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.

 MattKing wrote:
I disagree. Most of the special rules in the game turn cannots into mays.

Only when specifically noted that it does. This is not one of those instances.

 MattKing wrote:
I disagree. Most of the special rules in the game turn cannots into mays. In addition the preferred enemy linchpin is for that instance alone, and likely exists to simplify a single completely argument instead of placing a blanket ruling across all of 40k.

If all units in 40k counted as all the factions of the models within them every model would receive all faction bonuses, special rules, traits, targets ect. Any faction abilities would apply to every model regardless of it's own faction because they all are considered to have all of the unit's factions.

Now isn't that just a fantastic can of worms?

the answer doesn't say all models have all factions of the models in the unit, but the unit has those factions. So no not all models in the unit would gain all faction bonuses

@ topaxygouroun i


For the intents and purposes of this debate can a grey knights unit select a grey knights transport?
For the intents and purposes of this debate can a grey knights unit embark on a grey knights transport?
For the intents and purposes of this debate can a grey knights unit deploy within grey knights transport?

Then in that case I'd say that for ALL intents and purposes, yes.

 MattKing wrote:
@ topaxygouroun i


For the intents and purposes of this debate can a grey knights unit select a grey knights transport?
For the intents and purposes of this debate can a grey knights unit embark on a grey knights transport?
For the intents and purposes of this debate can a grey knights unit deploy within grey knights transport?

Then in that case I'd say that for ALL intents and purposes, yes.

Sure, a GK model/unit can do all those things.

Any other, non GK model joining the GK unit is -for all intents and purposes- considered as part of the unit. This does not mean it is also considered as being a GK model. For targeting purposes, the unit counts as having ALL the factions within it. So for example when a SM character joins a GK squad, the following things happen:

1. The SM character is a part of the GK squad for all intents and purposes.
2. The unit has both the GK and the SM factions for purposes of USRs that target specific factions.
3. The SM character has BOTH the SM and GK factions.
4. The SM character cannot embark on a GK transport, because he has the SM faction, which is battle brothers with the GK and the faq specifically forbids it.

While you guys are arguing in circles about Battle Bros with multiple factions, my original post was in regards to a unit embarking on it's own Dedicated Transport. Argue all you want about GKTs in Valkyries, the FAQ is pretty solidly against it. The interesting bit, though, is that Acolytes can take a Valkyrie as their Dedicated Transport, the BRB grants specific permission for units to start embarked on their DT, and the FAQ's answer regarding this does not speak to this specific situation. As such, we can safely start our Acolytes embarked on their Valkyries or Land Raiders.

The rest is a muddled mess.

SJ

So, since the SM is now a Grey knight he is subject to all of the special rules that apply to all models with the grey knight faction? He gains the Aegis, PE demons, brotherhood psycher, ect?

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
While you guys are arguing in circles about Battle Bros with multiple factions, my original post was in regards to a unit embarking on it's own Dedicated Transport. Argue all you want about GKTs in Valkyries, the FAQ is pretty solidly against it. The interesting bit, though, is that Acolytes can take a Valkyrie as their Dedicated Transport, the BRB grants specific permission for units to start embarked on their DT, and the FAQ's answer regarding this does not speak to this specific situation. As such, we can safely start our Acolytes embarked on their Valkyries or Land Raiders.

The rest is a muddled mess.

SJ

No de BRB forbids other units to start in their DT.

 MattKing wrote:
So, since the SM is now a Grey knight he is subject to all of the special rules that apply to all models with the grey knight faction? He gains the Aegis, PE demons, brotherhood psycher, ect?

No. The faq does not state that the SM character is also a GK. It says that the unit is considered as having all the factions for the purposes of targeting them with specific USRs. The SM character does not actually become a GK.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
my original post was in regards to a unit embarking on it's own Dedicated Transport.
SJ

Why would that ever be a problem?

topaxygouroun i wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
my original post was in regards to a unit embarking on it's own Dedicated Transport.
SJ

Why would that ever be a problem?

