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.

Now, this is an odd debate. If you're unaware of the query, it can be shortened to this:

Can Drones (Unit Type In.D(JP)) use their JP thrust move, even though they're in a Fire Warrior Squad (Unit Type In.)?

The short answer? Yes, although they must conform to "Unit Coherency".

Now here's why:

Firstly, We must look at the thrust move rule.

Pg.47, Jet Pack Units; Thrust Move wrote:
A Jetpack unit that is not locked in combat or charging can move up to 2D6" in the assault phase, even if they have shot or run in the preceeding shooting phase, or arrived by deepstrike.

The big qualm here is that it refers to unit.

The first piece of evidence that they can use their thrust move here is that it is not refering to unit, but to the name of the rule, Jetpack unit.
The supporting evidence I present for this is that "Jetpack Unit" is not a true unit type, but a secondary type. Battle suits and drones become Jetpack infantry and Jetpack drones respectively.


As another piece of evidence, Unit types are considered:

Pg. 44, UNIT TYPES wrote:
...a unit type is essentially an extension of the characteristics profile.

Therefore, The unit type Jetpack Drones is specific to the character (in this case, the gun drone "character") and the rules apply only to him, not needing the permission of the entire squad to use the rule.

So the final answer is:

Yes, but they must stay in unit coherency while thrust moving. They may also move as jet pack infantry during the movement phase, meaning they may move in to shoot their pulse carbine, then jump out of range.

The confusion for this is a hold over from 5E and the old Tau dex. In the old Tau codex drones were listed as the type of their owner, if owned by fire warriors, they are just regular infantry, not Jet Pack, and have no thrust move.

In 5E all members of a squad were counted as being the same movement state (stationary or moving) , but the 6E brb specifies that you CAN have mixed movement states (lascannon remaining stationary while the rest of the infantry squad moves around can still fire full BS).

There was a lot of the old way of thinking left, but there is nothing in the 6E rules that do not allow you do this.

IF this is the case, the BRB is talking about units meaning models, why does it for jump pack use the term jump pack MODELS.

RAW no, drones in a FW squad cannot use their thrust move.

The only time it uses the term jump unit for jump packs is in regards to falling back, now if a jump pack model with normal models fall back, do they fall back 3d6 or 2d6.

MarkyMark wrote:
IF this is the case, the BRB is talking about units meaning models, why does it for jump pack use the term jump pack MODELS.

RAW no, drones in a FW squad cannot use their thrust move.

The only time it uses the term jump unit for jump packs is in regards to falling back, now if a jump pack model with normal models fall back, do they fall back 3d6 or 2d6.

In the brb it states that models in a unit with different movement rates may move their own speed as long as they maintain coherency. It is in the movement section, don't have my brb on me to get you a page number, but its not hard to find.

And thats fine to move different speeds in movement phase, the thrust move is seperate though and says jet pack units can thrust, not jet pack models

and the jetpack unit is thrusting, its just that the fire warriors thrust move is 0 since they have no jetpacks, the drones have jetpacks and therefore make their thrust move

So you think a few drones in a fire warrior squad it is now a jet pack unit? I cant say I would agree

A unit can have models with multiple unit types. This being a permissive rule set, the unit type for each model gives that model permission to use certain rules. Please cite me a refference denying them the permission to use the rules thier unit type gives them.

Unit type is defined on page 44, and in your codex, a unit of fire warriors is infantry as per codex, not a jet pack unit.

The rule for thrust is "a jet pack unit that is...." firewarriors are not jet pack unit.

Now if it had said the same as jump packs (this extract from charging with jump packs) "If a jump pack model...." See the distincation there.

Where jump pack does reference the jump pack unit is only in the fall back rule. This does mean if ALL the models in the unit have jump packs as per page 30 models fall back at the slowest rate (so one non jump pack model will mean its 2d6 fall back).

The OP said jet pack units is meant to mean models, then it would have said the same as jump pack models which funnily enough is directly above the said rules for jet packs

The codex also states that drones are jet pack infantry, and it does not differentiate between independant drones and upgrade ones. This means that the firewarriors are infantry and the drones attached to them are jet pack infantry. As it never gives permission for you to change the drones' type, you do not, and they retain the jet pack rule, including the thrust move. Unit type is a model by model thing, otherwise anything joining a unit of some other type would change types, and that is not something you are ever told to do.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
To further my point, page 44 of the BRB, first paragraph in the second coalunm states:

"...which unit type category a MODEL falls under" and "unit type is essentially an extension of the characteristic profile."

The very next paragraph, speaking of where to find the unit type for a model says this:

"...lists each model's unit type."

So, by my reading it, unit type is determined on a model by model basis, and having twelve infantry and two jet pack infantry as a unit is not against the rules. Removing jetpack infantry from the drones would be.

As for the thrust move, as it makes it clear that unit type the name of the classification they are using and that it applies to either models on an individual basis or to everything that uses the same characteristic profile (IE drones do not use the firewarrior profile), it is pretty clear that when the rules say jump pack unit, they are not speaking of every member of a squad, but rather every model that is a jump pack unit.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
I can further my argument by pointing to page 7 of the BRB. Under the section of basic vs advanced it states in the first paragraph:

"These are all the rules you will need for your basic infantry model."

