Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Darth Bob wrote:I'm done. It's obvious that you all are just going to recycle the same nonsense reasoning over and over again, and I'm not going to dignify said nonsense with a practical C&P of the same answer I (and DAR) gave before.

Let me know when you answer the question put forward by DAR, because until you do that, you have nothing.

I'd really like to see proof that a unit of GKs + Something Else is the same as a unit of GKs.

Is a basket of apples with an orange in it the same as a basket of apples? Not in English it isn't. Or mathematics... or logic...
Without any rules backing you're simply wrong. The rules ask, specifically, for a unit of GKs.

Nigglesworth wrote:Let us say that a GK unit is equal to 2. Then let us go on to say that any other non GK unit is 1. The rules state that when shooting at 2, shroud goes off. When you join a GK unit with a non GK unit, you simply add them to obtain 3. 3 is no longer defined as 1 or 2. When shooting, you shoot at 3. You don't say I'm shooting at 1+2. For all we know 3 could have been 1+1+1 or 0+3. There is only one unit being shot at. The rules clearly state that this unit has become one single new unit. This one single unit isn't "a unit of GK. " This new unit is "GK+ non GK." Do the rules say when shooting at "a unit of GK+ non GK?" They don't. If units worked the way you are claiming I could say, "I'm going to shoot into your assault squad with an attached Sanguinary Priest, but only direct my shots at the Sanguinary Priest because after all it is an assault squad and a Sanguinary Priest, two separate units within a unit." This obviously would not work as they become one new unit. So the GK+ non GK are a new unit, which no longer defines itself as a unit of GK. For the sake of the first part 1+1=3.

What page from the rule book are you referencing?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gorkamorka wrote: Not in English it isn't. Or mathematics... or logic...

Too bad this isn't English, or mathematics, or logic, its Warhammer 40K 5th Edition

Gorkamorka wrote:
Without any rules backing you're simply wrong. The rules ask, specifically, for a unit of GKs.

I list the rules that back my argument, please take the time to read each page before posting.

Daemon-Archon Ren wrote:
I list the rules that back my argument, please take the time to read each page before posting.

I have, thank you very much.

You really didn't prove anything, hence the pages of argument since. Your entire point is based on this unproven unsupported "part of a combined squad is good enough" nonsense.
The rule says a unit of GKs. Not a unit that consists partly of GKs or contains a unit of GKs or a unit of GKs with an attached IC.

You are firing at the "Combined Unit"

The "Combined unit" contains a unit of grey knights

Because you are firing at a unit of grey knights

Right there is where your point falls apart, hard.
You're not firing at a unit of grey knights... you're firing at a combined unit. Sure it contains a unit of grey knights... BUT IT ISN'T A UNIT OF GREY KNIGHTS.

All that the rule works for is a unit of grey knights. Nothing more, nothing less.
A combined unit that contains a unit of grey knights simply isn't a unit of grey knights, and you fire at the combined unit... not the grey knight unit component. It's really that simple.

Daemon-Archon Ren wrote:You are firing at the "Combined Unit"

The rules wrote:Each time an enemy unit fires at a unit of Grey Knights

Quoted for emphasis.

Gorkamorka wrote:
Right there is where your point falls apart, hard.
You're not firing at a unit of grey knights... you're firing at a combined unit. Sure it contains a unit of grey knights... BUT IT ISN'T A UNIT OF GREY KNIGHTS.

All that the rule works for is a unit of grey knights. Nothing more, nothing less.

prove it, using words from the BRB/C: DH as I have.

Not logic

Not theory

Not "Personal Interpretation"

Show me WORDS from C: DH and/or the BRB that state "When a Unit of Grey Knights joins/is joined by a unit of Non-Grey knights, it ceases to be a unit of grey knights"

Daemon-Archon Ren wrote:

Gorkamorka wrote:
Right there is where your point falls apart, hard.
You're not firing at a unit of grey knights... you're firing at a combined unit. Sure it contains a unit of grey knights... BUT IT ISN'T A UNIT OF GREY KNIGHTS.

All that the rule works for is a unit of grey knights. Nothing more, nothing less.

prove it, using words from the BRB/C: DH as I have.

