Big Mek" it is normally composed of "1 Big Mek". If the Mek is assigned to the Big Mek unit, you have a Big Mek unit composed of "! Big Mek and 1 Mek".

The Big Mek leaves the unit called "Big Mek" he is no longer part of the unit he composes as he has left it, or since the Mek is part of his unit (after all the Mek cannot leave the Big Mek unit), then the Mek must maintain coherency with the Big Mek.

Why must the Mek maintain coherency with the Big Mek? The Mek must maintain coherency with all models in the unit that have not chosen to leave using the IC rules in the BRB.

 Kriswall wrote:
Why must the Mek maintain coherency with the Big Mek?

Because that is the unit that the Meks were assigned to.

 Kriswall wrote:
The Mek must maintain coherency with all models in the unit that have not chosen to leave using the IC rules in the BRB.

The model that tried to leave is the unit that the Mek was assigned to. A Big Mek can't leave himself and create another Big Mek unit.

 Ghaz wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
Why must the Mek maintain coherency with the Big Mek?

Because that is the unit that the Meks were assigned to.

Can you provide actual rules stating that the Mek being assigned to a Big Mek removes or overrides the IC rules as relates to the IC being able to leave a unit?

 Kriswall wrote:
The Mek must maintain coherency with all models in the unit that have not chosen to leave using the IC rules in the BRB.

The model that tried to leave is the unit that the Mek was assigned to. A Big Mek can't leave himself and create another Big Mek unit.

Why do you keep saying the Big Mek can't leave himself? ICs never leave themselves. ICs never leave models. They leave Units. The Big Mek is leaving the Unit composed of a himself and a 'little' Mek. Again, can you provide any actual rules stating that the IC rules are being overridden or removed/restricted somehow?

I'm looking for friendly debate here, but I'm posting rules and you're saying because. I need to see a rule removing or modifying the IC rules.

Kriswall is correct on all points.

I can't really add more content. Big Mek and Meks are one unit. The Big Mek can leave this unit.

Stating that the Meks must maintain coherency to the Big Mek because they can't leave the Big Mek unit is nonsense. They are, themselves, the Big Mek unit for all rules purposes, as stated in Mekaniaks, as they were assigned to the Big Mek unit. It would be like arguing that an IC can't leave a regular unit because the regular models in the unit cannot leave the unit so they must maintain coherency with the IC despite his special permission to leave coherency.

When the Big Mek leaves the unit, you're not left with a unit of Meks, you're left with a Big Mek unit without its Big Mek.

As an aside, suppose instead of leaving the unit, the Big Mek is killed? Are the two remaining Meks suddenly a Mek unit? Remember, they are not independent characters...

EDIT1: Added more than the first line
EDIT2: typos

 Happyjew wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
Can you provide any sort of rule saying the Big Mek can't leave the unit? He's in A unit. He has general permission as an IC to leave A unit. Please provide a rules quote as I've done.

Because, for the life of me, I can't find any reason why he wouldn't be able to leave the unit.

He tries to leave the Big Mek unit, this creates a Big Mek unit. Which he's leaving. Which creates one. But he's leaving that. Well then let's make one. BUT HE'S LEAVING IT. I KNOW THAT, SO LET'S CREATE THAT UNIT FOR HIM.

why can't two Big Mek units exist simultaneously?

So it would read: He tries to leave the first Big Mek unit, which creates a Big Mek unit. So now there are two Big Mek units. Hooray!

Except there is not a second Big Mek unit. There is a Big Mek unit composed of two Meks, and a Big Mek model who is not part of a unit (since he left his own unit). This provides some protection as you cannot target the Big Mek (since you can only target units). On the down side he cannot do anything except stand there, since you nominate units to move, and he is not in a unit.

The Big Mek would become a unit as soon as he leaves his old unit. The IC rules explicitly state that when an IC is alone, it becomes its own unit (so, in this case, a new unit is created that did not formerly exist).

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
Can you provide any sort of rule saying the Big Mek can't leave the unit? He's in A unit. He has general permission as an IC to leave A unit. Please provide a rules quote as I've done.

Because, for the life of me, I can't find any reason why he wouldn't be able to leave the unit.

He tries to leave the Big Mek unit, this creates a Big Mek unit. Which he's leaving. Which creates one. But he's leaving that. Well then let's make one. BUT HE'S LEAVING IT. I KNOW THAT, SO LET'S CREATE THAT UNIT FOR HIM.

why can't two Big Mek units exist simultaneously?

So it would read: He tries to leave the first Big Mek unit, which creates a Big Mek unit. So now there are two Big Mek units. Hooray!

Except there is not a second Big Mek unit. There is a Big Mek unit composed of two Meks, and a Big Mek model who is not part of a unit (since he left his own unit). This provides some protection as you cannot target the Big Mek (since you can only target units). On the down side he cannot do anything except stand there, since you nominate units to move, and he is not in a unit.

The Big Mek would become a unit as soon as he leaves his old unit. The IC rules explicitly state that when an IC is alone, it becomes its own unit (so, in this case, a new unit is created that did not formerly exist).

And where are you getting permission to create a new unit from?
In every case where a new unit is created, the rules give specific permission to create a new unit within the game itself. Where is your permission to create a new Big Mek unit?

 Happyjew wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
Can you provide any sort of rule saying the Big Mek can't leave the unit? He's in A unit. He has general permission as an IC to leave A unit. Please provide a rules quote as I've done.

Because, for the life of me, I can't find any reason why he wouldn't be able to leave the unit.

He tries to leave the Big Mek unit, this creates a Big Mek unit. Which he's leaving. Which creates one. But he's leaving that. Well then let's make one. BUT HE'S LEAVING IT. I KNOW THAT, SO LET'S CREATE THAT UNIT FOR HIM.

why can't two Big Mek units exist simultaneously?

So it would read: He tries to leave the first Big Mek unit, which creates a Big Mek unit. So now there are two Big Mek units. Hooray!

Except there is not a second Big Mek unit. There is a Big Mek unit composed of two Meks, and a Big Mek model who is not part of a unit (since he left his own unit). This provides some protection as you cannot target the Big Mek (since you can only target units). On the down side he cannot do anything except stand there, since you nominate units to move, and he is not in a unit.

The Big Mek would become a unit as soon as he leaves his old unit. The IC rules explicitly state that when an IC is alone, it becomes its own unit (so, in this case, a new unit is created that did not formerly exist).

And where are you getting permission to create a new unit from?
In every case where a new unit is created, the rules give specific permission to create a new unit within the game itself. Where is your permission to create a new Big Mek unit?

The permission is in the IC rules. What do you think happens when an IC leaves a unit? If you don't think the Big Mek can leave, CITE A RULE. If you can't cite a rule, you are wrong and it's HYWPI.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
To clarify, the permission to leave a unit doesn't care what kind of unit it is. The rules don't care that you are effectively making a second Big Mek Unit.

Kriswall, what I think happens is the IC reverts to being "IC unit". In the case of a Big Mek and a squad of Boyz, he leaves the boyz unit and reverts to the Big Mek unit. In the situation under discussion, he leaves the Big Mek unit and somehow becomes a Big Mek unit. Which since they were assigned to it, the Meks are part of.

I hate to sound like a broken record, but do you have literally ANY rules quotes to back up your position? Do you have any rules quotes that add a restriction preventing an IC from leaving a unit that he was the founding member of?

From a debate standpoint, what you think is less compelling than what you can prove or demonstrate through rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And to clarify, when the Big Mek leaves, he "creates" a Big Mek Unit. The Meks WERE NOT ASSIGNED to this new Unit. They were assigned to the old Unit, of which they are still a part.

They WERE NOT ASSIGNED to the Big Mek. They were assigned to the Unit of which he was a part. It seems like you think they were assigned to the Big Mek Model and not the Big Mek Unit.

Indeed.

As I have been saying, there are now two Big Mek units, one of which is made of of two Meks and the other of which is made up of a Big Mek IC, formed when the IC leaves the squad, which is always what happens when an IC leaves his/her squad.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Indeed.

As I have been saying, there are now two Big Mek units, one of which is made of of two Meks and the other of which is made up of a Big Mek IC, formed when the IC leaves the squad, which is always what happens when an IC leaves his/her squad.

Please cite a rule that allows a model to form a new unit when leaving a unit. Or even revert to being its original unit.

I hadn't reviewed the IC rules and thought there was something about "reverting back to its original unit" or something like that. All the rules say is that an IC can leave a unit but does not tell us what that means unit-wise. Other than being not part of said unit.

 Happyjew wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Indeed.

As I have been saying, there are now two Big Mek units, one of which is made of of two Meks and the other of which is made up of a Big Mek IC, formed when the IC leaves the squad, which is always what happens when an IC leaves his/her squad.