Because the inquisitor acolytes can take DT from other factions

terry wrote:

topaxygouroun i wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
my original post was in regards to a unit embarking on it's own Dedicated Transport.
SJ

Why would that ever be a problem?

Because the inquisitor acolytes can take DT from other factions

So? It's their Dedicated transport. Army books trump the brb on conflicting rules. Embark away.

topaxygouroun i wrote:

terry wrote:

topaxygouroun i wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
my original post was in regards to a unit embarking on it's own Dedicated Transport.
SJ

Why would that ever be a problem?

Because the inquisitor acolytes can take DT from other factions

So? It's their Dedicated transport. Army books trump the brb on conflicting rules. Embark away.

but there is no conflict in rules, because there is no rule that allow them to start the game in a battle brother transport, but from what I've been told the transport will get there faction when taken as a DT

Oh , I see now. It makes perfect sense to me too. How stupid would it be to give a unit access to dedicated transports and then forbid it to embark upon them?

it would indeed be pretty stupid and I think we can all agree that RAI that should be able to

Codex trumps BRB but FAQ trumps both. It's the FAQ we're bickering over :(

 MattKing wrote:
Codex trumps BRB but FAQ trumps both. It's the FAQ we're bickering over :(

I don't think so. faq came after the brb but before the IA codex. Whatever thought went through the faq, it clearly did not have the IA codex in mind. On the other hand, it is safe to assume that whatever thought went into the IA codex did have the faq in mind. Of course, it's GW we are talking about. Thinking is not their strongest point.

Well, maybe maybe not. The FAQ questions first started going around in Aug with answers coming out in Sept-Nov. I'm sure they've been kicking around the IA codex for longer than that. What with photos, printing, formatting, play-testing, ect. I also highly doubt it's the same team did both the FAQ and the 'dex. And let's not forget the first answer to the question was actually initally "yes" (like it is in the BRB).

 MattKing wrote:
Well, maybe maybe not. The FAQ questions first started going around in Aug with answers coming out in Sept-Nov. I'm sure they've been kicking around the IA codex for longer than that. What with photos, printing, formatting, play-testing, ect. I also highly doubt it's the same team did both the FAQ and the 'dex. And let's not forget the first answer to the question was actually initally "yes" (like it is in the BRB).

I bet it's all a conspiracy. Some dude over at GW actually lost a game getting charged by disembarking Repentia and got so salty he logged in the servers when everyone else was sleeping and changed the faq question.

Qwerty2jam wrote:Another point if I may, acolytes can purchase sister rhinos, flyboys' Valkyries and grey knights land raiders. What allows them to embark on those at all? Dedicated transports get the inquisition faction.

terry wrote:where does it state it gains the inquisition faction and right now under RAW, the acolytes can only start the game in a chimera, because the rest they can pick are battle brother transports

The same thing that makes Dedicated Transports the same Role as the unit that purchases them also makes them the same Faction as the unit that purchases them.

Dedicated Transports
Sometimes a unit’s Army List Entry will include a Transport option, allowing a vehicle to be selected together with the unit. These Dedicated Transports do not use up a slot on the Force Organisation Chart, but for all other rules purposes count as having the same Battlefield Role and Faction (if any) as the unit they were bought for.

So, unless a Sternguard Squad's Drop Pod is both Elites and Fast Attack, then there is no problem with the Dedicated Transport for the unit that purchased the unit.

However, I have heard that there are issues with one Formation requiring that they become one unit during deployment, so it would be a problem there.

Qwerty2jam wrote:Where as I am referring to this one;

"Q: If a unit consists of more than one Faction, what Faction does the unit count as when targeted by special abilities that affect one of the Factions in that unit?
A: They count as having all the Factions of the models in the unit."

Which when read in its entirety actually doesn't help as they're not being targeted by a special rule.

Being able to Embark units isn't a special ability? I thought it was a special rule granted to Transports much like a Monstrous Creature can fire two weapons, a Flyer be Hard To Hit, or a Beast can move 12".

