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.

 DJGietzen wrote:
Rigeld, has any one ever debated the idea that while inside a transport the IC is not part of the unit?

Can't happen. The character automatically joins any unit they're embarked with. See page 79.

Ah, that plus the realization that if embarking was movement that took you out of coherency no units would ever be allowed to embark snuff that idea out.

 DJGietzen wrote:


Ok, funny (to me) related question. Where in the RAW does it say models cannot embark onto non-dedicated enemy transports? I see permission for 'a unit' to embark if it is entirely within 2" of an access point and I see that dedicated transports can transport any friendly unit after the start of the game, but I don't see anything that actually stops me from climbing my Chaos Marines into an empty Iron Hands Land Raider. I've got to have missed it right?

Edit: okay, I mixed up iron hands and iron warriors. The vehicle could actually not be entered due to the battlebrothers rule

That's funny about the transports. And I think it's technically any enemy vehicle with a transport capacity to boot.

Back on topic, here's my hangup. Page 21 of the eBook says the following: "In Warhammer 40,000, we represent thus by grouping models together into units. A unit usually consists 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 to be a unit in its own right."

A unit is defined as a grouping of models. When you have a unit of marines and attach a tau IC, you change the grouping of models to create a situational unit of marines and tau. The IC rule gives permission for this to occur as does the battle brothers rule. We also know that it is a friendly unit in all aspects to other units based on the battle brothers rule. It is certainly not an illegal unit because the IC rule gives permission for the creation and dissolution of ad hoc units at will.

We do not have permission to assume that an IC from one faction loses it's faction identity when joining an allied unit. The most accurate description of the new unit is "a unit of x and y" because that is the grouping of models involved.

That said, I still say RAW does not let you decide that "a unit of tau and marines" counts as either a unit of "tau" or a unit of "marines" because nowhere are we given permission to do so. However, because it is a unit of both I think I'd lean towards saying it would count all friendly transport vehicles as embark able because you can no longer make a clean distinction between allied/non-allied.

 Xarin wrote:

 DJGietzen wrote:


Ok, funny (to me) related question. Where in the RAW does it say models cannot embark onto non-dedicated enemy transports? I see permission for 'a unit' to embark if it is entirely within 2" of an access point and I see that dedicated transports can transport any friendly unit after the start of the game, but I don't see anything that actually stops me from climbing my Chaos Marines into an empty Iron Hands Land Raider. I've got to have missed it right?

you are correct in assuming that it doesn't say that anywhere in the brb so it is a legal action

BRB pg 112 for BattleBrothers and friendly transports.

As for enemies jumping into transports, you assume that the door is down for the enemy to get into the transport in the first place. The only way to get into it would be to damage it right?

Also you can't get into base contact to get into the enemy vehicle in the first place. You either have to keep 1'' away or be in assault. Scratch that, it's 2'' in order to embark. Still, not even BB can embark on to allied transports, so i do not imagine that any other army could.

AnonAmbientLight wrote:
Also you can't get into base contact to get into the enemy vehicle in the first place. You either have to keep 1'' away or be in assault.

You need to be within 2" of an access point to Embark.

Xarin wrote:It is a shame that there is no clear definition on friendly unit...

It's a shame they do not clearly define a 'unit'.

PanzerLeader wrote:Here is a simple question to consider: I join my Tau Commander to a unit of Space Marine Centurions. Which detachment do they now count as part of, the primary, the allied, both or neither? Without knowing which detachment the mixed unit is part of, we cannot determine what constitutes an "allied transport vehicle." Hence, RAW I think you end up at a stale mate as RAW never defines the relationship of a mixed unit to the remainder of the army.

Correction: Does not define the relationship of the mixed unit beyond friendly, but not with enough specificity to determine what constitutes an "allied" vehicle.

I would say they count as both. The codex source of both units remains unchanged and I see no permission to ignore either. as the unit consists of models from both they have both types.

rigeld2 wrote:
The Commander joins the Centurion unit. Meaning the unit (as a whole) is a Space Marine unit for all rules purposes.

These two things to not equal each other. If A joins B that does not mean A disappears into B. The most basic assessment would be that when unit A joins unit B we get a unit of A and B. We are not told to do anything more complex then that. Add them together. Not, whatever you are doing to cause A to cease to exist.

rigeld2 wrote:By looking for an exception and treating the unit as "mixed" you're not treating the Commander as a member of the unit for all rules purposes.