Please cite a rule that allows a model to form a new unit when leaving a unit. Or even revert to being its original unit.

I hadn't reviewed the IC rules and thought there was something about "reverting back to its original unit" or something like that. All the rules say is that an IC can leave a unit but does not tell us what that means unit-wise. Other than being not part of said unit.

Honestly, you're flogging a dead horse here. An IC can clearly leave any unit he is with, at which point you have the IC and the other unit on the board as separate entities. Just because the meks can't voluntarily leave the Big Mek, doesn't invalidate the BRB clear statement that the Big Mek can voluntarily leave the Meks.

You've been given stacks of rule quotes by several people backing up this position, and you seem to be tying yourself in semantics of unit names. The relevant rules for these have also been discussed, and it is clear that they do not invalidate or change the IC rules either, which are at the core of this discussion.

 goblinzz wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Indeed.

As I have been saying, there are now two Big Mek units, one of which is made of of two Meks and the other of which is made up of a Big Mek IC, formed when the IC leaves the squad, which is always what happens when an IC leaves his/her squad.

Please cite a rule that allows a model to form a new unit when leaving a unit. Or even revert to being its original unit.

I hadn't reviewed the IC rules and thought there was something about "reverting back to its original unit" or something like that. All the rules say is that an IC can leave a unit but does not tell us what that means unit-wise. Other than being not part of said unit.

Honestly, you're flogging a dead horse here. An IC can clearly leave any unit he is with, at which point you have the IC and the other unit on the board as separate entities. Just because the meks can't voluntarily leave the Big Mek, doesn't invalidate the BRB clear statement that the Big Mek can voluntarily leave the Meks.

And when the IC leaves the unit what unit is he part of? In the scenario posted he is trying to leave the unit composed of himself.

You've been given stacks of rule quotes by several people backing up this position, and you seem to be tying yourself in semantics of unit names. The relevant rules for these have also been discussed, and it is clear that they do not invalidate or change the IC rules either, which are at the core of this discussion.

I've been quoted a rule that says an IC can leave a unit. I've yet to be shown a rule that allows you to form a brand new unit when an IC leaves.

Here is the issue. You have a unit called "Big Mek". The Big Mek unit consists of "1 Big Mek". You assign 2 Meks to that unit. According to one person it is now a unit of Meks with an attached IC (the Big Mek). The Big Mek goes to leave the unit (which per the IC rules is legal, I've never said an IC could not leave a unit). The other side is claiming that you now have 2 units named "Big Mek" one composed of "1 Big Mek" and the other composed of "2 Meks". Nowhere have they cited a rule claiming that when an IC leaves a unit it can form a new unit. All I'm asking for is citation. I freely admit that there is a chance I'm wrong, but I'v yet to see any evidence to support it.

 Happyjew wrote:

 goblinzz wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Indeed.

As I have been saying, there are now two Big Mek units, one of which is made of of two Meks and the other of which is made up of a Big Mek IC, formed when the IC leaves the squad, which is always what happens when an IC leaves his/her squad.

Please cite a rule that allows a model to form a new unit when leaving a unit. Or even revert to being its original unit.

I hadn't reviewed the IC rules and thought there was something about "reverting back to its original unit" or something like that. All the rules say is that an IC can leave a unit but does not tell us what that means unit-wise. Other than being not part of said unit.

Honestly, you're flogging a dead horse here. An IC can clearly leave any unit he is with, at which point you have the IC and the other unit on the board as separate entities. Just because the meks can't voluntarily leave the Big Mek, doesn't invalidate the BRB clear statement that the Big Mek can voluntarily leave the Meks.

And when the IC leaves the unit what unit is he part of? In the scenario posted he is trying to leave the unit composed of himself.

You've been given stacks of rule quotes by several people backing up this position, and you seem to be tying yourself in semantics of unit names. The relevant rules for these have also been discussed, and it is clear that they do not invalidate or change the IC rules either, which are at the core of this discussion.

I've been quoted a rule that says an IC can leave a unit. I've yet to be shown a rule that allows you to form a brand new unit when an IC leaves.

Here is the issue. You have a unit called "Big Mek". The Big Mek unit consists of "1 Big Mek". You assign 2 Meks to that unit. According to one person it is now a unit of Meks with an attached IC (the Big Mek). The Big Mek goes to leave the unit (which per the IC rules is legal, I've never said an IC could not leave a unit). The other side is claiming that you now have 2 units named "Big Mek" one composed of "1 Big Mek" and the other composed of "2 Meks". Nowhere have they cited a rule claiming that when an IC leaves a unit it can form a new unit. All I'm asking for is citation. I freely admit that there is a chance I'm wrong, but I'v yet to see any evidence to support it.

It's that last statement where I think the discussion has got side tracked into poorly phrased discussions. You have a unit (I really don't care what you want to call it) composed of 1 Big Mek, and two Meks. The Big Mek buggers off to beat the hell out of a landraider, leaving the two Meks to presumably stand there jeering and throwing small squigs. You now have two units, one composed of a Big Mek, and the other composed of two Meks. Whatever you want to call those two units is frankly semantics and will not change the fact that it's a legal and reasonable move.

Rulebook Ebook page 786:

"An Independent Character can leave a unit during the movement phase by moving out of unit coherency with it. He cannot join or leave in any other phase - once shots are fired or charges are declared, it's too late to join in or duck out!

...

If all other models in the unit are killed, the independent character again becomes a unit of one model."

Emphasis mine.

So it says that they can leave, there's your permission. It doesn't say outright that they become a unit of one, but the use of again in the later statement implies that they're a unit of one at other times as well.

If an independent character leaves a unit, what does it become? By saying 'it can't form a new unit' then what does an IC do any time it leaves a unit by itself?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Rulebook Ebook page 786:

"An Independent Character can leave a unit during the movement phase by moving out of unit coherency with it. He cannot join or leave in any other phase - once shots are fired or charges are declared, it's too late to join in or duck out!

...

If all other models in the unit are killed, the independent character again becomes a unit of one model."

Emphasis mine.

So it says that they can leave, there's your permission. It doesn't say outright that they become a unit of one, but the use of again in the later statement implies that they're a unit of one at other times as well.

If an independent character leaves a unit, what does it become? By saying 'it can't form a new unit' then what does an IC do any time it leaves a unit by itself?

Then logically when it leaves a unit it reverts back to its original unit. In this case a unit consisting of 1 Big Mek, and 2 Meks.

 Happyjew wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Rulebook Ebook page 786:

"An Independent Character can leave a unit during the movement phase by moving out of unit coherency with it. He cannot join or leave in any other phase - once shots are fired or charges are declared, it's too late to join in or duck out!

...

If all other models in the unit are killed, the independent character again becomes a unit of one model."

Emphasis mine.

So it says that they can leave, there's your permission. It doesn't say outright that they become a unit of one, but the use of again in the later statement implies that they're a unit of one at other times as well.

If an independent character leaves a unit, what does it become? By saying 'it can't form a new unit' then what does an IC do any time it leaves a unit by itself?

Then logically when it leaves a unit it reverts back to its original unit. In this case a unit consisting of 1 Big Mek, and 2 Meks.

Where is the permission for an IC deployed with a unit to "revert back" to anything? If my librarian leaves the tac squad he drop podded with, does he revert to being in the tac squad he was drop-podded with? It was his "original unit"

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Rulebook Ebook page 786:

"An Independent Character can leave a unit during the movement phase by moving out of unit coherency with it. He cannot join or leave in any other phase - once shots are fired or charges are declared, it's too late to join in or duck out!

...

If all other models in the unit are killed, the independent character again becomes a unit of one model."

Emphasis mine.

So it says that they can leave, there's your permission. It doesn't say outright that they become a unit of one, but the use of again in the later statement implies that they're a unit of one at other times as well.

If an independent character leaves a unit, what does it become? By saying 'it can't form a new unit' then what does an IC do any time it leaves a unit by itself?

Then logically when it leaves a unit it reverts back to its original unit. In this case a unit consisting of 1 Big Mek, and 2 Meks.

Where is the permission for an IC deployed with a unit to "revert back" to anything? If my librarian leaves the tac squad he drop podded with, does he revert to being in the tac squad he was drop-podded with? It was his "original unit"

Which is something I pointed out earlier in the thread. There is no permission for an IC to revert back to his own unit nor form a new unit when he leaves the unit he was part of. Most people (myself as well) assume that when an IC leaves a unit he goes back to being a member of "the IC unit" (whatever it may be), but that is not actually supported by the rules.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Rulebook Ebook page 786:

"An Independent Character can leave a unit during the movement phase by moving out of unit coherency with it. He cannot join or leave in any other phase - once shots are fired or charges are declared, it's too late to join in or duck out!

...