Vector Strike wrote:If they don't, what those green skulls mean?

The Levels of Alliance rules specifically state, "The Allies Matrix below shows the levels of alliance between units that have different Factions in the same army."

We probably have our spiritual liege to thank for that.

For the purposes of the accolites here's how it's supposed to work.

BRB comes first, unit may deploy in their dedicated transport, other units may not.
FAQ: Units may not start the game in another Factions Transport.
Codex IA: Unit x can take this as a dedicated transport.

BRB - General rules
FAQ - trumps general rules
Codex IA - Lists a specific instance (choosing a dedicated transport from another faction).

Codex overrides BRB, and Specific Rules override General rules. Because it is specifically stated to take Faction X unit as dedicated transport (not a normal ability, thus a specific exception/rule.) you bypass the restriction For this Specific Unit and follow the rule for deployment with a units dedicated transport .

In the case of attaching a character to another unit, the action of joining does not happen until deployment, thus they are two separate units until deployed, you can not deploy a IC of a different faction in another factions Transport.

 Chapter Master Angelos wrote:
Codex IA - Lists a specific instance (choosing a dedicated transport from another faction).

I would add "dedicated Transport then counts purchasing unit's faction" to this line.

I'm pretty sure if you use CIA aeronautica detachment and detach them with let's say a Sisters Army then the sisters can start the game embarked in those Valkyries. Because they are considered the same army because they are Imperial. It is one of the reasons they made the codex the way they did.

According to the BRB (as I have recently been shown), a Dedicated Transport gets BOTH the Battlefield Role AND the Faction of the unit that bought them.

Unfortunately, C:IA makes a very serious mess of the faction/transport/faq issue. The problem isn't so much the Dedicated Transports taken by the Acolyte Squad, but rather the fact that the other units the squad takes "Must form a single unit with this formation's unit of Acolytes." They've never done this before with different factions, as far as I can remember.

Normally, just because you're brought into a Formation or a Detachment, it does not change a unit/model's Faction at all. ("A unit’s Faction applies regardless of how you choose your army".) They haven't told us whether the "Unified Acolyte" unit is only Inquisition, or a combination of whatever Factions were picked in the Formation. If you pick Death Cult Assassins to go into your Warband's Acolyte unit, is the unit now multi-faction, Inq/AS? The FAQ ruling on targeting seems to say that's how it would work. Or do the models, in "forming a single unit with the Acolytes" instead all become Inquisition?


Consider:

1. Acolyte + DaemonHost + Land Raider DT. Unit is all Inquisition, so is Land Raider; Acolytes, Daemonhost, and the Warband's Inquisitor all can start embarked.

2a. Acolyte + Death Cult Assassin + Land Raider DT. Unit is Inq + AS(?), Land Raider is Inq + AS(?), Acolytes can start embarked but Inquisitor has to stand outside waiting (he's ONLY Inquisition.)
- or -
2b. Acolyte + Death Cult Assassin + Land Raider DT. Unit (including DCA) is all Inquisition(?), Land Raider is Inquisition; Acolytes, DCA, and Inquisitor can all start embarked.


It's a hot mess, and they're going to need an FAQ pronto to clear up which it is, 2a or 2b. 2b is the only way that makes logical sense to me, but who knows if they intended those purchased units to all become Inquisition.

Don't even get me started on the Chambers Militant.

 VitruvianZeke wrote:
Normally, just because you're brought into a Formation or a Detachment, it does not change a unit/model's Faction at all. ("A unit’s Faction applies regardless of how you choose your army".)

This part could be arguable for the Formations if they have a Faction symbol on the top just like the unit datasheets, and the definition for that symbol is not changed for Formations for previous codices, but I'm not sure on this codex.

It could be argued that the Faction symbol at the top of a Faction's datasheet is presenting the Faction for all the units in the overall detachment.

 VitruvianZeke wrote:
According to the BRB (as I have recently been shown), a Dedicated Transport gets BOTH the Battlefield Role AND the Faction of the unit that bought them.

