Independent characters and transports

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.

**rigeld2**

BlackTalos wrote:

You agree they do not have it? But get it as soon as the "treated as" appears?

Yes. They have a WS when the rule says they are treated as having one.

All vehicles with WS:1 blow up.
Assign 3 Hits to any Flyer with the Skyfire Special Rule.

appears, they would obviously not apply, right?

Correct. Because vehicles are only WS0/1 when they're being attacked in CC.

Between this thread and the VSG Blast Rules:
This is me: http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/111/795/Image1.png

Lol

Yeah - it's funny how badly people are wrong when they think they know the language and how things interact.

**Xarin**

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).

and this is in the rulebook where exactly? The rest of your argument has been countered by proper arguments so many times now that I'm not even gonna bother

**AnonAmbientLight**

Well, if IC magically loses their status, then i guess this means that joining a Tau Commander to a SM squad gives those SM's the ability to use markerlights. If it can go one way, (Tau Commander now part of the squad of SM for transport purposes), then it can go the other way too.

**Nem**

Xarin wrote:
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).

and this is in the rulebook where exactly? The rest of your argument has been countered by proper arguments so many times now that I'm not even gonna bother

The legality, or illegality of either side of that particular item is stated no where in the rule book.

The first thing I posted on here was that this is a highly contested area and, everyone knows they are right no matter which one of the 4 or 5 angles they are coming from. I also stated the lack of rules on the subject will always cause an issue until answered one way or another. I really don't think RAW lends enough on this subject for anyone here to make a watertight argument, every angle depends on some degree of unwritten assumption - assumptions around rule sets surrounding this aspect which in themselves do not cater well.

Don't take things personally but if you produce a counter argument which that person disagrees with then they might not come back to you, but mention it again when replying to someone else. For example I disagree with the notes you entered on the OP surrounding wargear and transports etc, also mentioned in your later posts, however I don't believe it to be an issue which makes or breaks this, it is one of many, and after posting a few times on that subject particular I knew I wasn't going to change your mind. It's not particular I think your wrong, I just don't think anyone is 'right'. Plus I'm too busy sorting my finances for impending Nid preorders (soon my precious).

On this issue, many people have dissected this way and that way, people disagree on the governing rules as well in them themselves. My meta don't really play with allies at all, and when we do there are so few vehicles, and were so chilled it doesn't really matter to us. Big Tournaments will always be able to tell you beforehand as they have there own rulES to compensate the lack of in the rule book.

I mean, like digital editions say, the rule book is more like guidelines anyway yeah? ( couldn't help it, saw it on one of there posts and it just cracked me up, I do not advocate that view in competitive play ).

Now, less than a hour before hope pre orders are up.

**rigeld2**

AnonAmbientLight wrote:
Well, if IC magically loses their status, then i guess this means that joining a Tau Commander to a SM squad gives those SM's the ability to use markerlights. If it can go one way, (Tau Commander now part of the squad of SM for transport purposes), then it can go the other way too.

If only the SM unit was a unit chosen from the Tau codex like the marker light rule requires...

**BlackTalos**

rigeld2 wrote:
AnonAmbientLight wrote:
Well, if IC magically loses their status, then i guess this means that joining a Tau Commander to a SM squad gives those SM's the ability to use markerlights. If it can go one way, (Tau Commander now part of the squad of SM for transport purposes), then it can go the other way too.

If only the SM unit was a unit chosen from the Tau codex like the marker light rule requires...

But would you agree a Chaplain in a squad of fire warriors able to do so then?

**rigeld2**

BlackTalos wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:
AnonAmbientLight wrote:
Well, if IC magically loses their status, then i guess this means that joining a Tau Commander to a SM squad gives those SM's the ability to use markerlights. If it can go one way, (Tau Commander now part of the squad of SM for transport purposes), then it can go the other way too.

If only the SM unit was a unit chosen from the Tau codex like the marker light rule requires...

But would you agree a Chaplain in a squad of fire warriors able to do so then?

I don't remember if the marker light rule is specific enough or not. So... Maybe?

**DJGietzen**

Immediately before a unit from Codex: Tau Empire shoots at
a target that has one or more markerlight counters, it can
declare it is using one or more of the markerlight abilities
listed below.

Unless I missed something, then yes a Battle Brother Independent Character in a Tau unit can benefit from that unit's use of a markerlight counter.

**rigeld2**

DJGietzen wrote:
Immediately before a unit from Codex: Tau Empire shoots at
a target that has one or more markerlight counters, it can
declare it is using one or more of the markerlight abilities
listed below.

Unless I missed something, then yes a Battle Brother Independent Character in a Tau unit can benefit from that unit's use of a markerlight counter.

Thanks for the rule quote - yes, absolutely.

**Abandon**

rigeld2 wrote:
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.

