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.
Actually, that shows the OVERLORD has IC. Please show that the CHARIOT has IC.
Buy the rulebook for 7th and look up the Chariot chapter. It's been stated so often already. Don't discuss stuff when you don't have the rules handy.
I assume that you are in the anti-joining camp then.
I have made my point clear multiple times already in this thread. Read up on it. Not repeating everything for people unwilling to read the rules before talking about them.
Pro Joining RAW Summary The sentence says the Chariot is a single model. Hence all USR for the Rider and Chariot are available to the CCB. This means:
A) The CCB (not the Rider) can issue and accept challenges (in contravention of the BRB)
b) The CCB (not the Rider) can fire overwatch with the Chariot Weapon (in contravention of the BRB)
c) The CCB (Not the Rider) can sweep attack with the Chariot Weapon (Contravening the FAQ and Codex)
d) All references to the "Rider" in the ERB are incorrect as it should say "Chariot" because all special rules need to be assigned to a model, ie the CCB. Therefore the Rider is NOT Fearless and the CCB can be swept in combat. Further the CCB is unable to issue or accept challenges as this authority was granted to a Rider, which doesn't exist.
e) The everliving rule does not apply to the CCB because the ERB clearly states "that model's chariot ...". As there is no Rider Model, this can never happen.
f) The CCB is an independent character and can join units.
Points A through E are a ridiculous summarizing of the "CCB can join units" position. Why do you feel you need to stoop to making a Straw Man argument out of the opposite position? Is your own position that weak?
It's the CCB (via the rider profile) . . . etc. Clean up this summary if you are going to continue posting it.
milkboy wrote:
Only the warscythe and the CCB (after the FAQ hit) are found under the Overlords entry. So I asked why you treated the warscythe and CCB differently, even though both of them are found under the Overlord's entry as options.
I've already explained that. The CCB is a separate model, the warscythe isn't.
Pray tell, where is the rule that says the chariot is a separate model? Perhaps you have mentioned it but 9 pages is rather long. Could you quote it again?
And this rule that you quote, does it also mention if the Juggernaut of Khorne is also a separate model?
RAW - ERB Pg 510, first para under "Chariots" = "A Chariot is an unusual unit with a dual profile - a non vehicle profile for the rider of the Chariot (see below), and a vehicle profile for the Chariot itself. However a Chariot is always treated as a single model."
Not sure what a Juggernaut of Khorne has to do with this? Can you restate the concern again?
I've already explained that. The CCB is a separate model, the warscythe isn't.
not according to the rules.
Please quote the rule you are referring to.
MarkCron wrote: RAW - ERB Pg 510, first para under "Chariots" = "A Chariot is an unusual unit with a dual profile - a non vehicle profile for the rider of the Chariot (see below), and a vehicle profile for the Chariot itself. However a Chariot is always treated as a single model."
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/06/06 22:11:07
Pro Joining RAW Summary The sentence says the Chariot is a single model. Hence all USR for the Rider and Chariot are available to the CCB. This means:
A) The CCB (not the Rider) can issue and accept challenges (in contravention of the BRB)
b) The CCB (not the Rider) can fire overwatch with the Chariot Weapon (in contravention of the BRB)
c) The CCB (Not the Rider) can sweep attack with the Chariot Weapon (Contravening the FAQ and Codex)
d) All references to the "Rider" in the ERB are incorrect as it should say "Chariot" because all special rules need to be assigned to a model, ie the CCB. Therefore the Rider is NOT Fearless and the CCB can be swept in combat. Further the CCB is unable to issue or accept challenges as this authority was granted to a Rider, which doesn't exist.
e) The everliving rule does not apply to the CCB because the ERB clearly states "that model's chariot ...". As there is no Rider Model, this can never happen.
f) The CCB is an independent character and can join units.
Points A through E are a ridiculous summarizing of the "CCB can join units" position. Why do you feel you need to stoop to making a Straw Man argument out of the opposite position? Is your own position that weak?
It's the CCB (via the rider profile) . . . etc. Clean up this summary if you are going to continue posting it.
col_impact, I think you need to look up the definition of straw man. If anything, taking part of a single sentence out of context is a straw man argument. As to the other points they are logical consequences of transferring the rider special rules to the CCB.
