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.

Then chariots cannot die, as there are no rules for allocating wounds to them.

 NecronLord3 wrote:
Then chariots cannot die, as there are no rules for allocating wounds to them.

You allocate wounds after you allocate hits. (Page 32-34 BRB) The Player controlling the Chariot decides which hit pools hit what. (Page 86 BRB) "Para phrased"

After wounds are allocated you may LOS if you are allowed by the LOS rule.

The Chariot is a unique Vehicle with a Duel profile (Page 86 BRB)

The Overlord is a Character (Necron Codex Page 89)

The Catacomb Command Barge is a Vehicle: Chariot. (Necron FAQ)

The Character rule grants LOS. (Page 100 BRB)

The LOS Rule has an exception regarding Vehicle Characters (Page 100 BRB)

The Chariot is both a Character and a Vehicle due to its duel profiles being treated as one model. Thus it is restricted by the LOS rule from being able to take a LOS roll in the first place.

Unless as it seems you are trying to say that the CCB and Overlord are not one model?

 NecronLord3 wrote:
Then chariots cannot die, as there are no rules for allocating wounds to them.

Yup, that's a legitimate hole in the rules. It's easy enough to patch that hole with common sense and proceed along with the game, but it is indeed a hole.

So GW was sloppy in some way. Either they didn't realize they were giving the CCB IC or they intended to give it IC but didn't realize the attending consequences for wound allocation when the CCB joins a unit.

col_impact wrote:
Yup, that's a legitimate hole in the rules. It's easy enough to patch that hole with common sense and proceed along with the game, but it is indeed a hole.

So GW was sloppy in some way. Either they didn't realize they were giving the CCB IC or they intended to give it IC but didn't realize the attending consequences for wound allocation.

IC or no IC The LOS rule would not apply to a Chariot model in the first place, as they are all Vehicle Characters.

 BLADERIKER wrote:

 NecronLord3 wrote:

col_impact wrote:
With Chariots we are told explicitly that we are dealing with one model. So a wound is allocated to the Chariot and LOS can be taken.And LOS applies to the model. So what is the model and unit type of the Chariot?

it is a dual profile unit, one of which is a vehicle, the other a non vehicle. As the controlling player I choose which profile to allocate hits to.

Page 100 also explicitly states that LoS applies to non-vehicle characters. It never factors in unit or model type. Is the rider of a CCB infantry, no. Is he a non-vehicle character? Very specifically, yes.

This is wrong. The rules and restrictions of both profiles on the model must be taken into account. This has been the entire reason this thread has been going on so long.

The Overlord part of the profile has IC which means it is normally entitled to a LOS.

The CCB part of the profile is a vehicle which is not entitled to a LOS.

We are instructed to treat these two profiles as one model, thus we have a IC that is also a Vehicle.

The Overlord with a CCB upgrade is a Vehicle Character and thus is not entitled to a LOS due to the restriction given in the LOS rule set.

we also have very specific language in allocating hits to the profiles separately and each can be wounded or take hull points separately. Otherwise you would be putting wounds on vehicles which have none, or hull points on non-vehicles which they also don't have. You want to take basic rules and apply them in a usual way to an unusual unit. You can't. Allocation of hits and wounds a separate from the single model rule.

 NecronLord3 wrote:

 BLADERIKER wrote:

 NecronLord3 wrote:

col_impact wrote:
With Chariots we are told explicitly that we are dealing with one model. So a wound is allocated to the Chariot and LOS can be taken.And LOS applies to the model. So what is the model and unit type of the Chariot?

it is a dual profile unit, one of which is a vehicle, the other a non vehicle. As the controlling player I choose which profile to allocate hits to.

Page 100 also explicitly states that LoS applies to non-vehicle characters. It never factors in unit or model type. Is the rider of a CCB infantry, no. Is he a non-vehicle character? Very specifically, yes.

This is wrong. The rules and restrictions of both profiles on the model must be taken into account. This has been the entire reason this thread has been going on so long.

The Overlord part of the profile has IC which means it is normally entitled to a LOS.

The CCB part of the profile is a vehicle which is not entitled to a LOS.

We are instructed to treat these two profiles as one model, thus we have a IC that is also a Vehicle.

