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.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
Unit type is a Model by Model Rule, it is a part of a model's profile.

A Unit of Guardians with an attached Autarch on a jetbike does not Change either the Guardian's, nor the Autarch's Unit types, they are still infantry and he is still Jetbike.

They are, however, still as a whole a unit of guardians; and thus would be the preferred enemy of a unit that had preferred enemy(Guardians).

"still as a whole a unit of guardians" If there's a jetbike in the unit, the whole unit is not guardians. Properly the as a whole it is a unit of guardians and a jetbike.

As the Unit has no type, only its models. Why would you ignore its type when the unit is being attacked? It just as relevant as every other models unit type as it is a member for all rules purposes.

 Abandon wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
Unit type is a Model by Model Rule, it is a part of a model's profile.

A Unit of Guardians with an attached Autarch on a jetbike does not Change either the Guardian's, nor the Autarch's Unit types, they are still infantry and he is still Jetbike.

They are, however, still as a whole a unit of guardians; and thus would be the preferred enemy of a unit that had preferred enemy(Guardians).

"still as a whole a unit of guardians" If there's a jetbike in the unit, the whole unit is not guardians. Properly the as a whole it is a unit of guardians and a jetbike.

As the Unit has no type, only its models. Why would you ignore its type when the unit is being attacked? It just as relevant as every other models unit type as it is a member for all rules purposes.

The reason the Autarch's Jetbike profile doesn't count is because IC states they count as part of the unit for all rules purposes.

 Nilok wrote:
[The reason the Autarch's Jetbike profile doesn't count is because IC states they count as part of the unit for all rules purposes.

But the Unit Type is decided in the Model's stat line, not the Unit's.

Jefffar wrote:

 Nilok wrote:
[The reason the Autarch's Jetbike profile doesn't count is because IC states they count as part of the unit for all rules purposes.

But the Unit Type is decided in the Model's stat line, not the Unit's.

And when you shoot you are shooting at a Guardian unit. What is the unit type of Guardians?

 Nilok wrote:

 Abandon wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
Unit type is a Model by Model Rule, it is a part of a model's profile.

A Unit of Guardians with an attached Autarch on a jetbike does not Change either the Guardian's, nor the Autarch's Unit types, they are still infantry and he is still Jetbike.

They are, however, still as a whole a unit of guardians; and thus would be the preferred enemy of a unit that had preferred enemy(Guardians).

"still as a whole a unit of guardians" If there's a jetbike in the unit, the whole unit is not guardians. Properly the as a whole it is a unit of guardians and a jetbike.

As the Unit has no type, only its models. Why would you ignore its type when the unit is being attacked? It just as relevant as every other models unit type as it is a member for all rules purposes.

The reason the Autarch's Jetbike profile doesn't count is because IC states they count as part of the unit for all rules purposes.

That somehow means the Autarch is not being attacked like the rest of the unit?

"part of the unit for all rules purposes" means he is being attacked just like every other member of the unit and that its unit type means just as much as every other models unit type in the unit.
The fact that units do not have a type means that the IC is not joining an infantry unit, it is just joining a unit that is comprised of infantry. After the Autarch joins that changes to mostly infantry and one jetbike because it counts as "part of the unit for all rules purposes". It does not change any unit type, it just adds it to the unit.

Also, I don't know why there would be a need for mixed unit type rules. The IC rules cover what the codex's don't. Rules govern different movement rate/rules, shooting requirements, etc.

Abandon is spot on, for how units work.
Again Hatred and all codex specific rules (such as BA priest) wouldn't work at all otherwise. A member go all rules purposes means they function as a member, and not a seperate unit, for all rules purposes. Rules purposes that don't pertain to being a unit member don't apply from that statement.

None of this matters though, just ask your TO / play group and know ahead of time so you don't get in trouble expecting it to work one way and then find out that isn't how they play it.

 Abandon wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
Unit type is a Model by Model Rule, it is a part of a model's profile.