And, as we've previously discussed I agree with you that the situation would be different (and can be *interpreted* to be different) if GW had referred to "profiles" everywhere. Fact is they didn't. So you don't have a RAW argument.
Sigvatr wrote:I'm not going to even think about reading the "summary" of someone without a rulebook.
Well played. Make a false assumption then use that to justify not considering the other sides argument.
Oh, and in case you're confused ERB means electronic rule book.
The so-called typical "attacking a straw man" implies an adversarial, polemic, or combative debate, and creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and then to refute or defeat that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the original proposition.
So I am dead on accurate with my use of the term.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/06/06 22:17:28
I've already explained that. The CCB is a separate model, the warscythe isn't.
not according to the rules.
Please quote the rule you are referring to.
MarkCron wrote: RAW - ERB Pg 510, first para under "Chariots" = "A Chariot is an unusual unit with a dual profile - a non vehicle profile for the rider of the Chariot (see below), and a vehicle profile for the Chariot itself. However a Chariot is always treated as a single model."
Which part is hilarious? The part where you quote the rule that shows that you only combine the characteristic profiles and effectively disprove the pro-joining theory?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ashikenshin wrote:lol you just quoted the rule itself.
"however a chariot is always treated as a single model."
is it treated as two models? nope, just one. Do you have a rule that states that they are treated as two models?
And for those following along at home, ahsikenshin is perfectly happy with the suggestion that tesla weapons get +2 on the damage roll, and the CCB gets a thunderblitz.
Seriously, where does it say combine 2 MODELS into 1? Sure, as I have always said, you combine two CHARACTERISTIC PROFILES into 1 model. The example shown CLEARLY does not include weapons, wargear or special rules. Later on, the rule book also specifically refers to the rider's MODEL. So, I'll ask the question again - please quote the rule where we combine the two MODELS.
col_impact wrote:STRAW MAN
The so-called typical "attacking a straw man" implies an adversarial, polemic, or combative debate, and creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and then to refute or defeat that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the original proposition.
So I am dead on accurate with my use of the term.
Really? The anti joining argument is clear - you join profiles, not models. It's supported by definitions, references to rider models and is consistent with the rest of the rulebook.
The entire pro-joining argument is based on the proposition that a characteristic profile = model, which is a demonstrably false. So, you set up a different propositiion (profile=model) in order to defeat the "you can't join" proposition. who is running the straw man?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/06/06 22:30:06
The entire pro-joining argument is based on the proposition that a characteristic profile = model, which is a demonstrably false. So, you set up a different propositiion (profile=model) in order to defeat the "you can't join" proposition.
This is also a Straw Man argument. My argument is not based on that proposition.
I have never used Straw Man tactics. In fact, I have never summarized your argument.
Now you go about summarizing the opposing argument and doing so in a way that misconstrues the argument, so that you can then defeat it. Your A-F point summary is a perfect example of this pathetic argument strategy.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/06/06 22:42:32
I've already explained that. The CCB is a separate model, the warscythe isn't.
not according to the rules.
Please quote the rule you are referring to.
MarkCron wrote: RAW - ERB Pg 510, first para under "Chariots" = "A Chariot is an unusual unit with a dual profile - a non vehicle profile for the rider of the Chariot (see below), and a vehicle profile for the Chariot itself. However a Chariot is always treated as a single model."
Which part is hilarious? The part where you quote the rule that shows that you only combine the characteristic profiles and effectively disprove the pro-joining theory?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ashikenshin wrote:lol you just quoted the rule itself.
"however a chariot is always treated as a single model."
is it treated as two models? nope, just one. Do you have a rule that states that they are treated as two models?
And for those following along at home, ahsikenshin is perfectly happy with the suggestion that tesla weapons get +2 on the damage roll, and the CCB gets a thunderblitz.
Seriously, where does it say combine 2 MODELS into 1? Sure, as I have always said, you combine two CHARACTERISTIC PROFILES into 1 model. The example shown CLEARLY does not include weapons, wargear or special rules. Later on, the rule book also specifically refers to the rider's MODEL. So, I'll ask the question again - please quote the rule where we combine the two MODELS.
you are on a row with the straw man.