The Tau IC is always a part of a unit. Whether he is the only part or a part of a larger unit. When the IC joins a SM unit, by definition that means he is connecting with or linking to that unit. No loss of anything is indicated by that statement. Neither does being a member of a unit indicate such. They are now one unit formed out of both. In a manner of speaking you could say the Tau Commander unit still exists but only as part of a larger unit.

"While an Independent Character is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes"

This does not say 'when he joins a unit he becomes part of that unit' though that is what you seem to keep reading into it. Remember the IC is always part of a unit, even when it is the only part. So this line does not even create a rule but instead reminds and reinforces that the rules for units need to be observed no matter the unit composition.

**rigeld2**

Abandon wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:
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.

The Tau IC is always a part of a unit. Whether he is the only part or a part of a larger unit. When the IC joins a SM unit, by definition that means he is connecting with or linking to that unit. No loss of anything is indicated by that statement. Neither does being a member of a unit indicate such. They are now one unit formed out of both. In a manner of speaking you could say the Tau Commander unit still exists but only as part of a larger unit.

"While an Independent Character is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes"

This does not say 'when he joins a unit he becomes part of that unit' though that is what you seem to keep reading into it. Remember the IC is always part of a unit, even when it is the only part. So this line does not even create a rule but instead reminds and reinforces that the rules for units need to be observed no matter the unit composition.

So you're advocating the creation of a wholly new mixed unit?
Of course you'll be able to support that idea with rules.

**Abandon**

Xarin wrote:

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.

'A band of warriors' does not define a unit as a static entity of a particular type purchased from a specific codex that will never be anything else. That is pure assumption.

Unless of course there you have some rules backing for that assertion.

Xarin wrote:

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.

Never in my posts have a ever claimed an IC is not part of the unit for all purposes. Not once. I do claim however that you are ignoring the fact that the IC is part of the unit for all rules purposes. The IC is a member like every other. That means it's own abilities, attributes and characteristics matter as much as any other members for all rules purposes.

Without such characteristics from a units models the unit would never have a type of any sort.

Xarin wrote:

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.

By your definition of unit this would work. If you can show me where it says the ICs characteristic do not matter in regards to the characteristics of the unit as a whole I go along with this. This has not yet been shown though nor does even the basic premise that units have any characteristics of their own aside from their models have any textual basis that has been demonstrated.

Xarin wrote:

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.
.

If something is allowed and not denied it is legal.

The Tau IC(a unit by himself)
is allowed to join(connect with)
A unit of Space Marines

The simplest and least assuming way to do this is to just connect them together. One is not lost into the other they are simply linked together AKA, joined. As this is exactly the basic idea you are told and no extra complications are stated the end result is a unit that is both Tau and SM. Why would you read any more into it then that? If you are truly treating the IC as part of the unit for all rules purposes you do not have permission to ignore its characteristics any more then you are permitted to ignore any other models characteristics.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:
Abandon wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:
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.

The Tau IC is always a part of a unit. Whether he is the only part or a part of a larger unit. When the IC joins a SM unit, by definition that means he is connecting with or linking to that unit. No loss of anything is indicated by that statement. Neither does being a member of a unit indicate such. They are now one unit formed out of both. In a manner of speaking you could say the Tau Commander unit still exists but only as part of a larger unit.

"While an Independent Character is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes"

This does not say 'when he joins a unit he becomes part of that unit' though that is what you seem to keep reading into it. Remember the IC is always part of a unit, even when it is the only part. So this line does not even create a rule but instead reminds and reinforces that the rules for units need to be observed no matter the unit composition.

So you're advocating the creation of a wholly new mixed unit?
Of course you'll be able to support that idea with rules.

It is what you are told to do.

The Tau IC(a unit by himself)
is allowed to join(connect with)
A unit of Space Marines

What happens when two entities become joined? Does one simply disappear? No, both continue to exist as part of a whole. That is what you are, by the text, instructed to do. You have read the supporting text over and over again but don't seem to have seen it for what it is.

**WarOne**

Here is what rule summations look like with what Abandon is supporting (via my interpretation of what the rules look like)-

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?

**rigeld2**

You're seriously asserting he's still a unit unto himself?
Really?

So you're okay with me shooting your IC and not the unit he's with?
And forbidding him from using Look Out sir! Of course because that only applies to models in the same unit.
Want more places that fails?

**Abandon**

Well that was not my claim. I was getting towards the line of thought that as a mixed unit, the unit as a whole would have to be considered BB. As it is both SM and Tau the unit would be subject to the pros and cons of both.

**rigeld2**

Abandon wrote:
Well that was not my claim. I was getting towards the line of thought that as a mixed unit, the unit as a whole would have to be considered BB. As it is both SM and Tau the unit would be subject to the pros and cons of both.

If they both continue to exist as part of the whole, surely you're asserting that the Tau IC unit continues to exist.