This is a further clear indication that unit type is a model by model thing. It does however go on to say:

"Advanced rules apply to specific types of models, weather because they have a special type of weapon, unusual skills, because they are different to their fellows, or because they are not normal infantry models."

Several points there including, again, that unit type is a model by model thing, that if it is different than infantry it's rules win the basic vs specific argument against infantry, and that they get their special rules, regardless of the unit types of the rest of the unit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
So seeing as how unit type is "model by model" and not "squad by squad" and being unable to find anything that gives you permission to change either models unit type, you can have 12 fire warrior and two drones and the drones remain jet pack units and keep relentless and the thrust move rule.

The thrust move's restrictions are that the model must be a jet pack unit, must not be charging, and must not be locked in combat. No where in there does it say "Must not be attached to non-jet pack models."

And the final cap to my argument is the last paragraph of the Thrust move rules which states, "When Jet pack units move in the assault phase and do not charge, they move just as they would when using thier jet packs in the movement phase."
This tells me we refer to the movement phase rules. One of those rules is under a paragraph called "Which models are moving" and another is the very next paragraph titled "Different Movement Distances Within a Unit." The first of those shows that you can have some of the models remain stationary and move others. The second shows two things. First that, again, squads can have models that move differently, which as far as I am aware can only be accomplished via unit type rules. Second thatthe only restriction to models with different types of movement in the same unit moving is that they maintain unit coherency.

All that boils down to a unit of fire warriors with attached drones CAN have the drones do a thrust move in the assault phase as long as coherency is maintained.

Very nicely written post CryHavok.

One of the things I tend to do when following arguments is to see what the argument would look like if pulled to the furtherest extremes that logic would allow. Even if they are extremes, it is often where the flaws in the argument can be found to be the most obvious. It is not a bad thought exercise, as long as you acknowledged it is an extreme and not the core of their arguments.

In this case it would highlight even further how weak the 'they are not able to thrust' becomes. By the logical extension of their argument, these attached drones would also lose the bulky, deep strike and relentless abilities because it follows the very same wording as thrusting.

Okay, deep strike is moot as the rules state all models in a unit need to have it but the other two are model exclusive. This means it is possible for a single model, out of the entire unit, to have this special rule and for it not to affect the other models in the units. Such rules are worded especially for these mixed 'unit' type squads, so you know they are limited to the individual models with said special rule or if it is granted to the unit as a whole.

So, people who take the 'denied for not being a jet pack unit' stance, are you also arguing that drones also lose the relentless and bulky special rules?

It is another example of bad editing in the rule book, imagine that. I would never try to rule lawyer that drones (and jet pack ICs as well) lose their special rules simply because they joined up with units that lacks jet packs. All on the wording of a single page entry that talks about every model as if it is an unit into and of itself. It would be illogical for them to simply lose their jet-pack because they joined the foot soldiers and spontaneously gain it back the moment they leave said squad. It would also be rule crippling for a lot of other squads outside of this situation as well if this really was the case. Effectively, any squad that consisted of more then one type of 'unit' would lose every special rule that was granted by the unit type section of the BRB.

Imagine having 8 jump units, putting a Infantry IC with them and then arguing that they can now fit into a 10 man transport because they are no longer bulky...

Or take a look at the artillery section, that whole section is now moot because every artillery 'unit' consist of the weapon and a handful of crew which are... Infantry.

Simple question then, Why have they said jet pack units in one sentence and jump pack models in another if it is done on model by model basis?.

MarkyMark wrote:
Simple question then, Why have they said jet pack units in one sentence and jump pack models in another if it is done on model by model basis?.

To which sentences are you refering to specifically? Context always matters when you are trying to figure out why they use one word in one place and another elsewhere.

(also it may be that GW editors and writers are of questionable quality, and that quality is to blame for the inconsistencies)

MarkyMark; read a little further in the BRB.

While the SkyBorne section does use the word model several times, the next section concerns when the Skyborne rules come into play. I won't cut and paste, as that could be term and service violation, but this section goes back to using the word unit. If we accept the argument that special rules, worded in this way, are lost should a Jet-Pack unit join some Infantry units this would mean that Skyborne is also lost. It doesn't matter that it uses the word model, given the word 'unit' is used to define when this rule is allowed to come into play, and clearly can not be used to show their intent given that context.

MarkyMark wrote:
Unit type is defined on page 44, and in your codex, a unit of fire warriors is infantry as per codex, not a jet pack unit.

The rule for thrust is "a jet pack unit that is...." firewarriors are not jet pack unit.

Now if it had said the same as jump packs (this extract from charging with jump packs) "If a jump pack model...." See the distincation there.

Where jump pack does reference the jump pack unit is only in the fall back rule. This does mean if ALL the models in the unit have jump packs as per page 30 models fall back at the slowest rate (so one non jump pack model will mean its 2d6 fall back).

The OP said jet pack units is meant to mean models, then it would have said the same as jump pack models which funnily enough is directly above the said rules for jet packs

page 46 iirc directly above jet pack

Marky;

While the Jump pack section does use the word model many times, there is situations within the Jet pack section as well. The use in the very section being discussed makes it even more confusing, not less. This section uses the word model while describing how you do individual movements using a jetpack, which can only be activated by a section that uses the word unit and rendering the whole skyborne section's use of the word model moot. Why have the condition it comes into play worded with 'unit' then describe individual models within it?

