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.

@Lucidicide
While I appreciate your comments, I honestly have to admit that anyone confused about what "joining" two things means, is well beyond the tenets of YMTC. We are not supposed to post definitions of words, but arguing the semantics of what the word "join" is, is also outside of the tenets of YMTC.

When something "joins" something, it is by definition becoming a part of what it has been united with, or joined.

Semantic arguments for "what does joined mean?" are not permitted in YMTC.

The line "While an IC is a part of unit," is more than adequate to claim that the act of "joining" clearly states that an IC + unit = a unit. How that can even be argued is well beyond my patience.

Whether or not the section in question refers to transport vehicles or transport rickshaws or transport monstrous creatures is also not applicable to RAW. By RAW, "a transport may carry a single infantry unit and/or IC". The inclusion of and/or does not mean that when considering IC + squad are one unit it's to clearly specify the permissions of the Transport.

A transport may carry:
- a single infantry unit
- any number of ICs

Trying to find an exception in this instance that somehow "a unit is not a unit" is beyond ridiculous. Once an IC is joined to a single infantry unit it is considered to be a single infantry unit.

Saldiven wrote:

Saldiven wrote:
If an IC (or multible IC's) joined to a unit were to be considered a single unit for the purpose of boarding a transport, why would they need to specify that IC's can ride with (the "and/or") another unit, and why did they not make that specification in the Spod rules?

Nobody has answered this question yet.

They didnt make that distinction in the spore pod rules because it is not legal to put an alpha warrior in a pod with other dudes.

paidinfull wrote:When something "joins" something, it is by definition becoming a part of what it has been united with, or joined.

Take a hypothetical bar/pub/nightclub [The Spod]. They only groups of people wearing red jumpers inside [A Single Unit]. If I Join a group of people wearing red jumpers, but I am wearing as blue one [A single unit with another single unit joined to it], are we allowed inside?

Saldiven wrote:

Saldiven wrote:
If an IC (or multible IC's) joined to a unit were to be considered a single unit for the purpose of boarding a transport, why would they need to specify that IC's can ride with (the "and/or") another unit, and why did they not make that specification in the Spod rules?

Nobody has answered this question yet.

That is because the sentence is structured so that it covers all bases including a single infantry unit, which is what happens when an IC joins a unit you have a single infantry unit, and or any number of ICs, meaning if I am somehow able to take 20 ICs all 20 could ride in the transport with 20 model capacity.

You're looking for ways to TWIST that somehow an IC + squad != a unit, which is just plain wrong.
The IC has JOINED the unit, so they are considered united, or ONE unit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gwar! wrote:

paidinfull wrote:When something "joins" something, it is by definition becoming a part of what it has been united with, or joined.

Take a hypothetical bar/pub/nightclub [The Spod]. They only groups of people wearing red jumpers inside [A Single Unit]. If I Join a group of people wearing red jumpers, but I am wearing as blue one [A single unit with another single unit joined to it], are we allowed inside?

There is no distinction in the Spore rules that say Blue or Red, IC or Not, it is simply a unit of 20, the number being the qualifying factor.
19+1 = 20

paidinfull wrote:@Lucidicide
While I appreciate your comments, I honestly have to admit that anyone confused about what "joining" two things means, is well beyond the tenets of YMTC. We are not supposed to post definitions of words, but arguing the semantics of what the word "join" is, is also outside of the tenets of YMTC.

When something "joins" something, it is by definition becoming a part of what it has been united with, or joined.

Semantic arguments for "what does joined mean?" are not permitted in YMTC.

A fair amount of this is questionable, at best.

Eidolon wrote:

DJ Illuminati wrote:I cant believe this went on for 3 pages....... its pretty obvious that the spore pod is a Drop-Pod with wounds instead of armor. Are "certain people" so set on twisting the rules that work into something that will just cause arguments until GW has to put out another Errata to shut them up.

The facts have been shown.....RAI & RAW: the S-Pod is a freaking Drop-pod..........now play your games.

i thought drop pods could only carry 12 models, not 20. And they have av 12 open topped, not feth gobs of wounds.

Cant see the forest for all the trees.........

Space wolf drop pods hold 10 models......are they no longer drop pods?