Unfortunately, C:IA makes a very serious mess of the faction/transport/faq issue. The problem isn't so much the Dedicated Transports taken by the Acolyte Squad, but rather the fact that the other units the squad takes "Must form a single unit with this formation's unit of Acolytes." They've never done this before with different factions, as far as I can remember.

Normally, just because you're brought into a Formation or a Detachment, it does not change a unit/model's Faction at all. ("A unit’s Faction applies regardless of how you choose your army".) They haven't told us whether the "Unified Acolyte" unit is only Inquisition, or a combination of whatever Factions were picked in the Formation. If you pick Death Cult Assassins to go into your Warband's Acolyte unit, is the unit now multi-faction, Inq/AS? The FAQ ruling on targeting seems to say that's how it would work. Or do the models, in "forming a single unit with the Acolytes" instead all become Inquisition?


Consider:

1. Acolyte + DaemonHost + Land Raider DT. Unit is all Inquisition, so is Land Raider; Acolytes, Daemonhost, and the Warband's Inquisitor all can start embarked.

2a. Acolyte + Death Cult Assassin + Land Raider DT. Unit is Inq + AS(?), Land Raider is Inq + AS(?), Acolytes can start embarked but Inquisitor has to stand outside waiting (he's ONLY Inquisition.)
- or -
2b. Acolyte + Death Cult Assassin + Land Raider DT. Unit (including DCA) is all Inquisition(?), Land Raider is Inquisition; Acolytes, DCA, and Inquisitor can all start embarked.


It's a hot mess, and they're going to need an FAQ pronto to clear up which it is, 2a or 2b. 2b is the only way that makes logical sense to me, but who knows if they intended those purchased units to all become Inquisition.

Don't even get me started on the Chambers Militant.

- or -
2c. Acolyte + Death Cult Assassin + Land Raider DT. Unit is Inq + AS, Land Raider is Inq, nobody can start in the transport. Seeing how the acolytes buy it, so it gains the inq faction, but when the DCA joins it becomes a multi faction unit.

 Charistoph wrote:
It could be argued that the Faction symbol at the top of a Faction's datasheet is presenting the Faction for all the units in the overall detachment.

This is an interesting thought but again it's flummoxed by sloppy writing. "A unit’s Faction applies regardless of how you choose your army, but is especially relevant to Detachments because many state that you can only include units of a particular Faction." Typically the Detachment restriction prevents you using other factions. In this case it does the opposite and actually requires it. A lot of top-level Detachments go so far as to specify things like "only the datasheets listed to the right may be included in this detachment" which prevents subbing in Forgeworld stuff and locks it down to the Codex in which it appears.

Formations are usually even more restrictive about what they can bring, typically specifying the exact datasheet that must be used. Until now this has almost always been in the same Codex, or at least clearly from the same faction.

terry wrote:
2c. Acolyte + Death Cult Assassin + Land Raider DT. Unit is Inq + AS, Land Raider is Inq, nobody can start in the transport. Seeing how the acolytes buy it, so it gains the inq faction, but when the DCA joins it becomes a multi faction unit.

I'd thought about that, but it seems ... less likely, maybe? GW goes back and forth on whether or not you buy things "in steps" or if it all happens at once (c.f. "the horror that was trying to explain TH/SS on Cyclone Missile Launcher Terminators and how Deathwing Sergeants got shafted" aka the infamous "replace all weapons" verbage.) My thought was that whatever factions the Acolyte unit finally has, that's what its Dedicated Transport would have. But that's just my interpretation.

But hey, just to up the ante ...

2d. Acolyte + Death Cult Assassin + Immolator DT (from DCA sheet.) Unit is Inq + AS, Immolator is AS(?) or Inq + AS(?), nobody from the unit can start in it because the Acolyte unit didn't buy it, the DCA did? But, per the rules, you can still buy a Dedicated Transport even if the unit cannot embark on it (e.g. the unit has too many models for the transport capacity.)