**PanzerLeader**

Xarin wrote:
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).

and this is in the rulebook where exactly? The rest of your argument has been countered by proper arguments so many times now that I'm not even gonna bother

Better reread your own original post. You refered to it as creating a new unit yourself.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Xarin wrote:

- The moment an independent character joins a unit it is considered part of this unit for ALL rules intents and purposes(passive ability).
This makes the independent character part of the unit(for better or for worse) until that character leaves the unit.
The independent character seizes to exist as an independent unit and is as such absorbed into the joined unit, creating a new unit (passive triggered rule).
This is [independent character] +[unit] = unit.. This applies to both allied and codex independent characters.

I brought the relevant part of the OP down for you. You refer to the creation of new units explicitly and in the same terms I do. You assume the IC + unit combination remains in the same detachment as the base unit. I say the rules don't give you permission to make that assumption. We have applied the same rules and come to two different end points as my conclusion is that a unit consisting of models from both detachments cannot be determined to be part of either by RAW.

**Xarin**

Nem wrote:
Xarin wrote:
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).

and this is in the rulebook where exactly? The rest of your argument has been countered by proper arguments so many times now that I'm not even gonna bother

The legality, or illegality of either side of that particular item is stated no where in the rule book.

The first thing I posted on here was that this is a highly contested area and, everyone knows they are right no matter which one of the 4 or 5 angles they are coming from. I also stated the lack of rules on the subject will always cause an issue until answered one way or another. I really don't think RAW lends enough on this subject for anyone here to make a watertight argument, every angle depends on some degree of unwritten assumption - assumptions around rule sets surrounding this aspect which in themselves do not cater well.

Don't take things personally but if you produce a counter argument which that person disagrees with then they might not come back to you, but mention it again when replying to someone else. For example I disagree with the notes you entered on the OP surrounding wargear and transports etc, also mentioned in your later posts, however I don't believe it to be an issue which makes or breaks this, it is one of many, and after posting a few times on that subject particular I knew I wasn't going to change your mind. It's not particular I think your wrong, I just don't think anyone is 'right'. Plus I'm too busy sorting my finances for impending Nid preorders (soon my precious).

On this issue, many people have dissected this way and that way, people disagree on the governing rules as well in them themselves. My meta don't really play with allies at all, and when we do there are so few vehicles, and were so chilled it doesn't really matter to us. Big Tournaments will always be able to tell you beforehand as they have there own rulES to compensate the lack of in the rule book.

I mean, like digital editions say, the rule book is more like guidelines anyway yeah? ( couldn't help it, saw it on one of there posts and it just cracked me up, I do not advocate that view in competitive play ).

Now, less than a hour before hope pre orders are up.

No personal offense taken or anything, don't worry, I posted this because it made the most sense to me and I wanted feedback on it from others(no idea or care whether I'll ever actually use these rules at all, it has just been bugging the hell out of me). Also, it is your right to disagree with the part of the wargear etc, but I really don't see why as those restrictions are literally in the wargear section of a codex and not the unit description. Have fun with your nids btw

More to the point, you now say that a rule that is by your own words not in the book should be governed while you ignore a rule that is in the book. And this does not seem weird to you at all?

Nem wrote:
Xarin wrote:
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).

and this is in the rulebook where exactly? The rest of your argument has been countered by proper arguments so many times now that I'm not even gonna bother

The legality, or illegality of either side of that particular item is stated no where in the rule book.

The first thing I posted on here was that this is a highly contested area and, everyone knows they are right no matter which one of the 4 or 5 angles they are coming from. I also stated the lack of rules on the subject will always cause an issue until answered one way or another. I really don't think RAW lends enough on this subject for anyone here to make a watertight argument, every angle depends on some degree of unwritten assumption - assumptions around rule sets surrounding this aspect which in themselves do not cater well.

Don't take things personally but if you produce a counter argument which that person disagrees with then they might not come back to you, but mention it again when replying to someone else. For example I disagree with the notes you entered on the OP surrounding wargear and transports etc, also mentioned in your later posts, however I don't believe it to be an issue which makes or breaks this, it is one of many, and after posting a few times on that subject particular I knew I wasn't going to change your mind. It's not particular I think your wrong, I just don't think anyone is 'right'. Plus I'm too busy sorting my finances for impending Nid preorders (soon my precious).

On this issue, many people have dissected this way and that way, people disagree on the governing rules as well in them themselves. My meta don't really play with allies at all, and when we do there are so few vehicles, and were so chilled it doesn't really matter to us. Big Tournaments will always be able to tell you beforehand as they have there own rulES to compensate the lack of in the rule book.

I mean, like digital editions say, the rule book is more like guidelines anyway yeah? ( couldn't help it, saw it on one of there posts and it just cracked me up, I do not advocate that view in competitive play ).

