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.

U02dah4 wrote:
Problem is you say it creates a friendly model in an enemy unit but don't provide any evidence that's the case

The mirror rule says that the model making attacks against its own unit is treated as a friendly model. It doesnt say that about the unit, so the unit is what it is, an enemy unit.

U02dah4 wrote:
Units with friendly models are friendly units units with enemy models are enemy units where is the rule that governs a unit with both friendly and enemy models - it doesn't exist because it can't happen if I'm wrong show me the frenemy rule quote

That is not what the rules say, so your argument is invalid. To quote the rules again:

All units in the same army are friendly units, and all models in the same army are friendly models. All units in your opponent’s army are enemy units, and all models in your opponent’s army are enemy models

Never says all models in a friendly unit are friendly models, nor that a unit made up of friendly models is a friendly unit. Nor does it say the same about enemy units nor enemy models.

The first one is disingenuous so I can ignore most of that.

You cannot make attacks outside of melee range but that would require the unit to be out of coherency and the Caster to pick the model that couldn't fight mirror doesn't change position so there's no conflict it just doesn't work but it's not a realistic choice a player would make.

I don't even understand your units being destroyed by the attacks one it's pretty clear under the two units interpretation unit A attacks B if B dies a killpoint is awarded to the bearer then when all attacks are resolved unit A returns to its owners control or joins the remaining unit if it wasn't destroyed there's no rule conflict it works.

No im saying if your going to adopt the frenemy interpretation provide a clear rules-based answer covering those interactions or your interpretation doesn't work under RAW. Just asserting it works and then being unable to support how any of those situations are resolved under the Rules with quotes shows it doesn't work. And Yes before you go down the route of saying you can't prove what doesn't exist - that is the entire point it doesn't exist. If I don't know what my save is because there is no rule to govern doctrinas on partially controlled units game breaks if I try and use a stratagem on a partially controlled unit and don't know which models are buffed game breaks, if I can't even allocate a wound because "If an attack successfully wounds the target unit, the player commanding the target unit allocates that attack to one model in the target unit" and the unit is partially controlled by both players do you role off, does it go to most models, what if its one each. I don't even know who roles the saving throw because "The player commanding the target unit then makes one saving throw" well both players are commanding it do we both make a throw or do we each make a partial throw because we only have partial command or is it based on the model that was allocated to. In short the rules break repeatedly.

Person 2
Mirror says nothing about the unit agreed only the model it is therefore not permission for it to be a frenemy unit which is the point and the rest is covered in my response to the next person (If you concede it affects the model the core rules have already defined the unit).

Person 3
"All units in the same army are friendly units,". one model is friendly for all rules purposes so it is a friendly unit

"All units in your opponent’s army are enemy units" the rest are therefore an enemy unit

That is exactly what the rules say
from the core rules bullet points
Unit: A group of models from the same datasheet.
Friendly models = all models in the same army.
Enemy models = all models in your opponent’s army.
Friendly units = all units in the same army.
Enemy units = all units in opponent’s army.


Therefore you either have to interpret it as two units one friendly one enemy (two separate groups of models from the same datasheet one under each player's control) or a frenemy unit of both friendly and enemy models which by definition counts as both a friendly and enemy unit simultaneously creating rules problems)

And as stated there are tons of interactions without a rules-based explanation for how they interact with frenemy units eg: wound allocation, doctrina imperatives, stratagems that affect units under your control when you have partial control etc. etc. and yes you could come up with intuitive RAI ways that these work but you cannot come up with a RAW way because there is no RAW on frenemy units.

while all the rules work perfectly if its two separate units. Therefore the interpretation that works under RAW is always better than the one that doesn't.

We still rabbit-holing then.

Definitely, I get P5F was trolling as usual but he actually has a point on this one - the wording is bad but it still works just in an unintuitive way.

While 90% of your RAI interpretation works the only practical distinction is that the model itself doesn't die and 95% of the time even using your RAI interpretation you would get the same result because you wouldn't do enough damage to wipe the unit.

Thread is basically done though you have a clear 2-unit RAW explanation that works it just doesn't give the result some players want. VS a frenemy explanation that can't even clearly allocate a wound under RAW (Feel free to prove me wrong anyone by providing a rules quote on allocating wounds to a unit commanded by both players).