Would that then prevent the Acolytes from then buying another Dedicated Transport? To my knowledge it's never come up before because they've never tried to blob two different things that could each take a transport.

They've made quite the mess with these rules as they're currently written.

I hope they FAQ these because it would be awesome to let imperial armies to use this vehicle. Realistically, armies would be using this flyer as their main transport. I hope they FAQ it. It would be such a missed opportunity if they do not allow this.

I will even take the whole mandatory purchase of the officer of the fleet and put him in a squad in order to allow a sisters squad to start in it the start of the game.

 VitruvianZeke wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
It could be argued that the Faction symbol at the top of a Faction's datasheet is presenting the Faction for all the units in the overall detachment.

This is an interesting thought but again it's flummoxed by sloppy writing. "A unit’s Faction applies regardless of how you choose your army, but is especially relevant to Detachments because many state that you can only include units of a particular Faction." Typically the Detachment restriction prevents you using other factions. In this case it does the opposite and actually requires it. A lot of top-level Detachments go so far as to specify things like "only the datasheets listed to the right may be included in this detachment" which prevents subbing in Forgeworld stuff and locks it down to the Codex in which it appears.

Formations are usually even more restrictive about what they can bring, typically specifying the exact datasheet that must be used. Until now this has almost always been in the same Codex, or at least clearly from the same faction.

No, it isn't completely flummoxed if you understand what I'm saying and actually consider a key word in your bolded portion, "many".

Most Formations do not carry Restrictions for Factions, only Role Detachments like the Combined Arms Detachment carry them, and is still required for them to have it in each Restriction in order to apply. As of the writing of the rulebook, the number of Factions with Formations could almost be counted on one hand as well.

Now, the codices (and not the rulebook) tell us how to interpret the datasheets. From the Codex: Space Marines datasheet legend we see:

1. Faction: The unit’s Faction is shown here by a symbol. All units that have this symbol, which includes all the units described in this book, have the Space Marines Faction.

And their entry on Formation datasheets says nothing to change this. It is to this I was wondering if Codex: Imperial Agents actually addressed or not.

If they did not address it, then the Formation's datasheet is stating that the units within it carry the Faction (if any) posted at the top of the datasheet just as a Dedicated Transport will carry the Faction and Role of the unit that purchased them.

It's not 100% solid, but it can be interpreted as such and would resolve the issues for Formations in this codex.

 Charistoph wrote:
Now, the codices (and not the rulebook) tell us how to interpret the datasheets.

Well, in truth the rulebook does tell us how to interpret the datasheets, ("This will often be represented on the unit’s Army List Entry with a symbol, the key for which can be found to the right."), but I get your point. The trouble I have with that interpretation is that we don't really have any precedent that even implies that joining a formation changes the faction. It's never come up before, because they just don't mix datasheets of multiple factions in the formation's we've seen up to now.

 Charistoph wrote:
It is to this I was wondering if Codex: Imperial Agents actually addressed or not.

The Codex only specifies Faction in regards to units, and then it just lists them all ... "Faction: The unit’s Faction is shown here by a symbol. All of the units described in this book have one of the following Factions: Adepta Sororitas, Aeronautica Imperialis, Astra Telepathica, Cult Mechanicus, Deathwatch, Grey Knights, Inquisition, Legion of the Damned or Officio Assassinorum."

The blurb on Formations doesn't reference faction at all ... "A Formation datasheet will list the Army List Entries which make up the Formation, any restrictions upon what it may include, and any special rules the Formation’s units gain."

Again, just as in the Space Marine Codex, Faction is only ever referenced for a unit, never to a detachment or formation. And prior to this, no formation sheet would have had units with a different symbol than what was at the top of their page. I think assuming the entire formation becomes the faction is something of a leap.

 Charistoph wrote:
It's not 100% solid, but it can be interpreted as such and would resolve the issues for Formations in this codex.

