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.

Nem - he is a member of the unit, same as any other model. Otherwise he hasnt actually joined the unit.

I never said they are a "BB" unit. I said they are a Tau unit, or a SM unit, based on the IC joining rules stating they are part of the unit for all rules purpose. Determining ally status is a rules purpose. There is no mixed unit here.

If you disagree, page andgraph please. Its actually incredibly simple.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Nem - he is a member of the unit, same as any other model. Otherwise he hasnt actually joined the unit.

I never said they are a "BB" unit. I said they are a Tau unit, or a SM unit, based on the IC joining rules stating they are part of the unit for all rules purpose. Determining ally status is a rules purpose. There is no mixed unit here.

If you disagree, page andgraph please. Its actually incredibly simple.

And what is a unit without the characteristics of its models?

? Perhaps explain that a little more?

Unit A is from codex:SM. It is, by definition, a SM unit. It is affected by those with PE:SM, and has BB status with IG, etc.

Joining a guard IC to that unit does not alter that it is a SM unit, because you are told the IC is a part of the unit for ALL rules purposes. Is determining what codex your unit is from a rules purpose? Yes

nosferatu1001 wrote:
? Perhaps explain that a little more?

Unit A is from codex:SM. It is, by definition, a SM unit. It is affected by those with PE:SM, and has BB status with IG, etc.

Joining a guard IC to that unit does not alter that it is a SM unit, because you are told the IC is a part of the unit for ALL rules purposes. Is determining what codex your unit is from a rules purpose? Yes

And when checking what codex is from why you are ignoring the IC is a part of it - for ALL rules purposes (Including, determining what codex the unit is from). He is part of the unit, you need to use his rules as he is part of the unit.

The Guard IC can't become part of the codex SM.

In my mind, this is the reason why allies should not have been reintroduced.

Too many possible combinations makes a confused mess of the rules.

 Nem wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
? Perhaps explain that a little more?

Unit A is from codex:SM. It is, by definition, a SM unit. It is affected by those with PE:SM, and has BB status with IG, etc.

Joining a guard IC to that unit does not alter that it is a SM unit, because you are told the IC is a part of the unit for ALL rules purposes. Is determining what codex your unit is from a rules purpose? Yes

And when checking what codex is from why you are ignoring the IC is a part of it - for ALL rules purposes (Including, determining what codex the unit is from). He is part of the unit, you need to use his rules as he is part of the unit.

The Guard IC can't become part of the codex SM.

But he can become part of the unit _without_ changing the unit's type/codex.

Nem - he is a part of the unit for ALL rules purposes. When you ask "what codex is this unit from", the guard IC is "from" Codex SM

This doesnt mean he is suddenly a SM - just that for the purposes of that specific rule, him being guard is ignored.

 Shandara wrote:

 Nem wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
? Perhaps explain that a little more?

Unit A is from codex:SM. It is, by definition, a SM unit. It is affected by those with PE:SM, and has BB status with IG, etc.

Joining a guard IC to that unit does not alter that it is a SM unit, because you are told the IC is a part of the unit for ALL rules purposes. Is determining what codex your unit is from a rules purpose? Yes

And when checking what codex is from why you are ignoring the IC is a part of it - for ALL rules purposes (Including, determining what codex the unit is from). He is part of the unit, you need to use his rules as he is part of the unit.

The Guard IC can't become part of the codex SM.

But he can become part of the unit _without_ changing the unit's type/codex.

Except the 'all rules purposes', When a Guard IC joins, then part of that unit is from Codex IG. Part of that unit can not be joined by <insert 3rd ally here>

Is Guard IC part of the unit ? - Yes
Is determining your allied relationship a rules purpose - Yes
What determines your allied status? The codex the unit is from.
What codex is the unit from? SM and IG.

What codex a unit is from is just what codex the models in the unit are from, when an IC joins it it is part of the unit. The Guard IC doesn't stop the SM models being from codex SM, and the SM models don't stop the Guard IC being from Codex IG.

So what is a 'Unit' (pg 3)

In Warhammer 40,000, we represent this by grouping models together into units

A unit is a group of models. BRB tells me a unit can do a lot of things, but a single model in those unit's which pose a restriction can stop the unit from being able to take that action. Every single model's rules are accounted on any type of unit, unit checks, unit actions etc, the unit rules are made up of the rules from the models.

Units can embark on transports, but if one model can't for whatever reason then the unit can't embark. What your saying is it doesn't matter what restrictions that model has, being from codex IG, because the 'unit' doesn't have the same restrictions - well, all a unit is, is models. At least Codex IQ did something right - It mentions allied relationships are between models, the allies rules in the BRB did not need to make any distinction before, as unit's were always going to be comprised of models with the same level of alliance between each other.

