Necrons WBB and joining Units of the same TYPE

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.

**jgemrich**

Just a quick question.

If I am running a unit of wraiths (type infantry) and they get destroyed but in a manner that allows a WBB role.

As long as I have an infantry unit within 6 inches of them or a tomb spyder within 12" and a unit of same type on the board I believe I can make WBB roles and have them join the unit of "like type" that is closest.

I've had folks tell me 'type' means same unit. So wraiths can only join units of wraiths if there was another on the board. I disagree and that a unit of wraiths (type infantry) can become a complex unit by joining warriors or other infantry entrys (which ever is closest).

Thoughts?

**Eight Ball**

Yeah, type would assumingly mean "Model Type" but it's not specifically mentioned like that...interesting point, gotta read the rules for something to counter that

**Gwar!**

No, Downed Models may only join members of the same unit type. Warriors may only Join Warriors, Immortals to Immortals, Wraiths to Wraiths etc.

It does not say "Same Unit Type" (Unit Type being a VERY Specific thing). it just says type, which means they have to be the same.

**Eight Ball**

Well, just gonna start by saying that you're probably right anyways (Never heard of ANYONE saying that downed guys can join other squads), but for the sake of this discussion: How do you determine that "type" means what you decided it to mean?

**jgemrich**

Wait GWAR... you just said that above them must join the same unit type. Unit type meaning warriors join warriors. But your second sentance says it does not say same unit type.

You've used unit type to describe 2 different things here.

I respect your opinion so if you could clear up what you are trying to say that would be great.

**Gwar!**

Unit Type is not the same as type of unit (which is what I should have said).

A Warriors Unit Type is Infantry, the type of unit it is is Warrior.

In fact, if you read WBB, it does not mention "Unit Type" at all, just Type. As such, it refers to the type of unit that it is (Warrior, Wraith etc) and not the Unit Type (Infantry, Jetbike etc). Excuse my babble, I have drunk a rather large amount of Gin this 'noon, as I wished to partake in a spirit other than Rum! (being Unemployed ROCKS)

**Eight Ball**

Yes, except that "type of unit" or "unit type" does not refer to the names of the units, but rather....well, the Type, as in Infantry, Monstrous Creature, Jetbike, etc....

**Scott-S6**

Eight Ball - if you have some examples of "type" being used to mean Unit Type I would be very interested to seem them. ETA: Examples from outside of the unit type section of the rule book.

My opinion: it's poorly written.

We have two possible interpretations:

Unit Type - a very specific ususage of "type" meaning infantry, etc.
type - common usuage meaning a classification grouping.

Whilst type could mean either, Unit Type is so specific (and never used to in this manner) that we would expect it to be more explicit.

Thus, we can infer that it is probably common usuage meaning "another unit using the same codex entry" (there's no concise way to write it without using the word type).

On the other hand, GW have never been known to hold themselves to any particular standard of rule writing. If they did then a common word such as "type" would not have been used for Unit Type, they should have used Unit Classification or something which would remove this ambiguity.

I would say, on balance that it's far more likely to be the common usuage of type than Unit Type, which is used so infrequently I would definately expect it to be spelled out much more clearly.

**Gwar!**

Plz read my revelation that UNIT TYPE is never mentioned

Unit of the same type != Unit Type

**Eight Ball**

Wait, actually I found some ACTUAL evidence of Gwars opinion (which I believed ALL ALONG like I said):

Necron Codex, PG 12, Army List Entries wrote:
Unit Name: The type of unit, which may also show a limitation on the minimum and maximum...

Added emphasis. THAT, along with reading the WBB rules, indicates the codex obviously means type as they say on the previous page here, so type=type of unit=unit name in this case.

**Scott-S6**

Good quote, thank you.

I can't think of any examples of "units of the same type" or "units of the same Unit Type" being used (in the context of type=infantry/monsterous/etc).

It's always more explicit - "all infantry", etc.

Are there any examples of Unit Type being referred to in general "Unit Type" rather than specifically "infantry"? It'd be good to see a counter example.