Not logic

Not theory

Not "Personal Interpretation"

Show me WORDS from C: DH and/or the BRB that state "When a Unit of Grey Knights joins/is joined by a unit of Non-Grey knights, it ceases to be a unit of grey knights"

Show me where it defines what "one" or "dice" means in the BRB too.

The fact is, the rules are written in English, you HAVE to use the English language or the rules do not work.

P.S. Asking for proof when you yourself are the ones who need to show it is considered bad form.

Daemon-Archon Ren wrote:

Gorkamorka wrote:
Right there is where your point falls apart, hard.
You're not firing at a unit of grey knights... you're firing at a combined unit. Sure it contains a unit of grey knights... BUT IT ISN'T A UNIT OF GREY KNIGHTS.

All that the rule works for is a unit of grey knights. Nothing more, nothing less.

prove it, using words from the BRB/C: DH as I have.

Not logic

Not theory

Not "Personal Interpretation"

Show me WORDS from C: DH and/or the BRB that state "When a Unit of Grey Knights joins/is joined by a unit of Non-Grey knights, it ceases to be a unit of grey knights"

You havent proven it.

You must prove that, when targetting a combined unit (the only thing you are allowed to do) you are targetting the individual models.

You are not given permission to make the HUGE fallacious leap to saying that targeting [combined unit] == targetting [component "units"] - mainly because this would break the rules stating that you can only target one unit.

Balls in your court: prove you can target 2 units with one shooting attack. Good luck!

nosferatu1001 wrote:
You must prove that, when targetting a combined unit (the only thing you are allowed to do) you are targetting the individual models.

Why? The Shrouding's rule is not exclusive, I am only proving that when targeting a combined unit of "A + B" you are also simultaneously targeting both A and B, and if there are rules that would limit your ability to Shoot either A or B, they would be still present when firing at both A and B as there are no rules to suggest otherwise.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
You are not given permission to make the HUGE fallacious leap to saying that targeting [combined unit] == targetting [component "units"] - mainly because this would break the rules stating that you can only target one unit.

Who's permission do I need? Unless you are going back to your "Permissive" Rule theory, which is inherently false. The Eldar Codex states that the abilities of "Fortune" last until the start of the Next Eldar Turn" according to permissive rules, this means that if Two Eldar players are against each other, their fortune duration would end as each opponents turn began (making them rather useless).

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Balls in your court: prove you can target 2 units with one shooting attack. Good luck!

Ok, I have a combined unit of 10 assault termis, a Sanguinary priest, and a BA Captain. I shoot the entire unit with a demolisher cannon, kill 5 termis, the S-Priest and the Captain. I would gain the victory points/kill points for the unit of the BA Captain, the unit of the S-Priest, and half the VPs for the termis. How would I get points from multiple units if I only was able to shoot at one of them? Seems rather strange to me!

Gwar! wrote:Show me where it defines what "one" or "dice" means in the BRB too.

The fact is, the rules are written in English, you HAVE to use the English language or the rules do not work.

P.S. Asking for proof when you yourself are the ones who need to show it is considered bad form.

umm, while they don't define "One" they do define Dice

page 2 wrote:
DICE
DICE (D6)
In a Warhammer 40,000 battle you often need to roll
dice to see how the actions of your models turn out –
how effective their shooting is, what damage they’ve
done to a vehicle, how far they fall back from enemy
fire, and so on. Almost all of the dice rolls in
Warhammer 40,000 use standard six-sided dice (usually
referred to as ‘D6’).

Also, if you HAVE to use english, why do they bother printing the book in other languages?

Why am I the only one required to have proof for his claims? The Tenants state that ANY statement must have backing not "Any statement made by DAR must have proof, statements by GWAR do not need proof as that would require him to do some actual work in referencing his claims"

Even on the topic of "English Language" I have already proven, by posting the English definition of the word "Join" that nothing in the english language would suggest that by joining you forfeit your original characteristics in favor of that of the groups.

So, since YOU are using the English language (incorrectly) as your major supporting argument, then I should be allowed to use an example from the english language to support my claim.