The Overlord with a CCB upgrade is a Vehicle Character and thus is not entitled to a LOS due to the restriction given in the LOS rule set.

we also have very specific language in allocating hits to the profiles separately and each can be wounded or take hull points separately. Otherwise you would be putting wounds on vehicles which have none, or hull points on non-vehicles which they also don't have. You want to take basic rules and apply them in a usual way to an unusual unit. You can't. Allocation of hits and wounds a separate from the single model rule.

Can the Overlord with a CCB upgrade ever be separated from the CCB? Can the CCB ever be separated from a Purchasing Overlord? The answer to both of these questions is no.

So what is the unit type of the Riding Overlord? Is it Infantry: Character? or something else. Regardless of whether or not a Overlord retains the IC USR when upgraded with a CCB, the question is what is the Necron Overlord's unit type?

I argue; That when a Overlord purchases a CCB and becomes the "Rider", he takes on the unit type of the CCB which is Vehicle Chariot. If the Overlord could disembark or ever be separated from the CCB then the argument could be made that the Overlord retained its unit type (As it did in 6th ed). However, (Page 86 BRB) "The Rider cannot disembark- and if one profile loses its last wound or Hull Point then the model is complete removed from play" (Para Phrased), proves that it is considered one model and not two.

Further more, it has be established that other IC's cannot join a Chariot due to it being a Vehicle, if your argument were to be true regarding the Overlord retaining it's Infantry Character unit type, then I could join a Destroyer Lord to my Overlord and not the CCB, even though the Overlord was riding the CCB and place them in a unit of wraiths.

If you cannot join another IC to a Chariot being ridden by a character because it is considered a Vehicle, Why then would one expect to able to LOS a Rider on a Chariot.

If a Chariot is considered a Unit type vehicle for one rule but a non-vehicle for another rule all while being one model then the Chariot rule set is broken.

If on the other Hand the Chariot is consider a Vehicle at all times that shares the Rules and Restrictions or its duel Profiles, then the Chariot rule set is not broken.

Edited: The Chariot is one model that has both the Character and Vehicle rule sets in its overall combined profile, to ignore one rule set or sets of rules on a model is game breaking.

BLADERIKER wrote: You allocate wounds after you allocate hits. (Page 32-34 BRB) The Player controlling the Chariot decides which hit pools hit what. (Page 86 BRB) "Para phrased" 

Every time FlingitNow plays a game he automatically wins (BrB page 1 paraphrased).

Look I can do it too.

Why do you persist in making this factually incorrect statement? Why are you intentionally misleading people on what the rules say? Why are you making claims that you know are entirely false?

You can not assign hits to the Rider or Chariot when attached to a unit. This is only for shooting at Chariot units which the CCB attached to another unit is not. So please stop claiming tjis to be true when you know it is not. Intentionally telling people things you know are true really hinders resolution of the discussion and gets frustrating for those that have to repeatedly point out when you intentionally mislead people.

Chill man. He's not intentionally misleading or anything. He is just advancing his opinion. If his opinion or interpretation doesn't match yours, you don't have to get upset or frustrated.

Worry not, the rules lawyers will just point out that the IC does not join the CCB, instead he will join the wraiths unit that also includes the CCB. Therefore everything is just fine..

 milkboy wrote:
Chill man. He's not intentionally misleading or anything. He is just advancing his opinion. If his opinion or interpretation doesn't match yours, you don't have to get upset or frustrated.

He doesn't disagree though he's stated the CCB+unit isn't a Chariot unit. So he knows the CCB+unit is not eligible to use the hit allocation rule as I've pointed this out to him and he's never tried to argue against it.

So he knows 100% what he is claiming is false and therefore misleading to anyone that does not know this. So he is definitely deliberately misleading people.

Naw wrote:
Worry not, the rules lawyers will just point out that the IC does not join the CCB, instead he will join the wraiths unit that also includes the CCB. Therefore everything is just fine..

Still waiting on your rules quotes, do you have access again?

From memory you need to prove that units join ICs, not ICs joining units, and that there is a restriction on a vehicle IC joining a non-vehicle unit. Found anything?

So RAW . . .

1) The CCB Lord can join units

2) The CCB Lord can not use LOS

3) The CCB Lord cannot be in a unit with another IC

Because of points 2 and 3 the CCB Lord is not overpowered when he joins units and is in fact very self-limiting (loses mobility) and balanced.