The Landraider Crusader holds more than a standard Landraider and has completely different weapons, is it no longer a Landraider?

The point I was making was how it uses the same general rules and functions the same way as a drop pod. Minor details such as max-load, weapons, and armor or lack of (wounds), are not connected to how the unit functions as a transport.

DJ Illuminati wrote:

Eidolon wrote:

DJ Illuminati wrote:I cant believe this went on for 3 pages....... its pretty obvious that the spore pod is a Drop-Pod with wounds instead of armor. Are "certain people" so set on twisting the rules that work into something that will just cause arguments until GW has to put out another Errata to shut them up.

The facts have been shown.....RAI & RAW: the S-Pod is a freaking Drop-pod..........now play your games.

i thought drop pods could only carry 12 models, not 20. And they have av 12 open topped, not feth gobs of wounds.

Cant see the forest for all the trees.........

had to stop reading here, a forest is nothing but a collection of trees. A set number for example. Given any piece of land of a certain size, and with a certain minimum amount of trees on it in a certain minimum density and you have a forest.

Gwar! wrote:

paidinfull wrote:When something "joins" something, it is by definition becoming a part of what it has been united with, or joined.

Take a hypothetical bar/pub/nightclub [The Spod]. They only groups of people wearing red jumpers inside [A Single Unit]. If I Join a group of people wearing red jumpers, but I am wearing as blue one [A single unit with another single unit joined to it], are we allowed inside?

The same group of Red jumpers and the one blue jumper get drunk and trash the place, the cops are called......the Paddy Wagon holds all of the drunken group, not just the red jumpers. The rowdy group (red+1 Blue) are all taken to jail as one group.

This thread is getting way off topic

Eidolon wrote:

DJ Illuminati wrote:

Eidolon wrote:

DJ Illuminati wrote:I cant believe this went on for 3 pages....... its pretty obvious that the spore pod is a Drop-Pod with wounds instead of armor. Are "certain people" so set on twisting the rules that work into something that will just cause arguments until GW has to put out another Errata to shut them up.

The facts have been shown.....RAI & RAW: the S-Pod is a freaking Drop-pod..........now play your games.

i thought drop pods could only carry 12 models, not 20. And they have av 12 open topped, not feth gobs of wounds.

Cant see the forest for all the trees.........

had to stop reading here, a forest is nothing but a collection of trees. A set number for example. Given any piece of land of a certain size, and with a certain minimum amount of trees on it in a certain minimum density and you have a forest.

Feel free to read the rest..... it makes your statement all the more accurate

First, I would like to state that I'd be perfectly ok with letting any of my friends put an IC in a spore pod unless there was something blatantly obvious that tells me otherwise. I don't think this is obvious one way or the other. I would prefer to let my friends have fun than not see an Alpha Warrior near my models.

Second, I am not making a semantic argument. My point was that I don't see anywhere in the rules where it actually says a unit joined by an IC counts as one unit. *It might.* But I don't see it. I did not discuss what joined means, I pointed out the distinction between "join" and "is the same as." I think that the line you bring up, that of "While an IC is a part of unit" is telling, along with the fact that it refers to multiple ICs hanging out together as a "multi-character unit." I also see *other* things in the rulebook that are leading to the confusion, such as a Dedicated Transport section being listed under the subsection of vehicles.

Third, I understand your impatience with the argument and the fact that you find this ridiculous. There are some good reasons for that. However, here we both are on a forum about arguing the rules... arguing the rules. If it is really cut and dry, you wouldn't feel the need to argue it. And maybe you're at that point, and that's cool.

So, that said. I think you're *probably* right. However, it is an issue that I think deserves some of the discussion it's getting because of some of the inconsistencies. I think this topic is suffering from the dual discussion of dedicated transport vs transport vehicle *and* the discussion of ICs and whether or not they form one unit. I am comfortable, at this point, saying that ICs are a part of a unit that they join at least as far as transports are concerned.

DJ Illuminati wrote:Space wolf drop pods hold 10 models......are they no longer drop pods?

The Landraider Crusader holds more than a standard Landraider and has completely different weapons, is it no longer a Landraider?