It also leaves this question: Would you honestly let me put 8 Jump/Jet pack models into a 10 man transport simply because I have an infantry based IC with them?

JinxDragon wrote:
Marky;

While the Jump pack section does use the word model many times, there is situations within the Jet pack section as well. The use in the very section being discussed makes it even more confusing, not less. This section uses the word model while describing how you do individual movements using a jetpack, which can only be activated by a section that uses the word unit and rendering the whole skyborne section's use of the word model moot. Why have the condition it comes into play worded with 'unit' then describe individual models within it?

It also leaves this question: Would you honestly let me put 8 Jump/Jet pack models into a 10 man transport simply because I have an infantry based IC with them?

No as the the rules for transports exclude this.

Most fittingly (imo) the rules for fall back for jump pack units the first time jump units it used for acutal rules is the fall back section, in that jump pack units fall back 3d6 now only a unit with all jump pack models can fall back 3d6 (as rules on page 30 say fallback is done at the slowest moving model). So that there is clearly meaning only jump pack units is composed entirly of models with jump packs.

This is directly above the jet pack units rules so I would find it hard (not impossible of course!) that GW made that much of a mistake in referring to the example above (first time it references jump pack units is meaning a unit of only jump packs).

It would have been a lot more simpler to have a mixed unit would only follow the rules for the parent unit type but in the case of how I read it that is how it is working for when it says unit type in the respect of firewarriors with attached drones.

Personnaly I wouldnt mind if this happened in a game dont think you could gain much advantage from it nor do I play or plan to play Tau. I do however think this is a much wider issue within the 6th ed rules.

What is a mixed unit, is it the parent type or a mixed unit type, this also includes what codex they are from and what unit types they are, (i.e the classic baron in eldar unit for fortune is it a eldar unit etc).


Automatically Appended Next Post:
To confuse the issue even more, skyborne only references jet pack models it then references jet pack units for the next two sections. Why change the term within the same section of rules for that unit type if it wasnt deliberate?

Marky,

The transportation rules state that there are exceptions to the 'infantry only' limitation. I am being general, as I do not know every unit in every codex so I can not point to exactly which exception transports are out there. I do know there are some really twisted drop pods out there, such as one's that allow terminator units, and that drones can go into devilfish but to be fair, drones have the bulky rule removed in any case. Still, if given enough time and resources I might be able to pull out that one transportation unit that allows Jump units if one exists and it probably is an assault transport to boot.

So in general, assuming that such a transport exists, would you allow the bulky disadvantage to be removed simply because an infantry unit was present?

As for that confusing the matter more part, notice the next paragraph about movement talks about when a 'unit' can use it's jet-pack. In short, skyborne is how the jet pack is used and that movement section tells you when you can use it. That is something I keep trying to bring to everyones attention, the part in Jet-Pack description which contains the words models is relent on part of the description which uses the word unit... It just makes things all the more fun!

If the argument of unit is to be considered, then the whole skyborne section's use of the word model is moot.

Added: I have found a few transports that could fit the bill for allowing jump units but do not have access to their codex's to verify the exact wording, as they could be using old rule sets or simply not the case as other forums have put forth.... Night Scythe seems one such case, any nekkie players out there able to verify?

JinxDragon wrote:
Marky,

The transportation rules state that there are exceptions to the 'infantry only' limitation. I am being general, as I do not know every unit in every codex so I can not point to exactly which exception transports are out there. I do know there are some really twisted drop pods out there, such as one's that allow terminator units, and that drones can go into devilfish but to be fair, drones have the bulky rule removed in any case. Still, if given enough time and resources I might be able to pull out that one transportation unit that allows Jump units if one exists and it probably is an assault transport to boot.

So in general, assuming that such a transport exists, would you allow the bulky disadvantage to be removed simply because an infantry unit was present?

As for that confusing the matter more part, notice the next paragraph about movement talks about when a 'unit' can use it's jet-pack. In short, skyborne is how the jet pack is used and that movement section tells you when you can use it. That is something I keep trying to bring to everyones attention, the part in Jet-Pack description which contains the words models is relent on part of the description which uses the word unit... It just makes things all the more fun!

If the argument of unit is to be considered, then the whole skyborne section's use of the word model is moot.

Added: I have found a few transports that could fit the bill for allowing jump units but do not have access to their codex's to verify the exact wording, as they could be using old rule sets or simply not the case as other forums have put forth.... Night Scythe seems one such case, any nekkie players out there able to verify?

Caestus assault ram lets you put jump pack and is assault, it does have a special rule that it ignores bulky very bulky though, I cant see why you think this is revelant though as bulky is a USR which is model based. Transport rules is also model based, where are you trying to go with this line of thought?.

Right, so in your opinion what unit type is a firewarrior squad with a few drones?

The entire squad does not have a type. The individual models do. This is why the fall back rules state on page 30, "Units with models that fall back at different speeds always fall back at the speed of the slowest model in the unit." (incidentally this further supports the unit type is on a model by model basis)

One question I have for you is: Can you find anything in the rules that actually NEEDS a whole squad to have a single unit type? I don't think there is such a thing as a parent unit type in 6th edition.