Joe gets banned from GW.

There is a sign on the door at GW saying "Joe is banned"

Joe joins Bob and decides to go to GW

According to how you define "Join" Joe would be allowed into Games workshop, as he is no longer "Joe" but "Joe and Bob".

However, the English language, disagrees with you, as he is still Joe.

Bob can enter the store without Joe, but Joe will always be Joe (unless he legally changes his name, which is an EXCEPTION) no matter how many people he joins with and as such, will remain banned from the store.

~DAR

Except you are NOT simulataneous targetting, as you would be targetting TWO UNITS. Find the rule that states you can target TWO UNITS and you may have a point.

Oh wait, you cannot.

You also misunderstand what is meant by Permissive ruleset: the rules tell you what you CAN do (i.e. give you permission) they dont tell you what you cannot do (i.e. restrict you)

You are also conflating "target" and "Shoot", when they are different words with different uses. You are only given permission to target ONE unit. The unit I am targetting is the combined unit, not the non-existant GKGM who is now part of the combined unit.

I am not, therefore, targetting a GK unit. Check, mate, etc.

(and oh look: exactly the same answer as prior your off target and irrleevant rules postings. surprise)

nosferatu1001 wrote:Except you are NOT simulataneous targetting, as you would be targetting TWO UNITS. Find the rule that states you can target TWO UNITS and you may have a point.

A combined unit = unit of two or more combined units. If you can target a combined unit (which you can, according to the rules for shooting and the rules for shooting at ICs) you can target TWO (or more) Units, as that is what you are doing when you fire at a combined unit.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
You also misunderstand what is meant by Permissive ruleset: the rules tell you what you CAN do (i.e. give you permission) they dont tell you what you cannot do (i.e. restrict you)

So then, laws (which are by definition the RULES of society) must explicitly state what you CAN do as opposed to what you CAN'T do. So therefore, by your definition of permissive rules, it is illegal to take a shower on tuesday (or any other day for that matter) as there are no laws which support taking a shower...

nosferatu1001 wrote:
You are also conflating "target" and "Shoot", when they are different words with different uses. You are only given permission to target ONE unit. The unit I am targetting is the combined unit, not the non-existant GKGM who is now part of the combined unit.

So now the GKGM is non-existant? where is your proof for this?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
I am not, therefore, targetting a GK unit. Check, mate, etc.

If the GKGM no longer exists, then yes, you are not targeting a GK unit (unless another GK unit is involved in the unit). However, you have yet to prove the GKGM ceases to exist when he joins another unit.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
(and oh look: exactly the same answer as prior your off target and irrleevant rules postings. surprise)

So you are openly admitting to not advancing your claims in any way? Cool!

~DAR

You are not allowed to target the lone GK Hero in another unit. This is stated on p49 of the BRB first paragraph under shooting at independent characters. Shrouding only kicks in when you are firing at the GK unit. Since by rule you can not target the GK Hero you can not fire at it. Therefore the shrouding rules can not come into play. Yes, the character can be affected by the attack but that is the choice you make when you join a character to a unit. You do not have to allocate any wounds to him so it is purely your choice as to what to do. (BRB p49) In any case in no way can your opponent aim at or fire at the GK hero if he is joined to a unit of something else.

Leo_the_Rat wrote: You do not have to allocate any wounds to him so it is purely your choice as to what to do. (BRB p49) In any case in no way can your opponent aim at or fire at the GK hero if he is joined to a unit of something else.

So then, if a GK hero is attached to a squad of 5 Tac marines, and you fire at that squad, and deal 8 wounds, according to YOU I don't have to allocate any wounds to the GK Hero, and if my opponent objects, I can tell him that "In no way can he aim or fire at my GK hero if my hero is joined to a unit of something else"

Also, what happens if your unit is entirely composed of characters, such as a GK hero, a Sanguinary priest, and a SM Captain. There is not "1 Prevalent" unit, and as you state, opponents cannot target or fire at characters as per the IC firing rules, is the multi-character unit then safe from being fired at period?

ICs joining other IC is covered under their own section of rules. As to wound distribution I'm not claiming anything the rules say that you can allocate wounds not that you must. If you don't like the way the rules are written then I suggest you write GW.