However, following RAW opens up a hole in the rules where wound allocation in heterogenous units does not provide for vehicles (which fuels a RAI argument against allowing CCB Lord to join a unit). Commonsense could patch the hole and people could simply execute a commonsensical procedure to resolve wound allocation but nonetheless some tightening act would need to be done by GW or a TO to reconcile the rules conflict (ie FAQ IC from the CCB Lord or FAQ some procedure for allocating wounds in units composed of vehicles characters and infantry).

Since there does not seem to be a balance issue if the CCB Lord is allowed to join units then a TO could go either way on the issue. If there is some balance issue that I am missing I would love to see it.

col_impact wrote:
So RAW . . .

1) The CCB Lord can join units

2) The CCB Lord can not use LOS

3) The CCB Lord cannot be in a unit with another IC

Because of points 2 and 3 the CCB Lord is not overpowered when he joins units and is in fact very self-limiting (loses mobility) and balanced.

However, following RAW opens up a hole in the rules where wound allocation in heterogenous units does not provide for vehicles (which fuels a RAI argument against allowing CCB Lord to join a unit). Commonsense could patch the hole but nonetheless some tightening act would need to be done by GW or a TO to reconcile the rules conflict (ie FAQ IC from the CCB Lord or FAQ some procedure for allocating wounds in units composed of vehicles characters and infantry).

Since there does not seem to be a balance issue if the CCB Lord is allowed to join units then a TO could go either way on the issue. If there is some balance issue that I am missing I would love to see it.

That seems to effectively sum it up. Though I do find it rich that the commonsense approach is ignored when reading the RaW to allow the CCB to join a unit yet is expected to be used to clear up tge hole in the rules caused by this clearly unintended situation...

 FlingitNow wrote:

col_impact wrote:
So RAW . . .

1) The CCB Lord can join units

2) The CCB Lord can not use LOS

3) The CCB Lord cannot be in a unit with another IC

Because of points 2 and 3 the CCB Lord is not overpowered when he joins units and is in fact very self-limiting (loses mobility) and balanced.

However, following RAW opens up a hole in the rules where wound allocation in heterogenous units does not provide for vehicles (which fuels a RAI argument against allowing CCB Lord to join a unit). Commonsense could patch the hole but nonetheless some tightening act would need to be done by GW or a TO to reconcile the rules conflict (ie FAQ IC from the CCB Lord or FAQ some procedure for allocating wounds in units composed of vehicles characters and infantry).

Since there does not seem to be a balance issue if the CCB Lord is allowed to join units then a TO could go either way on the issue. If there is some balance issue that I am missing I would love to see it.

That seems to effectively sum it up. Though I do find it rich that the commonsense approach is ignored when reading the RaW to allow the CCB to join a unit yet is expected to be used to clear up tge hole in the rules caused by this clearly unintended situation...

What commonsense approach am I ignoring by reading the RAW to allow the CCB to join a unit (that would not slip into the domain of a RAI argument)?

What commonsense approach am I ignoring by reading the RAW to allow the CCB to join a unit (that would not slip into the domain of aRAI argument)?

Nice caveat the problem is you're ignoring that very caveat when asking for your commonsense solution to firing at the mixed unit.

col_impact wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

col_impact wrote:
So RAW . . .

1) The CCB Lord can join units

2) The CCB Lord can not use LOS

3) The CCB Lord cannot be in a unit with another IC

Because of points 2 and 3 the CCB Lord is not overpowered when he joins units and is in fact very self-limiting (loses mobility) and balanced.

However, following RAW opens up a hole in the rules where wound allocation in heterogenous units does not provide for vehicles (which fuels a RAI argument against allowing CCB Lord to join a unit). Commonsense could patch the hole but nonetheless some tightening act would need to be done by GW or a TO to reconcile the rules conflict (ie FAQ IC from the CCB Lord or FAQ some procedure for allocating wounds in units composed of vehicles characters and infantry).

Since there does not seem to be a balance issue if the CCB Lord is allowed to join units then a TO could go either way on the issue. If there is some balance issue that I am missing I would love to see it.

