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.

And is it still scoring ?

That was the topic of their after-lunch meeting, unfortunately.

I suppose if the marines die the unit would stay a Space Marine unit until the IC's next movement phase when they are found to be no longer within 2" of the Space Marine unit and leave it.

 DarknessEternal wrote:
What happens when all the Marines in that unit die then?

They go their seperate ways: Both models are IC and the unit they joined was eliminated, so they revert to being their own unit thereby forcing the OEO check at the appropriate phase.

while an IC is attached he counts as part of the unit for all purposes, including who can and cannot ally with that unit, his permissions/restrictions and those of the unit must both be taken into account, as he is now part of that unit.

Who can join a unit depends on its alignment (i.e. Codex: Space Marines), joining a battle brother IC to it doesn't change that.

With any real hope all these different terms they are using in the allied relationship rules will be simplified in an FAQ burst after the escalation supplement comes out. There is a chance (I put it at 1 in 100) that the escilation book will also have formations like we have seen in the dataslates that have been released. Since formations will also have this exact same problem maybe the design team thought it through there....haha.

 easysauce wrote:
while an IC is attached he counts as part of the unit for all purposes, including who can and cannot ally with that unit, his permissions/restrictions and those of the unit must both be taken into account, as he is now part of that unit.

We have an entire thread pointing out how this is wrong, and you still add your jibber-jabber? What?

You can hope and pray for an FAQ, but it seems pretty clear RAW to me...

Asmodai Asmodean wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
while an IC is attached he counts as part of the unit for all purposes, including who can and cannot ally with that unit, his permissions/restrictions and those of the unit must both be taken into account, as he is now part of that unit.

We have an entire thread pointing out how this is wrong, and you still add your jibber-jabber? What?

You can hope and pray for an FAQ, but it seems pretty clear RAW to me...

Please link or quote the part which says that is wrong.

 Nem wrote:

Asmodai Asmodean wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
while an IC is attached he counts as part of the unit for all purposes, including who can and cannot ally with that unit, his permissions/restrictions and those of the unit must both be taken into account, as he is now part of that unit.

We have an entire thread pointing out how this is wrong, and you still add your jibber-jabber? What?

You can hope and pray for an FAQ, but it seems pretty clear RAW to me...

Please link or quote the part which says that is wrong.

+1 to this request...

The other problem is can an inquisitor join a unit that is only composed of 2 BB IC's? In this case the question of what the unit is is muddled further.

It depends on who joined who, as the joined to IC is the unit you use yo determine the relationship

nosferatu1001 wrote:
It depends on who joined who, as the joined to IC is the unit you use yo determine the relationship

Thats the problem though, theres nothing rules wise to suggest either;

o Allied relationship rules are based on 'majority detachment' in the unit.
o A unit can only ever be comprised of one set of Allied status.


And while 'he is part of the unit' is being used to argue the next, I'm not entirely convinced it means..

o When an IC joins a unit, all his rules are replaced by the units rules, as they were prior to his joining.

No, his urles arent replaced - instead, anytime you need to consider "the unit", the IC is just a normal member of the unit

So when you determine the units "ally" status, you consider the IC that joined as a normal member of the unit. Similarly when you consider if you get PE against the unit

the IC, has a restriction, BY NAME (ally matrix) not by unit or model, as he is a BB or CTA or Desperate allly

you are ignoring a rule in the "for all purposes" part of the IC joining...

IE you pick and choose what rules you want to apply, you WANT all the UNITS rules to apply, so you only choose to apply them.,

In fact, all the IC's rules, ALSO apply, as he is part of the unit for all purposes.

restrictions/permissions of the unit, are rules, and must be applied, as all rules apply by RAW,
restrictions/permissions of the IC, are rules, and must be applied, as all rules apply by RAW,


and IC that cannot embark on transports, either because he is a biker, jump pack or BB, cannot embark. yet plenty of people see no problem hand waving away one of those restrictions, because they want to.
if any "part" of a unit is not allowed to embark, then the whole unit cannot embark.

just as in the mixed allies case, the IC is a part of the unit, but the IC is CTA to a 3rd IC, and the unit (by itself) is BB to that 3rd IC.

a unit contains 10 models that are BB to the 4rd Ic, and one model that is still CTA to that 4rd IC, therefore we have a unit with a model in it, that has a CTA relationship to the third IC.

as soon as IC #1 is part of the unit, for ALL RULES PURPOSES, it has a model in the unit with CTA relationship to this 3rd IC, so the unit cannot be joined by this 3rd IC.

if any part of a unit is forbidden from being joined by a CTA IC, then the whole unit cannot be joined.

to ignore this, is to ignore one of the "rules purposes" in the IC rules.


you are only following half the rules that are included in the "for all purposes" clause.

cant pick and choose like that, no matter how much you want to.