The GKGM is non-existant for the purposes of targeting is Nos's point. One cannot possibly target the GKGM, because the rules for IC explicitly state an IC attached to a squad cannot be picked out as a target. In the place of the GKGM is a unit, of which the GKGM is a member...?

This really is quite ridiculous, also I love that you think you can target more than one unit with shooting...pssst..you cannot....

So if they are two units then they must not be able to be targeted since only a single unit can be nominated as a target for shooting. Attached a GKGM does not just gives shrouding, it gives immunity to all targeting of shooting attacks as does every other IC in existence...

Permission means permissive rule set, which is how the rules work. You need permission to do something. If something is not explicitly 'disallowed' that does not necessarily enable you to do it....You do know what a permissive rule set is, right?

calypso2ts wrote:The GKGM is non-existant for the purposes of targeting is Nos's point. One cannot possibly target the GKGM, because the rules for IC explicitly state an IC attached to a squad cannot be picked out as a target. In the place of the GKGM is a unit, of which the GKGM is a member...?

He cannot be picked out individually, but the rules make no suggestion that he is not "considered a target" when joined to another unit. Infact, they suggest otherwise, that he IS considered a target, so then the act of shooting a unit which contains a unit of grey knights, consists of targeting a unit of grey knights as well. Thus shrouding.

calypso2ts wrote:
This really is quite ridiculous, also I love that you think you can target more than one unit with shooting...pssst..you cannot....

A combined unit = two or more units, they have rules for firing at combined units, they have rules for targetting two units with shooting. Also, there ARE PLENTY of codex specific rules for targeting more then one unit with shooting. I don't need to bring those up however, as the BRB already supports my stand, and I have provided the evidence of such, you have yet shown any such evidence for you claims, you just claim there are pieces of the rules (which I have shown) that support your claims based on your own definitions of words in the English language.

calypso2ts wrote:
So if they are two units then they must not be able to be targeted since only a single unit can be nominated as a target for shooting. Attached a GKGM does not just gives shrouding, it gives immunity to all targeting of shooting attacks as does every other IC in existence...

A combined unit = two or more units, they have rules for firing at combined units, they have rules for targetting two units with shooting. Also, there ARE PLENTY of codex specific rules for targeting more then one unit with shooting. I don't need to bring those up however, as the BRB already supports my stand, and I have provided the evidence of such, you have yet shown any such evidence for you claims, you just claim there are pieces of the rules (which I have shown) that support your claims based on your own definitions of words in the English language.

calypso2ts wrote:
Permission means permissive rule set, which is how the rules work. You need permission to do something. If something is not explicitly 'disallowed' that does not necessarily enable you to do it....You do know what a permissive rule set is, right?

Permissive rules: Permissive rules are marked by the words "shall be permitted." So how again are any of the rules being discussed "Permissive rules" (Keep in mind, I am a Law Minor with specialization in contracting, via my job for the Department of Defense, I deal with stuff like this on a daily basis for work)

Leo_the_Rat wrote: As to wound distribution I'm not claiming anything the rules say that you can allocate wounds not that you must.

What?!? Please clarify what you are saying with this statement.

[quote=Daemon-Archon Ren
So then, if a GK hero is attached to a squad of 5 Tac marines, and you fire at that squad, and deal 8 wounds, according to YOU I don't have to allocate any wounds to the GK Hero, and if my opponent objects, I can tell him that "In no way can he aim or fire at my GK hero if my hero is joined to a unit of something else" [ /quote]

I was answering your question. As per the rules on p49 ICs can be allocated wounds not that they must be allocated wounds. This is in regard to shooting only. Consult the rules for assault as to HTH rules.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
I was answering your question. As per the rules on p49 ICs can be allocated wounds not that the must be allocated wounds.

So then you agree, if I have 8 wounds(caused by shooting) on a 5 man tac squad joined by an IC, I can CHOOSE NOT to allocate any of the wounds to the IC?

Wow...this is getting long. Ok, first of all, I skipped to the end without having to read all the posts after page 1 so I apologize if what I've said has already been said. Secondly, here's my take.

