Codex Thousand Sons, p.49 wrote:Each time the bearer is selected to fight, instead of fighting, you can select one enemy INFANTRY model with a Leadership characteristic of 9 or less that is within Engagement Range of it. If you do, the selected enemy model immediately makes close combat attacks against its own unit: until it has resolved these attacks it is treated as being a model from your army for all rules purposes. If, as a result of these attacks, the enemy model destroys its own unit, the bearer counts as having destroyed that unit for all rules purposes.

We were discussing this in the pub last night. Can I use this against a single-model unit, such as a Character to make him commit sudoku?

I don't think so-the model is treated as part of your army while making those attacks, so it wouldn't be able to attack itself.

 Valkyrie wrote:

Codex Thousand Sons, p.49 wrote:Each time the bearer is selected to fight, instead of fighting, you can select one enemy INFANTRY model with a Leadership characteristic of 9 or less that is within Engagement Range of it. If you do, the selected enemy model immediately makes close combat attacks against its own unit: until it has resolved these attacks it is treated as being a model from your army for all rules purposes. If, as a result of these attacks, the enemy model destroys its own unit, the bearer counts as having destroyed that unit for all rules purposes.

We were discussing this in the pub last night. Can I use this against a single-model unit, such as a Character to make him commit sudoku?

That model has no eligible targets to make attacks against, as no enemy model is in attack range while it is considered part of your army 'for all intents and purposes'.

Tsagualsa wrote:

 Valkyrie wrote:

Codex Thousand Sons, p.49 wrote:Each time the bearer is selected to fight, instead of fighting, you can select one enemy INFANTRY model with a Leadership characteristic of 9 or less that is within Engagement Range of it. If you do, the selected enemy model immediately makes close combat attacks against its own unit: until it has resolved these attacks it is treated as being a model from your army for all rules purposes. If, as a result of these attacks, the enemy model destroys its own unit, the bearer counts as having destroyed that unit for all rules purposes.

We were discussing this in the pub last night. Can I use this against a single-model unit, such as a Character to make him commit sudoku?

That model has no eligible targets to make attacks against, as no enemy model is in attack range while it is considered part of your army 'for all intents and purposes'.

The rule doesnt mention that the enemy model has to pick a target for its attack. The rule says it immediately makes close combat attacks against its own unit, skipping the step where a unit selects a target, the target is preselected. A one model unit can attack its own unit.

 Valkyrie wrote:

Codex Thousand Sons, p.49 wrote:Each time the bearer is selected to fight, instead of fighting, you can select one enemy INFANTRY model with a Leadership characteristic of 9 or less that is within Engagement Range of it. If you do, the selected enemy model immediately makes close combat attacks against its own unit: until it has resolved these attacks it is treated as being a model from your army for all rules purposes. If, as a result of these attacks, the enemy model destroys its own unit, the bearer counts as having destroyed that unit for all rules purposes.

We were discussing this in the pub last night. Can I use this against a single-model unit, such as a Character to make him commit sudoku?

I see no problem with making him take a time-out from the fight phase to complete a number puzzle, no.

 p5freak wrote:

Tsagualsa wrote:

 Valkyrie wrote:

Codex Thousand Sons, p.49 wrote:Each time the bearer is selected to fight, instead of fighting, you can select one enemy INFANTRY model with a Leadership characteristic of 9 or less that is within Engagement Range of it. If you do, the selected enemy model immediately makes close combat attacks against its own unit: until it has resolved these attacks it is treated as being a model from your army for all rules purposes. If, as a result of these attacks, the enemy model destroys its own unit, the bearer counts as having destroyed that unit for all rules purposes.

We were discussing this in the pub last night. Can I use this against a single-model unit, such as a Character to make him commit sudoku?

That model has no eligible targets to make attacks against, as no enemy model is in attack range while it is considered part of your army 'for all intents and purposes'.

The rule doesnt mention that the enemy model has to pick a target for its attack. The rule says it immediately makes close combat attacks against its own unit, skipping the step where a unit selects a target, the target is preselected. A one model unit can attack its own unit.

But going by rules as written 'Making close combat attacks' is a whole sequence of steps in itself, which includes announcing targets and picking weapons for the attacks. Going by that, this sequence fails in the 'Pick targets' step, as there are none to pick.

Ignore p5. He’s ignoring the fact you don’t make attacks against your own army, and this model is treated as being part of your army. His effort falls at the first hurdle. Not the first time the Core Rules have eluded him.

Tsagualsa wrote:

But going by rules as written 'Making close combat attacks' is a whole sequence of steps in itself, which includes announcing targets and picking weapons for the attacks. Going by that, this sequence fails in the 'Pick targets' step, as there are none to pick.

The mirror rules are more specific than the general ones of the fight phase, overriding them. The target is preselected by the mirror, the model making attacks is preselected by the mirror. Weapons need to be chosen, and then attacks are rolled.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Ignore p5. He’s ignoring the fact you don’t make attacks against your own army, and this model is treated as being part of your army. His effort falls at the first hurdle. Not the first time the Core Rules have eluded him.

Ignore Johnny. He has no clue that specific rules override general rules. By your interpretation this mirror doesnt work at all, and no one has noticed, yet ?

 p5freak wrote:

Tsagualsa wrote:

But going by rules as written 'Making close combat attacks' is a whole sequence of steps in itself, which includes announcing targets and picking weapons for the attacks. Going by that, this sequence fails in the 'Pick targets' step, as there are none to pick.

The mirror rules are more specific than the general ones of the fight phase, overriding them. The target is preselected by the mirror, the model making attacks is preselected by the mirror. Weapons need to be chosen, and then attacks are rolled.

Yes, the target is preselected, but the targeted enemy model is not considered part of that target until it has resolved the attacks. Effectively the enemy unit is 'empty' and contains no models until the end of this special sequences, so even if you stand on the point that the attack is made against the unit, it fails once because there are no enemy models in engagement range and thus targeting the 'empty' unit is not possible, and fails again a couple of steps later when you have to allocate damage to models in the unit, as there are none until the end of the sequence.

 p5freak wrote:

Tsagualsa wrote:

But going by rules as written 'Making close combat attacks' is a whole sequence of steps in itself, which includes announcing targets and picking weapons for the attacks. Going by that, this sequence fails in the 'Pick targets' step, as there are none to pick.

The mirror rules are more specific than the general ones of the fight phase, overriding them. The target is preselected by the mirror, the model making attacks is preselected by the mirror. Weapons need to be chosen, and then attacks are rolled.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Ignore p5. He’s ignoring the fact you don’t make attacks against your own army, and this model is treated as being part of your army. His effort falls at the first hurdle. Not the first time the Core Rules have eluded him.

Ignore Johnny. He has no clue that specific rules override general rules. By your interpretation this mirror doesnt work at all, and no one has noticed, yet ?

I'd be interested in your justification for why the Mirror doesn't work at all. Seems like it does given the information above.

The reason you're wrong is because the Mirror specifically says the affected model is part of your army. It therefore cannot allocate attacks to itself. Your concept of the target being "preselected" isn't a rules concept and it doesn't absolve the player of having to follow the basic rules for attacking, within the restrictions laid down by the Relic (and only those restrictions).

He’s just being salty now with the mirror-format post.

The thingy works fine if the model isn’t a single-model unit, p5. If it is, you’ve had it explained why it doesn’t work.

I'm not so sure p5freak is wrong.

If you strictly follow the rules for Close Combat and making attacks, the Mirror model can easily be out of Engagement Range of other models in its own unit. Does not make attacks in that case?

And while I am loathe to use flavor text in a rules discussion (emphasis added):

This strangely named dagger is made of the purest reflective glass, its dazzling light shining into the minds of the foe. One afflicted by its brilliance becomes a helpless marionette as their mind convulses and they strike against themselves with their own weapons, or lash out at their allies as enemy fighters watch on in confusion and horror.

So the rules may be FUBAR (not an uncommon occurrence in GW rules), the intent is clear.