If all other models in the unit are killed, the independent character again becomes a unit of one model."

Emphasis mine.

So it says that they can leave, there's your permission. It doesn't say outright that they become a unit of one, but the use of again in the later statement implies that they're a unit of one at other times as well.

If an independent character leaves a unit, what does it become? By saying 'it can't form a new unit' then what does an IC do any time it leaves a unit by itself?

Then logically when it leaves a unit it reverts back to its original unit. In this case a unit consisting of 1 Big Mek, and 2 Meks.

Where is the permission for an IC deployed with a unit to "revert back" to anything? If my librarian leaves the tac squad he drop podded with, does he revert to being in the tac squad he was drop-podded with? It was his "original unit"

This.

If an IC is with a squad, any squad, and then leaves it, he becomes a unit by himself. It's that simple.

 Happyjew wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Rulebook Ebook page 786:

"An Independent Character can leave a unit during the movement phase by moving out of unit coherency with it. He cannot join or leave in any other phase - once shots are fired or charges are declared, it's too late to join in or duck out!

...

If all other models in the unit are killed, the independent character again becomes a unit of one model."

Emphasis mine.

So it says that they can leave, there's your permission. It doesn't say outright that they become a unit of one, but the use of again in the later statement implies that they're a unit of one at other times as well.

If an independent character leaves a unit, what does it become? By saying 'it can't form a new unit' then what does an IC do any time it leaves a unit by itself?

Then logically when it leaves a unit it reverts back to its original unit. In this case a unit consisting of 1 Big Mek, and 2 Meks.

Where is the permission for an IC deployed with a unit to "revert back" to anything? If my librarian leaves the tac squad he drop podded with, does he revert to being in the tac squad he was drop-podded with? It was his "original unit"

Which is something I pointed out earlier in the thread. There is no permission for an IC to revert back to his own unit nor form a new unit when he leaves the unit he was part of. Most people (myself as well) assume that when an IC leaves a unit he goes back to being a member of "the IC unit" (whatever it may be), but that is not actually supported by the rules.

Right. There are no rule governing what any IC becomes when any IC leaves a unit. Therefore, we can conclude:

1) RAW is broken for every IC in the game
2) The Big Mek leaving a Unit of Meks is no different than any IC leaving any unit, as far as rules coverage is concerned.
3) Therefore, the Big Mek leaving a unit of Meks should be treated by players no differently than a Librarian leaving a unit of Tactical Marines, whatever the method they agree on to overcome the problem in Premise 1.

Since most players overcome the problem by simply assuming the IC is now a unit of 1 (which I think is not unreasonable), then that should be applied in all cases whenever any IC (Big Mek included) leaves a unit.

I think all of this can be solved by reading the Mek's rules again. They are forced to be assigned to an Infantry or Artillery unit at the beginning of the game, but they are not allowed to leave the unit they are attached too. They are not considered Independent Characters, just Characters.

Rules as Written, this would mean that the Meks, of course, can not leave a unit they have been attached to by their own volition.

If the aftermentioned Big Mek were to be assigned these Meks at the beginning of the game, since he qualifies to have them join, the two Meks and the Big Mek are now a unit. The Big Mek has the capability to leave a unit and move into another one if he chooses too, or to go off on his own should he so desire. This does not break the rules of the Meks, as they have not chosen to leave the unit they were assigned too, but the Big Mek did.

While it seems like a tomato tomãto type of situation, it in fact does matter.

When the Big Mek leaves the Meks, they become a unit of 2 Meks, something they couldn't accomplish on their own, an exception only made possible by joining an IC at the start of the game. I think they would have had to put even more specific wording for them to prevent them from ever being disjointed from the unit they join.

But this all seems a bit of a moot point. It's such a situational argument. I honestly have no idea why anyone would assign 2 meks to an IC just to have the IC break away. Leaving what is essentially 2 Boyz out in the open or on an Objective seems hardly ideal in any situation. Maybe on the bottom of turn 5 or something of the like, having the IC move off to help someone close by while the two Meks hold the fort? But still...waste of Meks.

Melevolence wrote:
I think all of this can be solved by reading the Mek's rules again. They are forced to be assigned to an Infantry or Artillery unit at the beginning of the game, but they are not allowed to leave the unit they are attached too. They are not considered Independent Characters, just Characters.

Rules as Written, this would mean that the Meks, of course, can not leave a unit they have been attached to by their own volition.

If the aftermentioned Big Mek were to be assigned these Meks at the beginning of the game, since he qualifies to have them join, the two Meks and the Big Mek are now a unit. The Big Mek has the capability to leave a unit and move into another one if he chooses too, or to go off on his own should he so desire. This does not break the rules of the Meks, as they have not chosen to leave the unit they were assigned too, but the Big Mek did.

While it seems like a tomato tomãto type of situation, it in fact does matter.

When the Big Mek leaves the Meks, they become a unit of 2 Meks, something they couldn't accomplish on their own, an exception only made possible by joining an IC at the start of the game. I think they would have had to put even more specific wording for them to prevent them from ever being disjointed from the unit they join.

But this all seems a bit of a moot point. It's such a situational argument. I honestly have no idea why anyone would assign 2 meks to an IC just to have the IC break away. Leaving what is essentially 2 Boyz out in the open or on an Objective seems hardly ideal in any situation. Maybe on the bottom of turn 5 or something of the like, having the IC move off to help someone close by while the two Meks hold the fort? But still...waste of Meks.

You are exactly correct.

The Mekaniaks rule tells you how to have Meks become a part of another unit.

The IC rule tells you how to have an IC leave a unit that he is a part of.

There is a reason the side saying the Big Mek can't leave won't post the rule showing that the IC rule is being restricted... it's not in the rules. It's how they would play it, but not RaW.

Indeed. RAW, the IC rules are broken. However, if we go with the most reasonable interpretation of the normal IC rules, then we end up with the Big Mek being able to leave the unit of two Meks.

I hate to stir this up again... when playing this I have had the big mek and two meks in a morkanaut, and have been allowed by my friends to have the big mek leave the unit and go and join another (using the IC rule)... HOWEVER... I have another question.

I think this is really squeaking the rules, but the rule says "after the warlord trait... if the Mek is not already part of a unit, he must join on infantry or artillery unit"...

Soooo, doesn't that mean that I can allocate the mek to ANY unit BEFORE the warlord traits are rolled, i.e. it is a rule that makes sure that the mek is not unattached,,, so in theory, I could just allocate the mek to any unit? Or is it that, because he is not an IC, he HAS to be a part of an infantry unit. I notice that some units (like the burna boyz) can upgrade a model to a mek....

Thoughts?

perlot wrote:
I hate to stir this up again... when playing this I have had the big mek and two meks in a morkanaut, and have been allowed by my friends to have the big mek leave the unit and go and join another (using the IC rule)... HOWEVER... I have another question.

I think this is really squeaking the rules, but the rule says "after the warlord trait... if the Mek is not already part of a unit, he must join on infantry or artillery unit"...

Soooo, doesn't that mean that I can allocate the mek to ANY unit BEFORE the warlord traits are rolled, i.e. it is a rule that makes sure that the mek is not unattached,,, so in theory, I could just allocate the mek to any unit? Or is it that, because he is not an IC, he HAS to be a part of an infantry unit. I notice that some units (like the burna boyz) can upgrade a model to a mek....

Thoughts?

You can assign him to any infantry or artillery unit. You could not, for example, assign a Mek to a Biker unit. What exactly are you trying to do? The Mek has to be assigned to an infantry or artillery unit because this is what the rules tell you to do. It has nothing to do with the fact that he's not an IC. Also, the Burna Boyz Mek upgrade is an entirely different situation and has nothing to do with the HQ Mek Unit Entry. If it helps, think of the two as "Burna Boyz Mek" and "HQ Mek".

Yeah, it would probably help if I said what I was trying to do...

What I want to do, basically is put 2 meks in a morkanaut to keep it moving.

I have a big mek, mad dok and a weirdboy.. so I have enough hq to have 2 "free" meks... but I want to <cough> "join" them to the morkanuat... and I think that's not possible?

Yeah that is not possible, because morkanaut is not an infantry or artillery unit.

perlot wrote:
Yeah, it would probably help if I said what I was trying to do...

What I want to do, basically is put 2 meks in a morkanaut to keep it moving.

I have a big mek, mad dok and a weirdboy.. so I have enough hq to have 2 "free" meks... but I want to <cough> "join" them to the morkanuat... and I think that's not possible?

You could join the two Meks to one of the ICs with all inside the Morkanaut and then have the IC disembark alone (as the IC rules allow him to do), thus leaving the two Meks in the Morkanaut. This achieves what you want, but does require the IC to get out on turn 1 and go find something else to do.