Here you have 1 unit (GK hero) with a special rule (shrouding) joining another unit without the special rule (let's say IST's). Now, we all know that the special rules of 1 unit is not automatically passed onto the other unit unless it explicitly states so. For example, if you join Kharne to a squad of Chaos Space Marines, when they charge, only Kharne receives the benefit of his Furious Charge, not the entire unit that he has joined. Likewise, if you give a Justicar frag grenades, when they assault a unit in cover, only the Justicar attacks at regular initiative....all the other grey knights in the unit will attack at I1.

In this case, the GK hero benefits from shrouding but the IST's he attaches to does not as shrouding is not automatically passed onto the unit. If you fire at the "unit", since you cannot target the GKGM separately, then you are actually shooting at the unit of IST's even though the firee my allocate the hit onto the GKGM. Since the unit does not have shrouding, then you need not test for it.

By RaW yes. You would be perfectly within your rights not to allocate any wounds to the IC.

Pg. 49- "Independent characters that have joined a unit are considered part of that unit and so may not be picked out as targets."
They are part of the unit. There is only one unit. You don't target two units at once. Just one new combined unit. The rule calls for a unit of GKs to be shot at. The unit being shot at is one unit of some GK part and some non GK part, but it is still considered one whole unit. Therefore you have no unit of GKs as this is not a unit of GKs, but in fact, a unit of GKs and non GKs, which the rules say nothing about.

jy2 wrote:
In this case, the GK hero benefits from shrouding but the IST's he attaches to does not as shrouding is not automatically passed onto the unit. If you fire at the "unit", since you cannot target the GKGM separately, then you are actually shooting at the unit of IST's even though the firee my allocate the hit onto the GKGM. Since the unit does not have shrouding, then you need not test for it.

Jy, your post is civil, and well written, however I must disagree.

If the rule for the shrouding worked like Yarrik's old force-filed (which specifically states that HITS against him have their strength reduced by d6) then you would be ENTIRELY correct, as you CANNOT allocate HITS to the GKGM before firing takes place, however the shrouding merely requires that a unit of grey knights be targeted, and that if the grey knight unit targeted, is not found to be within the range of the dice rolled for the shrouding, the shooting does not take place.

As you said, the ISTs do not have the shrouding, so as such, they are not protected by the shrouding, however, the GKGM DOES have the shrouding, as he is part of the unit being fired at, and he is a unit of grey knights, then the Shrouding would activate, and if successful (meaning, the Grey Knight is found to be out of range of the firers) then the shooting CANNOT take place and NONE of the unit is shot at. As stated, you cannot target the GKGM individually, just like you cannot target the ISTs seperately, you must target BOTH units, and when you are targeting BOTH units, you fulfill the requirement of "Targeting a unit of grey knights" as one of the units you are targeting, is a unit of Grey Knights.

Does it make sense now?

I take it that you're going to ignore my point that you can not taget the GKGM and therefore shrouding does not kick in. In fact the GKGM does not even get hurt unless you want him to get hurt.

Nigglesworth wrote:, a unit of GKs and non GKs, which the rules say nothing about.

When you have a unit of Gks and non-gks you still have GKs. The shrouding says nothing about the unit being ONLY GKs, just that there is a Unit of GKs present when being fired at. As you stated, the unit of GKs is present (nothing in the rules states that adding non-gks removes the gk-units title of "Gk Unit") and as such the shrouding still activates

Just like the special rule "Blight Grenades" states that "When a unit of plague marines is assaulted, the assaulting unit does not get its +1 Attack for charging" still applies when a unit of plague marines is joined by a Chaos Sorcerer, as they are still a "unit of plague marines". This rule also applies when Typhus (The Destroyer Hive special rule) is joined by a unit of Chaos Terminators.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Leo_the_Rat wrote:I take it that you're going to ignore my point that you can not taget the GKGM and therefore shrouding does not kick in. In fact the GKGM does not even get hurt unless you want him to get hurt.