The point I was making was how it uses the same general rules and functions the same way as a drop pod. Minor details such as max-load, weapons, and armor or lack of (wounds), are not connected to how the unit functions as a transport.

No, they are Space Wolf Drop Pods.
No, they are Land Raider Crusaders

I don't get your point?

Gwar! wrote:

DJ Illuminati wrote:Space wolf drop pods hold 10 models......are they no longer drop pods?

The Landraider Crusader holds more than a standard Landraider and has completely different weapons, is it no longer a Landraider?

The point I was making was how it uses the same general rules and functions the same way as a drop pod. Minor details such as max-load, weapons, and armor or lack of (wounds), are not connected to how the unit functions as a transport.

No, they are Space Wolf Drop Pods.
No, they are Land Raider Crusaders

I don't get your point?

Your being anti semantic gwar, you rules NAZI

@lucidide
Thank you for the well thought out response.

Why do you feel there is a case FOR when an IC joins a unit, the IC + squad are not considered a single unit?

My stance is the act of joining is to take multiple parts and make them one. So by saying in the rules, "the IC joined the unit", it is in fact saying they are now one unit. That is why I do not feel it needs to explicitly state they are a unit, because it just did.

All the discussion about joining, is really what is weirding me out, if the IC and the squad were NOT one unit, when I fired my weapons during the shooting phase from one unit to another, I would be able to always fire at an IC because he would be considered a "separate" unit as Gwar and others are arguing.

Gwar! wrote:

DJ Illuminati wrote:Space wolf drop pods hold 10 models......are they no longer drop pods?

The Landraider Crusader holds more than a standard Landraider and has completely different weapons, is it no longer a Landraider?

The point I was making was how it uses the same general rules and functions the same way as a drop pod. Minor details such as max-load, weapons, and armor or lack of (wounds), are not connected to how the unit functions as a transport.

No, they are Space Wolf Drop Pods.
No, they are Land Raider Crusaders

I don't get your point?

Oh nooeesss...... just like back when we argued about if a Leman Russ Battle tank is the same as a Leman Russ Squadron of just 1, as per the Witch Hunter codex........and you were proven wrong with the Errata that came out........I wounder if this is a similar situation.......

DJ Illuminati wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

DJ Illuminati wrote:Space wolf drop pods hold 10 models......are they no longer drop pods?

The Landraider Crusader holds more than a standard Landraider and has completely different weapons, is it no longer a Landraider?

The point I was making was how it uses the same general rules and functions the same way as a drop pod. Minor details such as max-load, weapons, and armor or lack of (wounds), are not connected to how the unit functions as a transport.

No, they are Space Wolf Drop Pods.
No, they are Land Raider Crusaders

I don't get your point?

Oh nooeesss...... just like back when we argued about if a Leman Russ Battle tank is the same as a Leman Russ Squadron of just 1, as per the Witch Hunter codex........and you were proven wrong with the Errata that came out........I wounder if this is a similar situation.......

and you were proven wrong with the Errata that came out

The errata cannot prove or disprove anything, its simply a disagreement with Gwar on GWs part. Which as they have repeatedly demonstrated, especially since Jervis "I hate tournaments" Johnson took over they are incapable of making a balanced, or clear rules set. GW has more authority but is not necessarily right.

@paidinfull
I actually think that they both are and aren't part of the same unit, and I *know* that is an annoying argument to make and I apologize in advance, haha.

Shooting at ICs: "Independent characters that have joined a unit are considered part of that unit and so may not be picked out as targets." Pg 49. And continuing later in the same section: "Independent characters that have not joined a unit can be targeted as normal, being separate units."

So, clearly an IC is a unit on its own. It says that the IC is "considered part of" a unit that it has joined. I find it incredibly likely that when an IC joins a unit that are considered one unit for many purposes -- and those purposes are outlined in the rules. However, these rules strike me as exception-based rules *because* of the fact that ICs are units in their own rights. You cannot target an IC that has joined a unit because of the specific rules that say that ICs that have joined a unit begin to function differently. If, on some level, they were simply one unit, they would not necessarily need to specify the rule above. Because of this, it seems like an exception to normal targeting, and implies to me that they remain two units.