That seems to effectively sum it up. Though I do find it rich that the commonsense approach is ignored when reading the RaW to allow the CCB to join a unit yet is expected to be used to clear up tge hole in the rules caused by this clearly unintended situation...

What commonsense approach am I ignoring by reading the RAW to allow the CCB to join a unit (that would not slip into the domain of a RAI argument)?

We are told they cannot "disembark", when strongly implies they are "embarked". How does and IC that cannot disembark from a vehicle able to join another squad?

How does the USR IC on one part of the unit transfer to the other part. Not its not a Model special rule, its unit based. Only one part of that two part unit has the IC special rule, how is it being transferred as its a nontransferable USR.

We have FAQs for Daemons which establishes precendent on how to hand the matter which involves losing the IC USR.

Essentially joining a CCB to a unit breaks the game. Not from a balance point of view but from a rules point of view as we don't have a way to deal with mixed units of vehicles and non-vehicles.

If anyone uses this nonsense in a game with me I will throw the "single model" across the room.. that is all.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Naw wrote:
Worry not, the rules lawyers will just point out that the IC does not join the CCB, instead he will join the wraiths unit that also includes the CCB. Therefore everything is just fine..

Still waiting on your rules quotes, do you have access again?

They can be found under rules for IC's.

From memory you need to prove that units join ICs, not ICs joining units, and that there is a restriction on a vehicle IC joining a non-vehicle unit. Found anything?

Like I said, forum rules lawyers will try to apply their faulty logic here, thanks for proving my point.

Do read a couple of posts after yours to get the correct idea.

broo wrote:
If anyone uses this nonsense in a game with me I will throw the "single model" across the room.. that is all.

Careful. You might be hauled up for damage to other persons property. I believe the gentlemanly method would be to end the game, if you really cannot play on with this, by conceding OR soldier on and try to win it anyway.

Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. And this is a quote. Salvor Hardin I believe.

Edited for horrendous spelling errors.

Amazingly if you remove the IC rule like Daemons all these problems disappear.

Amazing that GW intentionally took it away from some chariots, but left it on this one!

Naw wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Naw wrote:
Worry not, the rules lawyers will just point out that the IC does not join the CCB, instead he will join the wraiths unit that also includes the CCB. Therefore everything is just fine..

Still waiting on your rules quotes, do you have access again?

They can be found under rules for IC's.

Nope, that's not a rules quote , or even citation. You have, as ever, utterly failed to prove your case. Retract it.

Prove your claim, following the tenets, or refrain from posting something that appears to be a real argument, to avoid others fruitlessly trying to argue against your rule less, disproved opinion.

naw wrote:

From memory you need to prove that units join ICs, not ICs joining units, and that there is a restriction on a vehicle IC joining a non-vehicle unit. Found anything?

Like I said, forum rules lawyers will try to apply their faulty logic here, thanks for proving my point.

Do read a couple of posts after yours to get the correct idea.

THEN PROVE IT. Don't make baseless, lying claims - the logic isn't faulty, and you've not even made a minuscule effort to prove a damn thing so please, PROVE something. Or, refrain from lying.

The logic is sound. You have lied. Don't.
The correct RULES BASED answer is: a vehicle IC CAN join a non-vehicle, non-mc containing unit. This is established using the rules on p166 which give general permission to join, provide no restrictions on vehicle ICs specifically, and therefore the case is proven.

HIWPI; can not join unit

 FlingitNow wrote:

BLADERIKER wrote: You allocate wounds after you allocate hits. (Page 32-34 BRB) The Player controlling the Chariot decides which hit pools hit what. (Page 86 BRB) "Para phrased" 

Every time FlingitNow plays a game he automatically wins (BrB page 1 paraphrased).

Look I can do it too.

Why do you persist in making this factually incorrect statement? Why are you intentionally misleading people on what the rules say? Why are you making claims that you know are entirely false?

You can not assign hits to the Rider or Chariot when attached to a unit. This is only for shooting at Chariot units which the CCB attached to another unit is not. So please stop claiming tjis to be true when you know it is not. Intentionally telling people things you know are true really hinders resolution of the discussion and gets frustrating for those that have to repeatedly point out when you intentionally mislead people.

Very well then As it has been stated and restated many times before so shall I again state it. My attempt at para phrasing was to shorten the length of the quote without changing its context..