Also, it would be impossible for a model to destroy it's own unit if it can not allocate attacks to itself, and yet the rules for the relic have a specific rules instruction should that happen.

 alextroy wrote:

Also, it would be impossible for a model to destroy it's own unit if it can not allocate attacks to itself, and yet the rules for the relic have a specific rules instruction should that happen.

It wouldn't because of the context. When they say " If, as a result of these attacks, the enemy model destroys its own unit," in context, they mean the rest of the unit, since friendly models can never attack them selves unless something specifically says they can. Sorthis' Mirror does not specify that they can attack themselves, so they simply can't.

The default rules say you cant attack yourself or your unit. Sorthis' Mirror over-rides the one default that you can not attack your own unit (As it makes them act as enemy models)

Sorthis' Mirror does not over-ride the part about attacking yourself because, while the rest of their unit acts as enemy models, the model picked is still friendly with itself.

Anyone saying otherwise would need a citation stating otherwise.

 DeathReaper wrote:
When they say " If, as a result of these attacks, the enemy model destroys its own unit," in context, they mean the rest of the unit, since friendly models can never attack them selves unless something specifically says they can. Sorthis' Mirror does not specify that they can attack themselves, so they simply can't.

A unit is only killed when every model in the unit is destroyed. Thats impossible if the model cannot attack itself. If a friendly model couldnt attack itself it wouldnt be able to destroy its own unit, because it would be last model in the unit. But its possible that a model can destroy its own unit, thats what the mirror rules says. So a model must be able to attack itself, otherwise the mirror would not work at all.

 p5freak wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
When they say " If, as a result of these attacks, the enemy model destroys its own unit," in context, they mean the rest of the unit, since friendly models can never attack them selves unless something specifically says they can. Sorthis' Mirror does not specify that they can attack themselves, so they simply can't.

A unit is only killed when every model in the unit is destroyed.Thats impossible if the model cannot attack itself. If a friendly model couldnt attack itself it wouldnt be able to destroy its own unit, because it would be last model in the unit.

We all know this. The rules, as usual, have something incorrect. This is not/should not be shocking to anyone.

But its possible that a model can destroy its own unit, thats what the mirror rules says. So a model must be able to attack itself, otherwise the mirror would not work at all.

The mirror rule assumes that "its possible that a model can destroy its own unit" but the mirror rules lack any way for this to actually happen, so the unit actually can not kill itself.

The rules, as usual, have something incorrect. This is not/should not be shocking to anyone.


Edit: Now that I look further, the selected model still cant make attacks against himself, but when morale comes around the unit might need to make a test and might be destroyed that way?

Morale is a way where the unit could be destroyed, but its not the only one.

 p5freak wrote:
Morale is a way where the unit could be destroyed, but its not the only one.

A model attacking a friendly model is never a way the unit could be destroyed. (Unless a rule specifically allows it, but Sorthis' Mirror does not specifically allow it). So in the case of Sorthis' Mirror, Morale is really the only way.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
Morale is a way where the unit could be destroyed, but its not the only one.

A model attacking a friendly model is never a way the unit could be destroyed. (Unless a rule specifically allows it, but Sorthis' Mirror does not specifically allow it). So in the case of Sorthis' Mirror, Morale is really the only way.

There are a couple of other ways, blowing yourself up with an overcharged plasma pistol comes to mind. You could also suffer some sort of effect that deals out mortal wounds due to a stratagem, skill or army special rule that effects e.g. all units in a certain range or something like that.

Tsagualsa wrote:
There are a couple of other ways, blowing yourself up with an overcharged plasma pistol comes to mind. You could also suffer some sort of effect that deals out mortal wounds due to a stratagem, skill or army special rule that effects e.g. all units in a certain range or something like that.

And none of those have anything to do with the situation at hand I.E. "in the case of Sorthis' Mirror", so why even bring up stuff that is out of context, and does not cover the situation at all?

It’s fairly obvious the rule means “if model kills rest of its unit, then it dies too”. Plain English covers it just fine. It in no way means “aha this is back-door permission for a model to attack itself”. Just no. Not supported at all. That’s a reading so torturous that it hurt its back reaching.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
Morale is a way where the unit could be destroyed, but its not the only one.

A model attacking a friendly model is never a way the unit could be destroyed. (Unless a rule specifically allows it, but Sorthis' Mirror does not specifically allow it). So in the case of Sorthis' Mirror, Morale is really the only way.

The mirror rule gives permission to a model to attack its own unit. That's permission to attack itself. This is backed up by fluff, which is better than some people saying no because I say so.

I think we have a strange case of a model being both part of a unit of an enemy army and a model of your army at the same time.

I have also just reviewed the rules for the Making Attacks and noted a significant lack of the term enemy unit or enemy model in those rules. While the targeting rules for both Ranged and Close Combat prevent you from choosing friendly units as the target of your attacks, there is no rule preventing wounds from being allocated to friendly models should you be able to attack their unit.

Since Sorthis' Mirror never removes the attacking model from its own unit, even as it counts as a model of the Mirror's army, it may allocate attacks to itself. In fact, it must allocate attacks to itself first if it already has lost wounds or may do so if no model in the unit has lost wounds.

 p5freak wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
Morale is a way where the unit could be destroyed, but its not the only one.

A model attacking a friendly model is never a way the unit could be destroyed. (Unless a rule specifically allows it, but Sorthis' Mirror does not specifically allow it). So in the case of Sorthis' Mirror, Morale is really the only way.

The mirror rule gives permission to a model to attack its own unit. That's permission to attack itself. This is backed up by fluff, which is better than some people saying no because I say so.

False, there is nothing that overrides the rule about a model attacking itself in the Sorthis' Mirror rules.

What rule about a model attacking itself do you speak of?

 alextroy wrote:
What rule about a model attacking itself do you speak of?

The rules about not being able to attack friendly units.

There is no rule against making attacks against friendly units. Nowhere in the Making Attacks rules are units or models referred to as friendly or enemy. They are always referred to as model making the attack, target or target unit.

When allocating attacks in the Shooting phase, you must select enemy units.
When allocating attacks in the Fight phase, you must select enemy units.

However, when resolving attacks a model makes because of Sorthis' Mirror, they are directed to make attacks against their own unit. They are part of their own unit. While the rules for Sorthis' Mirror do state the model is part of your army, that doesn't change the fact they are part of their own unit. Therefore those attacks can be made against themselves.

This is open and shut rules a written. I challenge you to find a global rule stating otherwise.

 alextroy wrote:
There is no rule against making attacks against friendly units. Nowhere in the Making Attacks rules are units or models referred to as friendly or enemy. They are always referred to as model making the attack, target or target unit.

When allocating attacks in the Shooting phase, you must select enemy units.
When allocating attacks in the Fight phase, you must select enemy units.

However, when resolving attacks a model makes because of Sorthis' Mirror, they are directed to make attacks against their own unit. They are part of their own unit. While the rules for Sorthis' Mirror do state the model is part of your army, that doesn't change the fact they are part of their own unit. Therefore those attacks can be made against themselves.

This is open and shut rules a written. I challenge you to find a global rule stating otherwise.

I just went looking through the books myself, and I have to agree with this assessment. To answer the original question, I would then agree that the mirror could be used against a single model, such as a character.

 alextroy wrote:
There is no rule against making attacks against friendly units. Nowhere in the Making Attacks rules are units or models referred to as friendly or enemy. They are always referred to as model making the attack, target or target unit.

When allocating attacks in the Shooting phase, you must select enemy units.
When allocating attacks in the Fight phase, you must select enemy units.

However, when resolving attacks a model makes because of Sorthis' Mirror, they are directed to make attacks against their own unit. They are part of their own unit. While the rules for Sorthis' Mirror do state the model is part of your army, that doesn't change the fact they are part of their own unit. Therefore those attacks can be made against themselves.

This is open and shut rules a written. I challenge you to find a global rule stating otherwise.

Find something that allows making attacks against a friendly unit.

There is an FAQ that disallows it too, (Not that it is needed as nothing says you can attack friendly units) unless that FAQ has been ninja removed.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Find something that allows making attacks against a friendly unit.

Sorthis' Mirror
ducks

 DeathReaper wrote:
Find something that allows making attacks against a friendly unit.