I'm afraid I'm going to throw a spanner in the works here, but...

Mekaniak rule makes no restrictions on what the mek joins, other than that it be either infantry or artillery.

a mek is an infantry unit.

so can't we just bypass all this by joining a mek to another mek? nothing says we can't...

this would also allow the meks to be deploying inside the gorkanaught.

Ah, now I can answer that... the mekaniak rule does say "but not another mek".... unfortunately...

Edit... I'm wrong.. actually that is just related to "you can't have another mek if you chose one as an HQ".

And the rule definitely says "any mek that is not ALREADY part of another unit must join an infantry or artillery unit if possible". So that suggests to me that you can take a unit and join it any other unit, and then carry on. Having said that, I can't cite a rule, but I don't think vehicles/transports really work like that do they? they are not a unit you can "join" (except with other like vehicles) as such are they? You are using them or not...so the mek is not "already part of a unit" if it is simply inside the morkanaut... it has to have other similar models with it in the "unit".

Right?

I'm talking against myself here, but rules is rules....


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I would say you are right some bloke... I could take a mek as an hq choice, then join another mek to it, as that mek would be picked based on one of the other HQ choices... but then I'd have to drop the big mek, weirdboy or mad dok as you can only have 3 in the foc..... hmmm.. toughie..

 some bloke wrote:
I'm afraid I'm going to throw a spanner in the works here, but...

Mekaniak rule makes no restrictions on what the mek joins, other than that it be either infantry or artillery.

a mek is an infantry unit.

so can't we just bypass all this by joining a mek to another mek? nothing says we can't...

this would also allow the meks to be deploying inside the gorkanaught.

How do you get the first Mek on the table for the second Mek to join?

 Kriswall wrote:

How do you get the first Mek on the table for the second Mek to join?

you don't have to, the joining takes place before deployment, immediately after warlord traits.

I'll have to review the rules when I get home. My feeling is that there is a sequencing element at play here. You would normally have to decide in which order to do things that would normally happen "simultaneously". If you are allowed to perform both Mek assignments at the same time, you could probably argue that they can join each other. This probably violates the intention (probable RaI) of the rule since the intention seems to be for each Mek to go off and join a group of Boyz of one sort or another. If you are required to resolve each assignment individually, the second Mek won't be around yet for the first to be assigned to.

I'll be curious to hear what people think until such time as I can review the rules myself.

 Kriswall wrote:
If you are required to resolve each assignment individually, the second Mek won't be around yet for the first to be assigned to.

What do you mean "won't be around yet" - he's around; his model's probably unpacked, his entry is in the army list... where would he be if not "around"

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
If you are required to resolve each assignment individually, the second Mek won't be around yet for the first to be assigned to.

What do you mean "won't be around yet" - he's around; his model's probably unpacked, his entry is in the army list... where would he be if not "around"

I meant in the same sense of how you can't attach an IC to a unit you haven't deployed yet. I don't have all my rulebooks with me, so I can't look up the interactions. BUT...

Here's my potential issue. No rules backup as I don't have rulebooks on me. I'm not sure there ARE rules to cover this situation.

Mek A is assigned to "Infantry Unit B" that contains Mek B (which is currently a Unit of 1). At this point, there is only one Infantry Unit containing both Meks. Assigning Mek B to the Infantry Unit containing Mek A is really assigning him to his own original Unit, "Infantry Unit B". The rules don't cover this situation, but I think it's going against RaI, so HIWPI is to not allow Meks to be assigned to each other. It feels like you shouldn't be allowed to assign a Mek to his own original Unit. No rules backup, but this feels like a loophole that GW would close if they ever wrote in-depth FAQs.

You could also argue that if you assign Mek A to "Infantry Unit B" and at the same time assign Mek B to "Infantry Unit A", you'd end up with two lone Meks, each in a seperate Unit. You wouldn't end up with two Meks together in one Unit. Again, huge potential loophole that seems to run counter to RaI.

loopholes not necessary, and it implies that meks are in fact meant to be able to join one another. the rule states "Any mek that is not already part of another unit must, if possible, be assigned to any unit with the infantry or artillery type in their detachment."

I think the case may be closed!

Meks can join other meks.

 some bloke wrote:
loopholes not necessary, and it implies that meks are in fact meant to be able to join one another. the rule states "Any mek that is not already part of another unit must, if possible, be assigned to any unit with the infantry or artillery type in their detachment."

I think the case may be closed!

Meks can join other meks.

Case not closed. Here's the issue...

Meks must be assigned to any unit with the infantry or artillery type. If you assign the first Mek to the second Mek (since the second Mek is really an Infantry Unit composed of 1 model), then there is no longer a unit for the second Mek to be assigned to. You can't assign him to his own unit and there is only one unit on the table.

 Kriswall wrote:

 some bloke wrote:
loopholes not necessary, and it implies that meks are in fact meant to be able to join one another. the rule states "Any mek that is not already part of another unit must, if possible, be assigned to any unit with the infantry or artillery type in their detachment."

I think the case may be closed!

Meks can join other meks.

Case not closed. Here's the issue...

Meks must be assigned to any unit with the infantry or artillery type. If you assign the first Mek to the second Mek (since the second Mek is really an Infantry Unit composed of 1 model), then there is no longer a unit for the second Mek to be assigned to. You can't assign him to his own unit and there is only one unit on the table.

Why can't he attach to another unit? There are certainly other units present!

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Why can't he attach to another unit? There are certainly other units present!

Certainly, he can attach to any other Unit, but that would not create the "Only 2 Meks" Unit some here are trying to create (for reasons unknown)

 BlackTalos wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Why can't he attach to another unit? There are certainly other units present!

Certainly, he can attach to any other Unit, but that would not create the "Only 2 Meks" Unit some here are trying to create (for reasons unknown)

Yeah he can absolutely be assigned to a different unit... just not the "other Mek unit" as the other mek unit no longer exists.

 Kriswall wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Why can't he attach to another unit? There are certainly other units present!

Certainly, he can attach to any other Unit, but that would not create the "Only 2 Meks" Unit some here are trying to create (for reasons unknown)

Yeah he can absolutely be assigned to a different unit... just not the "other Mek unit" as the other mek unit no longer exists.

Still an IC though

Meks are not ICs.

 Kriswall wrote:
Meks are not ICs.

Yes but the two of them could join an IC as we determined earlier.

 some bloke wrote:
it implies that meks are in fact meant to be able to join one another.

You missed where this was the "new subject" currently.

okay, I'm going to repost this with emphasis and explanations, as it seems to have missed a few people.

"Any mek that is not already part of another unit must, if possible, be assigned to any unit with the infantry or artillery type in their detachment."

so here's how it works:

Mek A and mek B want to be together.

Mek A is assigned to mek B, who form a unit of 2 meks.

Mek B is now part of another unit (as he is with mek A by virtue of mek A being with him) so does not have to be assigned. this uses the phrase "Any mek that is not already part of a unit" from the rule.

therefore, mek a and mek b live happily ever after.

 some bloke wrote:
okay, I'm going to repost this with emphasis and explanations, as it seems to have missed a few people.

"Any mek that is not already part of another unit must, if possible, be assigned to any unit with the infantry or artillery type in their detachment."

so here's how it works:

Mek A and mek B want to be together.

Mek A is assigned to mek B, who form a unit of 2 meks.

Mek B is now part of another unit (as he is with mek A by virtue of mek A being with him) so does not have to be assigned. this uses the phrase "Any mek that is not already part of a unit" from the rule.

therefore, mek a and mek b live happily ever after.

Except Mek B is not part of another unit. He is still part of the "Mek B" unit.

 some bloke wrote:
okay, I'm going to repost this with emphasis and explanations, as it seems to have missed a few people.

"Any mek that is not already part of another unit must, if possible, be assigned to any unit with the infantry or artillery type in their detachment."

so here's how it works:

Mek A and mek B want to be together.

Mek A is assigned to mek B, who form a unit of 2 meks.

Mek B is now part of another unit (as he is with mek A by virtue of mek A being with him) so does not have to be assigned. this uses the phrase "Any mek that is not already part of a unit" from the rule.

therefore, mek a and mek b live happily ever after.

by the RAW this is allowed.

Mek A and B are both units. a unit can be a model of 1, we are never told meks cannot be a unit. We are told they must join a unit of artillery or infantry if there are any. If there are not any infantry or artillery and you have 1 mek the mek can obviously be placed by itself as it is not required to join anything.

So a mek is an unit, which everyone should already know.

A mek is also an unit with the type "infantry" as per the rules therefore a mek can join an unit with the type infantry, which could be another mek.