The only outstanding question is how to resolve a mirror that can't legally make attacks and that comes down to whether the sequence ends with no attacks made and therefore the trigger of returning the model to its owner's control never occurs or whether making no attacks because you can't is considered resolving attacks for the purpose of the trigger and it just harmlessly returns to its owners control. I'm not sure there is a clear RAW or RAI on this because while being RAW I'm not sure it was RAI in the first place but HIWPI is the former because its more fun.

Wow, you guys are all WAY over-thinking this.

The rule clearly says:

...the selected enemy model immediately makes close combat attacks against its own unit...

It's still an enemy. It attacks its own unit, which it is still part of.

End. Of. Story.

Anyone claiming that it suddenly detaches from its unit somehow is making gak up.

U02dah4 wrote:
Definitely, I get P5F was trolling as usual but he actually has a point on this one - the wording is bad but it still works just in an unintuitive way.

While 90% of your RAI interpretation works the only practical distinction is that the model itself doesn't die and 95% of the time even using your RAI interpretation you would get the same result because you wouldn't do enough damage to wipe the unit.

Thread is basically done though you have a clear 2-unit RAW explanation that works it just doesn't give the result some players want. VS a frenemy explanation that can't even clearly allocate a wound under RAW (Feel free to prove me wrong anyone by providing a rules quote on allocating wounds to a unit commanded by both players).

Your 2-Unit Theory is completely lacking in RAW. As I have pointed out more than once, there is no rule stating that all models in a unit must, at all times, be part of your army. To quote the Core Rules for the third time.

UNITS
Models move and fight in units. A unit can have one or more models chosen from a single datasheet. All units in the same army are friendly units, and all models in the same army are friendly models. All units in your opponent’s army are enemy units, and all models in your opponent’s army are enemy models. If a rule affects ‘units’ or ‘models’ without specifying that they are friendly or enemy, then it affects either ‘all units’ or ‘all models’, regardless of whose army they are in.

Sorthis' Mirror creates an exception to the normal expectations because the Army Construction Rules do not allow you to place a model into an enemy unit. Thus you have assume it is not possible to happen within the course of the rules.

Furthermore, I challenge you to site a place in the Core Rules that states when a model within a enemy unit becomes an friendly model that it is removed from that unit and becomes a separate unit. As you said earlier, 40K is a permissive rules set, requiring you to provide site the rule that allows you to do such a thing for it to be legal.

Lacking that, we must conclude that the affected model is a friendly (to the mirror user) model in an enemy unit. A strange duck, but not illegal since an enemy unit is defined as "all units in the opponent's army" not "a unit made up of models from your opponent's army".

So let the affected model make close combat attacks against its unit, which it is part of, and resolve those Hits/Wounds as normal. This includes possibly having wounds assigned to it by the unit controller (your opponent) and dying as a result.

I have no problem with the argument that not all models in a unit have to be in the same army or that the mirror creates an exception its irrelevant because it breaks the game and many of the rules stop functioning. if you can provide me any quotes on how such a unit interacts with all those rules fine. if you can't it doesn't work because you cant allocate a wound yet to mention any of the other rules it's back to super heavy robot guilliman in 7th . So whether you could interpret it as working that way it doesn't if you want a game to function

So to summarise you have been unable to provide any rules quote governing wound allocation in a unit of both friendly and enemy models and rather than acknowledge your argument doesn't work your trying to skip over this tricky fact just saying resolve it as normal when the normal doesn't work as both players control it under your interpretation not just your opponent.

Nice assertion, but I don't see any rule of the game that fails to function with an enemy model inside a friendly unit. Every rule works as normal. I challenge you to show me one that fails, especially one that fails during this fleeting condition caused by Sorthis' Mirror.

Wound allocation! Player controlling the unit allocates the wound neither player has full control of the unit as both control some models.

Armour save! Player who controls the unit rolls the armoursave/inv (and makes the choice) neither player has full control of the unit as both control some models.

And that's just the general rules

The unit belongs to the Enemy of the Mirror user. The Mirror only changed the model to friendly, not the unit. In both of these cases the unit owner (mirror users enemy) makes all the rolls and decisions in line with the rules.

The modal "is treated as being a model from your army for all rules purposes."
Why would that not include ownership thats literally what a model from your army means

Friendly models = all models in the same army.
Enemy models = all models in your opponent’s army

If the model is in the opposing army the unit cannot be considered wholey in the original players control anymore unless you can provide a relevant rules quote

Again assertion +no evidence = wrong answer

Looks to me like a case of "fluff" sentence muddying the clarity of the intent of the rule.