Its not a friendly unit. Its still an enemy unit, only the model is considered to be a friendly model, according to the sorthis mirror rule. We have a friendly model in an enemy unit, attacking its own unit.

 p5freak wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Find something that allows making attacks against a friendly unit.

Its not a friendly unit. Its still an enemy unit, only the model is considered to be a friendly model, according to the sorthis mirror rule. We have a friendly model in an enemy unit, attacking its own unit.

I do not know what your point is here, when I said "Find something that allows making attacks against a friendly unit" I was talking about the friendly model attacking itself. I was not talking about the rest of the unit.

The unit in question remains an enemy unit. You dont need any rule which allows you to attack a friendly unit, because the now friendly model is not attacking a friendly unit, it attacks an enemy unit.

 p5freak wrote:
The unit in question remains an enemy unit. You dont need any rule which allows you to attack a friendly unit, because the now friendly model is not attacking a friendly unit, it attacks an enemy unit.

A single model unit is not an enemy to itself ever.

If you think it is, there needs to be a citation saying such.

Sortis mirror is the citation. Its a friendly model in an enemy unit, attacking its own unit.

Can we agree on that even if by RaW there are some aspects that are or can be considered unclear, it is extremely clear what the intended use of the item is? I.E. it was clearly meant that the model under the influence of the mirror can attack and destroy its own unit, including itself?

Intention is irrelevant RAW trumps RAI

"I would interpret it as being reasonably clear but badly worded"

it is treated as being a model from your army for all rules purposes.

"If, as a result of these attacks, the enemy model destroys its own unit, the bearer counts as having destroyed that unit for all rules purposes."

So if I have a unit of 2 plus models model A is removed counts as a model from my army gaining any relevant buffs e.g. if I'm the same faction and it's within a relevant aura and attacks the rest. if it kills the rest of the unit the unit counts as destroyed however it itself is not destroyed as it currently counts as a model from my army and for all rules purposes and so will not be hit by any excess attacks so only the original unit is destroyed now its attacks have resolved it swaps back to the same unit or counts as its own unit in the event its unit died but the bearer gets a killpoint

With a single model it is treated as being a model from your army for all rules purposes until it has resolved its attacks but it is not eligible to make any attacks as it has no unit to attack ergo the original rule never ceases so RAW

it is treated as being a model from your army for all rules purposes for the rest if the game so it swaps player permanently

Any earlier explanation where it attacks its own unit to attack itself does not work because it counts as a seperate unit when it swaps player control and so if attack its own unit were interpreted as meaning it could attack itself it would always attack itself and never the unit it came from

Back to intent - do I think GW intended this - NO - but as stated intent is irrelevant RAW its what it does and RAW while badly worded and perhaps undesirable is not unclear

How could a unit be destroyed as a result of these attacks?

A unit could be destroyed as a result of Battleshock, but that is *all* attacks, not just these.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
There is no rule against making attacks against friendly units. Nowhere in the Making Attacks rules are units or models referred to as friendly or enemy. They are always referred to as model making the attack, target or target unit.

When allocating attacks in the Shooting phase, you must select enemy units.
When allocating attacks in the Fight phase, you must select enemy units.

However, when resolving attacks a model makes because of Sorthis' Mirror, they are directed to make attacks against their own unit. They are part of their own unit. While the rules for Sorthis' Mirror do state the model is part of your army, that doesn't change the fact they are part of their own unit. Therefore those attacks can be made against themselves.

This is open and shut rules a written. I challenge you to find a global rule stating otherwise.

Find something that allows making attacks against a friendly unit.

There is an FAQ that disallows it too, (Not that it is needed as nothing says you can attack friendly units) unless that FAQ has been ninja removed.

Friendly is used 5 times the Core Book FAQ v1.7. None of those forbid you making attacks against a friendly unit. If you are referring to a different FAQ, please provide the reference.

 p5freak wrote:
Sortis mirror is the citation. Its a friendly model in an enemy unit, attacking its own unit.

Where in Sortis mirror does it say that he model can attack himself? I must have missed it.

Emphasis added

Codex Thousand Sons, p.49 wrote:Each time the bearer is selected to fight, instead of fighting, you can select one enemy INFANTRY model with a Leadership characteristic of 9 or less that is within Engagement Range of it. If you do, the selected enemy model immediately makes close combat attacks against its own unit: until it has resolved these attacks it is treated as being a model from your army for all rules purposes. If, as a result of these attacks, the enemy model destroys its own unit, the bearer counts as having destroyed that unit for all rules purposes.

As we all know, attacks that wound are then allocated to a model in the unit. What unit is the attacking model in?

 alextroy wrote:
Emphasis added

Codex Thousand Sons, p.49 wrote:Each time the bearer is selected to fight, instead of fighting, you can select one enemy INFANTRY model with a Leadership characteristic of 9 or less that is within Engagement Range of it. If you do, the selected enemy model immediately makes close combat attacks against its own unit: until it has resolved these attacks it is treated as being a model from your army for all rules purposes. If, as a result of these attacks, the enemy model destroys its own unit, the bearer counts as having destroyed that unit for all rules purposes.

As we all know, attacks that wound are then allocated to a model in the unit. What unit is the attacking model in?

In context, that means the rest of the unit, not himself if it is a single model. Because as we know, "it is treated as being a model from your army" and models have no permission to attack themselves, and if it is a single model unit there is still no permission for the model to attack itself.

Why don't models have permission to attack themselves again?

I know they can't target themselves, but the mirror does the targeting in this case, and codex overrides rulebook.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Why don't models have permission to attack themselves again?

Show me the rules that say they can attack themselves. I have not found any.

The rules system is permissive. You can only do things the rules allow you to do.

I think I found the problem, guys.

People are thinking that a model being affected by the mirror are going through the normal Fight sequence. They are not.

The mirror simply states that the affected model makes close combat attacks against its own unit. It does NOT say that the affected model attacks as if it were selected to Fight. Ergo, any rules for selecting eligible targets are moot, since you're 'skipping that step', so to speak.

Since the actual attacking rules don't mention friendly/enemy, a model can, indeed, attack itself.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Why don't models have permission to attack themselves again?

Show me the rules that say they can attack themselves. I have not found any.

The rules system is permissive. You can only do things the rules allow you to do.

The Mirror forces them to attack their own unit. Units are made up of models.

The permission to self-harm is right there - by attacking the unit, they have permission to allocate wounds to models in that unit. Something would have to remove the permission again.

To interpret otherwise would be absurd, because then attacking doesn't work. "You have permission to attack my unit, but not my models. Sorry!"

Unit ABCDE =1 friendly unit

Unit A = 1 enemy unit BCDE =1 friendly unit

Unit A attacks the Unit it came from BCDE

Unit A is never given permission to attack itself

Unit A returns to friendly unit or forms new friendly unit




If solo

Unit A =1 friendly unit

Unit A = 1 enemy unit

Unit A attacks the Unit it came from (friendly unit) which no longer exists A unable to resolve

Sequence ends



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Why don't models have permission to attack themselves again?

Show me the rules that say they can attack themselves. I have not found any.

The rules system is permissive. You can only do things the rules allow you to do.

The Mirror forces them to attack their own unit. Units are made up of models.

The permission to self-harm is right there - by attacking the unit, they have permission to allocate wounds to models in that unit. Something would have to remove the permission again.

To interpret otherwise would be absurd, because then attacking doesn't work. "You have permission to attack my unit, but not my models. Sorry!"

No permission is there because its not part of the unit at the point it makes the attack its not part of that unit at the point wounds are allocated it is a seperate unit A unit cannot simultaneously belong to both players it only has permission to attack the unit it came from

To interpret it your way you get this sequence

Unit ABCDE =1 friendly unit

Unit A = 1 enemy unit BCDE =1 friendly unit

Unit A attacks Unit A BCDE never impacted

Unit A is only given permission to attack its unit which is a unit of 1 model

Unit A returns to friendly unit If it lives




Essentialy you can validly interpret the RAW as saying it attacks the Unit it came from or you can interpret as it attacks only itself depending on what you interpret "its unit" to mean but it can't be both depending on whats preferable its not a schrodinger cat kind of situation. It's not part of the original unit until its A are resolved


It's also clear the majority think it means the unit that it came from which creates the secondary problem that A are ineligible if there is just one model so it never makes the A that it needs to in order the condition that returns control to the other player

What about Unit AB, where A makes 15 attacks and kills B after 2?

