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.

Quick question (search foo as failed me)

Working through the C:INQ codex, it came to me that there is an interesting situation. Id like to know if i can join two different codex IC (SM and GK) to a unit from another codex (INQ) as the two are BB (not red hunters) with the 3rd but not each other.

Just so I understand, you want to use an HQ from a dataslate/digital only release to bridge two different non-Battle Brothers ICs into a single unit?

I don't think it'd work because there'd be the presence of an IC from a non-BB army in that unit.

Being digital only really had no bearing on this, however my call would be that given a unit with an Allied BB attached can't enter their own transport I'd say that an "incompatible" IC joined to a unit would preclude an IC joining that unit.

 Desubot wrote:
Quick question (search foo as failed me)

Working through the C:INQ codex, it came to me that there is an interesting situation. Id like to know if i can join two different codex IC (SM and GK) to a unit from another codex (INQ) as the two are BB (not red hunters) with the 3rd but not each other.

Technically you can probably do it. Once the SM had joined the INQ unit there is no RAW to support that the GK will see him as anything other then a member of an INQ unit. Since a GK has no problem joining an INQ unit it seems that in the RAW you can get away with this. How often you'll be able to do it in an a real game with out an opponent calling shenanigans because its not expressly permitted and feels very much like a loop hole will depend on who you play with. I'd talk it over before the start of the game.

To be honest, its very much the same issue that sparks an winnable argument about an IC from another detachment being joined to a unit and that unit getting aboard a transport. They rules don't seem to support that intent, but taken only at face value they certainly allow it.

An IC joining a unit becomes part of that unit but it still retains its individual identity. A Salamander IC does not become an Ultramarine when it joins a UM squad.

But he counts as part of that unit for all rule purposes. - Page 39, bottom section of the Independent Rules, on the left hand side.

That is a sentence I complete despise because it makes no damn sense and leads to all sorts of gray and even black areas in the rules but the people here make a very good argument on this matter in the past so I have given in to it.... it doesn't matter what the model retains, the rules force you to ignore it and count it as something else should it matter. It is written there in black and white and can not easily be argued because if you do not include the model as part of the unit for all Rules you are breaking this rule outright. There are even some good questions raised as to what occurs with certain other rules, if the Independent Character is only counted some of the time and how do we determine which situation is which. Preferred Enemy is a favored of that argument, Wounds allocated to a unit that meets the requirement gain X even if they are then allocated to the Ally first.

Personally,
The very least they could of given us some exceptions written into other rules, such as 'Independent Characters can not embark on transports belonging to an ally, even when joined to an allied unit' which is a commonly seen debate.

It counts as part of the unit but not become one of the units model types.
A Librarian who joins a squad is still a Librarian otherwise he loses his ability to cast powers for example.

If you think it through it is pretty straight forward.

As a lol "units of the same Codex" would make trying to work out who can board transports in Space Marine multiple detachments a nightmare!

There is a distinction you are missing:
The rule being quoted calls for him to count as part of the unit for all rule purposes, nothing in that sentence states he loses all model related rules as part of this process, just those related to his original unit are ignored.

The tactic being put forth here is a legal one as per Rules as Written, though very debatable on intent as you will undoubtedly see if this thread doesn't just die from topic fatigue from being repeated so often. The Ally rules are something which occur on a Unit by Unit bases, page 112 starts each level of alliance and repetitively say we do X or Y with the unit. This lays very good groundwork for to build an argument that we apply the rule stating that the Independent Character is now part of the unit for all rule purposes to the table as well. Then the new, in this case Inquisition, unit can take another battle brother that the Independent Character otherwise wouldn't like, and it has Rule support.

And is one of the reasons I cry to sleep at night....


Automatically Appended Next Post:
PS:
It would be a Rule-book Rule, the Space Marine codex would easily have something over writing as per page 7. Given that they already needed additional rules for their little Chapter Tactic thing to begin with, and that would be the core of your 'lol' moment, there is a clear perfect opportunity to slip in one or two words to cover the new addition to transports to make it 100% clear. It would be redundant anyway because the Chapter Tactic Rule already states they treat each other as if they where Battle Brothers and that is where the rule about transports would be attached, because it is a rule specific allies and not transports in general.

It would be a simple amendment to the third bullet point of Battle Brothers, making the period a comma and stating 'including Independent Characters joined to Allied units.'
That wouldn't even interfere with the current wording of Chapter Tactics in the slightest.

If we accept that a unit with a battle bro attached cannot enter a transport then we must also accept that a unit with an IC cannot be joined by a non-compatible alliec IC.

I don't see how you can have one and not the other.

I can see where one would misunderstand if they didn't separate my posts properly, coming to the conclusion that I want it one way or the other. I have made comments on this topic on both the Rules as Written and my personal views on the matter, and if one takes them together out of context they will appear contradictory. This is simply because I do not agree with the Rules as Written, in both transportation and joining non battle brothers together with some battle brother glue, but I recognize right now for what they are and that a lot of people play by the pure Rules as Written in this situation. Don't agree with it, but the Rule as Written is supported and I see no reason not to recognize this fact.

Right now you can Embark and do this little party of desperate allies trick thanks to the Rules as Written.

So long as it is consistent that is fine.

I don't agree however the the rules as written allow a unit with an allied IC attached to embark a transport, as no matter what happens the IC will never lose his "origins" i.e. He may join a Tau squad but he will remain a Space Marine in every regard.

Uptopdownunder wrote:
So long as it is consistent that is fine.

I don't agree however the the rules as written allow a unit with an allied IC attached to embark a transport, as no matter what happens the IC will never lose his "origins" i.e. He may join a Tau squad but he will remain a Space Marine in every regard.