A Unit of Guardians with an attached Autarch on a jetbike does not Change either the Guardian's, nor the Autarch's Unit types, they are still infantry and he is still Jetbike.

They are, however, still as a whole a unit of guardians; and thus would be the preferred enemy of a unit that had preferred enemy(Guardians).

"still as a whole a unit of guardians" If there's a jetbike in the unit, the whole unit is not guardians. Properly the as a whole it is a unit of guardians and a jetbike.

As the Unit has no type, only its models. Why would you ignore its type when the unit is being attacked? It just as relevant as every other models unit type as it is a member for all rules purposes.

The unit is a unit of Guardians, having a Jetboke Autarch in it does not in anyway change this fact.

Powers/abilities that target Guardians effect the unit just the same.

The same thing can be said with Tau. Darkstrider can only join Fire Warrior or Pathfinder units. If an Ethereal, Commander, or farseer joins the Fire warrior unit it is still a Fire Warrior unit and thuis Darkstrider can still join them. This is because ICs join units and becomes part of the unit.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

 Abandon wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
Unit type is a Model by Model Rule, it is a part of a model's profile.

A Unit of Guardians with an attached Autarch on a jetbike does not Change either the Guardian's, nor the Autarch's Unit types, they are still infantry and he is still Jetbike.

They are, however, still as a whole a unit of guardians; and thus would be the preferred enemy of a unit that had preferred enemy(Guardians).

"still as a whole a unit of guardians" If there's a jetbike in the unit, the whole unit is not guardians. Properly the as a whole it is a unit of guardians and a jetbike.

As the Unit has no type, only its models. Why would you ignore its type when the unit is being attacked? It just as relevant as every other models unit type as it is a member for all rules purposes.

The unit is a unit of Guardians, having a Jetboke Autarch in it does not in anyway change this fact.

Powers/abilities that target Guardians effect the unit just the same.

The same thing can be said with Tau. Darkstrider can only join Fire Warrior or Pathfinder units. If an Ethereal, Commander, or farseer joins the Fire warrior unit it is still a Fire Warrior unit and thuis Darkstrider can still join them. This is because ICs join units and becomes part of the unit.

No one is arguing against preferred enemy guardians applying even with the jetbike in there.
But you are still attacking a jetbike to, because it is a member of the unit for all rules purposes, and therefore a factor for all things related to the attacking the unit such as line of sight, majority toughness, Morale tests, characteristic tests, sweeping advance, wargear, special rules, etc. it goes on and on and on... to say that, all those things are special cases is just nuts.

So why would preferred enemy "Jetbike" not apply, without it specifically saying in a FAQ that it stops applying?
Everything is the rulebook is a special case for being on a model basis (such as all members of the unit or at least one member), but this one example is the normal case for how units are attacked? That just doesn't add up.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

 Abandon wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
Unit type is a Model by Model Rule, it is a part of a model's profile.

A Unit of Guardians with an attached Autarch on a jetbike does not Change either the Guardian's, nor the Autarch's Unit types, they are still infantry and he is still Jetbike.

They are, however, still as a whole a unit of guardians; and thus would be the preferred enemy of a unit that had preferred enemy(Guardians).

"still as a whole a unit of guardians" If there's a jetbike in the unit, the whole unit is not guardians. Properly the as a whole it is a unit of guardians and a jetbike.

As the Unit has no type, only its models. Why would you ignore its type when the unit is being attacked? It just as relevant as every other models unit type as it is a member for all rules purposes.

The unit is a unit of Guardians, having a Jetboke Autarch in it does not in anyway change this fact.

Powers/abilities that target Guardians effect the unit just the same.

The same thing can be said with Tau. Darkstrider can only join Fire Warrior or Pathfinder units. If an Ethereal, Commander, or farseer joins the Fire warrior unit it is still a Fire Warrior unit and thuis Darkstrider can still join them. This is because ICs join units and becomes part of the unit.

I'm not sure we are in disagreement here as I've said nothing to the contrary of any of this. A unit with at least one guardian in it is a unit of guardians. That is not to say that is all it is if one or more ICs join it.