Where is the permission to count Model A as different from the Unit AB in such case?

Are you implying the Mirror gives the user permission to, on the fly, count a model in an enemy unit not only as in it's army but also create a whole new unit? How can that unit then be destroyed by a result of these attacks?

It is simpler to say a model can attack its own unit (including allocating wounds to itself, as a member of said unit) then it is to create a whole new unit on the fly, and then assume with no evidence that created unit ceases to be after the Mirror is done.

Exactly. Nowhere in the Core Rules nor in Sorthis' Mirror is it stated that the model selected to attack is no longer part of its own unit. It does become part of your army, but it it is still part of its own unit. As such, any Wounds allocated to its own unit can, and in certain cases must, be allocated to itself.

This is simply the rules as written. There is no rule stating a model cannot make attacks against itself or its own unit. There are simply almost no cases where targeting restrictions allows you to do so. Sorthis' Mirror is one, if not the only, such case.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
What about Unit AB, where A makes 15 attacks and kills B after 2?

Where is the permission to count Model A as different from the Unit AB in such case?

Are you implying the Mirror gives the user permission to, on the fly, count a model in an enemy unit not only as in it's army but also create a whole new unit? How can that unit then be destroyed by a result of these attacks?

It is simpler to say a model can attack its own unit (including allocating wounds to itself, as a member of said unit) then it is to create a whole new unit on the fly, and then assume with no evidence that created unit ceases to be after the Mirror is done.

A makes 15 Attacks B dies the unit counts as destroyed As attacks are resolved A returns to there owners control. there is no problem or conflict with that, excess attacks are wasted all the time your approach may be simpler and it could be written that way but it isn't


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 alextroy wrote:
Exactly. Nowhere in the Core Rules nor in Sorthis' Mirror is it stated that the model selected to attack is no longer part of its own unit. It does become part of your army, but it it is still part of its own unit. As such, any Wounds allocated to its own unit can, and in certain cases must, be allocated to itself.

This is simply the rules as written. There is no rule stating a model cannot make attacks against itself or its own unit. There are simply almost no cases where targeting restrictions allows you to do so. Sorthis' Mirror is one, if not the only, such case.

Well maybe page 2 of the core rules

Units
Models move and fight in units. A unit can have one or more models chosen from a single datasheet. All units in the same army are friendly units, and all models in the same army are friendly models. All units in your opponent’s army are enemy units, and all models in your opponent’s army are enemy models. If a rule affects ‘units’ or ‘models’ without specifying that they are friendly or enemy, then it affects either ‘all units’ or ‘all models’, regardless of whose army they are in.

You cannot have a unit that is both a friendly unit and an enemy unit

The second that the model "until it has resolved these attacks it is treated as being a model from your army for all rules purposes." It is a seperate unit


Also page 21
Which Models Fight
When a unit makes close combat attacks, only the models in that unit that are either within Engagement Range (pg 4) of an enemy
unit, or that are within ½" of another model from their own unit that is itself within ½" of an enemy unit, can fight.

So as a prerequisite to fighting your friendly unit must be in engagement range of an enemy unit so they have to be seperate units and from opposing armies you can't attack yourself (excluding cyclops demolition vehicle which has specific rules for targeting friendly go forgeworld)

So if their coherency is greater than 1" between models, you have protection from the Mirror, by your reading, since a model leaves it's unit, joins your army, tries to attack, is outside of engagement range, fails to resolve attacks, and then reverts to its original unit again.

That's the "the model becomes a separate enemy unit" interpretation" as I see it.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
Sortis mirror is the citation. Its a friendly model in an enemy unit, attacking its own unit.

Where in Sortis mirror does it say that he model can attack himself? I must have missed it.

It has been said multiple times here. The model makes attacks against its own unit. The strat is a special rule, overriding the general rules.

 p5freak wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
Sortis mirror is the citation. Its a friendly model in an enemy unit, attacking its own unit.

Where in Sortis mirror does it say that he model can attack himself? I must have missed it.

It has been said multiple times here. The model makes attacks against its own unit. The strat is a special rule, overriding the general rules.

So your saying it can only ever attack itself and never the unit it came from because it is a seperate unit at the point it makes the attacks?

The problem with ps freaks statement is when he says its a friendly model in an enemy unit which it can't be. It is temporarily an enemy model and unit of 1 and a friendly unit of the remainder

U02dah4 wrote:

 p5freak wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
Sortis mirror is the citation. Its a friendly model in an enemy unit, attacking its own unit.

Where in Sortis mirror does it say that he model can attack himself? I must have missed it.

It has been said multiple times here. The model makes attacks against its own unit. The strat is a special rule, overriding the general rules.

So your saying it can only ever attack itself and never the unit it came from because it is a seperate unit at the point it makes the attacks?

Only if you accept that it becomes a separate unit (which is the current argument).

I don't believe it becomes a separate unit.

It cannot be the same it goes against pg 2 as you cannot be both friendly and enemy

and 21 of the core rules because you can only make attacks against enemy's

If you have both you end up with schrodinger unit that both can and can't attack itself depending on whose determining whether it is friendly or enemy

It is clear that it becomes an enemy for all rules purposes and units are a rules purpose ergo it's an enemy unit

I would also point out that belief isn't really a rules argument you need some supporting evidence that you can have a frenemy unit and how frenemy units interact in combat which blatantly don't exist in the core rules or the specific rules of the interaction you would need several paragraphs to cover all interactions of frenemy units

eg. Take something as simple as allocating a save as the unit contains my models and my units being attacked I feel I should allocate the first wound to your model. However you might feel that it's your unit because it contains your model and you would rather allocate the wound to my heavy weapon. What happens if your model dies first do you then lose all say because now its back to being a friendly unit

Or if your opponent responds with a stratagem that gives a unut you control +1sv do all the models in the unit get it or does the enemy model not or is it an ineligible target because it is a frenemy and so not a friendly unit.

How does it interact with rules like doctrina imperatives do all models benefit does the unit stop benefitting does your model not benefit but the rest do

Essentially your argument causes most of the rules to break and if it causes the game rules to break its not a good argument when the alternative is that they function normally

It says you cannot be a friendly and enemy unit

Nothing about friendly and enemy model.

We are all in agreement after the sequence you end up with one friendly model and the rest as enemy's

If you cannot be a friendly and enemy unit you have made my point

"it is treated as being a model from your army for all rules purposes." From the og ref so it swaps army

From core page 2 "all models in the same army are friendly models" "all models in your opponent’s army are enemy models"so its a friendly the rest are enemies

You then move on to attacks against its own unit meaning the friendly or the enemies depending on your interpretation and have rulled out both

You’re all rabbit-holing HARD.

U02dah4 wrote:
It cannot be the same it goes against pg 2 as you cannot be both friendly and enemy

The rule is "All units in the same army are friendly units, and all models in the same army are friendly models. All units in your opponent’s army are enemy units, and all models in your opponent’s army are enemy models." Sorthis' Mirror does not change the unit into a friendly unit, only the model. This does lead to the curious case of a friendly model in an enemy unit. However, the rule does not say that is impossible!

and 21 of the core rules because you can only make attacks against enemy's

There is no such rule. The core rules do not include a way to target a friendly unit, but they do not forbid it. Besides, Sorthis' Mirror directs your currently friendly model to make attacks against an enemy unit... which it happens to be part of.