On another note:
His transport thing is based on the jet pack rules, which state that, "Jet Pack units have the bulky, deep strike, and relentless special rules." If the argument being made that a parent unit type over rules an individual's unit type, a jet pack unit that could join an infantry unit would lose all three of those rules because it is not a jet pack unit, it is just a jet pack model. For example a tau commander joins a fire warrior squad, and by that argument, the parent unit type of infantry over rules his jet pack rules and removes all three of those special rules, thereby allowing him to join the fire warriors embarking on a devilfish. I would find it silly for someone to rule that it worked that way, but with the "parent unit type" thing, that is what would happen.

Also I agree with you that the benefit to the drones JSJ while maintaining coherency with firewarriors is of only very very little benefit

Thought just occurred to me to maybe help give clarity:
plague drones are a squad in the chaos deamons codex that are jet pack Calvary, using both the Calvary rules and the jet pack rules (as jet pack is a subtype of what ever other type). How would you handle it if a herald of nurgle joined the unit? would the "parent unit type" of jet pack Calvary over ride the herald's infantry unit type (giving the herald not only the jet pack rules but also the cavalry rules)?

Here is what I believe would actually happen:
The herald joins the plague drones and, while the drones may be much faster, they can move ahead of the herald only so far as coherency allows. Then in the assault phase they can get their thrust move, but as they can not leave the herald, they are rather limited on where it can take them. Then when they fallback, it would be 2d6 inches as that is the speed of the slowest model in the unit, rather than the 3d6 fallback move that Calvary would normally receive.

I can't even imagine a tournament organizer running that scenario any other way. If you agree with me on how to handle that, then other than learning that attaching heralds to plague drones is downright silly, it teaches us that the parent unit concept is a fallacy that is not part of 6th Ed.

Because the section which outlines what special rules these models get uses the word 'unit,' which is being debated here. If all other rules in this section, worded in such a way, are to be thrown out then they lose all special rules as well. This has massive consequences for a lot of models in the game, and effectively ensures that you will never want to mix models of different 'unit types' again.

With Jet-pack 'units,' this means they lose relentless, deep strike and bulky as the special rule section uses the word 'unit.' For Jump units they will lose bulky and deep striking. Sure, deep strike is not valid in any case, but the rest of the special rules are something we would want to keep intact for these 'units.' They are an important part of the tactics surrounding these 'units,' and to lose them just because they teamed up with the wrong model is broken.

Hell, for Jet-pack 'units,' every single entry is either dependent on one that uses the word 'unit' or contains the word 'unit' within it! Even Skyborne is lost thanks to the movement section description of when you can use jet-packs, should this argument be correct. That is a massive blow if this is RAI and not just another oversight or injected error by GW's wonderful editing department.

That is why I find it interesting, for this argument isn't just about thrust moves like it started but about all other rules that are written in this section as the vast majority use that sort of wording.

Another example would be an ethereal joining a riptide. Does the ethereal become a monstrous creature temporarily? (okay even I'll admit this is stretching it, but I'm using this to help make my point) The "parent unit type" is monstrous creature, so it should work, if thats the way the rules worked. I really really don't think they do.

I personally think that the books inconsistencies in using the words "unit" and "model" are because GW does not make quality products. There are soooooooo many poorly written or ambiguos rules that get discussed right here on this forum to prove this statement (at least prove to my own personal satisfaction anyway.)

Oh I have verified that the night scythe can transport jump units, and does not seem to ignore the bulky rule. It is worded in such a way that the bulky rules could not be overcome by putting an IC with them though. It's limitation on jump unit taking up two slots is written into the scythe's rule, and would be unaffected by this argument. Of course, doesn't mean there isn't a transport that simply states 'can take jump units' or there won't be on in the future, with the newer bulky rules designed to tell you how many slots it takes up than having to define this for every transport of this type.

In any case, seeing we are dancing around the point and the question is remaining unanswered, what I am trying to point out is simple: Allowing more bulky units onto a transport, assuming we had one that allowed them, simply by adding a single infantry IC, would clearly be broken. However, by logical extension of the argument being put forth that rules 'unit' means a whole unit, this is the very case. They wouldn't be able to say no thrust move but then deny effectively halving the transport cost of these very same units.

Though I bet you some people would try...

Also props to you marky for keeping this discussion civil, I kind of expected it to devolve into name calling by now, as is almost customary on this forum lol.

As for my opinion on fire warriors with drones?

I'm not a master of the Tau by a long shot, hell I still don't consider marker lights to be as flashy as people keep making them out to be. So I am not the best to answer this question. I will take a stab at it in any case.

Personally I don't find them to be that great an addition to the team, unless you are looking for something to soak up a few wounds.

Yet I can think of one or two reasons where this 'jump behind the fire-warriors' could be of benefit, but they would be very rare circumstances and I would still prefer them to soak up the wounds. Gun drones is the only real place I can think where you wouldn't want the drones in front of you all the time, or be better served by having them stay behind you at all times. Even then it would be for that tiny window between 18 inches and 15 inches, where the carbine has effective range and before the rifle gains rapid shot. Personally, I would rather have the firewarriors survive longer, by having the drones soak wounds, as they have a higher starting BS. Guess there is a window where having markerlights in front to gain a few inches could also be attempted but again it would be seen in very few situations to even care about.

PS: Marker light drones would be completely broken, as a heavy weapon they rely on the relentless rule to function. Sticking them with a fire-warrior team, one that wants to do more then camp an objective, shouldn't be grounds to render them useless!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

cryhavok wrote:
Also props to you marky for keeping this discussion civil, I kind of expected it to devolve into name calling by now, as is almost customary on this forum lol.