To put my view down concisely, you can never attack a Fire Warrior unit because that does not exist. You can only attack a unit that has Fire Warriors in it, AKA a unit of Fire Warriors. Since a unit has no type it is only associated with the Fire Warrior type because of its models. PE works because the models are the unit and there is no distinction between the two. As only the whole unit can be attacked (special rules aside) every model in the unit is being attacked so PE(Fire Warrior) triggers when you do so.

I understand why one might think of it the other way but the fact is BRB does not state that units have a type. The only way a unit type becomes associated with a unit is by its models and therefore an addition of one or more models of another type adds that association as well.

Consider this scenario:

A unit of Fire Warriors is joined by three ICs. All the Fire Warriors are subsequently killed. None of them have been permitted to leave the unit and none of them are the last one in the unit. Do you think it's still a unit of Fire Warriors?

I read through the entire thread and reached a final conclusion.

You are all, every single one of you, right. and wrong.

Point is, the PE rules, as written, simply does not WORK without interpretation, and as interpretation goes, it changes based on perspective.

There are too many possible cases where you mix ICs of different armies, units with multiple unit types and etc, where there is no longer a clear cut if the unit is a "unit X" or not at that point.
So without proper ruling whether PE works on "at least one proper target", "majorety of proper targets" or "exclusively proper targets" there is just no telling how those odd interactions work.

FAQ required. someone British call GWS and ask them to clear it up.

If the unit is still a unit of Guardians(which it is); and you agree that it would be affected by Preferred Enemy(Guardians) with a Jetbike Autarch attached, then it would still be affected when a Battlesuit Commander is attached.

Since the unit of guardians is still affected by Preferred enemy(guardians), then the same unit with the same Battlesuit Commander would still be affected by a unit with Preferred Enemy(Eldar).

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
If the unit is still a unit of Guardians(which it is); and you agree that it would be affected by Preferred Enemy(Guardians) with a Jetbike Autarch attached, then it would still be affected when a Battlesuit Commander is attached.

Since the unit of guardians is still affected by Preferred enemy(guardians), then the same unit with the same Battlesuit Commander would still be affected by a unit with Preferred Enemy(Eldar).

Yes and it would, in my view, also be affected by Preferred enemy Tau.

 BoomWolf wrote:
I read through the entire thread and reached a final conclusion.

You are all, every single one of you, right. and wrong.

Point is, the PE rules, as written, simply does not WORK without interpretation, and as interpretation goes, it changes based on perspective.

There are too many possible cases where you mix ICs of different armies, units with multiple unit types and etc, where there is no longer a clear cut if the unit is a "unit X" or not at that point.
So without proper ruling whether PE works on "at least one proper target", "majorety of proper targets" or "exclusively proper targets" there is just no telling how those odd interactions work.

FAQ required. someone British call GWS and ask them to clear it up.

More less my point. A unit is composed of models. Attacking the unit is attacking the models. There is no guidance anywhere that says that PE ties to having any specific number of models in the unit. So as its written, PE will always be applied unfairly in mixed units. Either it applies to something it shouldn't or and doesn't apply to something it should. With a proper FAQ at least players will know in advance instead of deciding on the fly.

Yep that just about solves it.

Kisada II wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
If the unit is still a unit of Guardians(which it is); and you agree that it would be affected by Preferred Enemy(Guardians) with a Jetbike Autarch attached, then it would still be affected when a Battlesuit Commander is attached.

Since the unit of guardians is still affected by Preferred enemy(guardians), then the same unit with the same Battlesuit Commander would still be affected by a unit with Preferred Enemy(Eldar).

Yes and it would, in my view, also be affected by Preferred enemy Tau.

No because it is an Eldar Unit; the Tau just joined it and became a member of that unit for all rules purposes(meaning that a rule that effect Tau units would no longer apply as he is not a tau unit, he is a member of an eldar unit)

If the entire unit dies along with the Battlesuit Commander it would count as if you had destroyed one eldar unit. So coming from that angle you would not get preferred enemy Tau against the unit.