If you have both you end up with schrodinger unit that both can and can't attack itself depending on whose determining whether it is friendly or enemy

It is clear that it becomes an enemy for all rules purposes and units are a rules purpose ergo it's an enemy unit

I would also point out that belief isn't really a rules argument you need some supporting evidence that you can have a frenemy unit and how frenemy units interact in combat which blatantly don't exist in the core rules or the specific rules of the interaction you would need several paragraphs to cover all interactions of frenemy units

eg. Take something as simple as allocating a save as the unit contains my models and my units being attacked I feel I should allocate the first wound to your model. However you might feel that it's your unit because it contains your model and you would rather allocate the wound to my heavy weapon. What happens if your model dies first do you then lose all say because now its back to being a friendly unit

Or if your opponent responds with a stratagem that gives a unut you control +1sv do all the models in the unit get it or does the enemy model not or is it an ineligible target because it is a frenemy and so not a friendly unit.

How does it interact with rules like doctrina imperatives do all models benefit does the unit stop benefitting does your model not benefit but the rest do

Essentially your argument causes most of the rules to break and if it causes the game rules to break its not a good argument when the alternative is that they function normally

No need for this mythical frenemy unit. The unit is an enemy unit. It just happens to contain a friendly model for a limited period of times. All rules must be applied as so.

You can use a rule that targets a friendly model on that friendly model, but not a rule that targets a friendly unit. The opposite goes for your opponent. He can't use rules that target friendly models on that enemy model and he can't use rules that target enemy units on that unit.

Any rule that either of you use that targets that unit works on all the units in that unit, both the one that was taken over and all the others as well. So yes, doctrine imperatives continue to work on the model targeted by Sorthis' mirror because it is in the unit.

Problem is you say it creates a friendly model in an enemy unit but don't provide any evidence that's the case

Your unable to answer the questions i asked so you say matter of factly how it works but you have not provided any evidence - any rules quote for how something like doctrina imperatives or a +1 save strat would work - its just skipping over the issue and pretending it doesn't exist

So if I take your quote
"Any rule that either of you use that targets that unit works on all the units in that unit, both the one that was taken over and all the others as well." Can you provide a rules quote supporting this for frenemy units.

Because I'm not saying you couldn't resolve it that way. I'm saying that there is a gap in the rules that govern that interaction so they break as nothing tells you to resolve it that way

Units with friendly models are friendly units units with enemy models are enemy units where is the rule that governs a unit with both friendly and enemy models - it doesn't exist because it can't happen if I'm wrong show me the frenemy rule quote

I feel like it is disingenuous to say "no one answered the problems I pointed out" while also ignoring problems pointed out with your own position (e.g. units with greater than 1" between models being immune to the Mirror, units being destroyed by the attacks, etc).

Your questions will rightfully be ignored if you ignore earlier questions from the other side first!

I'm not exactly sure what your point is either. You're essentially saying "provide evidence a friendly model can exist in an enemy unit". Well, your evidence is the mirror, which says that you pick a model in an enemy unit, and it becomes friendly to you for a bit.

Not much more evidence is required, because that's what it says (a specific codex rule). In order for the specific codex rule to do anything else (such as spontaneously generate, utilize, and disband a unit on the fly), it would have to say that it does so. But there is no reason to suspect this, because the only objection to the "friendly models can't be in enemy units" claim is "the brb implies that's impossible" which doesn't work. Because the BRB says lots of things are impossible (e.g. shooting with heavy weapons after advancing) that the more specific codex rules override.

U02dah4 wrote:
Problem is you say it creates a friendly model in an enemy unit but don't provide any evidence that's the case

The mirror rule says that the model making attacks against its own unit is treated as a friendly model. It doesnt say that about the unit, so the unit is what it is, an enemy unit.

U02dah4 wrote:
Units with friendly models are friendly units units with enemy models are enemy units where is the rule that governs a unit with both friendly and enemy models - it doesn't exist because it can't happen if I'm wrong show me the frenemy rule quote

That is not what the rules say, so your argument is invalid. To quote the rules again:

All units in the same army are friendly units, and all models in the same army are friendly models. All units in your opponent’s army are enemy units, and all models in your opponent’s army are enemy models

Never says all models in a friendly unit are friendly models, nor that a unit made up of friendly models is a friendly unit. Nor does it say the same about enemy units nor enemy models.

The first one is disingenuous so I can ignore most of that.

You cannot make attacks outside of melee range but that would require the unit to be out of coherency and the Caster to pick the model that couldn't fight mirror doesn't change position so there's no conflict it just doesn't work but it's not a realistic choice a player would make.

I don't even understand your units being destroyed by the attacks one it's pretty clear under the two units interpretation unit A attacks B if B dies a killpoint is awarded to the bearer then when all attacks are resolved unit A returns to its owners control or joins the remaining unit if it wasn't destroyed there's no rule conflict it works.

No im saying if your going to adopt the frenemy interpretation provide a clear rules-based answer covering those interactions or your interpretation doesn't work under RAW. Just asserting it works and then being unable to support how any of those situations are resolved under the Rules with quotes shows it doesn't work. And Yes before you go down the route of saying you can't prove what doesn't exist - that is the entire point it doesn't exist. If I don't know what my save is because there is no rule to govern doctrinas on partially controlled units game breaks if I try and use a stratagem on a partially controlled unit and don't know which models are buffed game breaks, if I can't even allocate a wound because "If an attack successfully wounds the target unit, the player commanding the target unit allocates that attack to one model in the target unit" and the unit is partially controlled by both players do you role off, does it go to most models, what if its one each. I don't even know who roles the saving throw because "The player commanding the target unit then makes one saving throw" well both players are commanding it do we both make a throw or do we each make a partial throw because we only have partial command or is it based on the model that was allocated to. In short the rules break repeatedly.

Person 2
Mirror says nothing about the unit agreed only the model it is therefore not permission for it to be a frenemy unit which is the point and the rest is covered in my response to the next person (If you concede it affects the model the core rules have already defined the unit).

Person 3
"All units in the same army are friendly units,". one model is friendly for all rules purposes so it is a friendly unit

"All units in your opponent’s army are enemy units" the rest are therefore an enemy unit

That is exactly what the rules say
from the core rules bullet points
Unit: A group of models from the same datasheet.
Friendly models = all models in the same army.
Enemy models = all models in your opponent’s army.
Friendly units = all units in the same army.
Enemy units = all units in opponent’s army.


Therefore you either have to interpret it as two units one friendly one enemy (two separate groups of models from the same datasheet one under each player's control) or a frenemy unit of both friendly and enemy models which by definition counts as both a friendly and enemy unit simultaneously creating rules problems)

And as stated there are tons of interactions without a rules-based explanation for how they interact with frenemy units eg: wound allocation, doctrina imperatives, stratagems that affect units under your control when you have partial control etc. etc. and yes you could come up with intuitive RAI ways that these work but you cannot come up with a RAW way because there is no RAW on frenemy units.

while all the rules work perfectly if its two separate units. Therefore the interpretation that works under RAW is always better than the one that doesn't.

We still rabbit-holing then.

Definitely, I get P5F was trolling as usual but he actually has a point on this one - the wording is bad but it still works just in an unintuitive way.

While 90% of your RAI interpretation works the only practical distinction is that the model itself doesn't die and 95% of the time even using your RAI interpretation you would get the same result because you wouldn't do enough damage to wipe the unit.

Thread is basically done though you have a clear 2-unit RAW explanation that works it just doesn't give the result some players want. VS a frenemy explanation that can't even clearly allocate a wound under RAW (Feel free to prove me wrong anyone by providing a rules quote on allocating wounds to a unit commanded by both players).

The only outstanding question is how to resolve a mirror that can't legally make attacks and that comes down to whether the sequence ends with no attacks made and therefore the trigger of returning the model to its owner's control never occurs or whether making no attacks because you can't is considered resolving attacks for the purpose of the trigger and it just harmlessly returns to its owners control. I'm not sure there is a clear RAW or RAI on this because while being RAW I'm not sure it was RAI in the first place but HIWPI is the former because its more fun.

Wow, you guys are all WAY over-thinking this.

The rule clearly says:

...the selected enemy model immediately makes close combat attacks against its own unit...

It's still an enemy. It attacks its own unit, which it is still part of.

End. Of. Story.

Anyone claiming that it suddenly detaches from its unit somehow is making gak up.