Actually he is. You are in fact the one who is not treating the commander as part of the unit. You are treating the unit as gaining a model but not considering that models attributes such as it's source codex. You are essentially not treating the member as a Tau Commander.

Xarin wrote:actually it says Unit type: infantry. What this unit consists of is described in the codex entry. When you field this entry in your armylist you are fielding 1 unit with a specified type, stats, members, wargear and optional wargear. It is easier to refer to this unit by the name described in the codex, but the actual name does not matter, you could call your unit banana if you want to as long as it's clear what's in it.
A unit of space marines consists of space marines models, unit type infantry, has x models with y wargear and x special rules, with possibly z upgrades
and independent character consists of an independent character model, unit type infantry(character), has 1 model with y wargear and x special rules, with possibly z special upgrades

When an independent character joins another unit he becomes part of that unit as outlined by the independent character rules. Part of the unit does not create a new unit, just a new situation for the existing unit. This new unit has the same qualities as before, only now with the IC added to its roster and models. it is simply a new situation for an old unit, not a whole new unit(in which case your argument would be entirely valid). They are still part of the same detachment as they were before, otherwise they would be an enemy unit to all other units around them that were friendly before the merger. Not to mention an illegal unit as they are on the table without being part of an armylist or scenariorule

Unit types are granted to models, not to units.

"In most cases, it will be fairly obvious which unit type category a model falls into, but as unit type is essentially an extension of the characteristic profile, you'll be able to find that information in the relevant codex." page 44, BRB (emphasis mine)

The core question here extends beyond allied ICs and transports and goes to the basic nature of what a unit is. The same basic question exists surrounding mixed unit types, source codices and PE. A Riptide is part of a unit along with it drones. Is it a MC or a drone unit? Does PE(MC) work against the unit? If a IG IC then joins the unit. Does it count as IG or Tau or both? If two IG ICs join and the Riptide and drones subsequently die are the two IG still part of a Tau unit? If so can they embark into a Tau transport?

All this because they have failed hard at defining one of the most basic part of the game. What is a unit? The BRB tells us a unit is a 'group of warriors that have banded together'.... Great! That makes sense... wtf does that mean from a rules perspective?

IMO as we are only given a vague concept the the simplest and least assuming of the possible meanings should be derived. That would make a unit a group of models. No more no less. In that case every other attribute would have to come from the models that compose the unit. That would include source codex, unit type, etc. Along those lines a unit comprised of only Space Marines is a unit of Space Marines.

Attempting to look at it the other way, that a unit itself has a codex affiliation, type, etc would lead to a Space Marine Unit. A unit that it is not generic but specifically labels the entire unit and every model therein as Space Marine... I understand where this perspective comes from as everyone has gotten rather used to treating units as specific and static but I do not find any rules support for it. Where are the rules for a Space Marine Unit? I see rules for a unit of Space Marines... Yes, please note the grammatical difference where unit is non-specific and only the Space Marine part is.

A unit is generic, only affiliated with the label 'Space Marine' when it has models with that characteristic composing it. By that reasoning, the characteristics of all models in the unit should be accounted for when determining the attributes associated with that unit.

If battle brothers can not join an allied transport, then having an IC join them will not change that fact. It says no where in any of the rule books that adding a unit changes it's army affiliation.

Unit A tries to join Transport B.

Is Unit A a Battle Brother to Transport B?

If yes, unit A CANNOT join Transport B. Unit A still cannot join Transport B even with an IC from Transport B's codex.

Think of it like this. Only Tau Empire Codex units can benefit from marker lights. Adding a Tau Codex HQ to a SM squad does not change the fact that those SM models can not benefit from the marker lights.

AnonAmbientLight wrote:
If battle brothers can not join an allied transport, then having an IC join them will not change that fact. It says no where in any of the rule books that adding a unit changes it's army affiliation.

Unit A tries to join Transport B.

Is Unit A a Battle Brother to Transport B?

If yes, unit A CANNOT join Transport B. Unit A still cannot join Transport B even with an IC from Transport B's codex.

Think of it like this. Only Tau Empire Codex units can benefit from marker lights. Adding a Tau Codex HQ to a SM squad does not change the fact that those SM models can not benefit from the marker lights.