There are no rules that change the type of unit that he joins. None of the IC's rules affect that.

When shooting/assaulting/targeting the unit you do not consider the unit type of the IC or target him separately. You only consider the unit he joined.

A Tau unit joined by an Eldar Farseer stays a Tau unit for ALL purposes of determining what type of unit it is. I can not find any rules that change the unit's type or create a hybrid Tau/Eldar type unit.

If it breaks the game then I'm going to say they can't join.

 Shandara wrote:
There are no rules that change the type of unit that he joins. None of the IC's rules affect that.

When shooting/assaulting/targeting the unit you do not consider the unit type of the IC or target him separately. You only consider the unit he joined.

A Tau unit joined by an Eldar Farseer stays a Tau unit for ALL purposes of determining what type of unit it is. I can not find any rules that change the unit's type or create a hybrid Tau/Eldar type unit.

Which was my conclusion as well, even if it does not seem intended.

How would you rule Hatred and PE in such a situation?

The exact same way. The unit is still SM, even if a Lord Commisar joins it. If you have Hatred SM you get rerrolls, if you have hatred IG you dont.

If IC-A and IC-B have formed a single unit they will have done so by one of them moving into coherency with the other. Because they must move at different times while not in the same unit it is impossible for them to move into coherency together. The one that moved into coherency has 'joined' the one that was not moving. If IC-A remains still while IC-B moves to join him then IC-B is a member of IC-A's unit for all rules purposes. RAW tells us this sets up the allied relationship between those units. If IC-A's unit may be joined by IC-C's unit it matters not if IC'B is a member of either unit.

Codex: Inquisition throws a wrench into the works. Models from codex inquisition have relationships with models from other detachments. Models not units. Even if IC-A(from codex inquisiiton) joins unit B and becomes a member of unit B IC-A will still have allied relationships with models from other detachments and that relationship may not match unit-B's relationship. So what does it mean when a desperate allies model wants to join unit B while IC-A is a member? IC-A can't be joined by that model, but is that model joining IC-A? Two opinions on the matter are

that model is joining unit B and its relationship with IC-A is irrelevant

or that model cannot join unit-B because IC-A is a member of unit B for all rules purposes that model is also joining IC-A

Neither have a clear cut answer.

We do have a clear answer.

Nothing, no rules, nothing changes what a unit is. A Space Marine unit will stay a Space Marine unit.

Logically, if GW doesn't give us rules that actually change it, it doesn't change!

We use the exact same rules for joining an allied IC to a unit whether he's the first or the 100th:
* Check if you are Battle Brother with the unit, if so you may join. No individual models are harmed.. err checked during this. Units only.

I agree with that for everything except models from codex inquisition.

What makes them different from models from other codices?

The bit in the codex: Inquisition about different relationships only means that yes, you can have primary detachment and allied detachment with different relationships to the inquisitorial detachment.

 Shandara wrote:
What makes them different from models from other codices?

The bit in the codex: Inquisition about different relationships only means that yes, you can have primary detachment and allied detachment with different relationships to the inquisitorial detachment.

I agree with you. But I do feel like that with the way that paragraph reads they may have been implying that you couldn't join them to a unit with a non-battle brother character joined. I was reading along that paragraph, saw the Tau example and was thinking, "Damn, my idea won't... oh wait." I wonder if it was an oversight.

But regardless, thems the rules.

 DarknessEternal wrote:
What happens when all the Marines in that unit die then?

I see your point here. This does complicate things, as I am in the 'they're both joining a BB unit' boat. There's two ways to look at it i suppose.

1. The unit they joined is still the SM unit and thus are still "in" that unit even though the original models from that unit are dead.
2. They are no longer in the SM unit because it's dead and the two ICs are not BB, thus they act as seperate units from that point on (or more specifically after the resolution of the attacks that killed the SM squad).

Personally HIWPI is #2 and i believe RAW supports this one as well.