U02dah4 wrote:
Definitely, I get P5F was trolling as usual but he actually has a point on this one - the wording is bad but it still works just in an unintuitive way.

While 90% of your RAI interpretation works the only practical distinction is that the model itself doesn't die and 95% of the time even using your RAI interpretation you would get the same result because you wouldn't do enough damage to wipe the unit.

Thread is basically done though you have a clear 2-unit RAW explanation that works it just doesn't give the result some players want. VS a frenemy explanation that can't even clearly allocate a wound under RAW (Feel free to prove me wrong anyone by providing a rules quote on allocating wounds to a unit commanded by both players).

Your 2-Unit Theory is completely lacking in RAW. As I have pointed out more than once, there is no rule stating that all models in a unit must, at all times, be part of your army. To quote the Core Rules for the third time.

UNITS
Models move and fight in units. A unit can have one or more models chosen from a single datasheet. All units in the same army are friendly units, and all models in the same army are friendly models. All units in your opponent’s army are enemy units, and all models in your opponent’s army are enemy models. If a rule affects ‘units’ or ‘models’ without specifying that they are friendly or enemy, then it affects either ‘all units’ or ‘all models’, regardless of whose army they are in.

Sorthis' Mirror creates an exception to the normal expectations because the Army Construction Rules do not allow you to place a model into an enemy unit. Thus you have assume it is not possible to happen within the course of the rules.

Furthermore, I challenge you to site a place in the Core Rules that states when a model within a enemy unit becomes an friendly model that it is removed from that unit and becomes a separate unit. As you said earlier, 40K is a permissive rules set, requiring you to provide site the rule that allows you to do such a thing for it to be legal.

Lacking that, we must conclude that the affected model is a friendly (to the mirror user) model in an enemy unit. A strange duck, but not illegal since an enemy unit is defined as "all units in the opponent's army" not "a unit made up of models from your opponent's army".

So let the affected model make close combat attacks against its unit, which it is part of, and resolve those Hits/Wounds as normal. This includes possibly having wounds assigned to it by the unit controller (your opponent) and dying as a result.

I have no problem with the argument that not all models in a unit have to be in the same army or that the mirror creates an exception its irrelevant because it breaks the game and many of the rules stop functioning. if you can provide me any quotes on how such a unit interacts with all those rules fine. if you can't it doesn't work because you cant allocate a wound yet to mention any of the other rules it's back to super heavy robot guilliman in 7th . So whether you could interpret it as working that way it doesn't if you want a game to function

So to summarise you have been unable to provide any rules quote governing wound allocation in a unit of both friendly and enemy models and rather than acknowledge your argument doesn't work your trying to skip over this tricky fact just saying resolve it as normal when the normal doesn't work as both players control it under your interpretation not just your opponent.

Nice assertion, but I don't see any rule of the game that fails to function with an enemy model inside a friendly unit. Every rule works as normal. I challenge you to show me one that fails, especially one that fails during this fleeting condition caused by Sorthis' Mirror.

Wound allocation! Player controlling the unit allocates the wound neither player has full control of the unit as both control some models.

Armour save! Player who controls the unit rolls the armoursave/inv (and makes the choice) neither player has full control of the unit as both control some models.

And that's just the general rules

The unit belongs to the Enemy of the Mirror user. The Mirror only changed the model to friendly, not the unit. In both of these cases the unit owner (mirror users enemy) makes all the rolls and decisions in line with the rules.

The modal "is treated as being a model from your army for all rules purposes."
Why would that not include ownership thats literally what a model from your army means

Friendly models = all models in the same army.
Enemy models = all models in your opponent’s army

If the model is in the opposing army the unit cannot be considered wholey in the original players control anymore unless you can provide a relevant rules quote

Again assertion +no evidence = wrong answer

Looks to me like a case of "fluff" sentence muddying the clarity of the intent of the rule.

RAW does create this odd situation. It can be interpreted as both, but requires some serious rules juggling to make it not work ("single model unit cannot attack itself").

The logical clarity of "unit that consists of single model is still a unit" is quite irrefutable.

Have fun P5. You got a good one this time (but not for the rationale you put up for the argument).

U02dah4 wrote:
The modal "is treated as being a model from your army for all rules purposes."
Why would that not include ownership thats literally what a model from your army means

Friendly models = all models in the same army.
Enemy models = all models in your opponent’s army

If the model is in the opposing army the unit cannot be considered wholey in the original players control anymore unless you can provide a relevant rules quote

Again assertion +no evidence = wrong answer

You have no rules support for your assertion. No where is the ownership of a unit equated to owning all the models in the unit. Thus changing the ownership of one model does not change ownership of the unit.

Core rules pg 2
"Army: Collection of models under your command"

Mirror Rule
The model "is treated as being a model from your army for all rules purposes."

Core rules pg 3
"Friendly models = all models in the same army."
"Enemy models = all models in your opponent’s army"

Core rules pg 18
"The player commanding the target unit then makes one saving"

It's literally defined. You've had the conflict rules quoted to you multiple times and have supplied zero quotes supporting your position. Denying my quotes exist doesn't change that they do.

If you still can't understand that you are either trolling or we are looking at a dunning kruger and so unless you have something constructive to add I have no more replies for you

U02dah4 wrote:
Core rules pg 2
"Army: Collection of models under your command"

Mirror Rule
The model "is treated as being a model from your army for all rules purposes."

Core rules pg 3
"Friendly models = all models in the same army."
"Enemy models = all models in your opponent’s army"

Core rules pg 18
"The player commanding the target unit then makes one saving"

It's literally defined. You've had the conflict rules quoted to you multiple times and have supplied zero quotes supporting your position. Denying my quotes exist doesn't change that they do.

If you still can't understand that you are either trolling or we are looking at a dunning kruger and so unless you have something constructive to add I have no more replies for you

Weird that people are talking about the ownership of the Unit and yet that word doesn't show up in your post at all. Almost like everything you quoted is completely irrelevant except for the clause about a player "commanding a unit"... which is what the disagreement is about in the first place.

Yes players command Units under their control. Normally, a player's unit cannot contain opponent's models; however, the mirror overrides the BrB in that case and does allow for an opponent's model to be in a player's unit, if only briefly.

See U02dah4, Unit1126PPL is following me perfectly. Control of the model changed, but control of the unit did not. Your model is in their unit. Why? Because:

UNITS
Models move and fight in units. A unit can have one or more models chosen from a single datasheet. All units in the same army are friendly units, and all models in the same army are friendly models. All units in your opponent’s army are enemy units, and all models in your opponent’s army are enemy models. If a rule affects ‘units’ or ‘models’ without specifying that they are friendly or enemy, then it affects either ‘all units’ or ‘all models’, regardless of whose army they are in.

Nothing here about all models in a unit must be either friendly or enemy. That just happens to be the natural state of things 99.99% of the time. No instruction to change the controller of the unit, even if the last model in the unit changes control (would be very weird on a permanent basis, but not relevant for Sorthis' Mirror).

So now lets look at the two cases you had: Wound Allocation and Armor Saves.

3. ALLOCATE ATTACK
If an attack successfully wounds the target unit, the player commanding the target unit allocates that attack to one model in the target unit (this can be to any model in the unit and does not have to be allocated to a model that is within range of, or visible to, the attacking model). If a model in the target unit has already lost any wounds or has already had attacks allocated to it this phase, the attack must be allocated to that model.

So the commander of the unit (not the Mirror user in this case) allocates the attack to any model in the unit. Could be yours, could be theirs. Is probably not the mirrored model because I'm sure he is a model he'd rather get back than have killed. It's not like killing him first will avoid all the attacks the model is making.

4. SAVING THROW
The player commanding the target unit then makes one saving throw by rolling one D6 and modifying the roll by the Armour Penetration (AP) characteristic of the weapon that the attack was made with. For example, if the weapon has an AP of -1, then 1 is subtracted from the saving throw roll. If the result is equal to, or greater than, the Save (Sv) characteristic of the model the attack was allocated to, then the saving throw is successful and the attack sequence ends. If the result is less than the model’s Save characteristic, then the saving throw fails and the model suffers damage. An unmodified roll of 1 always fails.