The other mek is now a part of a unit.

in fact by the RAW if you have no infantry or artillery units other than say, 2 meks, you would have to assign them together because they are the only infantry or artillery unit.

blaktoof wrote:

 some bloke wrote:
okay, I'm going to repost this with emphasis and explanations, as it seems to have missed a few people.

"Any mek that is not already part of another unit must, if possible, be assigned to any unit with the infantry or artillery type in their detachment."

so here's how it works:

Mek A and mek B want to be together.

Mek A is assigned to mek B, who form a unit of 2 meks.

Mek B is now part of another unit (as he is with mek A by virtue of mek A being with him) so does not have to be assigned. this uses the phrase "Any mek that is not already part of a unit" from the rule.

therefore, mek a and mek b live happily ever after.

by the RAW this is allowed.

Mek A and B are both units. a unit can be a model of 1, we are never told meks cannot be a unit. We are told they must join a unit of artillery or infantry if there are any. If there are not any infantry or artillery and you have 1 mek the mek can obviously be placed by itself as it is not required to join anything.

So a mek is an unit, which everyone should already know.

A mek is also an unit with the type "infantry" as per the rules therefore a mek can join an unit with the type infantry, which could be another mek.

The other mek is now a part of a unit.

in fact by the RAW if you have no infantry or artillery units other than say, 2 meks, you would have to assign them together because they are the only infantry or artillery unit.

RAW it is not allowed. Unless you have no infantry/artillery units.

Mek A is assigned to Mek B's unit. No problem. Mek A is now part of another unit. Mek B, however, is not part of another unit and must, if possible, be assigned to a unit. As such you are left with Mek A in Mek B's unit and Mek B in another unit entirely. Mek B cannot be assigned to Mek A's unit as Mek A's unit ceased to exist when he was assigned to Mek B's unit.

Well, technically, RAW is broken anyhow - simply by virtue of existing, they are "part of another unit:" A unit of one model; their own unit.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Well, technically, RAW is broken anyhow - simply by virtue of existing, they are "part of another unit:" A unit of one model; their own unit.

Except he would be a part of his own unit, not "part of another unit".

if Mek A is assigned to Mek B, when it comes time to assign Mek B to something, whether that be a different time or the same time, Mek B is a part of another unit by the RAW because it is in a unit consisting of a model other than itself.

as neither are ICs they do not gain the units identity they are joined to, so the other member of the unit is definately a unit other than Mek B.

blaktoof wrote:
if Mek A is assigned to Mek B, when it comes time to assign Mek B to something, whether that be a different time or the same time, Mek B is a part of another unit by the RAW because it is in a unit consisting of a model other than itself.

as neither are ICs they do not gain the units identity they are joined to, so the other member of the unit is definately a unit other than Mek B.

What unit is Mek A in?
What unit is Mek B in?

 Happyjew wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
if Mek A is assigned to Mek B, when it comes time to assign Mek B to something, whether that be a different time or the same time, Mek B is a part of another unit by the RAW because it is in a unit consisting of a model other than itself.

as neither are ICs they do not gain the units identity they are joined to, so the other member of the unit is definately a unit other than Mek B.

What unit is Mek A in?
What unit is Mek B in?

It's Schrödinger's Unit From the point of view of Mek A he's a part of the Mek B unit and vice versa. Both Mek units exist and don't exist simultaneously until you decide which Mek you're using for your point of view.

 Ghaz wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
if Mek A is assigned to Mek B, when it comes time to assign Mek B to something, whether that be a different time or the same time, Mek B is a part of another unit by the RAW because it is in a unit consisting of a model other than itself.

as neither are ICs they do not gain the units identity they are joined to, so the other member of the unit is definately a unit other than Mek B.

What unit is Mek A in?
What unit is Mek B in?

It's Schrödinger's Unit From the point of view of Mek A he's a part of the Mek B unit and vice versa. Both Mek units exist and don't exist simultaneously until you decide which Mek you're using for your point of view.

Not really.

I attach Mek A to Mek B;s unit. You currently have Mek B unit composed of Mek A and Mek B. Mek B must still be assigned to another unit if possible.

What blaktoof is trying to do however is Schrödinger's Unit.

the logic you're using to approach this conclusion suggests that mek b isn't with mek a, only mek a is with mek b.

the exact same logic (entirely the way you are using it) suggests the following:

warboss A moves to join warboss B. warboss A is now in the unit with warboss B. However, Warboss B is not in the unit with warboss A, as an IC has to move into coherency, and warboss B didn't do so.

if A joins B, B is joined to A. if B wasn't joined to A, then A can't be joined to B.

I'm going to challenge you now, and if you can achieve what I ask, you're clearly right.

Please write "A" and "B", next to each other (EG: "AB") so that A is next to B but B isn't next to A.

 Happyjew wrote:

I attach Mek A to Mek B;s unit. You currently have Mek B unit composed of Mek A and Mek B. Mek B must still be assigned to another unit if possible.

Please stop implying that the name of a unit has any bearing on whether it is, in fact, a unit. i can call it a flower power unit, and in that unit will still be 2 meks. nowhere does the game start claiming that the meks take the unit name of the unit they join, nor that the unit name even persists once the mek joins - if he joins a unit of boys, the unit would probably be called "Ork Boys and a Mek". the mek joins the mek, this forms a larger unit. both meks are now in a unit, so they no longer need to be placed. seeing as unit upgrade meks don't have the rule, please give any other example in which the "that is not already in a unit" stipulation could ever apply.

 some bloke wrote:
the logic you're using to approach this conclusion suggests that mek b isn't with mek a, only mek a is with mek b.

the exact same logic (entirely the way you are using it) suggests the following:

warboss A moves to join warboss B. warboss A is now in the unit with warboss B. However, Warboss B is not in the unit with warboss A, as an IC has to move into coherency, and warboss B didn't do so.

if A joins B, B is joined to A. if B wasn't joined to A, then A can't be joined to B.

I'm going to challenge you now, and if you can achieve what I ask, you're clearly right.

Please write "A" and "B", next to each other (EG: "AB") so that A is next to B but B isn't next to A.

 Happyjew wrote:

I attach Mek A to Mek B;s unit. You currently have Mek B unit composed of Mek A and Mek B. Mek B must still be assigned to another unit if possible.

Please stop implying that the name of a unit has any bearing on whether it is, in fact, a unit. i can call it a flower power unit, and in that unit will still be 2 meks. nowhere does the game start claiming that the meks take the unit name of the unit they join, nor that the unit name even persists once the mek joins - if he joins a unit of boys, the unit would probably be called "Ork Boys and a Mek". the mek joins the mek, this forms a larger unit. both meks are now in a unit, so they no longer need to be placed. seeing as unit upgrade meks don't have the rule, please give any other example in which the "that is not already in a unit" stipulation could ever apply.

I use "Mek A" and "Mek B" to differentiate between the two units. You can call the units "Bob" and "Steve". "Bob" is composed (at list creation) of a Mek. "Steve" is composed (at list creation) of a Mek. At the start of the game (or whenever assignment is done), I assign the Mek from "Bob" to the unit called "Steve". The Mek originally from "Steve" still has not been assigned to another unit. He cannot be assigned to the unit being called "Bob" as that unit does not exist. Similar to a Royal Court ceases to exist if all members are assigned to other units.

 Happyjew wrote:

I use "Mek A" and "Mek B" to differentiate between the two units. You can call the units "Bob" and "Steve". "Bob" is composed (at list creation) of a Mek. "Steve" is composed (at list creation) of a Mek. At the start of the game (or whenever assignment is done), I assign the Mek from "Bob" to the unit called "Steve". The Mek originally from "Steve" still has not been assigned to another unit. He cannot be assigned to the unit being called "Bob" as that unit does not exist. Similar to a Royal Court ceases to exist if all members are assigned to other units.

the main issue here is how you can explain that unit A is joined to unit B, but unit B is not joined to unit A.

if unit B isn't joined to unit A, then unit A can't be joined to unit B. it's like (not the same as, I don't want to go into the slightly different way IC's work) saying warboss A is joined to warboss B, but warboss B isn't joined to warboss A. so when you shoot at them, which one do you aim at.

By virtue of another unit joining a unit, the second unit becomes itself part of another unit.

if a painboy joins a warboss, does it become a warboss unit, a painboy unit, or it's own unit? I'm of the opinion it becomes its own unit.

so if a mek joins another mek, the second mek is already part of another unit.

to disprove this, please do as I asked and write "AB" or "BA" with A next to B but B not next to A.

 some bloke wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

I use "Mek A" and "Mek B" to differentiate between the two units. You can call the units "Bob" and "Steve". "Bob" is composed (at list creation) of a Mek. "Steve" is composed (at list creation) of a Mek. At the start of the game (or whenever assignment is done), I assign the Mek from "Bob" to the unit called "Steve". The Mek originally from "Steve" still has not been assigned to another unit. He cannot be assigned to the unit being called "Bob" as that unit does not exist. Similar to a Royal Court ceases to exist if all members are assigned to other units.

the main issue here is how you can explain that unit A is joined to unit B, but unit B is not joined to unit A.