That's not what's being discussed.
To use your example, Unit A is from the same Codex as Transport B.
Not allies. Same codex.
Attached to Unit A is an allied character from another codex.

 grendel083 wrote:

AnonAmbientLight wrote:
If battle brothers can not join an allied transport, then having an IC join them will not change that fact. It says no where in any of the rule books that adding a unit changes it's army affiliation.

Unit A tries to join Transport B.

Is Unit A a Battle Brother to Transport B?

If yes, unit A CANNOT join Transport B. Unit A still cannot join Transport B even with an IC from Transport B's codex.

Think of it like this. Only Tau Empire Codex units can benefit from marker lights. Adding a Tau Codex HQ to a SM squad does not change the fact that those SM models can not benefit from the marker lights.

That's not what's being discussed.
To use your example, Unit A is from the same Codex as Transport B.
Not allies. Same codex.
Attached to Unit A is an allied character from another codex.

That's the same line of reasoning though. The problem is that you have a unit from one codex getting into a transport from another codex. Not even battle brothers can get into transports as it is clearly stated in the BRB.

Having another model join that unit doesn't change that outcome, similar to how having a Crisis commander join a squad of SM doesnt suddenly allow that squad to use markerlights.

 DJGietzen wrote:
Rigeld, has any one ever debated the idea that while inside a transport the IC is not part of the unit? We know that transports can carry one unit and any number of ICs (within transport capacity) and one could argue that embarking into a transport, a move action, takes the IC out of coherency because it is no longer within 2" of another model in that unit. Its impossible as the unit is no longer being represented by models. So using that logic the IC has to leave the unit as part of embarking and has returned to being a BB and is would not be allowed to complete the embarking action with the rest of the unit.

That would mean an IC (BB or not) can never embark with a unit as a transport can only hold one unit.
No, there's no actual rules reason to assume that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Abandon wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:The Commander joins the Centurion unit. Meaning the unit (as a whole) is a Space Marine unit for all rules purposes.

These two things to not equal each other. If A joins B that does not mean A disappears into B. The most basic assessment would be that when unit A joins unit B we get a unit of A and B. We are not told to do anything more complex then that. Add them together. Not, whatever you are doing to cause A to cease to exist.

A doesn't cease to exist? You do realize A stand for the Tau IC unit, right?
If the unit still exists it can be targeted by shooting.

rigeld2 wrote:By looking for an exception and treating the unit as "mixed" you're not treating the Commander as a member of the unit for all rules purposes.

Actually he is. You are in fact the one who is not treating the commander as part of the unit. You are treating the unit as gaining a model but not considering that models attributes such as it's source codex. You are essentially not treating the member as a Tau Commander.

Yes, I am. It's source codex is irrelevant as far as the rules are concerned. Because, you see, it's a member of the unit (it joined) for all rules purposes.

rigeld2 wrote:
Because, you see, it's a member of the unit (it joined) for all rules purposes.

so this excludes a IC from using any/all wargear, special abilities, ect that the unit it now has joined does not have access too right ?

Sure it joins the unit. By definition the unit is also gaining a Tau commander. They are connected together, linked, not one absorbed into the other. I don't know why you keep insisting on such a thing.

Joining. Please look the word up.
Unit A does not disappear. It links up with unit B forming a single unit out of both. It is a two way relationship and in no stated rule does this allow you to ignore any characteristics of any of the models nor does it state the IC somehow hides its Tau-ness under a blanket of Space Marine.

Connected ≠ Absorbed into

Nem nailed it. BRB says Battle Brother not "unit of Battle Brothers".

Joining a unit neither changes him from being a IC. Nor does it change him from being a Battle Brother. He simply counts as part of the unit, and a IC, and a Battle Brother, and whatever else he is IE space marine, Eldar, Tau, etc.

BRB specifically says a battle brother can't hitch rides in allied transports.

Kambien,
Special Rules and war-gear are found at the 'model level,' so any Special Rules or War-gear that the Independent Character begins with will still be retained. This also explains why the Independent Character doesn't gain access to the default war-gear found on these models, as they begun the game with these. This information can be found in any of the Army List Explained section of the codex where it states these are what the individuals models begin with.

Now you could be trying to say that 'for all rule purposes' would mean to be considered part of the unit for the entries as well, which is a curious line of thought which needs further exploration. To begin with we will need to figure out if these entries are considered 'rules of the game.' These guidelines and reference information is refereed to at the list building stage of things, so it could be stated that they are Rules informing us how to construct legal 'units.' It could also be argued that this section of the book is only refereed to during List Building, something which doesn't occur as part of the 'game proper.' So are the guidelines found in the Army List 'game Rules; or not?