An another note; The IC joining IC joining IC problem. RAW from what I can tell is this:

IC A - Inc
IC B - SM
IC C - Tau

IC A moves into coherency with IC B and thus A joins B making B the actual unit. IC C joins IC B. for PE IC B is the target as it was the unit being joined.

Of course we all know the real answer to this whole issue is WHY THE ARE TAU AND SM BBs!?

Independent Characters join units. When joining a unit, you count as part of the unit for all rules purposes, including faction status. A SM unit with Inquisitor attached remains an SM unit; it does not become a mixed SM/Inquisition unit, because there is no such thing in the Allies Matrix or anywhere in the BRB.

This is the simplest and RAW reading of the rules. Anything else is just imposition of fluff prejudice.

Tau are BB with SM to sell more models, simple.

Shandara wrote:Those special rules are worded differently. Usually they say:
"In a unit contains one or more models with..."

They are not dependent on the unit having the rule.

But I'll repeat:
When an IC joins a unit it does not change the unit at all. When checking allied status you check the unit, not the models in it. The unit has a fixed alignment which is not changed in any way whether or not ICs join or not.

If hybrid units were a thing, how would you determine which alignment to use? Random? Majority? All at the same time? I can not find any rules to support any of those options.

So your claim is that an IC joining the unit does not change the units codex affiliation or unit type. Further down that line of thought, that the unit has a unit type, codex affiliation, etc that remains the same regardless of what models comprise the unit. That a unit has a specific type and affiliation apart from it's models which is constant and unchanging. If that is correct, do you have any rules to back that up, I only see that unit types are granted to models, not to units and that you purchase models from the codex that are required to come in units.

I pose that only models have a type and affiliation and that units in and of themselves, do not. Further, that the units type and affiliation is not set in stone but that they are derived attributes from its models.

Shandara wrote:The world implodes. GW didn't think that far.

This made me LoL

easysauce wrote:while an IC is attached he counts as part of the unit for all purposes, including who can and cannot ally with that unit, his permissions/restrictions and those of the unit must both be taken into account, as he is now part of that unit.

This. I see no permission to ignore the IC as member of the unit for any rule purposes. This makes the ICs characteristics just as important as every other models in the unit.

nosferatu1001 wrote:It depends on who joined who, as the joined to IC is the unit you use yo determine the relationship

A joining is a two way relationship no matter how you look at it. It does not matter who joins who. The IC becoming part of the unit necessarily entails the unit is also gaining the IC as a member. It is not an excuse to disregard the ICs individual traits but rather lends to the idea that those traits are now part of the unit as well.

nosferatu1001 wrote:No, his urles arent replaced - instead, anytime you need to consider "the unit", the IC is just a normal member of the unit

So when you determine the units "ally" status, you consider the IC that joined as a normal member of the unit. Similarly when you consider if you get PE against the unit

And what exactly can you consider a unit to be apart from its models(members)?

Note: the words 'normal member' were removed from the IC rules in 6th edition. While the IC is a member of the unit, it is no longer considered 'normal' as it once was.

Shandara wrote:There are no rules that change the type of unit that he joins. None of the IC's rules affect that.

This is true either way in a sense. What is, when the IC joins, remains the same when the ICs attributes are added to the collective.... err, i mean unit... which is most definitely not secretly part of a genestealer cult... definitely.

He is a member of the unit for all rules purposes. T his is a rules purpose.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
He is a member of the unit for all rules purposes. T his is a rules purpose.

It says he is a part of the unit, not that he is a member of the unit


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As Abadon has pointed out - It's not about the unit changing. Its about the alignment of the unit, and what it can or cannot do against another codex. The allies rules are not set fast in the sense that 'a unit is a BB Unit', if that was the case and could not 'change' then it’s also a BB unit to a 3rd detachment who actually allies as convenience.

The unit is not 'a unit of battle brothers' it’s a unit of whatever codex's are included in the unit, at the time a unit is testing for allied permissions against another codex.

Alignment to another unit is determined by using the Allies Matrix in the rulebook.

You check what codex your unit is from, i.e. Space Marines unit.
You check what allied status you have with another unit, i.e. a Tau unit.

Then you know whether you are a Battle Brother, Allies of Convenience, etc..

The important thing, i.e. what codex your unit is from for the purpose of the Allies Matrix never changes.