A Warboss (unit A) joins a quad of boyz (unit B). Please use the rules to explain how the Boyz join the IC.

if unit B isn't joined to unit A, then unit A can't be joined to unit B. it's like (not the same as, I don't want to go into the slightly different way IC's work) saying warboss A is joined to warboss B, but warboss B isn't joined to warboss A. so when you shoot at them, which one do you aim at.

By virtue of another unit joining a unit, the second unit becomes itself part of another unit.

if a painboy joins a warboss, does it become a warboss unit, a painboy unit, or it's own unit? I'm of the opinion it becomes its own unit.

If a Painboy joins a Warboss, you have a Warboss unit composed of a Warboss and a Painboy. As per the IC rules.

Yeah, it's important to remember that Joining is an active thing. Two ICs never Join each other. One Joins the other. The other is being Joined by the first. They end up Joined together as one unit, but it's because one of them did the Joining.

If Mek A is assigned to the Unit containing Mek B, you have a Unit containing both Meks. However, per the rules, you still have to assign Mek B to a unit and you haven't yet. You can't assign him to the Mek A Unit, because it doesn't exist anymore. It ceased to exist as soon as you assigned Mek A to a Unit.

the arguments using ICs are not relavent, as ICs donot have the same rules as meks, which are not ICs, they are infantry (character).

If you have 2 meks, Mek A and Mek B

You have permission to join them as they are infantry.

So you could join Mek A to Mek B.

Mek B no longer has to be joined to anything because it is already part of another unit(other than the unit of itself). Stating that Mek B is not part of a unit is false as it is part of a unit other than itself.

Mek A = Unit 1
Mek B = Unit 2
Mek AB= Unit 3

Both Mek A and Mek B are units in their own right, their own unit.

When Mek A is joined to Mek B the unit now consists of 2 models, both Mek A and Mek B, noted as unit 3. Mek B is no longer a unit of its own, unit 2, it is now part of another unit, as there is another model in the unit, Mek A.

Claiming that mek B is not part of a unit other then the unit it previously was is false, as there is clearly other models in the unit and it is part of a unit.

blaktoof wrote:
the arguments using ICs are not relavent, as ICs donot have the same rules as meks, which are not ICs, they are infantry (character).

If you have 2 meks, Mek A and Mek B

You have permission to join them as they are infantry.

So you could join Mek A to Mek B.

Mek B no longer has to be joined to anything because it is already part of another unit(other than the unit of itself). Stating that Mek B is not part of a unit is false as it is part of a unit other than itself.

Mek A = Unit 1
Mek B = Unit 2
Mek AB= Unit 3

Both Mek A and Mek B are units in their own right, their own unit.

When Mek A is joined to Mek B the unit now consists of 2 models, both Mek A and Mek B, noted as unit 3. Mek B is no longer a unit of its own, unit 2, it is now part of another unit, as there is another model in the unit, Mek A.

Claiming that mek B is not part of a unit other then the unit it previously was is false, as there is clearly other models in the unit and it is part of a unit.

No, that is incorrect because when you join Mek A to Mek B, this happens:
Mek A = Unit 1
Mek B = Unit 2
Mek A +> Mek B = Unit 2

Or, if you decide to join Mek B to Mek A, then the resulting unit is:
Unit 1, of Mek A, which Mek B has now joined.

You never get "Unit 3", because Mek A or Mek B are not joining anything else than themselves.

regardless of what you state:

Mek AB unit Mek B is part of a unit other then itself, correct or incorrect?

 BlackTalos wrote:

No, that is incorrect because when you join Mek A to Mek B, this happens:
Mek A = Unit 1
Mek B = Unit 2
Mek A +> Mek B = Unit 2

Or, if you decide to join Mek B to Mek A, then the resulting unit is:
Unit 1, of Mek A, which Mek B has now joined.

You never get "Unit 3", because Mek A or Mek B are not joining anything else than themselves.

well here's the thing.

Whether mek B is still a unit called Mek B is irrelevant.

if mek a joins mek b, mek b is part of another unit - a unit that's still called "Mek" but contains models other than those originally bought for that unit.

so yes, mek A joins mek B, which becomes a unit called "Mek B". mek B is in the unit called "Mek B", but is already in a unit with other models, from another unit.

Depends who joined who.

If Mek A joins Mek B, then Mek B belongs to Unit "Mek B".

If Mek B joins mek A, then Mek A belongs to Unit "Mek A".

That means they have not joined "another Unit", as they are required to do...

If "Mek AB unit" is "Mek B unit", then Mek B hasn't joined anything yet.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 some bloke wrote:
if mek a joins mek b, mek b is part of another unit - a unit that's still called "Mek" but contains models other than those originally bought for that unit.

so yes, mek A joins mek B, which becomes a unit called "Mek B". mek B is in the unit called "Mek B", but is already in a unit with other models, from another unit.

No, the fact that that Mek B is still in "his own Unit" means he has not joined anyone, regardless of how many models have joined him......

mek B is not his own unit, he is in a unit with itself +1 model which is different than its own starting unit of just Mek B.

stating that mek B is still its own unit is also saying Mek A was not assigned to Mek B, because the unit is no longer the original unit.

Mek A does not lose its identity when joined to Mek B- counting as part of the unit for rules purposes does not mean it no longer exists and there is only Mek B, and Mek B is obviously not the unit of just Mek B anymore, stating otherwise is false.

It is different, but it is still his Unit, of himself +xx.

The mekaniak rule requires the Mek to join a Unit. Has Mek B joined a Unit?
Someone join him, but did he join anything? Can you prove he joined himself?

Then the Mekaniak rule doesn't even need to exist, you can just field Meks on their own.....


Automatically Appended Next Post:

blaktoof wrote:
Mek B is obviously not the unit of just Mek B anymore, stating otherwise is false.

If a Mek joins a Unit of "Burna Boyz", is it no longer a Unit of "Burna Boyz"?

Has it become a Unit of "Burna Boyz with a Mek"?

blaktoof wrote:
regardless of what you state:

Mek AB unit Mek B is part of a unit other then itself, correct or incorrect?

Correct. However, you did not assign him to that unit. So long as there is at least one other Infantry or Artillery unit in your army, you'd have to assign him to that unit. You can't just say "Well, through a different unit's rule my Mek is now in a unit, so I'm allowed to ignore the requirement that I assign him to an Infantry or Artillery unit". The rule doesn't require he BE in an Infantry/Artillery unit. The rule requires you PUT him in one.

You are required to assign meks that are not already part of another unit.

the unit of Mek A is now an unit of MekAB

There is another model in the unit, it is different than the original unit.

Mek B and Mek A both qualify as units you are allowed to assign to because they are "any infantry or artillery unit" so by the clear RAW you are allowed to join them.

when it comes time to say if you joined Mek A it no longer matters because Mek is no longer by itself, it is part of another unit.

the unit mek A is different than the unit Mek B. One is 1 model, the other is two models and the models do not cease to exist or be just because they are joined in a unit together.

Mek A does not need to be assigned because it is no longer an unit of "Mek A" it now a unit of Mek "AB"

in addition as there is no rule preventing you from joining them, and the RAW clearly shows you are allowed to- there is no rule allowing you to take the Mek out of the unit and put it somewhere else, just as there no rule requiring you to join a Mek joined to an IC or a Boyz unit to a different unit.

clearly you are allowed to join the mek to any infantry or artillery unit, yes?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BlackTalos wrote:
It is different, but it is still his Unit, of himself +xx.

The mekaniak rule requires the Mek to join a Unit. Has Mek B joined a Unit?
Someone join him, but did he join anything? Can you prove he joined himself?

Then the Mekaniak rule doesn't even need to exist, you can just field Meks on their own.....


Automatically Appended Next Post:

blaktoof wrote:
Mek B is obviously not the unit of just Mek B anymore, stating otherwise is false.

If a Mek joins a Unit of "Burna Boyz", is it no longer a Unit of "Burna Boyz"?

Has it become a Unit of "Burna Boyz with a Mek"?

the burna boyz are obviously still burned boyz, and the mek is joined to the unit, but the mek is not a burna boy does not use its unit entry for any purposes and obviously has the rules and statline etc from the mek entry. So while the unit may move together, shoot/assault together, take casualties and morale together, they are not all the same. obviously one model is a Mek from its own unit entry and the other models are burna boyz from their own unit entry.

there is no actual rules regarding naming units on the tabletop, or unit identities in the way you are using them. So although we have a convention of saying "the burna boyz disembark and fire their burnas at your unit" and if the mek is in the unit we are aware as players it is there because the model is physically there, the mek obviously is not a burna boy and it is a unit of burna boyz with an attached mek.