How would tesla get +2 on the damage roll? and why the hell would the CCB get thunderblitz? is it a super-heavy?
here are the rules in full:
“A Chariot is an unusual unit with a dual profile – a non-vehicle profile for the rider of the Chariot (see below), and a vehicle profile for the Chariot itself. However, a Chariot is always treated as a single model. For the purposes of characteristics tests, always use the rider’s profile. Furthermore, any characteristics modifiers that affect a Chariot model apply to both rider and Chariot.”
Excerpt From: Games Workshop. “Warhammer 40,000 (Interactive Edition).” Games Workshop, 2014. iBooks. https://itun.es/us/kNVz0.l
@MarkCron It's very simple, despite your insistence that there are two models per the rules there can't be via the rule you have quoted multiple times. To help us understand what you are attempting to say exactly please explain your stance on these questions.
What does the line about being treated as a single model mean?
If it is two models how do you move the rider at a speed or using abilities (skimmer) different that it's type (infantry)? Per the movement section models move at the speed of their type.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/06/07 01:14:41
ADD causes my posts to ramble from time to time. Please bear with me.
Nor to mention the three or four other 'count the number of Models and do X' situations...
8th made it so I can no longer sway Tau onto the side of Chaos, but they will eventually turn aside from their idea of the Greater Good to embrace the Greatest of pleasures.
“A Chariot is an unusual unit with a dual profile – a non-vehicle profile for the rider of the Chariot (see below), and a vehicle profile for the Chariot itself. However, a Chariot is always treated as a single model. For the purposes of characteristics tests, always use the rider’s profile. Furthermore, any characteristics modifiers that affect a Chariot model apply to both rider and Chariot.”
Excerpt From: Games Workshop. “Warhammer 40,000 (Interactive Edition).” Games Workshop, 2014. iBooks. https://itun.es/us/kNVz0.l
where does it say it's two models? pray tell
THANK YOU!!!
At last, the rule in full and a sensible question.
Per the rule above, the Chariot MODEL has two characteristic profiles, one for the Rider, and one for the Chariot.
ERB pg 510 "a character mounted on a chariot is referred to as a rider. A rider cannot disembark from his chariot nor can he be targetted separately from his Chariot. If either the rider is reduced to 0 wounds or the Chariot is destroyed, then the entire model is removed from play as a casualty. It the rider has a special rule that returns it to play after it has been removed as a casualty, such as a Necrons Ever-living special rule, that model's Chariot is also returned to play with a single hull point." (emphasis added)
From the above rule, the Rider IS a separate model and can have special rules that the Chariot does not have.
ERB pg 640, "What Special Rules Do I Have" : "It may seem obvious, but unless stated otherwise a model does not have a special rule. Most special rules are given to a model by the relevant Army List
Entry or it's Unit Type."
a) The Necron Codex is an old codex, and the army list entry for the CCB was designed for a dedicated transport, which is obviously incorrect. However, the entry does not grant the CCB model the ICUSR.
b) the allocation of Fearless, Relentless and Overwatch to the Rider (ERB pg 513 " Special Rules") is in accordance with the rule governing allocation of special rules - and is allocated to the Rider model.
Therefore,
The Chariot is a "Model" with two characteristic profiles.
The Chariot may optionally have a Rider, which is a separate model, however the rider cannot disembark.
It is necessary for the rules to specifically assign the ICUSR to the Chariot Model.
Combination of characteristic profiles will ONLY do that if characteristic profile = model.
So, in order for IC to transfer there either needs to be a rule stating that Characteristic profile = model OR for the Chariot model to be specifically assigned the IC.
The Chariot may optionally have a Rider, which is a separate model, however the rider cannot disembark.
This statement is completely against RAW. You are told explicitly that the Chariot is always to be treated as a SINGLE model. The Rider is always a profile and never a separate model.
Let's reiterate my take . . .
Spoiler:
When I upgrade the Necron Overlord to a CCB, I replace his model with the Chariot (CCB). We are told explicitly that the Chariot (CCB) is treated as a single model and that it has a dual profile (rider and vehicle).
The rules provide ways in which the dual profiles interoperate and which profile kicks in for which circumstance. The profiles operate in different domains for the single CCB model.