Kommissar Kel wrote:If the unit is still a unit of Guardians(which it is); and you agree that it would be affected by Preferred Enemy(Guardians) with a Jetbike Autarch attached, then it would still be affected when a Battlesuit Commander is attached.

Since the unit of guardians is still affected by Preferred enemy(guardians), then the same unit with the same Battlesuit Commander would still be affected by a unit with Preferred Enemy(Eldar).

Kommissar Kel wrote:

Kisada II wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
If the unit is still a unit of Guardians(which it is); and you agree that it would be affected by Preferred Enemy(Guardians) with a Jetbike Autarch attached, then it would still be affected when a Battlesuit Commander is attached.

Since the unit of guardians is still affected by Preferred enemy(guardians), then the same unit with the same Battlesuit Commander would still be affected by a unit with Preferred Enemy(Eldar).

Yes and it would, in my view, also be affected by Preferred enemy Tau.

No because it is an Eldar Unit; the Tau just joined it and became a member of that unit for all rules purposes(meaning that a rule that effect Tau units would no longer apply as he is not a tau unit, he is a member of an eldar unit)

What makes it an Eldar unit? It's because the models in it are eldar. Adding in a Tau model makes it both Eldar and Tau. You cannot ignore it's type and codex affiliation any more than you can ignore the original models types and codex affiliations because it is a member for all rules purposes (meaning that the unit of Eldar now has a Tau mixed in with it)

Grey Knight Dillon wrote:If the entire unit dies along with the Battlesuit Commander it would count as if you had destroyed one eldar unit. So coming from that angle you would not get preferred enemy Tau against the unit.

Actually that would count as destroying two units with VPs handed out accordingly. EDIT: This actually lends to the idea that unit(IC) is combined with unit(X) into unit(X + IC)

Also, I noted my earlier question has not been answered.

 Abandon wrote:

A unit of Fire Warriors is joined by three ICs. All the Fire Warriors are subsequently killed. None of them have been permitted to leave the unit and none of them are the last one in the unit. Do you think it's still a unit of Fire Warriors?

To your last question - until the end of the phase, yes it's a unit of Fire Warriors.

And adding a Tau IC to an Eldar unit does not make it a Eldar + Tau unit. The Tau unit ceases to exist so the only unit left is Eldar.

So, following that logic, if a SM IC joins a tau unit, he gains the benefits of markerlights used by the squad?

 BoomWolf wrote:
So, following that logic, if a SM IC joins a tau unit, he gains the benefits of markerlights used by the squad?

What do the markerlight rules actually say?
I'm pretty sure it says something along the lines of models from Codex: Tau, but I could be wrong.

But isn't the unit a Tau Codex unit at that point? Or are we allowed to consider the individual models that make up a unit?

Jefffar wrote:
But isn't the unit a Tau Codex unit at that point? Or are we allowed to consider the individual models that make up a unit?

This basically sums up the argument. You cant have one rule go your way and not the other.

Page 3 5th paragraph "Warriors Tend to band together in squads, teams, sections or similarly named groups-individuals do not normally go wondering off on there own for obvious reasons! In warhammer 40,000 we represent this by grouping models together in units. A unit usually consist of several models that have banded together, but a single powerful model, such as a lone character, a tank a war engine or a rampaging monster, is also considered a unit in its own right.

Preferred Enemy Page 40 3 paragraph, Second to last sentence: a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule re-rolls failed to hit and wound rolls of 1 if attacking its preferred enemy.

Notice it does NOT say enemy unit. Hence if it did you could not shoot at an IC in the open. So CLEARLY RAW says you can use PE on individual models.


Nothing there says when a character joins a unit he is wholly absorbed in that unit and no longer a model. IC have it lucky they can leave or join as they wish and RAW if he takes focusfire that character is subject to be targeted as PE if he is being shot at by anything that has him preferred.

osirisx69 wrote:
Notice it does NOT say enemy unit. Hence if it did you could not shoot at an IC in the open. So CLEARLY RAW says you can use PE on individual models.