I'll leave the floor open to that line of thought, if people want to deal with it.

JinxDragon wrote:
Special Rules and war-gear are found at the 'model level' so the IC's do not lose them. This information can be found in any of the Army List Explained section of the codex.

the models only gain access to them through the unit listing in the codexs

kambien wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Because, you see, it's a member of the unit (it joined) for all rules purposes.

so this excludes a IC from using any/all wargear, special abilities, ect that the unit it now has joined does not have access too right ?

From past threads I can tell you that rigeld believes that any rule interaction with the 'unit' will occur strictly with the unit that was joined by the IC but individual models are somehow still of their own type and have their own rules.

Is this still an accurate description of your stance on this issue rigeld? I don't want to put words in your mouth but last time it took several pages to pry this much out of you

kambien wrote:

JinxDragon wrote:
Special Rules and war-gear are found at the 'model level' so the IC's do not lose them. This information can be found in any of the Army List Explained section of the codex.

the models only gain access to them through the unit listing in the codexs

What he is saying is that a Crisis commander that has tank hunter confers it to all models because of the wording in the BRB under the Tank Hunter section. He doesn't cease to have it.

Tau Commander A and Space Marine Squad B form a unit. They do not become Unit C. They are unit AB. They have characteristics of both armies in that unit. With all the benefits and penalties that come with it. IE, Battle Brothers cannot ride in the transports of their allies.

kambien wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Because, you see, it's a member of the unit (it joined) for all rules purposes.

so this excludes a IC from using any/all wargear, special abilities, ect that the unit it now has joined does not have access too right ?

No. Not at all. Drop the Strawman please.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Abandon wrote:

kambien wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Because, you see, it's a member of the unit (it joined) for all rules purposes.

so this excludes a IC from using any/all wargear, special abilities, ect that the unit it now has joined does not have access too right ?

From past threads I can tell you that rigeld believes that any rule interaction with the 'unit' will occur strictly with the unit that was joined by the IC but individual models are somehow still of their own type and have their own rules.

Is this still an accurate description of your stance on this issue rigeld? I don't want to put words in your mouth but last time it took several pages to pry this much out of you

No, it took several pages for you to stop strawmaning and actually read what I wrote. My stance never changed.

And it's not a belief, it's fact. When a biker joins a unit, he doesn't cease being a biker. He ceases being a unit by himself.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Abandon wrote:
Sure it joins the unit. By definition the unit is also gaining a Tau commander. They are connected together, linked, not one absorbed into the other. I don't know why you keep insisting on such a thing.

Joining. Please look the word up.
Unit A does not disappear. It links up with unit B forming a single unit out of both. It is a two way relationship and in no stated rule does this allow you to ignore any characteristics of any of the models nor does it state the IC somehow hides its Tau-ness under a blanket of Space Marine.

Connected ≠ Absorbed into

Right, so according to your argument the Tau IC unit continues to exist?
So I can target it with shooting, right? After all, it's still a unit. Cite denial of permission to target said unit.

rigeld2 wrote:

kambien wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Because, you see, it's a member of the unit (it joined) for all rules purposes.

so this excludes a IC from using any/all wargear, special abilities, ect that the unit it now has joined does not have access too right ?

No. Not at all. Drop the Strawman please.

its not a strawman , its following RAW . It does say all rules purposes . How is FOC/Wargear/Special Abilites/Unit composition somehow not rules now ?

kambien wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

kambien wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Because, you see, it's a member of the unit (it joined) for all rules purposes.

so this excludes a IC from using any/all wargear, special abilities, ect that the unit it now has joined does not have access too right ?

No. Not at all. Drop the Strawman please.

its not a strawman , its following RAW . It does say all rules purposes . How is FOC/Wargear/Special Abilites/Unit composition somehow not rules now ?

Because wargear/special abilities are tied to the model. FOC does change - an HQ that joins a Troop can score if he's the only one in range.

rigeld2 wrote:

kambien wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

kambien wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Because, you see, it's a member of the unit (it joined) for all rules purposes.

so this excludes a IC from using any/all wargear, special abilities, ect that the unit it now has joined does not have access too right ?