Here is the Rule:

"Any mek that is not already part of another unit must, if possible, be assigned to any unit with the infantry or artillery type in their detachment."

"Mek B Unit" can not be "another unit" for Mek B.

Even if Mek A joins him and they are now a new "Mek B Unit" with 2 models. Mek B is still in his own Unit. Just like the Bunra boyz are always Burna boyz

Mek B is an unit

Mek BA is another unit.

blaktoof wrote:
Mek B is an unit

Mek BA is another unit.

Mek BA is a unit that doesn't exist.

Blaktoof...

Attaching another model to a unit doesn't make it a new and different unit. It's the same unit with an extra model in it.

If you believe it becomes a new unit, cite some rules.

there is permission to attach the Mek to a Mek, cite a rule stating there is not.

an unit consisting of Mek A

is different than an unit consisting of MekAB, a combination which you are told you are allowed to do per the rules as Mek B is any infantry unity.

Unless you can show you are not allowed to attack Mek A to Mek B, as we are given explicit permission that we can attach Mek A to any infantry unit, and Mek B is an infantry unit.

Then there is no actual conflict in being permitted to attach the Meks together within the rules for assigning Meks, which is contained within the Mek rule.

There is a conflict. One of the Mek's ends up not being assigned to a unit as dictated by the Mekaniaks rule.

blaktoof wrote:
there is permission to attach the Mek to a Mek, cite a rule stating there is not.

an unit consisting of Mek A

is different than an unit consisting of MekAB, a combination which you are told you are allowed to do per the rules as Mek B is any infantry unity.

Unless you can show you are not allowed to attack Mek A to Mek B, as we are given explicit permission that we can attach Mek A to any infantry unit, and Mek B is an infantry unit.

Then there is no actual conflict in being permitted to attach the Meks together within the rules for assigning Meks, which is contained within the Mek rule.

Ugh. Good times. Let's do this.

Relevant sentence from the Mekaniaks rule... "Before the battle, immediately after determining Warlord Traits, any Mek that is not already part of another unit must, if possible, be assigned to any unit with the Infantry or Artillery type in their Detachment; a Mek cannot leave his unit and is treated as part of it for the entire battle for all rules purposes."

Since we're getting nowhere in this debate, I'm going to use the following CAD as an example.

Combined Arms Detachment - Codex: Orks
HQ - Warboss (Warlord)
HQ - Weirdboy
HQ - Mek (who we will call Jim)
HQ - Mek (who we will call John)
Troops - 10 Boyz
Troops - 10 Grots w/1 Runtherd

Ok, so before the battle and immediately after determining Warlord Traits, we need to resolve the rules bit above. I haven't deployed anything, so the ICs are still both seperate. We currently have 6 Units. I'm going to avoid naming them and instead use numbers...

Unit #1 (Warboss)
Unit #2 (Weirdboy)
Unit #3 (Mek Jim)
Unit #4 (Mek John)
Unit #5 (10 Boyz)
Unit #6 (10 Grots/1 Runtherd)

Let's look at Mek Jim. Is he "already part of another unit"? Well, he's part of the unit he started in and that's definitely not "another unit". So, no. What do I need to do? Mek Jim "must, if possible, be assigned to any unit with the Infantry or Artillery type". Does Unit #4 have the Infantry Type? It does. I'm assigning Mek Jim to Unit #4. New setup...

Unit #1 (Warboss)
Unit #2 (Weirdboy)
Unit #4 (Mek John/Mek Jim)
Unit #5 (10 Boyz)
Unit #6 (10 Grots/1 Runtherd)

As you can see, Unit #3 is no longer around as it no longer has any members. Unit #4 is still Unit #4. It has simply had another model assigned to it.

But... we still need to look at Mek John. He also has the same rule. Is he "already part of another unit"? Well, just like Mek Jim, he's part of the unit he started in and that's definitely not "another unit". So, no. What do I need to do? Mek John "must, if possible, be assigned to any unit with the Infantry or Artillery type". I have 4 "another" units with the Infantry type... units #1, #2, #5 and #6. Let's assign John to Unit #1. New Setup...

Unit #1 (Warboss/Mek John)
Unit #2 (Weirdboy)
Unit $4 (Mek Jim)
Unit #5 (10 Boyz)
Unit #6 (10 Grots/1 Runtherd)

There is no possible way to obey the rules for both Meks and end up with a unit consisting of Mek Jim and Mek John. The rules just don't support it. It IS possible to end up with a Mek by himself using the above as an example.

If you have three Meks, it's possible to have two together, but the third must be assigned to another unit. You would simply assign Meks Jim and John to the unit containing Mek #3 and then assign Mek #3 to another unit.

You contention that adding a model to an existing unit turns the unit into a different unit is unfounded. The rules don't support this. It's the same unit... simply with an extra member. If you feel that I am wrong, cite the rules and provide an example, as I have. I'm happy to reverse my position if you can provide actual rules citations and examples showing how you think those rules work.

On a side note... you know that units and models aren't the same, right? Meks have no permission to be assigned to other Meks. They have permission to be assigned to other UNITS. If that other unit happens to contain a Mek, fine, but the Mek is never being assigned to a specific model. It's always to the Unit and units can change member models without becoming new units.

 Kriswall wrote:

Ugh. Good times. Let's do this.

Relevant sentence from the Mekaniaks rule... "Before the battle, immediately after determining Warlord Traits, any Mek that is not already part of another unit must, if possible, be assigned to any unit with the Infantry or Artillery type in their Detachment; a Mek cannot leave his unit and is treated as part of it for the entire battle for all rules purposes."

Since we're getting nowhere in this debate, I'm going to use the following CAD as an example.

Combined Arms Detachment - Codex: Orks
HQ - Warboss (Warlord)
HQ - Weirdboy
HQ - Mek (who we will call Jim)
HQ - Mek (who we will call John)
Troops - 10 Boyz
Troops - 10 Grots w/1 Runtherd

Ok, so before the battle and immediately after determining Warlord Traits, we need to resolve the rules bit above. I haven't deployed anything, so the ICs are still both seperate. We currently have 6 Units. I'm going to avoid naming them and instead use numbers...

Unit #1 (Warboss)
Unit #2 (Weirdboy)
Unit #3 (Mek Jim)
Unit #4 (Mek John)
Unit #5 (10 Boyz)
Unit #6 (10 Grots/1 Runtherd)

Let's look at Mek Jim. Is he "already part of another unit"? Well, he's part of the unit he started in and that's definitely not "another unit". So, no. What do I need to do? Mek Jim "must, if possible, be assigned to any unit with the Infantry or Artillery type". Does Unit #4 have the Infantry Type? It does. I'm assigning Mek Jim to Unit #4. New setup...

Unit #1 (Warboss)
Unit #2 (Weirdboy)
Unit #4 (Mek John/Mek Jim)
Unit #5 (10 Boyz)
Unit #6 (10 Grots/1 Runtherd)

As you can see, Unit #3 is no longer around as it no longer has any members. Unit #4 is still Unit #4. It has simply had another model assigned to it.

But... we still need to look at Mek John. He also has the same rule. Is he "already part of another unit"? Well, just like Mek Jim, he's part of the unit he started in and that's definitely not "another unit". So, no. What do I need to do? Mek John "must, if possible, be assigned to any unit with the Infantry or Artillery type". I have 4 "another" units with the Infantry type... units #1, #2, #5 and #6. Let's assign John to Unit #1. New Setup...

Unit #1 (Warboss/Mek John)
Unit #2 (Weirdboy)
Unit $4 (Mek Jim)
Unit #5 (10 Boyz)
Unit #6 (10 Grots/1 Runtherd)

There is no possible way to obey the rules for both Meks and end up with a unit consisting of Mek Jim and Mek John. The rules just don't support it. It IS possible to end up with a Mek by himself using the above as an example.

If you have three Meks, it's possible to have two together, but the third must be assigned to another unit. You would simply assign Meks Jim and John to the unit containing Mek #3 and then assign Mek #3 to another unit.

You contention that adding a model to an existing unit turns the unit into a different unit is unfounded. The rules don't support this. It's the same unit... simply with an extra member. If you feel that I am wrong, cite the rules and provide an example, as I have. I'm happy to reverse my position if you can provide actual rules citations and examples showing how you think those rules work.

On a side note... you know that units and models aren't the same, right? Meks have no permission to be assigned to other Meks. They have permission to be assigned to other UNITS. If that other unit happens to contain a Mek, fine, but the Mek is never being assigned to a specific model. It's always to the Unit and units can change member models without becoming new units.