This time without Para-Phrasing.

Page 30 (32-34 for better explanation of page 30) BRB: "The Shooting Sequence:

1. Nominate Unit to Shoot. Choose one of your units that is able to shoot but has yet to do so this turn.

2. Choose a target. The unit can shoot at an enemy unit that it can see.

3. Select a Weapon. Select a weapon the firing unit is equipped with. All models equipped with a weapon with the same name can now shoot that weapon at the target. Every model that wishes to shoot must be within range of at least one visible model in the target unit. Models that cannot see the target, or are not in range, cannot shoot.

4. Roll To Hit. Roll a D6 for each shot fired. A Models Ballistic Skill determines what it must roll in order to hit the target.

5. Roll To Wound. For each shot that hit, roll again to see if it wounds the target. The result needed is determined by comparing the Strength of the firing weapon with the majority Toughness of the target unit.

6. Allocate Wounds & Remove Casualties. Any Wounds caused by the firing unit must now be allocated, one at a time, to the closest model in the target unit. A Model with a Wound allocated to it can take a saving throw (If it has one) to avoid being wounded. If a model is reduced to 0 Wounds, it is removed as a casualty. Wounds are then allocated to the next closest model. Continue to allocate Wounds and take saving throws until all Wounds have been resolved.

7. Select Another Weapon. After resolving all shots from the currently selected weapon, if the firing unit is equipped with differently named weapons that have yet to fire, select another weapon and repeat steps 3 to 6."

And that is the shooting Sequence.

As per Page 86 BRB: "Shooting at Chariots: When shooting at a Chariot unit total up the number of successful hits that have been caused. Keep the dice that have scored hit and create a 'pool', where each dice represents a hit." (Bold Text only)

As per Page 86 BRB: "Shooting at Chariots: The player controlling the Chariot unit then allocates each hit pool either to the rider or the chariot of the closest model in the unit." (Bold Text Only)

Now let us take into account that the Chariot Rules are more specific than the Shooting Sequence rules and thus over ride the normal Shooting Sequence.

The Chariot rules break the Shooting Sequence after step 4 but before Step 5.

You have gone out of your way to state that an Overlord with CCB upgrade attached to another unit is not a Chariot unit. To this I do not disagree. And unlike you I will show why you are correct in this statement.

Page 9 BRB. "Forming a unit: A unit usually consists of several models that have banded together, but a single, powerful model, such as a lone character, a tank, a war engine of rampaging monster, is also considered to be a unit in its own right."

Page 166 BRB. "Independent Characters: While an Independent Character is part of a unit, he counts as part of unit for all rules purposes, though he still follows the rules for Characters."

There is one issue that you keep bringing up, which is how to resolve hitting and wounding a Overlord with CCB upgrade in a Unit.

Page 34 BRB. "Allocating wounds: First allocate a Wound from the Wound pool to the enemy model closest to the firing unit, regardless of which model caused that Wound."

And that is where you are stuck right there.

As the Overlord upgraded with CCB is also a Vehicle it may well help us to look at how to shoot at Vehicles.

Page 74 BRB. "Shooting at Vehicles: If the target vehicle is in range, roll to hit as normal. If hits are scored, roll each to see if they penetrate the vehicles Armour Value."

I do not believe I need to go into Glancing and Penetrating hit and the Vehicle Damage chart, or do I...

So then we have a Overlord with CCB upgrade attached to a Unit of 6 wraiths. (Why not)

Scenario 1: Space Wolf Drop Pod with 10 Wolfguard equiped with double Combi-Melta on each model drop in so that the wraiths are the closest models in the Overlords unit.

Space Wolf player declares Overlords unit as target for Wolfguard.

There are 4 wraiths in the unit that are closer than the Overlord/CCB model. Here is how I would recommend handling this situation.

Because the Chariot model allows its controller to allocate hits directed at the chariot only and there is a chance that each of the four wraiths will be instant Death-ed by the Combi-meltas, the shooting player Fires all the combi-meltas at one time. Then rolls to wound four at a time .If any of the wraiths fail their 3+ invul then the number of wounds rolled for the next pool is reduced to the number of remaining wraiths before the Overlord/CCB is the target. (yes this is time consuming I know) Once all four wraiths are dead then the remain Combi-Meltas hits can be resolved as per the chariot rule. Still wounding against majority Toughness if the Overlord profile is selected for wound allocation.