That is where my case for them being two units comes in. But you have your own case, and being "considered part of" is a pretty big deal in that regard.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DJ Illuminati wrote:

Oh nooeesss...... just like back when we argued about if a Leman Russ Battle tank is the same as a Leman Russ Squadron of just 1, as per the Witch Hunter codex........and you were proven wrong with the Errata that came out........I wounder if this is a similar situation.......

DJ Illuminati, I feel you are taking this discussion way off track. Errata cannot prove anything wrong. It is a *rules change*. In effect, it might make more sense to say that the errata proved Gwar! right (even though I don't even know what we're talking about), and that GW didn't like that so they changed it.

And your earlier argument that they follow the same rules as a drop pod so treat them accordingly... all infantry follow the same general rules, too. Does that mean that my IG get rules that apply to SMs such as ATSKNF? You cannot, in logic, apply generals to specifics. Airplanes can fly. Cockpits cannot. Spore pods may follow rules for dedicated transports, but that does *not* mean they act like a completely different thing, no matter how many similarities they share.

Eidolon wrote:

The errata cannot prove or disprove anything, its simply a disagreement with Gwar on GWs part. Which as they have repeatedly demonstrated, especially since Jervis "I hate tournaments" Johnson took over they are incapable of making a balanced, or clear rules set. GW has more authority but is not necessarily right.

With that kind of logic I can assume that Codexs are simply a disagreement with Gwar on GW's part..........

If GW has more authority than Gwar, and they are the ones that made the game, I can conclude that GW is right and we should follow their rules (both RAW and RAI)

If Gwar wants to be undisputed "lord of all rules", than may I suggest that he create his own game and let us nit-pic his product for years at a time and complain about how sloppy he put it together.

This fun little banter we are having now is why Mods tend to get called into these threads to shut them down.

Gwar has but a single viewpoint on an issue no matter how much is proven to him, and I fully believe that the game was ment to be played for fun, and will full argue to defend anyone that has a reasonable RAI view. Like clash of the titans.........


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lucidicide wrote:
DJ Illuminati, I feel you are taking this discussion way off track. Errata cannot prove anything wrong. It is a *rules change*. In effect, it might make more sense to say that the errata proved Gwar! right (even though I don't even know what we're talking about), and that GW didn't like that so they changed it.

And your earlier argument that they follow the same rules as a drop pod so treat them accordingly... all infantry follow the same general rules, too. Does that mean that my IG get rules that apply to SMs such as ATSKNF? You cannot, in logic, apply generals to specifics. Airplanes can fly. Cockpits cannot. Spore pods may follow rules for dedicated transports, but that does *not* mean they act like a completely different thing, no matter how many similarities they share.

A rules change or clarification? An errata is nothing more than a statement of an error and its correction. Poorly written rules are a very common form of error on GWs part.

I do agree with you that you cannot apply general to specific, and thus my example may be a little off, however I still maintain that the simularity seems to be intentional as opposed to the argument that the rules "must" be completely different simply because it has wounds instead of an Armor value.

Lucidicide - see the quote i posted ont eh previous page, which states that ICs become just a normal member of the unit once all attacks have been made.

The other glaring error in this whole argument is that a unit of less than 20 models can't have a Spode? Thats how it looks from all of the single unit that must be 20 or 1 MC arguments go. That would also be really dumb.

"Sorry sir, you only have 19 models in that unit no spod for you."

"But I don't ahve the extra 6 points for another hormy!"

"Sorry, dem da rules. But hey with out dat pod you gets more points. So you got enough now!"

DJ Illuminati wrote:
A rules change or clarification? An errata is nothing more than a statement of an error and its correction. Poorly written rules are a very common form of error on GWs part.

If the errata was an error, and Gwar! was in error... does that make a right? In either case, I think the issue would be settled if we know if it was a rules change or a clarification. I certainly don't know because I don't even know what argument we're talking about, but if you do, more power to you.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Lucidicide - see the quote i posted on the previous page, which states that ICs become just a normal member of the unit once all attacks have been made.

I think this is a good point. Honestly, I'd just read what you quoted last time and didn't read the rule itself. I think that, in terms of whether ICs are a part of a unit (rather than simply being attached) and therefore considered "one unit", the case is definitely stronger on the "one unit" side. Between this point in the rulebook and paidinfull's points, I think there are enough references to them being treated as one unit/a part of the unit that it's safe to say that they are, for the purposes of transport capacity, one unit.