He does not stop being his own unit. But it's already been debated here in YMDC whether a unit with attached BB IC can embark in a transport.

But in the case of an IC joining a normal unit with an IC already in it you are NOT joining the IC already in it, you're joining the normal unit.

 Shandara wrote:
He does not stop being his own unit. But it's already been debated here in YMDC whether a unit with attached BB IC can embark in a transport.

But in the case of an IC joining a normal unit with an IC already in it you are NOT joining the IC already in it, you're joining the normal unit.

The 'normal unit' now includes the first IC which joined. Joining an IC in the first instance carries the tag of counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes.. If your only joining the original unit, you are not counting the IC as a part of that unit.

The embarking in a transport is talking in general rather than the allies rules, how a IC joining changes what a 'unit' can or can't do...
A 'normal unit' of tac marines can embark on Rhino. If a terminator captain joins the unit can't. The unit has permission, but the model says it can not. Now the IC joining just changed what that 'unit' can do.

Unit Alpha model's= JJJ
IC model = A
Unit Alpha after IC joins = JJJA
Rather than JJJJ...
.

 Shandara wrote:
What makes them different from models from other codices?

The bit in the codex: Inquisition about different relationships only means that yes, you can have primary detachment and allied detachment with different relationships to the inquisitorial detachment.

"Note that the Inquisitorial detachment may have a different relationship to the models from an army’s primary detachment, and the models that make up that army’s ‘regular’ allied detachment (assuming there are any)." (emphasis mine)

This 'extra' relationship is clearly at the model level. Joining a unit of Space Marines will not change the fact a Tau IC is a model from the allied detachment and does not change the Inquisitor's relationship with that Tau model.

 Shandara wrote:
There are no rules that change the type of unit that he joins. None of the IC's rules affect that.

When shooting/assaulting/targeting the unit you do not consider the unit type of the IC or target him separately. You only consider the unit he joined.

A Tau unit joined by an Eldar Farseer stays a Tau unit for ALL purposes of determining what type of unit it is. I can not find any rules that change the unit's type or create a hybrid Tau/Eldar type unit.

So when Baron joins a unit of Warlocks on jetbikes he gains the ability to turbo boost, right? Because he is now a jetbike for all intents and purposes.

Unit types do not change just because an IC joins a unit, why do his allegiances? Just because part of the unit is one "thing" does not mean the entire unit is that type of "thing". This leads me to believe allies work in a similar fashion - just because a Tau character joins Space Marines does not mean he is a Space Marine.

The Baron still runs and the bikes still boost.

The Tau is still AoC with an Inq and the Marines are still BB - ALL rules would still apply.

Yep, way to miss the rules.

You're ignoring the rule on page 39.

Care to elaborate?

Otherwise I counter equally vaguely with the fact you are ignoring the rules on page 124 and 112 of the codex and BRB, respectively.

Nos, were not ignoring it, we are applying it as the IC is counted as part of the unit for all rules purposes to mean literally he is part of the unit, and when the unit charges, he charges as part of the unit. When the unit embarks, he embarks as part of the unit. When a special rule is shared, he is part of the unit. It's he is part of a unit like any other model in the unit, they are all part of the unit. Further insight of what they meant by part of a unit is quoted on first page.

It doesn't say anything about normal units, or anything about becoming a normal member, or that the IC rules are ignored in lieu of the unit's... It just says he is part of the unit. Like any other model in it, he is part of the unit.

So for rules purpose "what is this unit", what gives you permission to consider the unit separately from the IC.? Page and graph please

nosferatu1001 wrote:? Perhaps explain that a little more?

Unit A is from codex:SM. It is, by definition, a SM unit. It is affected by those with PE:SM, and has BB status with IG, etc.

Joining a guard IC to that unit does not alter that it is a SM unit, because you are told the IC is a part of the unit for ALL rules purposes. Is determining what codex your unit is from a rules purpose? Yes

It 's a simple question you should have no trouble answering.

You see in my view, a unit is generic and has no characteristics in and of itself, gaining those things only from the models that compose the unit. Your view seems to state the the unit itself carries these characteristics regardless of its models. There can be no other reason you ignore the IC's characteristics as it is a model in the unit like any other. Its own qualities being of no greater or lesser importance than any other. You maintain that it is a SM unit while refusing to acknowledge the importance of the question 'why is it a SM unit?'. Without understanding this 'why' how can you truly say you understand the basic nature of a unit either as static or dynamic. While you have claimed it is static over and over I've yet to see an explanation of 'why'. So I pose the question directly again.