RAW does create this odd situation. It can be interpreted as both, but requires some serious rules juggling to make it not work ("single model unit cannot attack itself").

The logical clarity of "unit that consists of single model is still a unit" is quite irrefutable.

Have fun P5. You got a good one this time (but not for the rationale you put up for the argument).

U02dah4 wrote:
The modal "is treated as being a model from your army for all rules purposes."
Why would that not include ownership thats literally what a model from your army means

Friendly models = all models in the same army.
Enemy models = all models in your opponent’s army

If the model is in the opposing army the unit cannot be considered wholey in the original players control anymore unless you can provide a relevant rules quote

Again assertion +no evidence = wrong answer

You have no rules support for your assertion. No where is the ownership of a unit equated to owning all the models in the unit. Thus changing the ownership of one model does not change ownership of the unit.

Core rules pg 2
"Army: Collection of models under your command"

Mirror Rule
The model "is treated as being a model from your army for all rules purposes."

Core rules pg 3
"Friendly models = all models in the same army."
"Enemy models = all models in your opponent’s army"

Core rules pg 18
"The player commanding the target unit then makes one saving"

It's literally defined. You've had the conflict rules quoted to you multiple times and have supplied zero quotes supporting your position. Denying my quotes exist doesn't change that they do.

If you still can't understand that you are either trolling or we are looking at a dunning kruger and so unless you have something constructive to add I have no more replies for you

U02dah4 wrote:
Core rules pg 2
"Army: Collection of models under your command"

Mirror Rule
The model "is treated as being a model from your army for all rules purposes."

Core rules pg 3
"Friendly models = all models in the same army."
"Enemy models = all models in your opponent’s army"

Core rules pg 18
"The player commanding the target unit then makes one saving"

It's literally defined. You've had the conflict rules quoted to you multiple times and have supplied zero quotes supporting your position. Denying my quotes exist doesn't change that they do.

If you still can't understand that you are either trolling or we are looking at a dunning kruger and so unless you have something constructive to add I have no more replies for you

Weird that people are talking about the ownership of the Unit and yet that word doesn't show up in your post at all. Almost like everything you quoted is completely irrelevant except for the clause about a player "commanding a unit"... which is what the disagreement is about in the first place.

Yes players command Units under their control. Normally, a player's unit cannot contain opponent's models; however, the mirror overrides the BrB in that case and does allow for an opponent's model to be in a player's unit, if only briefly.

See U02dah4, Unit1126PPL is following me perfectly. Control of the model changed, but control of the unit did not. Your model is in their unit. Why? Because:

UNITS
Models move and fight in units. A unit can have one or more models chosen from a single datasheet. All units in the same army are friendly units, and all models in the same army are friendly models. All units in your opponent’s army are enemy units, and all models in your opponent’s army are enemy models. If a rule affects ‘units’ or ‘models’ without specifying that they are friendly or enemy, then it affects either ‘all units’ or ‘all models’, regardless of whose army they are in.

Nothing here about all models in a unit must be either friendly or enemy. That just happens to be the natural state of things 99.99% of the time. No instruction to change the controller of the unit, even if the last model in the unit changes control (would be very weird on a permanent basis, but not relevant for Sorthis' Mirror).

So now lets look at the two cases you had: Wound Allocation and Armor Saves.

3. ALLOCATE ATTACK
If an attack successfully wounds the target unit, the player commanding the target unit allocates that attack to one model in the target unit (this can be to any model in the unit and does not have to be allocated to a model that is within range of, or visible to, the attacking model). If a model in the target unit has already lost any wounds or has already had attacks allocated to it this phase, the attack must be allocated to that model.

So the commander of the unit (not the Mirror user in this case) allocates the attack to any model in the unit. Could be yours, could be theirs. Is probably not the mirrored model because I'm sure he is a model he'd rather get back than have killed. It's not like killing him first will avoid all the attacks the model is making.

4. SAVING THROW
The player commanding the target unit then makes one saving throw by rolling one D6 and modifying the roll by the Armour Penetration (AP) characteristic of the weapon that the attack was made with. For example, if the weapon has an AP of -1, then 1 is subtracted from the saving throw roll. If the result is equal to, or greater than, the Save (Sv) characteristic of the model the attack was allocated to, then the saving throw is successful and the attack sequence ends. If the result is less than the model’s Save characteristic, then the saving throw fails and the model suffers damage. An unmodified roll of 1 always fails.

So the commander of the unit (not the Mirror user in this case) rolls the saving throw.