ICs in the open are absolutely a unit.
Since your "Hence" statement is incorrect, anything derived from it cannot be correct.

And it is a Codex: Tau unit - that's why I asked for the wording on markerlights.

rigeld2 wrote:

osirisx69 wrote:
Notice it does NOT say enemy unit. Hence if it did you could not shoot at an IC in the open. So CLEARLY RAW says you can use PE on individual models.

ICs in the open are absolutely a unit.
Since your "Hence" statement is incorrect, anything derived from it cannot be correct.

And it is a Codex: Tau unit - that's why I asked for the wording on markerlights.

you are incorrect. I posted the correct page number sentence and words that prove my point.

post your page numbers or sentence's to prove I am not correct.

anything is either RAI or just making stuff up.

osirisx69 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

osirisx69 wrote:
Notice it does NOT say enemy unit. Hence if it did you could not shoot at an IC in the open. So CLEARLY RAW says you can use PE on individual models.

ICs in the open are absolutely a unit.
Since your "Hence" statement is incorrect, anything derived from it cannot be correct.

And it is a Codex: Tau unit - that's why I asked for the wording on markerlights.

you are incorrect. I posted the correct page number sentence and words that prove my point.

post your page numbers or sentence's to prove I am not correct.

anything is either RAI or just making stuff up.

Prove that lone ICs are units?
You posted it.

but a single powerful model, such as a lone character,

Further, if they were not a unit they could not ever move or shoot unless joined to a unit (since you nominate units, not models to do those things).
Further, if they were not a unit they could not ever be targeted (since you target units, not models).
Page 39 - Independent Characters can join other units - implying they are a unit themselves.
This continues when ICs are allowed to join other ICs - meaning they are joining another unit.

There's more, but hopefully you'll see that lone ICs are absolutely a unit.

rigeld2 wrote:

osirisx69 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

osirisx69 wrote:
Notice it does NOT say enemy unit. Hence if it did you could not shoot at an IC in the open. So CLEARLY RAW says you can use PE on individual models.

ICs in the open are absolutely a unit.
Since your "Hence" statement is incorrect, anything derived from it cannot be correct.

And it is a Codex: Tau unit - that's why I asked for the wording on markerlights.

you are incorrect. I posted the correct page number sentence and words that prove my point.

post your page numbers or sentence's to prove I am not correct.

anything is either RAI or just making stuff up.

Prove that lone ICs are units?
You posted it.

but a single powerful model, such as a lone character,

Further, if they were not a unit they could not ever move or shoot unless joined to a unit (since you nominate units, not models to do those things).
Further, if they were not a unit they could not ever be targeted (since you target units, not models).
Page 39 - Independent Characters can join other units - implying they are a unit themselves.
This continues when ICs are allowed to join other ICs - meaning they are joining another unit.

There's more, but hopefully you'll see that lone ICs are absolutely a unit.

"Since your "Hence" statement is incorrect, anything derived from it cannot be correct." that's the sentence you are incorrect about.

Please post page number to prove your point.

Good job picking out the only thing I agreed with you on and posting a WHOLE book about how you agreed. That was awesome!

There was no sarcasm in that sentence BTW! I really do think its awesome.

osirisx69 wrote:

osirisx69 wrote:
Notice it does NOT say enemy unit. Hence if it did you could not shoot at an IC in the open. So CLEARLY RAW says you can use PE on individual models.

"Since your "Hence" statement is incorrect, anything derived from it cannot be correct." that's the sentence you are incorrect about.

PE does not say enemy unit. The only way to read your "Hence" sentence (which is poorly constructed) is that you're saying ICs in the open cannot be shot (with PE) because they're not units - they're an individual model. This works with the next sentence that says "So clearly RAW says you can use PE on individual models."

If I interpreted your "Hence" sentence incorrectly, please clarify it. I don't see any other way to read it in context.

rigeld2 wrote:

osirisx69 wrote:

osirisx69 wrote:
Notice it does NOT say enemy unit. Hence if it did you could not shoot at an IC in the open. So CLEARLY RAW says you can use PE on individual models.

