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.

In the new Daemons Codex it appears that the Heralds do not lose the Independent Character rule when they purchase a Chariot. Does this mean a Chariot can join a unit of multiple models such as Troops, Fast Attack, or Elites? The IC rule says that ICs 'cannot join units that always consist of a single model (such as most vehicles and monstrous creatures)'. However, the Chariot IC would be joining a unit always consisting of multiple models.

And if that were kosher, then could multiple Chariots join a unit of multiple models?

I don't think it's clear enough to assume that multiple Chariots can join each other and only each other, however; though perhaps GW may rule someday that Chariots aren't part of that 'most vehicles'.

Thoughts?

Does the Chariot have the IC special rule or does the Herald? Remember, the Herald is embarked on the Chariot.

Indeed, you have to keep in mind this is purchasing another model. That model needs to also have the independent character rule in order for it eligible to join other units. It might be a very unusual model, as evident by the wide range of normally vehicle breaking rules that come with it, but it still has to abide by the other rules put in place for vehicles, models and units unless otherwise stated. In this case you have a problem as the chariot itself, a separate model, does not have an independent character flag. Simply joining the independent character to the chariot does not grant it access to this special rule and it is likely you where never meant to be able to 'join' the chariot in the first place, only embark in it.

On a positive note, I found a piece of the puzzle I overlooked so they make better sense to me even though I still find some curious questions but they are not for this thread.

I also have a few questions about the chariots. I know it says if the chariot dies remove the herald, but if the herald dies do you remove the chariot?

What weapon skill do you vs when you strike chariots? just the normal vehicle skill of 1 if it moved?

If hitting the vehicle, follow the vehicle rules. If you attack a non vehicle, follow those rules

The chariot is not removed if the rider dies, as no rule tells you to do so and you do not normally remove a model simply because another model in the unit died. There is even the possibility of these being two separate unit, one a transport and one being the unit embarked on top of it. That would further support the conclusion that you do not remove the model without a special rule telling you to do so, as you do not normally remove secondary units as casualties when the first dies.

If we keep with the idea that the rider is a separate unit from the chariot then the answer is found on page 28.

There is a 100% chance they are separate, as the chariot rules do not change the core rules that deal with embarking units into vehicles.

Reposted from the LOS thread:

I will give you this though;
I can't say for sure what Game Workshop intended for the rider thanks to it's exposed position, the unique nature of this 'transport' and some of the rules that wouldn't even be needed thanks to already existing rules unless the rider was meant to be different. What I do know is a lot of questions, gray areas and uncertain interpretations exist if we do not treat it as embarked for all rule purposes. Therefore the easiest way to play it has to be considered the correct way until we are informed otherwise, just to stop us from heading rule-less territory.

Game Workshop has provided 'clarification' in the past that show the easiest way is not always the correct way, but till they do that here I shall concede that treating them as two separate units is the proper answer.

Again - i am not sure why you hav e the quotes around this.
It is a transport, not a "transport" - just a capacity of one. There are no changes to the basic transport rules that this chariot type has that is important, especially in this question.

They CANNOT be the same unit. Impossible to be. If they are the same unit, then the Herald can *never* embark - it would be impossible.

So when you get charged by/charge one of these chariots ignore the rider and strike the chariot. that means your facing WS 1 rather than WS 5. Then when the chariot is destroyed the alluress on it is automatically removed as well.

Because it is a unique transport.

It contains aspects that are not found on other transports. Mainly being it has a named transport capacity, there are rules stating the rider is removed from play with the transport and the fact the model is physically put on top of the chariot where it can be seen by everyone on the battlefield. Then there is a whole bunch of extra rules granting it additional things that a transport clearly does not have. The most puzzling is a rule stating the model can not be shot separate to the chariot, hence that attacks are resolved against said chariot.

Why would they need a rule specifically denying you permission to do something you wouldn't have been able to do anyway?

In fact that one rule is a big part of the problem, because it has created the impression that you have permission for all non-shooting attack to target the rider. I can not state with certainty that they intended for the rider to be exposed to special attacks. They do appear to be creating the groundwork for the rider to be attacked, with only 'shooting' attacks being out right denied, but feel they have done something I have noticed a few other times in other places of the book. That being that they forgot attacks are not broken into just 'melee' and 'shooting,' so they will need to make it clear just what they intend for 'special' attacks. So, till they make it clear just what they intend for the rider in that matter I will continue to accept the fact that questions have been raised and it isn't as certain as you like to think it is.

JinxDragon wrote:
Because it is a unique transport.

It contains aspects that are not found on other transports. Mainly being it has a named transport capacity and the fact the model is physically put on top of the chariot. Then there is a whole bunch of extra rules granting it additional things that a transport clearly does not have. The most puzzling is a rule stating the model can not be shot separate to the chariot, hence that attacks are resolved Some against said chariot.

Why would they need a rule specifically Some denying you permission to do something you wouldn't have been able to do anyway?

Because if the model is placed on the chariot, some would assume you could shoot it. It's a pre-FAQ. It's no different from any other chariot/open-topped transport.

In closing, as I said before:

I am not going to state for certain that they didn't intended more to chariots because they have rules which do raise some interesting questions. Until they make it more clear on this matter the only option we have is to find out which interpretations create the least amount of problems with other rules. This might not be the correct method they intended, but unless otherwise told the easiest way to resolve the matter is the best method we have available.

That is treading them as separate units.