So there is absolutely no rules breakdown caused by Wound Allocation nor Saving Throws for having both enemy and friendly models in a unit. The unit controller makes the saves in both cases.

I'm not seeing any problem with this "frenemy unit" existing for the duration of these attacks. No rules breakdown so far.

Having someone support you adds no validity to your argument. People supporting mask wearing or opposing it during covid did not make it any more or less effective than it was in reality.

As established by those rule quotes there are two commanders of the unit - both players.

it was the only thing you had to address - you still haven't you just assert not the mirror user and say it works we have shown crystal clear with quotes both players are commanders you haven't addressed it because you have no answer


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

U02dah4 wrote:
Core rules pg 2
"Army: Collection of models under your command"

Mirror Rule
The model "is treated as being a model from your army for all rules purposes."

Core rules pg 3
"Friendly models = all models in the same army."
"Enemy models = all models in your opponent’s army"

Core rules pg 18
"The player commanding the target unit then makes one saving"

It's literally defined. You've had the conflict rules quoted to you multiple times and have supplied zero quotes supporting your position. Denying my quotes exist doesn't change that they do.

If you still can't understand that you are either trolling or we are looking at a dunning kruger and so unless you have something constructive to add I have no more replies for you

Weird that people are talking about the ownership of the Unit and yet that word doesn't show up in your post at all. Almost like everything you quoted is completely irrelevant except for the clause about a player "commanding a unit"... which is what the disagreement is about in the first place.

Yes players command Units under their control. Normally, a player's unit cannot contain opponent's models; however, the mirror overrides the BrB in that case and does allow for an opponent's model to be in a player's unit, if only briefly.

I'm not sure I get your point ownership was not mentioned in that quote and when it was used its a synonym of command

There's no complaint at the concept of a unit containing opponents models because of a special rule so doesn't matter how many times that's stated its a straw

The problem is that if you interpret it that way the core rules break because you have two partial commanders of a unit and unless you can address Something as simple as how to allocate a wound it doesn't work. So far noone has provided a rules based quote to cover this or any of the other rules conflicts.

The best we have had is the dude confidently quoting the rule proving him wrong highlighting his failure in red while stateing confidently that it works fine if you just arbitrarily with no justification ignore the rules and pick one player to allocate it which is the player he wants but of course the second he cant justify with a rules quote why one commander allocates over the other hes just ignored the rules conflict not addressed it and he has tried and failed about 6 times and if he actually had an answer he would have given it by now but feel free to address the actual issue yourself with a rules quote I'll be happy to be proved wrong but it's about proving how two commanders work not proving you can have both models in a unit

And if you can't answer you can't allocate a wound and can't make an armour save and can't handle interaction like doctrina imperatives or save boosting strats. So clearly because of dual commandering your interpretation doesn't work at all.

I will therefore conclude the one that functions is a better raw interpretation even if it less intuitive because all the rules actually work and the only potential RAI problem with that interpretation is that it's unintuitive and the model can't hurt itself bit not clear that isn't RAI

It absolutely adds validit, because they're correct

Yes, your army is all models under your control, awesome. But irrelevant.

The unit is still your unit. It's written on your army roster. It never changes hands.

A model withih the unit might not be "yours" temporarily, but that does naff all to change the ownership of the unit. Absolutely nothing.

ownership isnt a defined term anywhere if you think it is supply a quote

If a model in that unit is in your army its under your control

it doesnt matter whose roster it started out under The model "is treated as being a model from your army for all rules purposes."

the unit has models in both armys the unit is therefore partially under both players control. Original ownership is irrelevant unless you can provide a quote saying otherwise

No, it's still my unit. It's writtten on my army list. It's mine. That never changes

Your inability to clearly understand the difference between the set and the members of the set is not our issue.

Being written on your army list is irrelevant the mirror rule states The model "is treated as being a model from your army for all rules purposes." Your army list is just a list of the models/units that started in your army

I understand the sets. you haven't substantiate ownership matters with rules quote you've just stated it

Your inability to substantiate your point with any rules evidence is the issue as it means your set doesn't matter

And until you do the problem with their unit remains one unit with models that belong to two different players it counts as being partially controlled by each army so the core rules can't resolve a wound

It is funny that we need to provide a rules quote that a unit remains under the command of the original player when you have yet to provide any quote saying the command of the unit changes when the command of one model in the unit changes.