"Since your "Hence" statement is incorrect, anything derived from it cannot be correct." that's the sentence you are incorrect about.

PE does not say enemy unit. The only way to read your "Hence" sentence (which is poorly constructed) is that you're saying ICs in the open cannot be shot (with PE) because they're not units - they're an individual model. This works with the next sentence that says "So clearly RAW says you can use PE on individual models."

If I interpreted your "Hence" sentence incorrectly, please clarify it. I don't see any other way to read it in context.

ahh I see sorry about that.

RAW state IC are considered units in there own right. No where in the rules does it say "when you join an ally unit with an IC he now immune to PE from enemy attacks.

Since this is a permissive game and we are already given permission to use PE against said IC there are NO rules stating he is immune or cant be targeted or CC'ed with PE if he joins an ally that is of different codex then him.

osirisx69 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

osirisx69 wrote:

osirisx69 wrote:
Notice it does NOT say enemy unit. Hence if it did you could not shoot at an IC in the open. So CLEARLY RAW says you can use PE on individual models.

"Since your "Hence" statement is incorrect, anything derived from it cannot be correct." that's the sentence you are incorrect about.

PE does not say enemy unit. The only way to read your "Hence" sentence (which is poorly constructed) is that you're saying ICs in the open cannot be shot (with PE) because they're not units - they're an individual model. This works with the next sentence that says "So clearly RAW says you can use PE on individual models."

If I interpreted your "Hence" sentence incorrectly, please clarify it. I don't see any other way to read it in context.

ahh I see sorry about that.

RAW state IC are considered units in there own right. No where in the rules does it say "when you join an ally unit with an IC he now immune to PE from enemy attacks.

Since this is a permissive game and we are already given permission to use PE against said IC there are NO rules stating he is immune or cant be targeted or CC'ed with PE if he joins an ally that is of different codex then him.

Except that assumption ignores how you attack in the actual rules.
PE gives a bonus when you attack your PE.
How do you attack in 40k? Well, you target something.
If you target something that is not your PE, you get no bonus.
Therefore, if your PE is Tau, shooting an Eldar unit gets you no bonus - even if there's a Tau model in there. Why? Because you cannot (as in, are never given permission to) attack the Tau model in that unit.

rigeld2 wrote:

osirisx69 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

osirisx69 wrote:

osirisx69 wrote:
Notice it does NOT say enemy unit. Hence if it did you could not shoot at an IC in the open. So CLEARLY RAW says you can use PE on individual models.

"Since your "Hence" statement is incorrect, anything derived from it cannot be correct." that's the sentence you are incorrect about.

PE does not say enemy unit. The only way to read your "Hence" sentence (which is poorly constructed) is that you're saying ICs in the open cannot be shot (with PE) because they're not units - they're an individual model. This works with the next sentence that says "So clearly RAW says you can use PE on individual models."

If I interpreted your "Hence" sentence incorrectly, please clarify it. I don't see any other way to read it in context.

ahh I see sorry about that.

RAW state IC are considered units in there own right. No where in the rules does it say "when you join an ally unit with an IC he now immune to PE from enemy attacks.

Since this is a permissive game and we are already given permission to use PE against said IC there are NO rules stating he is immune or cant be targeted or CC'ed with PE if he joins an ally that is of different codex then him.

Except that assumption ignores how you attack in the actual rules.
PE gives a bonus when you attack your PE.
How do you attack in 40k? Well, you target something.
If you target something that is not your PE, you get no bonus.
Therefore, if your PE is Tau, shooting an Eldar unit gets you no bonus - even if there's a Tau model in there. Why? Because you cannot (as in, are never given permission to) attack the Tau model in that unit.

Again I was VERY clear about the statements I made. I was referring to focus fire on the marine or if the marine was first. I am given permission to shoot him and get PE against him.

Page reference please that states that rule is incorrect.