No, as you have the choice to place wounds from the shooting unit onto the IC, he is still technically a target (as if you are not a target from a non-template weapon, how can you be hit?)*

*Foot note: While I do not agree with you that you can choose not to place any wounds on the IC if you are hit with more wounds then there are members of a unit joined by an IC, this is not the thread for this side discussion, if you open another thread, I would be happy to argue it with you there, if you have enough supporting evidence of this claim, I really hope you are correct, as it would GREATLY benefit how I play Warhammer 40k (I play hero hammer) and as such, I have been penalized more often then not by having to place wounds on my IC from shooting, when it was joined to another unit.

The rule calls for a unit of GKs. Going back to page 49 it says for shooting purposes, they are considered one unit. A unit of GKs, using the English language as my source, is a unit made up of GKs. So a unit with some other non GK part to it means that the unit is not made up solely of GKs. We have a unit of GKs and (or attached to or combined with, whatever you please) a unit of non GKs. RaW, only a unit of GKs gains shrouding. You can't take the first part of the statement "We have a unit of GKs" to jusitfy your claim as that is not the entire unit. The addition of "and a unit of non GKs" is necessary as this now identifies the entire unit. Does a unit of GKs= a unit of GKs attached to some other non GK unit? No, it doesn't. Due to the fact that the two are not equivalent, and the rules define nowhere a unit of GKs combined with a unit of non GKs counting as a unit of GKs, shrouding would not work as this one unit doens't fit the requirement for the power to work.

Nigglesworth- That argument has been going on for pages now. The whole argument is moot since by rule the shooter can not shoot at or harm the GK IC. Page 49 says that it is the controlling player's option as to whether the IC suffers any wounds or not. To use DAR's example if he had a GKGM join a unit of 5 tac marines and I shot at it and delivered 10 wounds his GKGM could come out of it unscathed. You can't target the GKGM you can't hurt the GKGM, the shrouding doesn't apply since the GKGM isn't germane to the attack.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:Nigglesworth- That argument has been going on for pages now. The whole argument is moot since by rule the shooter can not shoot at or harm the GK IC. Page 49 says that it is the controlling player's option as to whether the IC suffers any wounds or not. To use DAR's example if he had a GKGM join a unit of 5 tac marines and I shot at it and delivered 10 wounds his GKGM could come out of it unscathed. You can't target the GKGM you can't hurt the GKGM, the shrouding doesn't apply since the GKGM isn't germane to the attack.

I dissagree... its moot since the shrouding really doesn't offer ANY protection... and the codex comes out in january....

He is trying to claim that when a unit with an IC is targetted for shooting, you actually target both the IC and the unit since targetting the aggregate whole requires targeting the individual parts (which is bunk).

I have a PhD in Mechanical Engineering, which is equally as useless towards this debate as your minor in Law.

You clearly have no idea what a permissive rule set is. Every rule in 40k is a permissive rule that allows you permission to perform an action (or specifically revokes permission). That said - the default answer to anything not addressed by the rules is therefore no - you need PERMISSION to do it which does not need to use the word permitted...

Daemon-Archon Ren wrote:
Just like the special rule "Blight Grenades" states that "When a unit of plague marines is assaulted, the assaulting unit does not get its +1 Attack for charging" still applies when a unit of plague marines is joined by a Chaos Sorcerer, as they are still a "unit of plague marines". This rule also applies when Typhus (The Destroyer Hive special rule) is joined by a unit of Chaos Terminators.

Ah, they don't get the +1A only if they are charge the plaguemarines. Any model that assaults the Sorcerer still gets their +1A. But this is more similar to an non-GK IC joining a unit of grey knights than a GKGM joining a unit of non-grey knights.

Typhus + chaos terminators is a more appropriate comparison as Typhus has a special rule (blight grenades) whereas the terminators don't. However, in this case, only models assaulting Typhus lose their +1A bonus for charging. Those striking the terminators still get their charge bonuses.

Okay my turn to chime in. I have read the pages and reserved comment until now.

DAR seems to be saying that a part of the unit that is being targeted is GK, and since a part of the unit is GK that shrouding works. IIRC the shrouding rule has been posted here multiple times. The shrouding rule says that "each time an enemy fires at (A) unit of Grey Knights it must check if it can see them."