What is a unit aside from the characteristics of its models?

Because no rules exist with regards to mixed faction units, anywhere in the rulebook. You join units- being attached to a unit doesn't change it's origin as a unit of X codex. The allies matrix goes by unit by unit basis. Is this a difficult concept to grasp?

Asmodai Asmodean wrote:
Because no rules exist with regards to mixed faction units, anywhere in the rulebook. You join units- being attached to a unit doesn't change it's origin as a unit of X codex. The allies matrix goes by unit by unit basis. Is this a difficult concept to grasp?

Well this does not address my question at all but the reality is that units in the game can have mixed factions. You seem to have address this by ingnoring it entirely and dismissing any ICs faction simply because it joined the other unit. This is pure assumption. No where is this stated as being the case. Why this is touted in opposition to another theory that is more firmly rooted in the rules and accounts for more possibilities puzzles me.

In any case , to further my understanding in this I would like to know more about peoples general concepts regarding unit characteristics and why they maintain them as such. I can fined proof that a model is a SM. I cannot find proof that the models unit, itself, is SM. Likewise with i unit type.

It is a simple question. What is a unit aside from its models characteristics?

 Abandon wrote:

Asmodai Asmodean wrote:
Because no rules exist with regards to mixed faction units, anywhere in the rulebook. You join units- being attached to a unit doesn't change it's origin as a unit of X codex. The allies matrix goes by unit by unit basis. Is this a difficult concept to grasp?

Well this does not address my question at all but the reality is that units in the game can have mixed factions. You seem to have address this by ingnoring it entirely and dismissing any ICs faction simply because it joined the other unit. This is pure assumption. No where is this stated as being the case. Why this is touted in opposition to another theory that is more firmly rooted in the rules and accounts for more possibilities puzzles me.

In any case , to further my understanding in this I would like to know more about peoples general concepts regarding unit characteristics and why they maintain them as such. I can fined proof that a model is a SM. I cannot find proof that the models unit, itself, is SM. Likewise with i unit type.

It is a simple question. What is a unit aside from its models characteristics?

Why do you feel the need to invent rules for a category that clearly doesn't exist? Some misplaced sense of how it should 'be' in the fluff?

The rulebook presents the way allies/units work, and yet you're trying to find holes where none exist?

If you cannot answer a simple question regarding the basic nature of a unit I would say you have no grounds for any claim on this topic.

What is a unit aside from its models characteristics?

If you are going to claim a unit of space marines is a unit of space marines regardless of what models it contains you should be able to back that statement up.

A unit is its entry in the codex, which may or may not contain different models (like a GK/AS/Inq Battle Conclave or a Codex: Space Marines' Tactical Squad unit which may contain Tactical Marines models and a Veteran Sergeant model).

It may have rules of its own and the models in it may have different rules themselves. There is a clear distinction between the unit and the models it contains.

those attributes in 6th edition are given to the models as far as I know

nosferatu1001 wrote:
So for rules purpose "what is this unit", what gives you permission to consider the unit separately from the IC.? Page and graph please

I'm not considering the IC as separate, I'm considering it part of the unit, quite literally. There are SM models, and as the IC is part of the unit, the unit is SM and <whatever the IC is>. He is part of the unit for all rules purposes, which means 'the unit' is now both of those things.A Unit is a group of models, a units 'type' if you will is determined by what models are in the unit, and IQ Dex makes it clear allied relationship is between models.

Allies is not set unit relationship. It is dependant on the relationship of each model which is part if the unit.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
The BRB has no rules on mixed units, inquisition, a 3rd alliance or any of that, the rules for allies in the rule book just do not cover at all how to handle a 3rd detachment- it did not exist at the time of writing and the rules contained are insufficient, there was never a possibility of mixed units so no need to write the rules as if there was. The Inq codex itself tells how you handle this - and it clearly states by model.

 Shandara wrote:
A unit is its entry in the codex, which may or may not contain different models (like a GK/AS/Inq Battle Conclave or a Codex: Space Marines' Tactical Squad unit which may contain Tactical Marines models and a Veteran Sergeant model).

It may have rules of its own and the models in it may have different rules themselves. There is a clear distinction between the unit and the models it contains.

Do you have a 6th edition example of a unit rule that is not based on the units models?

Im aware of that this question isnt the same thing as the inquisitor/ally one.
Chaos units cant join units with different marks. But cant a khorne lord join a unmarked cultist squad. Then said unmarked squad would be joined by a tzeentch sorcerer, slaanshi warpsmith(creating daemonic sextoys), and nurglite dark apostle?
Whatever way the C:CSM handles that situation, might help giving an indication on RAI on the original question in this thread.