So the commander of the unit (not the Mirror user in this case) rolls the saving throw.

So there is absolutely no rules breakdown caused by Wound Allocation nor Saving Throws for having both enemy and friendly models in a unit. The unit controller makes the saves in both cases.

I'm not seeing any problem with this "frenemy unit" existing for the duration of these attacks. No rules breakdown so far.

Having someone support you adds no validity to your argument. People supporting mask wearing or opposing it during covid did not make it any more or less effective than it was in reality.

As established by those rule quotes there are two commanders of the unit - both players.

it was the only thing you had to address - you still haven't you just assert not the mirror user and say it works we have shown crystal clear with quotes both players are commanders you haven't addressed it because you have no answer


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

U02dah4 wrote:
Core rules pg 2
"Army: Collection of models under your command"

Mirror Rule
The model "is treated as being a model from your army for all rules purposes."

Core rules pg 3
"Friendly models = all models in the same army."
"Enemy models = all models in your opponent’s army"

Core rules pg 18
"The player commanding the target unit then makes one saving"

It's literally defined. You've had the conflict rules quoted to you multiple times and have supplied zero quotes supporting your position. Denying my quotes exist doesn't change that they do.

If you still can't understand that you are either trolling or we are looking at a dunning kruger and so unless you have something constructive to add I have no more replies for you

Weird that people are talking about the ownership of the Unit and yet that word doesn't show up in your post at all. Almost like everything you quoted is completely irrelevant except for the clause about a player "commanding a unit"... which is what the disagreement is about in the first place.

Yes players command Units under their control. Normally, a player's unit cannot contain opponent's models; however, the mirror overrides the BrB in that case and does allow for an opponent's model to be in a player's unit, if only briefly.

I'm not sure I get your point ownership was not mentioned in that quote and when it was used its a synonym of command

There's no complaint at the concept of a unit containing opponents models because of a special rule so doesn't matter how many times that's stated its a straw

The problem is that if you interpret it that way the core rules break because you have two partial commanders of a unit and unless you can address Something as simple as how to allocate a wound it doesn't work. So far noone has provided a rules based quote to cover this or any of the other rules conflicts.

The best we have had is the dude confidently quoting the rule proving him wrong highlighting his failure in red while stateing confidently that it works fine if you just arbitrarily with no justification ignore the rules and pick one player to allocate it which is the player he wants but of course the second he cant justify with a rules quote why one commander allocates over the other hes just ignored the rules conflict not addressed it and he has tried and failed about 6 times and if he actually had an answer he would have given it by now but feel free to address the actual issue yourself with a rules quote I'll be happy to be proved wrong but it's about proving how two commanders work not proving you can have both models in a unit

And if you can't answer you can't allocate a wound and can't make an armour save and can't handle interaction like doctrina imperatives or save boosting strats. So clearly because of dual commandering your interpretation doesn't work at all.

I will therefore conclude the one that functions is a better raw interpretation even if it less intuitive because all the rules actually work and the only potential RAI problem with that interpretation is that it's unintuitive and the model can't hurt itself bit not clear that isn't RAI

It absolutely adds validit, because they're correct

Yes, your army is all models under your control, awesome. But irrelevant.

The unit is still your unit. It's written on your army roster. It never changes hands.

A model withih the unit might not be "yours" temporarily, but that does naff all to change the ownership of the unit. Absolutely nothing.

ownership isnt a defined term anywhere if you think it is supply a quote

If a model in that unit is in your army its under your control

it doesnt matter whose roster it started out under The model "is treated as being a model from your army for all rules purposes."

the unit has models in both armys the unit is therefore partially under both players control. Original ownership is irrelevant unless you can provide a quote saying otherwise

No, it's still my unit. It's writtten on my army list. It's mine. That never changes

Your inability to clearly understand the difference between the set and the members of the set is not our issue.

Being written on your army list is irrelevant the mirror rule states The model "is treated as being a model from your army for all rules purposes." Your army list is just a list of the models/units that started in your army

I understand the sets. you haven't substantiate ownership matters with rules quote you've just stated it

Your inability to substantiate your point with any rules evidence is the issue as it means your set doesn't matter

And until you do the problem with their unit remains one unit with models that belong to two different players it counts as being partially controlled by each army so the core rules can't resolve a wound

It is funny that we need to provide a rules quote that a unit remains under the command of the original player when you have yet to provide any quote saying the command of the unit changes when the command of one model in the unit changes.

Being a permissive rules set, there needs to be a rule that changes the command of the unit or it can’t happen. So where is your rule about unit, not model, command changing?

 alextroy wrote:
It is funny that we need to provide a rules quote that a unit remains under the command of the original player when you have yet to provide any quote saying the command of the unit changes when the command of one model in the unit changes.

Being a permissive rules set, there needs to be a rule that changes the command of the unit or it can’t happen. So where is your rule about unit, not model, command changing?

The unit as the ruleset says is made up of models. You've acknowledged command of the model changed - Therefore not all of the unit is commanded by one player... I am stating this doesn't have a resolution in the rules. I am proved correct every time you fail to provide a quote showing one. I dont have to show a rule showing it changes if I could show you one it would disprove my position that there is none - you claim to be right so you need to show a rule governing the interaction for units under partial control of both players if not i am proved correct

You can't prove a rule that doesn't exist exists

I can prove that what your saying works doesn't by you being unable to provide a quote showing it does because if your right it exists and so you should be able to show it to me

I see. You are requiring me to provide a rule that the command of the unit doesn’t change because you can’t provide a rule that says it does.

I do believe you have reached level P5 in your augment

As there is nothing constructive left to say, I will leave it to the readers to determine which of our reading of the rules is more persuasive.

Again. I do not care that the model swaps side. The massive, total and OBVIOUS problem you have is that nothing supports your made up nonsense that this unit is "partially" under my control now. It is under my control, as it is MY unit. The mirror diesnt give a toss about the unit allegiance. Just the models

The set ownership never changes. This is true. You have zero rules support. I'd stop while you're only this far behind.

 alextroy wrote:
I see. You are requiring me to provide a rule that the command of the unit doesn’t change because you can’t provide a rule that says it does.

I do believe you have reached level P5 in your augment

As there is nothing constructive left to say, I will leave it to the readers to determine which of our reading of the rules is more persuasive.

No I'm requiring you to provide either or one saying what happens and you may be right or else it is not defined and if it is not defined it doesn't work which proves me right because my position was there was no rule governing it and you have stated repeatedly that it works its basic argument to say can you support your position not just assert it.

I accept your acknowledgement of being wrong because you haven't provided the rules quote (and there is no middle ground)

Nosferatu won't acknowledge but is in the same boat of being unable to support their position I agree we are done

1) As the BRB says, all models in my army are controlled by me.

2)Also, separately, all units in my army are controlled by me.

If a special rule changes the ownership of a model in my army, it does not have any bearing on or interactions with point 2. The only relationship between the two rules is they are under the same header.

The Mirror gives me permission to ignore Rule 1, and doesn't interact with Rule 2 which functions normally and perfectly well.

I do not have to prove anything whatsoever with regards to rule 2, because it never even touches the case at hand. It is about as relevant as saying "but aircraft can't score objectives!!!!"

If 1 changes then part of that unit is not in that army

You have not established that the unit is still a unit in your army given not all the models in the unit are in your army.

you have stated it has no bearing on 2 you have not provided a quote supporting that.saying you don't have to prove it is code for I can't prove it and if you can't establish that you are wrong

U02dah4 wrote:
If 1 changes then part of that unit is not in that army

Why not? Remember, Codexes override BRB, and it's perfectly feasible just by overriding that one small rule to have a unit be part of an army, with a model within it that isn't part of an army. There's no requirement that every model in a unit be in an army in order for that unit to be in an army. Furthermore, "part of a unit" is an undefined term in the rules. A model, is what you mean. Which is exactly allowed by special exception thanks to the Mirror.

You have not established that the unit is still a unit in your army given not all the models in the unit are in your army.

Well, I have established the unit is in my army because it's in my army, on my army list.