No reason not to be civil...

This is academic to me and likely for marky as well. The debate does raise interesting ways to think about the problem and might be used in the future by people that seriously consider this to be a problem. Lets face it, GW has many writers working for them and sometimes they work on different parts of the same book or on different rules that interact with rules they didn't write. When this happens then these sort of situations always occur, with rules not meshing very well or conflicting interpretations leading to different conclusions. These moments are fascinating to say the least and the debates put forth are part of the fun.

In the end, it always comes down to the two people playing and what they agree to or the organizers if it is a major event, regardless of what we might put on this forum.

Hell, he has gone forth to say that he wouldn't deny someone wanting to use this tactic. Also, like him, I can't fathom where it really is a big deal given the very few situations where you would have a jet unit with a non-jet unit and want to thrust. It doesn't break the game to allow the tactic, if anything it is probably a disadvantage to the tau player.

My real concern is the whole potential loss of relentless as marker lights need that to function. Or other codex factions that might have a good infantry IC to jet-unit combination, while wielding heavy weapons, that now have been seriously crippled. The lost of thrust move is not a big deal, effectively you want a whole jet unit squad to do that anyway, but the loss of relentless is a major concern. Not so much for myself, I am not a marker light friendly tau player, but for other people that do use heavy weapon wielding jump units.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

cryhavok wrote:
Another example would be an ethereal joining a riptide. Does the ethereal become a monstrous creature temporarily? (okay even I'll admit this is stretching it, but I'm using this to help make my point) The "parent unit type" is monstrous creature, so it should work, if thats the way the rules worked. I really really don't think they do.

I personally think that the books inconsistencies in using the words "unit" and "model" are because GW does not make quality products. There are soooooooo many poorly written or ambiguos rules that get discussed right here on this forum to prove this statement (at least prove to my own personal satisfaction anyway.)

I would disagree, but only because the monstrous creature section is far better written then the Jet unit section. Instead of using the word Unit it clearly defines monstrous creature by using those two words: Monstrous creature. This would clearly limit the rules within to any model that has the flag of monstrous creature. The Ethereal, lacking this tag, would not benefit at all. That being said, the Riptide, having this flag, would not lose any special rules. If anything, that this combination is possible without even raising a debate shows that other combinations shouldn't instantly destroy the special rules being applied to those models.

Honestly the Jet-pack section is the one that is so badly written when compared to the rest of the 'unit descriptions.' Other entries clearly put forth what is being said, even the sections that use the word 'unit' go ahead to describe what it means far better. Artillery comes to mind, while it uses Unit many times it clearly defines what it means by unit to begin with, as 'crew and gun,' and point out that an artillery unit might contain a mix of different types of models. Any entry that bring a boon or bane to this 'unit' are written to tell you when they take affect and when they can be ignored regardless of what models make up the 'crew.' It is almost a shame that they are the least used models given how well it was written up.

Clearly far better written then the jet-unit section.

Honestly, think of it this way: The book had multiple authors and probably a separate editor, if not many. It is expected that such errors will occur when rules poorly mash up or when an editor 'corrects' the way something is written and makes it worse. The one mention of 'unit' in the jump section could easily be an editor copy and pasting some missing information, taking it from the jet-pack section and removing relentless as that is what his post-it said was the easiest fix. Like wise the use of unit there could very well be because the writer of that one sub-section intended it to be considered a 'name' without intending it to be a rule that limits it to just units of that type. In such a case the use of Jet-Pack Unit is simply being used because that is what the description was called at the top of the entry.

We can't be sure, or else we wouldn't be here, but thanks to the Frankenstein method of writing used in the BRB we do have a forum!

Wow, it is 4 am already... might have to put this aside for the time being.

cryhavok wrote:
Another example would be an ethereal joining a riptide. Does the ethereal become a monstrous creature temporarily? (okay even I'll admit this is stretching it, but I'm using this to help make my point) The "parent unit type" is monstrous creature, so it should work, if thats the way the rules worked. I really really don't think they do.

I personally think that the books inconsistencies in using the words "unit" and "model" are because GW does not make quality products. There are soooooooo many poorly written or ambiguos rules that get discussed right here on this forum to prove this statement (at least prove to my own personal satisfaction anyway.)

Hmmm, does the etheral become MC, so if I am shooting with a unit that has monster hunting, can I then re roll to wound when shooting at etheral and riptide.

The thing is sometimes the rules are there, i.e for the rending when I pointed out to people that its rolling to wound it is ap2 not rolling on the vehicle damage chart most dismissed it then they clarifed it and it was when rolling to wound. Ok that is a little more balant then this.

On the Jet pack units have bulky yep you have me there, it does say that. The reason I havent started name calling yet is

A) I am not 100% sure on which is the correct interpretation of the rule

B), you havent proved me wrong yet, then I'll bust out the name calling! hehe.

I do find discussions like this helpful as it helps to make me understand other confusing rules in the BRB. Plus it wastes some time.

Now this I do disagree with

The one mention of 'unit' in the jump section could easily be an editor copy and pasting some missing information

Only a unit comprised of all jump pack models can fall back 3d6 (or I guess with cav as well not that I can think of a possible jump pack unit and cav IC of top of my head).