The bit where you went wrong here, I think, is that when mek A joined mek B, then mek B joined the warboss, he would have taken mek A with him, as mek A counts as part of the unit and cannot leave it.

I can, however, see where you're coming from regarding mek B not being part of another unit. It does still strike me as incorrect, as mek A and B are joined so by all logical rights are assigned to one another.

so in order to make a unit of meks on their own, you have to join them to an IC, then move the IC away. a little more hassle but with clever deployment, entirely feasable without any disruption to the army:

deploy IC with meks next to gorkanaught or whatever, and also next to a unit for the IC to join.
move IC into the other unit, move meks into gorkanaught.

Yes you would have to assign the meks to units at the same time. You cannot sequentially join one and then the other causing the first to be a unit consisting of himself.

Kris, I do understand what you are stating.

My point is that before a mek joins an unit and counts as part of it for rules purposes, a Mek has permission to be assigned to any infantry or artillery unit, with no listed exceptions.

As such h a Mek has permission to join a Mek.

What happens after that is a RAI discussion that is based on what part of another unit means.

Is the Mek part of an unit other than Mek?

Is the Mek part of an unit with other models?

Both satisfy what another could intend. And the rule offers no clarity beyond that.

Despite that part, prior to that the Mek is allowed to be assigned to the other Mek and nothing tells us about unassigning the Mek, or that it cannot be assigned to another Mek. Additionally we do not have permission to join a Mek unit of more than a Mek to anything.

blaktoof wrote:
Kris, I do understand what you are stating.

My point is that before a mek joins an unit and counts as part of it for rules purposes, a Mek has permission to be assigned to any infantry or artillery unit, with no listed exceptions.

As such h a Mek has permission to join a Mek.

What happens after that is a RAI discussion that is based on what part of another unit means.

Is the Mek part of an unit other than Mek?

Is the Mek part of an unit with other models?

Both satisfy what another could intend. And the rule offers no clarity beyond that.

Despite that part, prior to that the Mek is allowed to be assigned to the other Mek and nothing tells us about unassigning the Mek, or that it cannot be assigned to another Mek. Additionally we do not have permission to join a Mek unit of more than a Mek to anything.

I still don't think you understand the difference between individual models and units consisting of one model. The Mek is never, at any point, EVER given permission to be assigned to another model. He is given permission to be assigned to another UNIT. The other Mek isn't a unit. He's IN a unit, but he's not a unit. He's a model. Sure, he's the only one in the unit.

The rules are extremely straightforward so long as you understand the difference between individual models and units consisting of one model. If you don't understand this difference, you'll never understand how this rule works or why you can't have two Meks "join each other".

I've never argued that you can't assign Mek A to the UNIT that Mek B starts in. I'm arguing that if you don't then assign Mek B to ANOTHER UNIT, as the rules require, you're skipping a rule. You can't do that if you plan on playing by RaW. If you're house ruling, go crazy, but mark it as HYWPI.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Eihnlazer wrote:
Yes you would have to assign the meks to units at the same time. You cannot sequentially join one and then the other causing the first to be a unit consisting of himself.

If I assign Mek A to Unit B and Mek B to Unit A at the same time... I'm left with two Units, each with one Mek. I'm not left with two Meks in one Unit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 some bloke wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

Ugh. Good times. Let's do this.

Relevant sentence from the Mekaniaks rule... "Before the battle, immediately after determining Warlord Traits, any Mek that is not already part of another unit must, if possible, be assigned to any unit with the Infantry or Artillery type in their Detachment; a Mek cannot leave his unit and is treated as part of it for the entire battle for all rules purposes."

Since we're getting nowhere in this debate, I'm going to use the following CAD as an example.

Combined Arms Detachment - Codex: Orks
HQ - Warboss (Warlord)
HQ - Weirdboy
HQ - Mek (who we will call Jim)
HQ - Mek (who we will call John)
Troops - 10 Boyz
Troops - 10 Grots w/1 Runtherd

Ok, so before the battle and immediately after determining Warlord Traits, we need to resolve the rules bit above. I haven't deployed anything, so the ICs are still both seperate. We currently have 6 Units. I'm going to avoid naming them and instead use numbers...

Unit #1 (Warboss)
Unit #2 (Weirdboy)
Unit #3 (Mek Jim)
Unit #4 (Mek John)
Unit #5 (10 Boyz)
Unit #6 (10 Grots/1 Runtherd)

Let's look at Mek Jim. Is he "already part of another unit"? Well, he's part of the unit he started in and that's definitely not "another unit". So, no. What do I need to do? Mek Jim "must, if possible, be assigned to any unit with the Infantry or Artillery type". Does Unit #4 have the Infantry Type? It does. I'm assigning Mek Jim to Unit #4. New setup...

Unit #1 (Warboss)
Unit #2 (Weirdboy)
Unit #4 (Mek John/Mek Jim)
Unit #5 (10 Boyz)
Unit #6 (10 Grots/1 Runtherd)

As you can see, Unit #3 is no longer around as it no longer has any members. Unit #4 is still Unit #4. It has simply had another model assigned to it.

But... we still need to look at Mek John. He also has the same rule. Is he "already part of another unit"? Well, just like Mek Jim, he's part of the unit he started in and that's definitely not "another unit". So, no. What do I need to do? Mek John "must, if possible, be assigned to any unit with the Infantry or Artillery type". I have 4 "another" units with the Infantry type... units #1, #2, #5 and #6. Let's assign John to Unit #1. New Setup...

Unit #1 (Warboss/Mek John)
Unit #2 (Weirdboy)
Unit $4 (Mek Jim)
Unit #5 (10 Boyz)
Unit #6 (10 Grots/1 Runtherd)

There is no possible way to obey the rules for both Meks and end up with a unit consisting of Mek Jim and Mek John. The rules just don't support it. It IS possible to end up with a Mek by himself using the above as an example.

If you have three Meks, it's possible to have two together, but the third must be assigned to another unit. You would simply assign Meks Jim and John to the unit containing Mek #3 and then assign Mek #3 to another unit.

You contention that adding a model to an existing unit turns the unit into a different unit is unfounded. The rules don't support this. It's the same unit... simply with an extra member. If you feel that I am wrong, cite the rules and provide an example, as I have. I'm happy to reverse my position if you can provide actual rules citations and examples showing how you think those rules work.

On a side note... you know that units and models aren't the same, right? Meks have no permission to be assigned to other Meks. They have permission to be assigned to other UNITS. If that other unit happens to contain a Mek, fine, but the Mek is never being assigned to a specific model. It's always to the Unit and units can change member models without becoming new units.

The bit where you went wrong here, I think, is that when mek A joined mek B, then mek B joined the warboss, he would have taken mek A with him, as mek A counts as part of the unit and cannot leave it.

I can, however, see where you're coming from regarding mek B not being part of another unit. It does still strike me as incorrect, as mek A and B are joined so by all logical rights are assigned to one another.

so in order to make a unit of meks on their own, you have to join them to an IC, then move the IC away. a little more hassle but with clever deployment, entirely feasable without any disruption to the army:

deploy IC with meks next to gorkanaught or whatever, and also next to a unit for the IC to join.
move IC into the other unit, move meks into gorkanaught.

Do you have any rules saying that Mek B would take Mek A with him? We're assigning the Mek to another unit... not the Mek plus any other models that happen to currently be in his unit. What you're contending isn't supported by the rules. If you believe otherwise, please cite your rules source.

But otherwise, yes. Your example of the IC is exactly how that would work. Assign both Meks to an IC and then just have the IC leave in turn 1.

 Kriswall wrote:


Do you have any rules saying that Mek B would take Mek A with him? We're assigning the Mek to another unit... not the Mek plus any other models that happen to currently be in his unit. What you're contending isn't supported by the rules. If you believe otherwise, please cite your rules source.

But otherwise, yes. Your example of the IC is exactly how that would work. Assign both Meks to an IC and then just have the IC leave in turn 1.

Well, the way I see it is that if something is assigned to a unit, and can never leave that unit unless the unit dies, then if that unit is elsewhere on the table and still alive, it must have left it. the IC rules allow this to happen, but as we all know, meks aren't IC's.

I'm seeing now that this is all stemming from confusion over "models" and "Units".

the rule states:

"Before the battle, immediately after determining Warlord Traits, any Mek that is not already part of another unit must, if possible, be assigned to any unit with the Infantry or Artillery type in their Detachment; a Mek cannot leave his unit and is treated as part of it for the entire battle for all rules purposes."

You're saying that this is referring to the model "Mek".

I'm saying this refers to the unit "Mek".

and as we've all established now that Mek A joins mek B, forming a unit called mek B, when the unit called mek B joins a squad, the whole unit does so, not just one model in it.

SO, this appears to have been beaten into the ground by this point...