No. Not at all. Drop the Strawman please.

its not a strawman , its following RAW . It does say all rules purposes . How is FOC/Wargear/Special Abilites/Unit composition somehow not rules now ?

Because wargear/special abilities are tied to the model. FOC does change - an HQ that joins a Troop can score if he's the only one in range.

isn't the permission to assign wagrear to the model under the unit entry , not the model entry ? that's how it is in my codex

rigeld2 wrote:



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Abandon wrote:
Sure it joins the unit. By definition the unit is also gaining a Tau commander. They are connected together, linked, not one absorbed into the other. I don't know why you keep insisting on such a thing.

Joining. Please look the word up.
Unit A does not disappear. It links up with unit B forming a single unit out of both. It is a two way relationship and in no stated rule does this allow you to ignore any characteristics of any of the models nor does it state the IC somehow hides its Tau-ness under a blanket of Space Marine.

Connected ≠ Absorbed into

Right, so according to your argument the Tau IC unit continues to exist?
So I can target it with shooting, right? After all, it's still a unit. Cite denial of permission to target said unit.

Actually if Abandon's argument is valid as such with rigeld's interpretation, you could argue that Battle Brothers must still continue to be understood as a "friendly unit" even if an IC attaches to a Battle Brother unit.

Using page 112 in ascertaining the status of Battle Brothers and their definition as a friendly unit even when an IC attaches to an allied BB unit would mean that the IC and the BB unit have to follow the permissive rule set such that...

Page 39-
"While an IC is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes, though he still follows the rules for characters."

Special Rules (Page 39)-

Paraphrased a bit-

"When an Independent Character joins a unit, (explanation of having different special rules), the unit's special rules are not conferred upon the the IC", and vice versa.

And-

Page 112-

"Battle Brothers are treated as 'friendly units.'"

while also keeping in mind-

Page 4 reading the definition of units while citing that units normally consist of several models (but no explanation if units can be groups of units and units) however stating a single, powerful model, such as a lone character,....is also considered to be a unit in its own right.

Leads to the following interpretation-

A BB IC can join a BB allied unit.
The BB IC can still be his own unit, even if attached to another unit.
The IC BB is still a BB until a rule specifically removes that status.
He cannot ride the transport as per BB ICs attached to an allied BB unit as per rules of page 112.

Joining another unit while making him count as part of that unit does not make him lose his BB status. He counts as a part of that unit for all rules purposes, but does that mean we are given explicit permission to ignore his other rule sets such as being a BB or being a unit unto himself?

Now would I play this as RAW? Nope. But I think rigeld's point is is that the rules break down at several levels due to the rule makers not being careful about the wording of their rule interactions. RAW may allow certain actions to occur with a strict interpretation, but should we really play it that way?

wow, I go to sleep and people stop reading what is posted altogether and just spam randomly. Abandon, anything you have said so far has been both said and countered several times already. People please read before getting on your soapbox.

Also, it seems to me that there is a lack of understanding of how rules actually work. Again I refer to the very first post of this topic. I know it involves an actual effort but still, all is explained and countered there if you read it properly.

a unit is a band of warriors fighting together seems a pretty clear definition of a unit, also the rest of the brb and the codexes are pretty clear on what units are and what is in a specific unit. A band of warriors joined by another warrior is still a band of warriors. As said before the exact name doesn't matter, if you replace the word unit with spoon it still works, it is just a word that is agreed upon to define something.

It seems to me that people want to somehow ignore that the IC is part of the unit for all rules intents and purposes in this particular case. If you want to do that, exactly what is stopping me from letting my devastators snipe your IC out of the unit he joined with their lascannons? You want to ignore a rule, fine but then it always gets ignored. I wonder what the whole point of the targeting rules in the brb is then, but I eagerly await your reply on that one. If you want to change the meta of the game by ignoring the rules as you see fit go ahead, but stop pretending your playing official warhammer 40.000 then.

I will say this once again: the character joins the unit for ALL rules intents and purposes. Eligibility to enter a transport is checked at the moment of embarkation. The vehicle checks whether or not the unit can enter, the character is not checked because it is not his unit that is checking for eligibility but the unit he has joined. The check does not apply to him because he does not exist as a seperate entity at that point. It does not matter whether or not he has the bb status because it is never asked for. He does not lose it(as seems to be the most repeated argument, this is actually never said and even denied by me and several others) but it does not apply to this situation.