To be honest the crux of my arguement against is the fact they use jet pack units and jet pack models in the same section of rules now if they had just used jet pack models I couldnt have issue with it. Due to the jet pack units have bulky..... etc I'll concede and I did notice that after I had last replied. Your all ******

On a off topic, can the NS transport anything ther then infantry?, I had a discussion about this the other day if there is another thread please link as I would like to read.

Personally I think this comes down to poor writing in the rules section itself. They classified this type of model as a 'jet-pack unit' without someone slapping them on the back of the head for doing so... hence why I blame the editor mostly, it is their job to catch these things. I do agree with you in that the word unit is normally use within the official rules to mean 'unit wide' benefits. Sometimes it is limited to models within the unit, but in those cases it is far better defined as to whom gets what bonus than we are seeing here. Someone, such as myself, would make the reasonable argument that models with jet-packs are clearly the only ones which benefit from this 'unit wide' ability, the closest RAW definition I can think of. The fact other arguments still can be made just highlights why it is very poor wording, and something they should really review for errata. The fact that they are using the word unit in a way that could also relate to possible individual models, without clarifying exactly what they mean by unit in this case... well confusion is bound to happen.

Personally I shall keep playing it using the above definition: That it is a unit wide ability whom only jet-pack wielding models can access.

Not just because it could mean crippling Jet-pack 'units' as every special rule related to them would be moot, clearly not RAI, but because the reverse argument could also be raised and that is far more dangerous. Taking the word unit to mean 'unit wide' doesn't just limit it to a unit that contain nothing but jet-packs, the same argument with the reverse veritable can also be made. That argument would allow a single jet-pack wielding model to turn the whole unit into a 'jet-pack unit' as nothing states these 'unit wide' abilities are limited based on what models are within said unit, the crux of the problem. Sure it is a ridiculous argument if you ask me, more so then the opposite using the same mentality, but not one that can simply be discredited outright aside from being so broken that it clearly is not RAI even if you can make a RAW argument based around it. If it is a unit wide ability, then why would it be limited based on the models within that unit when other unit wide abilities are not?

I really do not want to see fire-warriors, or worse broadsides, gaining these rules over such a weak argument that is clearly not RAI. However, I don't want to see Jet-Pack models crippled by an interpretation that is based on the same argument but in the other direction, that all models have to contain jet-packs to be a jet-pack unit. Both do not seem to be RAI for me, as they would either give a unit benefits that they shouldn't have or cripple a model to the point it no longer gains anything from being a non-standard infantry model.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Night Scythe:

From what I read on the Night Scythe it can transport Jump units and even Bikes. I won't copy and paste the exact rule but it is written in the Night Scythe entry quite clearly. The rules seem to be prior to the whole Bulky and Extra Bulky classifications, so they go into details on how many 'slots' these units should take. It is all on par with the Bulky and Extra Bulky rules, so it is clear these unique transports where the prototype rules that have now been expanded to a universal special rule. While this means the argument of losing the bulky tag would be moot in the case of the Night Scythe, it does show that these transports are out there so it is a valid concern over your interpretation of the rules.

As bulky and extra bulky are new classifications to these models it isn't a stretch to think these transport entries will be shortened to remove the parts in brackets, concerning how many slots are taken. Not only would it be redundant to say a bulky unit, such as a jump unit, takes up more slots in the transport and then say the same thing with in the transport entry with different wording, it does show intent. They will either produce more transports that contain 'non-infantry only' options or simplify the entry for transports that already have the option to carry non-infantry by simply pointing them to existing special rules on how to deal with these extra-large models.

There seems to be some misconceptions on how to apply rules here. This is a case where "most restrictive wins". "Jet Pack" is not a designation in of itself. You can be a "Jet Pack Infantry" or "Jet Pack Monstrous Creature". A model with "Jet Pack Infantry" would follow the rules for both "Jet Pack" and "Infantry". Since the Firewarriors are only "Infantry" and so can only follow the rules for "Infantry".

Furthermore, the Jet Pack rules specify the entire unit would be able to do something. Specifically it says "Jet Pack Unit". The problem here is that a unit of Firewarriors is an "Infantry Unit", even if they add some Drones. Just like my Space Wolf ICs are still "Infantry" or "Cavalry" even if I take some Fenrisian Wolves for them (which are "Beasts").

So you are at least doubly wrong I'm sad to say.

Not really a good argument, seeing we are talking about what they mean behind the words "Jet-Pack units" in this particular case and how it breaks rules to consider it anything other than talking about a single model. There is nothing in the rules that clearly states that a unit needs to be built entirely of Jet/Jump models for them to benefit, unless you start taking the words out of context and applying different definitions to them. In fact, the whole idea of infantry only units and jet-pack only units or beast only units are not something that comes into play anywhere in the BRB outside of this one section, which is vague at best as to what it means with the term unit. It is individual models that have these flags within the profile sections, not the unit as a whole, which is why you can mix them to begin with.

So simply stating that you can add beasts models to infantry models and not change what the "unit" is not just irrelevant to the rules, it is moot to this core of this debate. There is no such thing as an infantry unit, with the term unit meaning all models within the squad, because squads can exist of multiple different 'unit types.' If we where to use the word unit with the terminology meaning 'consisting of all models within the squad' then placing beasts with any infantry unit would be illegal under such an interpretation of the rules. The fact you can mix these units successfully highlights that these rules are a model by model situation and that the use of the word unit within this section is not talking about the squad as a whole. Even the introductory section under the Unit Type headline, the very start, implies that the word unit does not talk about squads the same way the word unit does in other places in the book. To paraphrase as not to post potentially copy write material, it states that unit type is part of a model profiles.