Believe me, I'd be happy if this were the case, it would actually clear up a lot of the confusion. On the other hand, it would mean that the the Chambers Militant would become Faction Inquisition, so those DW, GK, and AS units tacked on to the formation would cease being their old faction, which seems weird and unintended to me.

I just don't see a firm argument for it given what little the rules have to say, especially because of that BRB note that "A unit’s Faction applies regardless of how you choose your army." Not trying to be argumentative, I just think it's a hard sell. All the more reason we need an FAQ.

This is the third major issue with the Codex that I don't think the design team even bothered to think twice about - and the answer can drastically change how people want to field their armies and what models they want to buy. Sloppy even by GW standards, and that's saying something.

 VitruvianZeke wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
Now, the codices (and not the rulebook) tell us how to interpret the datasheets.

Well, in truth the rulebook does tell us how to interpret the datasheets, ("This will often be represented on the unit’s Army List Entry with a symbol, the key for which can be found to the right."), but I get your point. The trouble I have with that interpretation is that we don't really have any precedent that even implies that joining a formation changes the faction. It's never come up before, because they just don't mix datasheets of multiple factions in the formation's we've seen up to now.

Actually, that's not telling us how to interpret the datasheet (Faction symbol found here), just what to expect on one and what each of the symbols to expect mean, not their arrangement or placement versus Roles, etc.

There is one Formation that was previously introduced that did this, the War Conclave? made up of IK, AM, and Skitarii Formations. However, there has been nothing, one way or the other, which has been noted on how it is to be treated.

 VitruvianZeke wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
It is to this I was wondering if Codex: Imperial Agents actually addressed or not.

The Codex only specifies Faction in regards to units, and then it just lists them all ... "Faction: The unit’s Faction is shown here by a symbol. All of the units described in this book have one of the following Factions: Adepta Sororitas, Aeronautica Imperialis, Astra Telepathica, Cult Mechanicus, Deathwatch, Grey Knights, Inquisition, Legion of the Damned or Officio Assassinorum."

The blurb on Formations doesn't reference faction at all ... "A Formation datasheet will list the Army List Entries which make up the Formation, any restrictions upon what it may include, and any special rules the Formation’s units gain."

Again, just as in the Space Marine Codex, Faction is only ever referenced for a unit, never to a detachment or formation. And prior to this, no formation sheet would have had units with a different symbol than what was at the top of their page. I think assuming the entire formation becomes the faction is something of a leap.

And this is what I mean about not understanding what I am saying, and it can be difficult to get one's mind around it.

Detachments do not have a Faction, ever. What I am saying is that the Faction noted at the top of the Formation datasheet assigns that Faction to the units which make up for the Formation.

It does this for the same reason that units are assigned their Faction by the same symbol arrangement. Formations use the same arrangement and legend for datasheets. The unit's Faction is show by this symbol. What is listed in a Formation? Units. A simple answer, if difficult to convince people of.

 VitruvianZeke wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
It's not 100% solid, but it can be interpreted as such and would resolve the issues for Formations in this codex.

Believe me, I'd be happy if this were the case, it would actually clear up a lot of the confusion. On the other hand, it would mean that the the Chambers Militant would become Faction Inquisition, so those DW, GK, and AS units tacked on to the formation would cease being their old faction, which seems weird and unintended to me.

I just don't see a firm argument for it given what little the rules have to say, especially because of that BRB note that "A unit’s Faction applies regardless of how you choose your army." Not trying to be argumentative, I just think it's a hard sell. All the more reason we need an FAQ.

This is the third major issue with the Codex that I don't think the design team even bothered to think twice about - and the answer can drastically change how people want to field their armies and what models they want to buy. Sloppy even by GW standards, and that's saying something.

Yes, it would be easier if they came out and delineated it properly. This is GW's primary failing, they don't care enough about the game to structure it properly to actually function on its own. It must be House Ruled even a little bit to properly operate. The rest of the time, it is about interpreting things so they work.

And as I said, this isn't a firm argument, but it is a far more workable argument then having a unit made up of different Factions before deployment begins who can't Embark on their Dedicated Transport.