So the single CCB model can overwatch and can accept challenges via the rider profile, for example. It's not the rider as a model who does these things, but the CCB via a profile that does these things. When the rider accepts a challenge I do not take the rider out of the CCB and have him fight the challenge outside of the CCB. That would be 6th edition (where the rider has to disembark from a dedicated transport to do that).
MarkCron, your problem is that you are being told explicitly by the rules to treat the CCB as a single model with a dual profile and you somehow want to retain that you have 2 models. You are not accepting RAW. I am not misquoting the line. I am accepting it RAW. You are not accepting the definition laid out before you by the rules of the Chariot when it is defined as a single model with a dual profile.
From the BRB,
"A Chariot is an unusual unit with a dual profile - a non vehicle profile for the rider of the Chariot (see below), and a vehicle profile for the Chariot itself. However a Chariot is always treated as a single model. For the purposes of characteristics tests, always use the rider's profile. Furthermore, any characteristics modifiers that affect a Chariot model apply to both rider and Chariot."
Your response to RAW . . . " Nah, I still got two models, I don't have to follow that line because it's contradicted by their choice of words later"
My response to RAW . . . "Okay, by definition I now have a single model with a dual profile. Got it."
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2014/06/07 01:48:28
2014/06/07 01:38:12
Subject: Re:Overlords on CCB's and joining units...
OK now that we have covered that a chariot is one model and you have stated that the rider is part of that model we have a basis. I look at the chariot model, which the rider is part of, so the model has IC...
ADD causes my posts to ramble from time to time. Please bear with me.
Gravmyr wrote: OK now that we have covered that a chariot is one model and you have stated that the rider is part of that model we have a basis. I look at the chariot model, which the rider is part of, so the model has IC...
@col_impact, @gravmyr.
Please read the posts in full, before you take statements out of context. The Rider is a separate model (granted, you can move it separately, but being unable to disembark does not make it "not a model". The Chariot is a separate model. The Rider (as a model) has special rules. The Chariot (as a model) has special rules.
I understand completely what you are saying. The instruction to treat 2 characteristic profiles as one model actually removes "the model" from the Rider.
You are implicitly making 2 assumptions:
1) Characteristic profile = model
2) Special rules combine and are not lost.
As has been posted many times, including by yourself, a Chariot is always treated as a single model. They did not state for only part of each model or just as far as the profiles are concerned. Since there is no limit to this all abilities had by rider or chariot are part of the Chariot. Special rules would need to be removed from both rider and chariot for them to not apply to the Chariot. How do you determine what USR's a model has? To speed this up, you look at it's army list entry and unit type. As a Chariot we would have to look at both the Overlord and CCB, on which IC resides.
ADD causes my posts to ramble from time to time. Please bear with me.
In the case of the CCB, all the stuff that you find in the codex for the Necron Overlord goes on the rider profile and all the stuff you find on the CCB goes on the vehicle profile and the Chariot is the single model with these two profiles. There are rules laid out for how the two profiles interoperate.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/06/07 02:42:31
chanceafs wrote: War scythe does not change the unit type... CCB does. Thus they are very different.
Same goes for these other Options found in other Codex's.
Bike: Changes unit type to Bike
Jet Bike: Changes unit type to jet bike.
Jump Pack: changes unit type to Jump Infantry.
Calvary: Changes unit type to Calvary.
Wings: Changes unit type to Jump Monstrous Creature/Flying Monstrous Creature.
Of the above no one will question whether or not an IC taking one of these unit changing upgrades is still an IC, there are exceptions to this given in both the FAQ's and the relevant codex's but those are few and far between.
Why then, if just like all of the above mentioned upgrades taken by a model retains all of purchasing models USR's, is it prohibited or expressly stated anywhere that a Chariot is exempt to this effect?
Chariot: changes unit type to Chariot.
This is 7th Ed and this is an old unit type getting an overhaul, and here is something very new and confusing to many people.
"The CCB (Not the Rider) can sweep attack with the Chariot Weapon (Contravening the FAQ and Codex)"
Don't you get why they had to put these exceptions in? B/c they are a single model and if they didn't we would be able to do all these things restricted.
Single model can use all his war gear and abilities unless a rule restricts him from doing so.
Are you saying a single model can't use it's war gear or special abilities unless given permission to do so? Any single model CAN use all its war gear and special abilities.
The rules clearly state a MC uses all his rules and if you add Jump he uses all those rules too.