If you were to follow your rules logic, then the character joining the unit would create a new unit on the spot with members from different detachments while belonging to neither. This is an illegal move as this unit is not allowed to exist on the battlefield and units from your army list are not present while an illegal unit(owned by no one because nobody that counts as a player created this unit) exists on your side of the table, resulting in an illegal situation which constitutes a game loss(at best) on most tournaments. In fact this would create an illegal unit every time an IC joins a unit because a unit that you did not make(nobody did as the rules are not considered to be a player), not the player and the unit is not on his armylist(while an unit he is supposed to field is not there) and orcs merging units due to their special rules would have to be considered as illegal play.


Before you start, as explained before gear and special rules are independently checked from the status of the unit towards the transport.

.

 Xarin wrote:
wow, I go to sleep and people stop reading what is posted altogether and just spam randomly. Abandon, anything you have said so far has been both said and countered several times already. People please read before getting on your soapbox.

Also, it seems to me that there is a lack of understanding of how rules actually work. Again I refer to the very first post of this topic. I know it involves an actual effort but still, all is explained and countered there if you read it properly.

a unit is a band of warriors fighting together seems a pretty clear definition of a unit, also the rest of the brb and the codexes are pretty clear on what units are and what is in a specific unit. A band of warriors joined by another warrior is still a band of warriors. As said before the exact name doesn't matter, if you replace the word unit with spoon it still works, it is just a word that is agreed upon to define something.

It seems to me that people want to somehow ignore that the IC is part of the unit for all rules intents and purposes in this particular case. If you want to do that, exactly what is stopping me from letting my devastators snipe your IC out of the unit he joined with their lascannons? You want to ignore a rule, fine but then it always gets ignored. I wonder what the whole point of the targeting rules in the brb is then, but I eagerly await your reply on that one. If you want to change the meta of the game by ignoring the rules as you see fit go ahead, but stop pretending your playing official warhammer 40.000 then.

I will say this once again: the character joins the unit for ALL rules intents and purposes. Eligibility to enter a transport is checked at the moment of embarkation. The vehicle checks whether or not the unit can enter, the character is not checked because it is not his unit that is checking for eligibility but the unit he has joined. The check does not apply to him because he does not exist as a seperate entity at that point. It does not matter whether or not he has the bb status because it is never asked for. He does not lose it(as seems to be the most repeated argument, this is actually never said and even denied by me and several others) but it does not apply to this situation.

If you were to follow your rules logic, then the character joining the unit would create a new unit on the spot with members from different detachments while belonging to neither. This is an illegal move as this unit is not allowed to exist on the battlefield and units from your army list are not present while an illegal unit(owned by no one because nobody that counts as a player created this unit) exists on your side of the table, resulting in an illegal situation which constitutes a game loss(at best) on most tournaments. In fact this would create an illegal unit every time an IC joins a unit because a unit that you did not make(nobody did as the rules are not considered to be a player), not the player and the unit is not on his armylist(while an unit he is supposed to field is not there) and orcs merging units due to their special rules would have to be considered as illegal play.


Before you start, as explained before gear and special rules are independently checked from the status of the unit towards the transport.

.

That is not what we are saying. Following our logic, there is nothing illegal. The rules give you permission to create ad hoc units once the game has started (to include deployment). The IC rule explicitly gives you that permission as does the example you gave from the Orc book. The lists were legal at the start of the game, which is what is required, and have been used in a legal manner. Our interpretation is quite consistent with the IC rules: when an IC joins a unit, he ceases to be a unit of one and instead merges into another unit. Now in most cases, this is not an issue. If both choices (unit + IC unit) are from the same codex, there are no issues with the rules. The ad hoc unit is still clearly part of the same detachment.

If you join an IC from one detachment to a unit from another, you generate a situation in which the "grouping of models" is now best described as "x + y." This unit is still clearly friendly in regards to other units, but by RAW you cannot determine what constitutes an "allied" unit to it. Because of that, I think you cannot trigger the restriction and may embark but I haven't yet seen permission cited anywhere to treat a group of tau and marines AS solely marines.

kambien wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

kambien wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

kambien wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Because, you see, it's a member of the unit (it joined) for all rules purposes.

so this excludes a IC from using any/all wargear, special abilities, ect that the unit it now has joined does not have access too right ?

No. Not at all. Drop the Strawman please.

its not a strawman , its following RAW . It does say all rules purposes . How is FOC/Wargear/Special Abilites/Unit composition somehow not rules now ?