How can that be if we are to always interpret the word unit to always meaning 'all the models within the squad' if the individual profiles for each model use the term?

The argument that a Jump/Jet pack unit has to consist of entirely one type of model breaks the special rules that would normal be reserved for individual models regardless of other models in the squad. It does so to the point it ensures you can not mix these models as you can with every other model in the game. I would say that is clearly not RAI and can even argue, with the way that the whole Unit Type section is written that it isn't even RAW. The whole section uses the words models and units interchangeably, from the introduction right through to the individual sub-sections relating to each individual 'unit.' In that context one can not really state that this single use of the word 'unit' is meant to be interpreted any differently from the rest of the section. Within the context of the rest of the section, it is more likely for the word 'Jet Pack Unit' to mean any model that contains the Jet Pack flag instead of a unit consisting of only models containing said flag.

As for 'restrictive wins,' I raised the following question to show that it isn't just restricting what they can do, but also eliminating fundamental special rules that all jump/jet-pack models should always be bound by. That being that the Jump/jet pack attached to that back of the model makes them take up twice as more space on the battle field, inside of transports and in the case of Jet-packs, grants them the ability to move and fire heavy weapons. All of this is granted by the Pack itself, a piece of war-gear, and makes no sense for that pack to simply vanish off the back of a unit simply because he is trudging along side the foot soldiers. Yet if we take it as 'units consisting of only Jump/Jet pack models' then the simple inclusion of an infantry IC means the limitations related to this war-gear are also lost.

That question was, by the way: Would you really allow me to shove twice as many jump/jet models into an assault transport, that allows such models, along side with a single infantry IC simply because I can argue they are no longer bulky?

Just like the fact putting beasts in an majority infantry squad doesn't magically make them into men, allowing them onto transports by the way, putting Jump-Jet units into majority infantry squad does not suddenly make them lose their bulky and heavy packs. If we interpret the rule to state that a squad of mixed units, some being Jet-Pack units, can not use any rule that has the word 'unit' within it then they lose the negative rules that go along with it, as they are worded with Jump/Jet pack unit and not model as well. So in effort to rule out a single very rare, often pointless, tactic the argument being presented opens the flood gate to allow some very broken and highly effective tactics to take their place. Such tactics would of been clearly illegal under the RAW but the way you are wording your arguments we would have to consider them legal moves.

The real debate isn't what happens when you mix these units, it is a debate on the terminology being used in the book: Is the term Jet-Pack "Unit" being used because it wants to limit you to just models of Jet-Packs in this squad, as all the Jet-pack rules would now be irreverent, or because the section being written on has been named 'Jet-Pack Units?'

The only real good argument to support the 'squads consisting of' argument so far has been the use of the word model in some of the entries. This is far more apparent in the Jump Unit section as opposed to the Jet-Unit section. However this argument is flawed because the entries that talk about models are often, and certainly for Jet-Pack Units, related to entries that go back to using the term Jump/Jet-pack unit. This is most apparent in the Skyborne entry in the Jet-pack unit section, the only place where the word model is used for the whole Jet-Pack unit sub-section, that requires the movement entry which goes back to saying Jet-Pack unit to tell you when you can use the Skyborne rules.

Even Jump unit section has this limitation throughout it, with the very first non-bold paragraph stating the word Jump unit when talking about how an individual model can use the Jump pack. Oh by the way, it uses both terminologies in the same damn sentence just to make it more confusing! The following rule based paragraphs, which do use the word models, are all directly related to that one line which uses both terms as if they mean the same thing, as that sentence relates to when a Jump Unit can use his/her Jump pack. The fact that paragraph switches back and forth using the words Jump Unit and model interchangeably, with no clear defining section to tell if it is talking about a unit as a whole squad or individual models, says volumes to me as to how 'well written' this whole section was.

However; If you look at how that whole 'unit type' section is worded the context becomes a lot more clear. I would say it is very apparent they are meaning for the word unit, in this situation, to relate to an individual model that have that 'unit type' and not squads as a whole. The term unit is being used simply because that is what they named the section, unit types, and the the subsection use of the term is identical as it was the terminology they had already developed. While I will agree that the whole mess could of been avoided if they had used the term 'Jump-Pack Models' instead of naming the sub-section Jump-Pack units, in the context of the whole section their intent is not as gray as it first seems when you focus on the individual words. It isn't the first time that poor choice of words has led to this sort of confusion from the GW writers and it isn't even the worse case example, though it does highlight if the book had a competent editor.

Individual models which begin with or purchase war-gear giving them the 'X Unit' flags gain all the boons and banes within this section of the book, regardless of what other models are surrounding them.

JinxDragon: I'd rebut a lot of what you'd said but then it would de-rail the main discussion. Some of the stuff you said you were right on but for the wrong reasons. I'll focus on some specific things, hope I don't miss anything! If you feel I did please mention it. Don't want you to think I'm trying to take anything you said out of context.

JinxDragon wrote:
here is nothing in the rules that clearly states that a unit needs to be built entirely of Jet/Jump models for them to benefit, unless you start taking the words out of context and applying different definitions to them.