Being a permissive rules set, there needs to be a rule that changes the command of the unit or it can’t happen. So where is your rule about unit, not model, command changing?

 alextroy wrote:
It is funny that we need to provide a rules quote that a unit remains under the command of the original player when you have yet to provide any quote saying the command of the unit changes when the command of one model in the unit changes.

Being a permissive rules set, there needs to be a rule that changes the command of the unit or it can’t happen. So where is your rule about unit, not model, command changing?

The unit as the ruleset says is made up of models. You've acknowledged command of the model changed - Therefore not all of the unit is commanded by one player... I am stating this doesn't have a resolution in the rules. I am proved correct every time you fail to provide a quote showing one. I dont have to show a rule showing it changes if I could show you one it would disprove my position that there is none - you claim to be right so you need to show a rule governing the interaction for units under partial control of both players if not i am proved correct

You can't prove a rule that doesn't exist exists

I can prove that what your saying works doesn't by you being unable to provide a quote showing it does because if your right it exists and so you should be able to show it to me

I see. You are requiring me to provide a rule that the command of the unit doesn’t change because you can’t provide a rule that says it does.

I do believe you have reached level P5 in your augment

As there is nothing constructive left to say, I will leave it to the readers to determine which of our reading of the rules is more persuasive.

Again. I do not care that the model swaps side. The massive, total and OBVIOUS problem you have is that nothing supports your made up nonsense that this unit is "partially" under my control now. It is under my control, as it is MY unit. The mirror diesnt give a toss about the unit allegiance. Just the models

The set ownership never changes. This is true. You have zero rules support. I'd stop while you're only this far behind.

 alextroy wrote:
I see. You are requiring me to provide a rule that the command of the unit doesn’t change because you can’t provide a rule that says it does.

I do believe you have reached level P5 in your augment

As there is nothing constructive left to say, I will leave it to the readers to determine which of our reading of the rules is more persuasive.

No I'm requiring you to provide either or one saying what happens and you may be right or else it is not defined and if it is not defined it doesn't work which proves me right because my position was there was no rule governing it and you have stated repeatedly that it works its basic argument to say can you support your position not just assert it.

I accept your acknowledgement of being wrong because you haven't provided the rules quote (and there is no middle ground)

Nosferatu won't acknowledge but is in the same boat of being unable to support their position I agree we are done

1) As the BRB says, all models in my army are controlled by me.

2)Also, separately, all units in my army are controlled by me.

If a special rule changes the ownership of a model in my army, it does not have any bearing on or interactions with point 2. The only relationship between the two rules is they are under the same header.

The Mirror gives me permission to ignore Rule 1, and doesn't interact with Rule 2 which functions normally and perfectly well.

I do not have to prove anything whatsoever with regards to rule 2, because it never even touches the case at hand. It is about as relevant as saying "but aircraft can't score objectives!!!!"

If 1 changes then part of that unit is not in that army

You have not established that the unit is still a unit in your army given not all the models in the unit are in your army.

you have stated it has no bearing on 2 you have not provided a quote supporting that.saying you don't have to prove it is code for I can't prove it and if you can't establish that you are wrong

U02dah4 wrote:
If 1 changes then part of that unit is not in that army

Why not? Remember, Codexes override BRB, and it's perfectly feasible just by overriding that one small rule to have a unit be part of an army, with a model within it that isn't part of an army. There's no requirement that every model in a unit be in an army in order for that unit to be in an army. Furthermore, "part of a unit" is an undefined term in the rules. A model, is what you mean. Which is exactly allowed by special exception thanks to the Mirror.

You have not established that the unit is still a unit in your army given not all the models in the unit are in your army.

Well, I have established the unit is in my army because it's in my army, on my army list.

It doesn't actually matter what army all the models in the unit are in, because that has no bearing on what army the unit is in in the BRB. Provided a special rule allowed, they could be owned by 12 different armies, all of which aren't yours. That wouldn't change that the unit is yours though, because why would it? What's the citation in the BRB that says "every model in a unit must be in the same army as that unit"?

you have stated it has no bearing on 2 you have not provided a quote supporting that.saying you don't have to prove it is code for I can't prove it and if you can't establish that you are wrong

That's because it's a permissive ruleset; since GW says what you're allowed to do, there's no reason for them to state what you're NOT allowed to do. You can ONLY do what you're allowed.

I have a quote from GW saying I am allowed to have a model in my unit that does not belong to my army. Do you have a quote that contradicts that that's more specific than the Codex (i.e. not BRB)?