Because wargear/special abilities are tied to the model. FOC does change - an HQ that joins a Troop can score if he's the only one in range.

isn't the permission to assign wagrear to the model under the unit entry , not the model entry ? that's how it is in my codex

Are you sure? Really? Or does your codex say something to the effect of "The army list at the back of the books how's all the standard and optional wargear available to a particular model." (C:BA p23)
I checked Spqce Wolves, Necrons, and Tyranids and that rule exists in all of them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

PanzerLeader wrote:

That is not what we are saying. Following our logic, there is nothing illegal. The rules give you permission to create ad hoc units once the game has started (to include deployment). The IC rule explicitly gives you that permission as does the example you gave from the Orc book. The lists were legal at the start of the game, which is what is required, and have been used in a legal manner. Our interpretation is quite consistent with the IC rules: when an IC joins a unit, he ceases to be a unit of one and instead merges into another unit. Now in most cases, this is not an issue. If both choices (unit + IC unit) are from the same codex, there are no issues with the rules. The ad hoc unit is still clearly part of the same detachment.

If you join an IC from one detachment to a unit from another, you generate a situation in which the "grouping of models" is now best described as "x + y." This unit is still clearly friendly in regards to other units, but by RAW you cannot determine what constitutes an "allied" unit to it. Because of that, I think you cannot trigger the restriction and may embark but I haven't yet seen permission cited anywhere to treat a group of tau and marines AS solely marines.

What unit is the IC joining?
Cite permission for mixed units to exist.
Cite permission to change the detachment a unit is in.

You're inventing rules and the. Creating an argument that fits them. I've cited support for my stance, I'd appreciate the same courtesy (as required by the tenets of the sub forum).

rigeld2 wrote:

Are you sure? Really? Or does your codex say something to the effect of "The army list at the back of the books how's all the standard and optional wargear available to a particular model." (C:BA p23)
I checked Spqce Wolves, Necrons, and Tyranids and that rule exists in all of them.

"These list detail the points values of carious items of wargear available to units in your army. Many unit entries in the army list that follows may include wargear options from one or more of these lists - in each instance, the armor list entry will tell you (in bold) exactly whico of these list you may use."

also stated is :

Options: This section list all of the upgrades you may add to the unit if you wish to do so, alongside the associated points costs for each. where an option states that you may exchange one weapon 'and/or' another , you may replace either or both, provided you pay the points cost for each. The abbreviation 'pts' stand for "points" and 'pts/model' stand for "points per model"

Wargear : This section details the weapons and equipment the models in the unit are armed with. The cost for all these models and their equipment is included in the points cost listed next to the unit name

kambien wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Are you sure? Really? Or does your codex say something to the effect of "The army list at the back of the books how's all the standard and optional wargear available to a particular model." (C:BA p23)
I checked Spqce Wolves, Necrons, and Tyranids and that rule exists in all of them.

"These list detail the points values of carious items of wargear available to units in your army. Many unit entries in the army list that follows may include wargear options from one or more of these lists - in each instance, the armor list entry will tell you (in bold) exactly whico of these list you may use."

Which codex? What page? Citations are cool bro.

rigeld2 wrote:

kambien wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Are you sure? Really? Or does your codex say something to the effect of "The army list at the back of the books how's all the standard and optional wargear available to a particular model." (C:BA p23)
I checked Spqce Wolves, Necrons, and Tyranids and that rule exists in all of them.

"These list detail the points values of carious items of wargear available to units in your army. Many unit entries in the army list that follows may include wargear options from one or more of these lists - in each instance, the armor list entry will tell you (in bold) exactly whico of these list you may use."

Which codex? What page? Citations are cool bro.

tau pg 94.

kambien wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

kambien wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Are you sure? Really? Or does your codex say something to the effect of "The army list at the back of the books how's all the standard and optional wargear available to a particular model." (C:BA p23)
I checked Spqce Wolves, Necrons, and Tyranids and that rule exists in all of them.

"These list detail the points values of carious items of wargear available to units in your army. Many unit entries in the army list that follows may include wargear options from one or more of these lists - in each instance, the armor list entry will tell you (in bold) exactly whico of these list you may use."

Which codex? What page? Citations are cool bro.

tau pg 94.

Look before the fluff for all the units - that's where the one I cited is. Along with army special rules (ie, what everliving does)