Scenario 2: 3 Broadside Battle Suits with High Yield Missile Pods, and Smart Missile systems, and 6 Missile Drones are firing at the Overlord with CCB upgrade and attached Wraiths.

The Overlord is the closest model to the Broadside unit and there are 6 marker lights on the Overlord's unit.

The Broadsides and Drones hit with everything, nothing misses. There are 12 Str 7 ap4 hits (HYMP), 12 Str 7 ap 4 Hits (MD), and 12 Str 5 ap 5 hits(SMS). All of which must hit the closest model which is the Overlord. As per the Shooting at Chariots rules set the controlling player allocates the 12 (SMS) hits against the CCB to no effect. Then Allocates the 12 HYMP hits to the rider (Which Wound against Majority Toughness, in this case T4 because of the wraiths) Wounding on 2+. The Overlord rolls his saving throws of a 2+ and fails 2 (Statistically average) he then allocates the 12 (MP) hits to the chariot which will need a 6 to glance and takes 2 glances (Statistically average) Thus leaving the Overlord profile at 1 wound and the CCB profile at one Hull Point.

The Overlord is Prohibited from Taking LOS due to him being a Vehicle and a Character. I have covered this already in another post in this thread.

Can this take longer to resolve a shooting phase against an Overlord with CCB upgrade and attached to a unit? Yes it could. Does it break the game? No it does not.

To throw an answer to the "Why did Daemons lose their IC and not the Necron Overlord" I think we need to look at how the Chariot Rules for Fantasy work and what restrictions are placed upon the Chariot unit under that rule set. Note; There is one and only one fantasy Army that can attach Chariots to units, The Tomb Kings. Games Work Shop is in the business of selling models, and what better way to get a Cross over from one GW game system to another than to make the Rule sets extremely similar. Just my two cents.

So much longer than when I expected other people to go and read the rules in their rule book themselves...

Naw wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Naw wrote:
Worry not, the rules lawyers will just point out that the IC does not join the CCB, instead he will join the wraiths unit that also includes the CCB. Therefore everything is just fine..

Still waiting on your rules quotes, do you have access again?

They can be found under rules for IC's..

That's not a quote.

Please note that just saying 'it's in the rules' is not sufficient for the purposes of discussion here. You need to back up a rules claim with actual rules.

BLADERIKER wrote: Can this take longer to resolve a shooting phase against an Overlord with CCB upgrade and attached to a unit? Yes it could. Does it break the game? No it does not. 

Yes it could work however as you yourself have proven this is not how the rules work this is your proposed Houserule and breaks the Chariot rules (you can only do hit allocation when firing at a Chariot unit).

That was the issue your paraphrasing completely changed the context of the rule from on that was not eligible to be used to one that was. It is exactly the same as me claiming my Boltguns add 2 to the damage table results due to this quote BrB page 76 "add a +2 modifier to the roll on the Vehicle Damage table". I'll just blow up your CCB with boltguns hits because BrB page 75 "hit, you must roll on the Vehicle Damage table"

See how using rules in situations that you have no permission to gets real stupid real quick?

If a CCB joins a unit of infantry, then it's not a Chariot unit... it's a unit of infantry, there for the shooting at a chariot unit rules do not apply. Thus there is no way to resolve shooting.

Well there is, until you get to the chariot. So, a simple houserule would let the game continue, or you houserule it away that a CCB cannot join the unit.

 insaniak wrote:

Naw wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Naw wrote:
Worry not, the rules lawyers will just point out that the IC does not join the CCB, instead he will join the wraiths unit that also includes the CCB. Therefore everything is just fine..

Still waiting on your rules quotes, do you have access again?

They can be found under rules for IC's..

That's not a quote.

Please note that just saying 'it's in the rules' is not sufficient for the purposes of discussion here. You need to back up a rules claim with actual rules.

That has been done often enough with actual quotes and the position was fully explained to him.

I was done with this until he claimed that CCB IC has a permission to join any unit, including other IC. His reasoning was that it was not the IC joining.

Anyway, I'm done with his game now.