So at what point do GK units stop being GK units? and can you site a page refference for us all.

If you are shooting at a unit with multiple unit types when do those types cease to be important enough to count as being shot at?

I think the real problem here is how everyone is reading -(A) unit of Grey Knights-. Really if you think about it you are shooting at a unit of GK. It might not be only a unit of GK, but you are still shooting at a unit of GK because there are GK unit/s attached, joined, a part of, or combined with another unit.


I am not siding with anyone but that seems to be the catching points for anyone/everyone who is disagreeing. I hope that I have made it a little more clear for both sides! If not oh well I will check in later!

Actually it requires that you target.

Target has a very specific usage within the BRB. One that DAR consistently ignores.

DAR wrote:
A combined unit = two or more units, they have rules for firing at combined units, they have rules for targetting two units with shooting. Also, there ARE PLENTY of codex specific rules for targeting more then one unit with shooting. I don't need to bring those up however, as the BRB already supports my stand, and I have provided the evidence of such, you have yet shown any such evidence for you claims, you just claim there are pieces of the rules (which I have shown) that support your claims based on your own definitions of words in the English language.

So you believe, truly and honestly, that when the rulebook specifies each unit targets A SINGLE enemy unit, they really meant two?

And that they therefore give permission to target multiple units wfrom the same firing unit? Really, THAT is your argument?

Wow. Just wow. Such utter bunk. IF your version of the rules is true then the Long Fangs special rule is redundant - you can do it anyway! So is target lock (or whatever the tau split fire item is) and the special rule for super heavies that states that, UNLIKE OTHER TANKS, THEY can split fire with their weapons?

Wow. Seriously - thanks for enlightning us as to how this game works - we have ALL been wrong for so long! Here we were, thinking that when it states you target ONE unit they meant just that - but in fact you can target more! That makes my missile launchers so much more useful, the misile can shoot tanks and the bolters infantry.

Or, and heres the more likely part. You have just shot yourself not only in the foot, but in the leg, stomach and chest as well. See those flames? That's your argument.

Oh, and why bring societal laws into this? You do realise that most GAME RULESETS (note: not real life. Seriously, try not to equate the two) are permissive sets? they tell you waht actions you MAY perform. Otherwise - my terminators may move 24" per turn. Nothing tells me I cannot do so - which is what you are arguing. Apparently your minor in law is really minor if you cant work out the difference between can and cannot....

RAW: Shrouding offers NO protection when targetting a combined unit not entirely composed of GKs, as the comined unit is NOT a GK Unit. You cannot target a Unit within the COmbined unit as you do not have the special rules, in general, to do so - you need to be a Vindicaire or Tellion to do that.

Independant Characters and Shooting: (Caps for emphasis)
'Independant Characters that have joined a unit are considered PART OF THAT UNIT and so may not be picked out as targets'

If a GK IC is joined to, say, a Blood Angel unit, then for shooting at least they are considered part of the Blood Angel unit. To me, this reads that they are not part of the Grey Knight unit when being shot at, as you only declare 1 unit to shoot at. Different phases of the game handle this issue VERY differently, however. But, since shrouding works when being shot at, and when being shot at the Grey Knight IC transforms into another unit per the rule quoted, he does infact not get shrouding.

So conclusion: I shoot at the GK IC unit attached to the BA unit. When getting shot at, the GK IC unit is now considered part of the BA unit. Thus, I am shooting at a BA unit, and never shooting at a GK unit, as the former GK unit just became a BA unit. Immediately after shooting, the GK IC is no longer counted as a BA unit, only a GK IC unit attached to a BA unit.

Addendum: if a GK IC attached to another IC, then you could say that it is the other IC that is attaching to the GK. In that case, the other IC would be considered part of the GK IC unit for shooting, thus you would be shooting at a GK unit, and only a GK unit. So while GK IC plus Assault squad is no shrouding, GK IC plus Lysander IS shrouding.

Ren I really liked following your logic, but I think my rule quoted above provides the 1 logic issue you can not resolve, as it is an absolute fact you are a single unit when being shot at, and the GK counts as that unit, not his own unit.