And without a Nid codex, I'm not going to touch on the specific Spore Pod debate.

Thanks everyone, you've convinced me. Haha.

Strimen - that is not correct, the codex (where models CAN be above 20) includes "20 or less"

Ok guys remember I am still a newb so please bear with me. I don't have the skills like paysinfull, so I have to write it out. I am on page 48 BRB. First words in the second paragraph "In order to join a unit," See it says to join a unit. To me that is the IC becoming one with a unit so it's One unit not two units.

Also, if you keep reading in the bullets on page 48 right side it says " Alternatively an independent character may begin the game already with a unit , by being deployed in coherncy with them."

So to me, that mean an IC and another unit when joined become One unit. So if an Alpha Warrior joins 19 gaunts, it becomes a unit with 20 models.

No if I made a mistake here, please show me where I made a mistake.

Davor wrote:No if I made a mistake here, please show me where I made a mistake.

At no point does it say "they become 1 unit".

Actually it does - seem my rules quote. You cannot "go back" to being a normal member of a unit if you don't start off being a normal member prior to the assault phase...

They still arent the same unit on force organization chart. And what is meant by unit here? Since pods come in at the start of the game I would assume that in terms of unit they mean one force org unit, not game unit.

Judging by my past experiences reading YMTC... I am going to assume the argument here is that being "treated as" is not the same as being. Gwar! is right when he says that there are no points where it says they become one unit. In a sense, there would be a major issue if it was ever the case. Units have many specific rules that ICs do not follow, and therefore the IC must always be treated differently.

This is why I think the best argument is that they are one unit for certain purposes (at the very least, targeting them or assaulting them), but they are two units for other purposes. The BRB is not clear on this issue. The rulebook only ever makes references to "joined" "considered part of" and "treated as." It never says that they are one unit, which is why this discussion continues. There is no definitive clarity in the book.

I think instead, you have to go with what the rulebook is giving you. In this case, there is nothing definitive saying that they are one unit. Generally, without something saying they are (when we have so many specific rules governing ICs, you'd think they'd mention it), it is better to assume they are not. However, as this argument related to the Spore Pod which apparently says "one unit", I think the IC exception that is generally given to transports does apply, and thus you can get an IC in a Spore Pod.

And this argument seems to come down to whether the Spore Pod is treated like all other transports, which happen to be vehicles. If this discussion could be settled (i.e. do spore pods allow ICs to join), it would settle the issue. The only reason the question of one unit is coming up is because Nids don't have vehicles.

As stated before, I'm hesitant to say that ICs do become "one unit" as is being argued. That said, I am comfortable saying that, for the purposes of transport capacity, they function *as if* they are one unit. At this point, it might be better to argue the transport problem more than the one unit problem.

The argument that [no where does it say "they become one unit"] is completely ignoring the statement that an IC "joins" a squad. That is more than enough of a statement that the units are indeed one, because when you join one part, with another part, you do not have two separate parts... you have one. That does not mean that later they can't be separated but while they are "joined", they are one.

That argument is also ignoring the clear RAW of statements like "while an IC is part of a unit", if they aren't one, how can an IC be "a part of a unit"?

I'm sorry but that argument holds no substance in this context.

Eidolon wrote:They still arent the same unit on force organization chart. And what is meant by unit here? Since pods come in at the start of the game I would assume that in terms of unit they mean one force org unit, not game unit.

FOC *selection* is entirely seperate to *unit* - see IG, who can have 1 FOC *selection* that is many units.

Selection /= unit

Lucidicide - Except they *do* say they are one unit - if something "goes back to being a normal member of the unit" it can only be a single unit. Unless you are somehow claiming you can have 2 units that are somehow normal members of each?

DJ Illuminati wrote:

Oh nooeesss...... just like back when we argued about if a Leman Russ Battle tank is the same as a Leman Russ Squadron of just 1, as per the Witch Hunter codex........and you were proven wrong with the Errata that came out........I wounder if this is a similar situation.......

Um...if he were wrong, there would have been no need for an errata.