Speaking of context, here's a contextual argument I disagree with. So we're discussing Unit Types, which you are right in that its a model characteristic. So its terribly named. The rules for all these Unit Types logically follow the same general layout and use the same general terminology. Now, my problem with your claim that the context of the rules means "Jet Pack units" equals "Jet Pack models" is found in the Jump Units rules. Check them out, their on the same page in the same chapter. Notice anything?

The rules for Jump Units specifically uses the phrase "Jump models" at certain points, and in a different usage than the word "units".

Now this is important. The rules already tell us that a Unit is a grouping of 1 or more Models that makes actions collectively. The first paragraph of the Jump Unit rules discusses the Movement Phase, and in particular some actions a Unit has to make collectively. Later it will use the term "model" when discussing actions that can be taken on a model-to-model basis.

Note that the Jet Pack rules does the same thing. When discussing something that would affect an individual model, such as ending its move in Impassable or Dangerous Terrain, it refers to Jet Pack models.

So yes, context is important. But you are forgetting that Units are what can act, not Models. So, contextually, it is clear to me that when the rules say "Jet Pack Units" can make a "Thrust Move", that you cannot make such a move if your unit contains models that do not have the "Jet" Unit Type.

JinxDragon wrote:
The argument that a Jump/Jet pack unit has to consist of entirely one type of model breaks the special rules and other things related to these entries, and effectively ensures you can not mix these models as you can with every other model in the game.

That's a false statement, unless you can point out the rule(s) I'm missing that would "break". The rules for these entries already differentiate between "units" and "models", as I mentioned above.

JinxDragon wrote:
As for 'restrictive wins,' I raised the following question to show that it isn't just restricting what they can do, but also eliminating fundamental special rules that all jump/jet-pack models should always be bound by. That being that the Jump/jet pack attached to that back of the model makes them take up twice as more space on the battle field, inside of transports and in the case of Jet-packs, grants them the ability to move and fire heavy weapons. All of this is granted by the Pack itself, a piece of war-gear, and makes no sense for that pack to simply vanish off the back of a unit simply because he is trudging along side the foot soldiers. Yet if we take it as 'units consisting of only Jump/Jet pack models' then the simple inclusion of an infantry IC means the limitations related to this war-gear are also lost.

None of what you said here makes any sense, but I could be misunderstanding. If a unit has the Unit Type of "Jet X", (Jet Infantry, Jet MC, Jet Cavalry, etc) it gets the USR Bulky, Deep Strike, and Relentless. What the model physically looks like has nothing to do with the rules. True, some Codexes have pieces of Wargear that change a model's Unit Type. Others have units that simply are Jet Units (Codex: Chaos Daemons and Codex: Tau).

JinxDragon wrote:
That question was, by the way: Would you really allow me to shove twice as many jump/jet models into an assault transport, that allows such models, along side with a single infantry IC simply because I can argue they are no longer bulky?

No, and that's disingenuous. As I said, "most restrictive wins". That means that the Bulky rule would be in effect, on account of it being the most restrictive.

Check out YakFace's post regarding applying rules in my signature BTW. Itis a good read.

JinxDragon wrote:
Just like the fact putting beasts in an majority infantry unit doesn't magically make them into men. Putting Jump-Jet units into majority infantry unit doesn't suddenly make them lose that piece of war-gear. It will defiantly limit what they can do with it, the models in question have this war-gear for extra mobility yet still have to maintain minimal distance with other models that can't benefit from said mobility, but it doesn't eliminate it completely.

Agreed. Where we are disagreeing is where the line is drawn. The rules for movement for both Jump and Jet Units it says that the unit can elect to use their packs or move as a normal unit of whatever type they are (Infantry, MC, etc). Jump Infantry is the first instance they discuss this type of behavior and they specify that all models in the unit must elect to make the same type of move. Given the context (them saying "units") this seems to be the case for Jet Units as well.

JinxDragon wrote:
The real debate isn't what happens when you mix these units, it is a debate on the terminology being used in the book: Is the term Jet-Pack "Unit" being used because it wants to limit you to just models of Jet-Packs in this unit or because the section being written on has been named 'Jet-Pack Units?'

If you think I was discussing anything else then you have mistaken my argument (or rather, I didn't explain it well). My argument is that when they use the word "units" they are talking about units, not models. These are differentiated earlier in the rulebook very clearly, and the rules for Unit Types clearly uses "unit" to mean Units and "models" to mean Models.


So, for example, I don't believe Shrike could leap with his Jump Pack in the Movement Phase if he was with a unit of Terminators. Both Shrike and Terminators are Infantry per the rules (Jump Infantry/Infantry if you want to be exact) , and so they are stuck moving at the slowest speed. The Jump Infantry rules are pretty clear, the whole unit must elect to "jump" if you want to move like that. At the same time, Shrike can use his Jump Pack in the Assault Phase because the rules specify that individual models get Hammer of Wrath in the Assault Phase if they don't use their Jump Pack in the Movement Phase.

By the same token, the movement of Jet Infantry is reduced if they join a unit of Infantry. The Thrust Move says the unit may move 2D6" in the Assault Phase and not charge, and can ignore terrain via the Skyborne rule. Infantry do not have this rule however. As such, the unit as a whole is not able to make a Thrust Move.