ETA:

awoken necrons
must join others of same type
type is not Unit Type

**Gwar!**

Eight Ball wrote:Wait, actually I found some ACTUAL evidence of Gwars opinion (which I believed ALL ALONG like I said):

Necron Codex, PG 12, Army List Entries wrote:
Unit Name: The type of unit, which may also show a limitation on the minimum and maximum...
Added emphasis. THAT, along with reading the WBB rules, indicates the codex obviously means type as they say on the previous page here, so type=type of unit=unit name in this case.

Thank you 8Ball for finding proof! I mostly have everything but the Tau (I hate the Tau so much) memorised but its hard when I are drunk.

So, yay me! Gwar! is right again!

**Eight Ball**

Oh, you gotta sig yourself saying that Gwar! is right again

**unwieldysquid**

On a related note we have a 'cron player who insists that any unit with a destroyer body is a like type. therefore heavy destroyers near a destroy lord can WBB when wiped. Anyone want to chime in on this on?

**Gwar!**

unwieldysquid wrote:On a related note we have a 'cron player who insists that any unit with a destroyer body is a like type. therefore heavy destroyers near a destroy lord can WBB when wiped. Anyone want to chime in on this on?

Easy. Tell him to RTFM and that Destoyer != Heavy Destoyer != Destoyer Lord, as we (Ok, 8ball) have (has) just shown. They are no more the same than Bolters, Heavy Bolters and Storm Bolters.

**Scott-S6**

So, Gwar! - when do you set up your premium rate rules queries hotline?

**Gwar!**

Scott-S6 wrote:So, Gwar! - when do you set up your premium rate rules queries hotline?

Bout a week ago. And it's t3h free. Though the Status Icon is FUBAR, but that's because Almighty Legoburner wont let me put l33t haxx HTML into my sigz

**kirsanth**

I was talking about this the other day. . .
Thank you for that quote, I knew I missed something.

**Eight Ball**

But yeah, just THINK how epic it would be to have like a unit of warriors, and some immortals and a heavy destroyer join up with it! That would be so fun...

**Gwar!**

Eight Ball wrote:But yeah, just THINK how epic it would be to have like a unit of warriors, and some immortals and a heavy destroyer join up with it! That would be so fun...

And so horribly confusing and messy to work out. There is a reason the rule is like it is

**The Dragon**

Gwar! wrote:
Eight Ball wrote:But yeah, just THINK how epic it would be to have like a unit of warriors, and some immortals and a heavy destroyer join up with it! That would be so fun...
And so horribly confusing and messy to work out. There is a reason the rule is like it is

QFT

**jgemrich**

The Dragon wrote:
Gwar! wrote:
Eight Ball wrote:But yeah, just THINK how epic it would be to have like a unit of warriors, and some immortals and a heavy destroyer join up with it! That would be so fun...
And so horribly confusing and messy to work out. There is a reason the rule is like it is

QFT

Well.. you couldn't end up w/ the Heavy D in there b/c that is a jet bike.

Think of the complex units that exist today in most armies. SM armies and terminators with different builds. Nob Bikers or Nob Units all with different weapons mixes etc. There are rules for units of mixed toughness for taking fire, rules for units with different move stats (take the slowest)...etc. Wound allocation is consistent in complex units.

Regardless, it is a moot point. Thanks for everyone weighing in.

**The Dragon**

Ehh, not necessarily-- IF you allowed those crazy units, You've got the Destroyer Lord who can certainly join/exit units and in DA SM you've got the ultimate mixed bag for a unit which has Bike, attack bikes, and a skimmer for christ's sake.

That's why things can go from "My, that's clever and interesting" to "WTF, who am I? What Is HapPPeninG?"
really , really quick.

**nosferatu1001**

Except the skimmet is not part of the unit, it is bought in the same FOC but operates entirely independently.

**The Dragon**

Really? Hmm, I just saw it in the purchase options for the unit when I was skimming the back of their codex. Thanks for the info.

**nosferatu1001**

The RAS rules give you all you need to know, they definitely worked out that chaining a vehicle into a non-artilery unit just reallly, really complicates things!