And literally no one has said otherwise.
You should re-read the rules, however, because the embarkation restriction doesn't care about what codex you're from. At all.
Feel free to start a new thread instead of taking this one off topic.

DJGietzen wrote:
To be honest, its very much the same issue that sparks an winnable argument about an IC from another detachment being joined to a unit and that unit getting aboard a transport. They rules don't seem to support that intent, but taken only at face value they certainly allow it.

rigeld2 wrote:

Uptopdownunder wrote:
So long as it is consistent that is fine.

I don't agree however the the rules as written allow a unit with an allied IC attached to embark a transport, as no matter what happens the IC will never lose his "origins" i.e. He may join a Tau squad but he will remain a Space Marine in every regard.

And literally no one has said otherwise.

No. Obviously you don't understand the argument.
Like I said, feel free to start a new thread about it though.

Isn't that issue directly applicable to this one and if not why not ?

Uptopdownunder wrote:
Isn't that issue directly applicable to this one and if not why not ?

It might be. I wasn't addressing that at all.


Battle Brother is defined as a friendly unit. Agreed?
ICs that join another unit are no longer a unit in and of themselves. Correct?
Something that is not a unit cannot be a friendly unit. Correct?

Therefore an IC that joins a unit is not a Battle Brother and cannot be restricted by things that restrict Battle Brothers.

rigeld2 wrote:

Battle Brother is defined as a friendly unit. Agreed?

Yes

rigeld2 wrote:

ICs that join another unit are no longer a unit in and of themselves. Correct?

Not really but I will play along with that. They still maintain a separate identity to the unit even when joined to it as evidenced by their ability to leave the unit and their being counted separately for reserve calculations.

rigeld2 wrote:

Something that is not a unit cannot be a friendly unit. Correct?

This is where you're getting weird

rigeld2 wrote:
Therefore an IC that joins a unit is not a Battle Brother and cannot be restricted by things that restrict Battle Brothers.

That's just crazy. Forget I even asked.

Uptopdownunder wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

ICs that join another unit are no longer a unit in and of themselves. Correct?

Not really but I will play along with that. They still maintain a separate identity to the unit even when joined to it as evidenced by their ability to leave the unit and their being counted separately for reserve calculations.

You mean because they still have the IC rule and a specific exception was made for them? Sure. Irrelevant and it doesn't make my statement incorrect though.

rigeld2 wrote:

Something that is not a unit cannot be a friendly unit. Correct?

This is where you're getting weird

Please explain. How is it weird? If I have a gun, it's not a knife and therefore not a Bowie knife. Correct?

rigeld2 wrote:
Therefore an IC that joins a unit is not a Battle Brother and cannot be restricted by things that restrict Battle Brothers.

That's just crazy. Forget I even asked.

Amazing rules based rebuttal. 10/10. Would read again.

I disagree.

The units in question all retain their identities, as nothing gives you permission to ignore that a tau model is a tau model, and a space marine model is a space marine model for example.

You may join the tau model to a space marine model if they are BB, but the tau model is still a tau model, and the space marine is still a space marine model. The tau model still comes from a FoC from a tau army/supplement and the Space marine model still comes from a space marine FoC army/supplement, they don't magically become the same army or the same FoC selection. Nowhere does it give you permission to change your models faction based on the unit they are attached to.

Additionally you nowhere have permission to ignore the allies matrix when an allied unit is attached to a primary unit, or any other unit for that matter. The specific limitations of allies would override the general rule of "when an IC attaches to a unit it becomes a member of that unit for all intents and purposes."

Regardless, it further does not give permission in the inquisitor rules for attaching to an unit and then having a non BB model attach, and goes on to state that inq units must respect the allies matrix for all models involved.

if a situation arose where the model that was BB with the two who are not, then you would be actually cheating as you have a unit comprised of models that are not allowed to be in the same unit, this further supports the RAW that you are not given permission to ignore the allies matrix by doing this, because it is not allowed, not intended to be allowed.

blaktoof wrote:
The units in question all retain their identities, as nothing gives you permission to ignore that a tau model is a tau model, and a space marine model is a space marine model for example.

No one has ever said otherwise.

You may join the tau model to a space marine model if they are BB, but the tau model is still a tau model, and the space marine is still a space marine model. Nowhere does it give you permission to change your models faction based on the unit they are attached to.

Correct!

Additionally you nowhere have permission to ignore the allies matrix when an allied unit is attached to a primary unit, or any other unit for that matter. The specific limitations of allies would override the general rule of "when an IC attaches to a unit it becomes a member of that unit for all intents and purposes."

I'm not ignoring the allies matrix. At all.

Regardless, it further does not give permission in the inquisitor rules for attaching to an unit and then having a non BB model attach, and goes on to state that inq units must respect the allies matrix for all models involved.

Agreed - the C:Inq rules prohibit this from working.

Yes, I agree

Hmm so on that note i suppose that means il just run the SM as red hunter and make it easy (was just chucking all my completed models together for a fun game)

But on the same note this would also mean you couldn't ever cast psychic powers to that unit as well. (in this situation)

I think applying the rule of thumb, "What will the opponent think?" is important in this situation. I think we all agree the rules are a hunk of swiss cheese, holes everywhere. The concept of dataslates didn't enter the mind of the writers of the initial 6E rulebook as it was a concept hatched about a year later.

And they were also all hatched after GW abandoned updating the Errata/FAQs. *eyeroll*

Even if "the rules allow it," how you would play it matters a lot more in this situation. You know employing this tactic is going to get you the stinkeye from your opponent, because it's explicitly trying to bypass restrictions without explicitly being told it's allowed.