It doesn't actually matter what army all the models in the unit are in, because that has no bearing on what army the unit is in in the BRB. Provided a special rule allowed, they could be owned by 12 different armies, all of which aren't yours. That wouldn't change that the unit is yours though, because why would it? What's the citation in the BRB that says "every model in a unit must be in the same army as that unit"?

you have stated it has no bearing on 2 you have not provided a quote supporting that.saying you don't have to prove it is code for I can't prove it and if you can't establish that you are wrong

That's because it's a permissive ruleset; since GW says what you're allowed to do, there's no reason for them to state what you're NOT allowed to do. You can ONLY do what you're allowed.

I have a quote from GW saying I am allowed to have a model in my unit that does not belong to my army. Do you have a quote that contradicts that that's more specific than the Codex (i.e. not BRB)?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

U02dah4 wrote:
If 1 changes then part of that unit is not in that army

Why not? Remember, Codexes override BRB, and it's perfectly feasible just by overriding that one small rule to have a unit be part of an army, with a model within it that isn't part of an army. There's no requirement that every model in a unit be in an army in order for that unit to be in an army. Furthermore, "part of a unit" is an undefined term in the rules. A model, is what you mean. Which is exactly allowed by special exception thanks to the Mirror.

You have not established that the unit is still a unit in your army given not all the models in the unit are in your army.

Well, I have established the unit is in my army because it's in my army, on my army list.

It doesn't actually matter what army all the models in the unit are in, because that has no bearing on what army the unit is in in the BRB. Provided a special rule allowed, they could be owned by 12 different armies, all of which aren't yours. That wouldn't change that the unit is yours though, because why would it? What's the citation in the BRB that says "every model in a unit must be in the same army as that unit"?

you have stated it has no bearing on 2 you have not provided a quote supporting that.saying you don't have to prove it is code for I can't prove it and if you can't establish that you are wrong

That's because it's a permissive ruleset; since GW says what you're allowed to do, there's no reason for them to state what you're NOT allowed to do. You can ONLY do what you're allowed.

I have a quote from GW saying I am allowed to have a model in my unit that does not belong to my army. Do you have a quote that contradicts that that's more specific than the Codex (i.e. not BRB)?

Being feasible isn't enough you have to establish it if not you have no argument just assertion

I don't need to provide those citations they disprove my position. My position is they don't exist. if they don't exist you can't define who a unit with models from multiple armies belong to . If you cant define who it belongs to you can't resolve a wound

Yes you can only do what your allowed which is the player controlling the unit is the only one that can allocate the wound. We have established two players control the models if you cannot establish what happens to the unit your argument doesn't work the absence of such a quote is firm evidence such a quote does not exist

I don't need to prove the opposite because I'm not trying to prove the opposite there being no definition is proof I'm correct and either you can prove that assumption or you cant

U02dah4 wrote:
We have established two players control the models

Correct.

if you cannot establish what happens to the unit

What? Why would the unit change? Why wouldn't it just keep existing like it always would? Nothing in the Mirror's rules affects the unit at all (except that it suffers attacks, which is something that happens to units in 40k all the time).
Presumably the unit just keeps on... being a normal unit?

Again, it's like saying "aircraft can't score objectives, units can score objectives, therefore aircraft aren't units."
????

That's one interpretation a more reasonable one is partial control given we have established clearly that the models are commanded by both players and a unit is a collection of models why wouldnt it change? Presumably control is based on control of the models in the unit I'm also not saying partial control is the answer my answer I acknowledge its a presumption like yours but that has been continuously my point the rules do not define it so it cannot be proved either way so they don't work

It's like im saying we dont know how hovercraft work as their not defined in the rules. while your saying hovercraft definitely work this way so I'm saying show me where it says that and your saying you can't show me hovercraft don't work that way so they can without showing a rule

It doesn't matter if I cant show you. my central argument has been all the way through that if you can't establish your point with a rules quote you have no argument the rules just don't cover it and if they don't cover it the two army interpretation atleast functions

U02dah4 wrote:
That's one interpretation a more reasonable one is partial control given we have established clearly that the models are commanded by both players and a unit is a collection of models. Presumably control is based on control of the models in the unit I'm also not saying partial control is the answer my answer I acknowledge its a presumption like yours but that has been continuously my point the rules do not define it so it cannot be proved either way so they don't work

Why is partial control (which breaks the game in horrific ways as you pointed out) "more reasonable" than "nothing changes about the unit control from normal" (because nothing says it does) which doesn't break the game at all?

It's like im saying we dont know how hovercraft work as their not defined in the rules. while your saying hovercraft definitely work this way so I'm saying show me where it says that and your saying you can't show me hovercraft don't work that way so they can without showing a rule

No, it's not like that at all, it's more like.
Hovercraft function normally in the rules (like a unit does).
A special rule lets your opponent do something with the hovercraft's fan blades (like the Mirror lets your opponent do something with a model).
And you're claiming that the special rule doesn't work because you presume that something about the hovercraft changes because your opponent can do something with the fan blades.

It doesn't matter if I cant show you. my central argument has been all the way through that if you can't establish your point with a rules quote you have no argument the rules just don't cover it and if they don't cover it the two army interpretation atleast functions

But my interpretation:
1) is valid
2) doesn't break the game rules
3) doesn't break the mirror rules
4) functions fine with the rest of the rules, too.

Why wouldn't you use my interpretation, again?

1) invalid - repeatedly stating validity without quoting supporting evidence is evidence of invalidity

2) involves breaking the game rules

3) subjectively breaks mirrors rules

4) doesn't function with the rest of the rules

Because your interpretation is not grounded in the rules. you have to presume and that is evidence you have gone beyond the scope of the rules. It doesn't matter whether your presumption is right or wrong - we do not know. therefore it doesn't work - another player can validly use different presumptions under your interpretation and come to different conclusion
You say it wouldn't work to split command so why not just add more presumptions majority command decides well what about two models well then you roll off. For each interaction you just add more presumptions. Only problem is your getting further and further from the rules as written and more into the rules the way you want them to be. Your basic premise can work but it's irrelevant if you can't rule out the others with evidence

- Your argument is inherently RAI and that's being generous it reads more of a HIWPI. ive asked the RAW support you dont have it. RAW trumps RAI

The two units interpretation of RAW works without any RAI presumptions about how the rule works it is a clear RAW interpretation "considered part of your army for all rules purposes" includes unit. Since you have two clear units every rules interaction functions clearly why would you not use the functional RAW interpretation?

So we have two equally valid RAW interpretations

Interpretation A Breaks and can only be resolved by making RAI interpretaions going beyond the scope of the rules. In order to minimise but not eliminate how much it breaks the rules even in best iteration its logically inconsistent with enemy models in friendly units

Interpretation B works in every interaction

One of those two is clearly a better interpretation and it's not the RAI one - which is why you need to make yours RAW by supporting with quotes or you have one RAW vs one RAI and RAW trumps RAI


And just for fun when the special rule changes the fan blade you presume it doesn't effect how interfaces with the engine i presume it does. The problem as stated is that we are presuming and if you can't evidence your case without need presumption it's RAI not RAW. It doesn't matter whether my presumptions are better than yours

U02dah4 wrote:
The two units interpretation of RAW works...

Listen, I'm mostly here for the popcorn at this point, but your "two units interpretation" is literally just making gak up. There is absolutely nothing anywhere to support your supposition that a turncoat model becomes its own unit.

I ran out of popcorn ages ago. I’m not sure anyone is even bickering over the actual rules in question anymore, tangents begat tangents begat tangents a while back.

My threads get locked within hours, and this is running in circles for days now. Why isnt this locked ?

 JohnnyHell wrote:
I ran out of popcorn ages ago. I’m not sure anyone is even bickering over the actual rules in question anymore, tangents begat tangents begat tangents a while back.

To me, "...makes close combat attacks against its own unit..." seems pretty clear, even in the case of a single model. This has been a lot of hand-wringing for a highly situational relic that rarely gets taken because its cult's psychic power is pretty 'meh'.

Reported. Hopefully this get locked.

Yeah... nah