This is incorrect as stated before and IC cannot join a vehicle or MC but a ICMC or Vehicle can join units as happens quite a lot its a one directional joining. There is no rule stating a vehicle cannot join a unit or we wouldnt have vehicle units :/
Also @BLADERIKER the examples your giving while making a kond of sense to give dont really apply as the model is still a single profile this arguement is over the fact that it is a dual profile model which os where the confusion comes from so isn't really like getting wings or a bike.
Cant remeber who said it as on phone but Markcron has proven time and again he has the rulebook and is taking quotes from it so no need to attack him saying he doesnt have it instead actually debate his arguements as the attacks arent helping.
The only other arguement ive seen come close to this is the naestra and arahan on eagle which is a dual peofile considered as one model and there was no real conclusion on.that Gw just dont write dual profiles very well and dont take into full consideration the implications it seems.
Sorry I cant be more help people like milksop and markcron have more logical arguments than mine
It's true vehicles can join other vehicles as long as they have the squadron rule, a chariot does not have that rule.
Also no where in the chariot section does it mention the word IC. JUST rider and chariot. Every rule quoted there are for the rider and chariot and how those two things interact with each other. Absolutely nothing on how the chariot interacts with rider, chariot, and unit it joins. There's no permission to join a unit of wraiths, or anything else for that matter, not even another chariot . You do have permission to use the riders characteristics, but not it's special rules. It's not hard to understand if you just stop trying to break the game.
It even acknowledges every living from the necron codex and how it interacts with the rider and the chariot.
Lungpickle wrote: It's true vehicles can join other vehicles as long as they have the squadron rule, a chariot does not have that rule.
Also no where in the chariot section does it mention the word IC. JUST rider and chariot. Every rule quoted there are for the rider and chariot and how those two things interact with each other. Absolutely nothing on how the chariot interacts with rider, chariot, and unit it joins. There's no permission to join a unit of wraiths, or anything else for that matter, not even another chariot . You do have permission to use the riders characteristics, but not it's special rules. It's not hard to understand if you just stop trying to break the game.
It even acknowledges every living from the necron codex and how it interacts with the rider and the chariot.
If, as you feel, there is no permission for the chariot to join units, why was it necessary for the daemon faq to mentioned that the IC rule is removed?
DS:70+S+G+M-B--IPw40k94-D+++A++/wWD380R+T(D)DM+
Avatar scene by artist Nicholas Kay. Give credit where it's due!
I gotta give one thing to Shadar: the rule "A Chariot is always treated as a single model." is a typical ambigious GW rule that's open for all kinds of interpretations. For example, what the hell is that "always" supposed to mean?! Goddamn it GW!
milkboy wrote:
Only the warscythe and the CCB (after the FAQ hit) are found under the Overlords entry. So I asked why you treated the warscythe and CCB differently, even though both of them are found under the Overlord's entry as options.
I've already explained that. The CCB is a separate model, the warscythe isn't.
Pray tell, where is the rule that says the chariot is a separate model? Perhaps you have mentioned it but 9 pages is rather long. Could you quote it again?
And this rule that you quote, does it also mention if the Juggernaut of Khorne is also a separate model?
Not sure what a Juggernaut of Khorne has to do with this? Can you restate the concern again?
Hmmmm I would like to restate the concern but it is very hard to do so when you keep interpreting single models as two separate models.
I think I will end my discussion with you because I cannot discuss when your logical leaps (since the overlord is a single model, therefore the chariot is also a separate model etc) seem to be quite a large leap in this case. Our initial premise never coincides, as you have chosen your interpretation of "chariot and rider are a single model"
You can have the last word; that is perfectly fine with me. I hope your group of friends/FLGS support your interpretation because I'm sure you'll have more fun playing the game than trying to convince everyone that the Overlord and Chariot are two separate models.
Chill and peace.
DS:70+S+G+M-B--IPw40k94-D+++A++/wWD380R+T(D)DM+
Avatar scene by artist Nicholas Kay. Give credit where it's due!
: 3000pts.
: 2000pts
Which part is hilarious? The part where you quote the rule that shows that you only combine the characteristic profiles and effectively disprove the pro-joining theory?
2000+
2500+
2500+
In a dog eat dog be a cat. 