Now, less than a hour before hope pre orders are up.

Abandon wrote:
Xarin wrote:

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.

'A band of warriors' does not define a unit as a static entity of a particular type purchased from a specific codex that will never be anything else. That is pure assumption.

Unless of course there you have some rules backing for that assertion.

Well, there is the dictionary of course, but the rest of your argument does not even matter for these rules. The codex describes what is in the unit, the armylist you make as a player describes what is in the unit, the rules look the status of the unit as defined at that moment when they apply, all of these are simple facts.

Xarin wrote:

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.

Never in my posts have a ever claimed an IC is not part of the unit for all purposes. Not once. I do claim however that you are ignoring the fact that the IC is part of the unit for all rules purposes. The IC is a member like every other. That means it's own abilities, attributes and characteristics matter as much as any other members for all rules purposes.

Well actually you do every time you insist on a rulescheck that is separate from the rest of the unit. At that moment you demand that the IC is, for whatever reason, not a complete part of the unit as a whole.

Without such characteristics from a units models the unit would never have a type of any sort.

Xarin wrote:

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.

By your definition of unit this would work. If you can show me where it says the ICs characteristic do not matter in regards to the characteristics of the unit as a whole I go along with this. This has not yet been shown though nor does even the basic premise that units have any characteristics of their own aside from their models have any textual basis that has been demonstrated.

Because the characteristic of the IC is not relevant for the situation. It is because the IC is part of the unit for ALL rule rules intents and purposes. Everything in this game is checked at the unit level first, aka before all other rules apply, because everything is a unit. The transport unit checks whether or not the unit can embark, the unit IC does not exist as a separate entity at this point so the transport does not check for him.

Xarin wrote:

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.
.

If something is allowed and not denied it is legal.
True, however how does this prevent an illegal situation from existing exactly? Because the rules pretty clearly deny illegal units

The Tau IC(a unit by himself)
is allowed to join(connect with)
A unit of Space Marines

The simplest and least assuming way to do this is to just connect them together. One is not lost into the other they are simply linked together AKA, joined. As this is exactly the basic idea you are told and no extra complications are stated the end result is a unit that is both Tau and SM. Why would you read any more into it then that? If you are truly treating the IC as part of the unit for all rules purposes you do not have permission to ignore its characteristics any more then you are permitted to ignore any other models characteristics.

Expect this whole linking together is nowhere in the rulebook. And BB is a dynamic characteristic, which means it can change and start or stop to apply at any moment. Why is it dynamic? Because it is granted from the game, not from the codex(BB is not in his unit entry in the codex)

Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:
Abandon wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:
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.

The Tau IC is always a part of a unit. Whether he is the only part or a part of a larger unit. When the IC joins a SM unit, by definition that means he is connecting with or linking to that unit. No loss of anything is indicated by that statement. Neither does being a member of a unit indicate such. They are now one unit formed out of both. In a manner of speaking you could say the Tau Commander unit still exists but only as part of a larger unit.

Again, this whole linking and connecting is never mentioned anywhere in the rulebook and again, nothing is lost and that is not relevant to the situation at all. And yes, the IC still exists but only as part of the larger unit, which is the whole point of the rulesdebate.

"While an Independent Character is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes"

This does not say 'when he joins a unit he becomes part of that unit' though that is what you seem to keep reading into it. Actually, that is exactly what is says Remember the IC is always part of a unit, even when it is the only part. Which then supports our argument, not deny it. So this line does not even create a rule but instead reminds and reinforces that the rules for units need to be observed no matter the unit composition.
Really? Who is talking about about creating rules and where do you find the part that it needs to be observed no matter the costs? This is an addition that is not in the rulebook
So you're advocating the creation of a wholly new mixed unit? Which would be illegal as stated before
Of course you'll be able to support that idea with rules.

It is what you are told to do.

The Tau IC(a unit by himself)
is allowed to join(connect with)
A unit of Space Marines

What happens when two entities become joined? Does one simply disappear? No, both continue to exist as part of a whole. That is what you are, by the text, instructed to do. You have read the supporting text over and over again but don't seem to have seen it for what it is.

And your point here is? Because I could say exactly the same thing the other way around, but that's just mud flinging and not rules debate.

WarOne wrote:Here is what rule summations look like with what Abandon is supporting (via my interpretation of what the rules look like)-

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...Stop right there. The flaw in your logic is that the the IC and the unit need to check, this is not neccesary as he is part of the unit and the IC is not doing the checking anyway(the transport is)

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. [i]Note the SPECIAL rules part of this, BB is not a special rule

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. Yet not denying that he can be completely part of the unit when he joins it, nor that the rules somehow need to check for his unit state when neccesary.

Leads to the following interpretation-

A BB IC can join a BB allied unit. true
The BB IC can still be his own unit, even if attached to another unit. true, but not excluding other situations
The IC BB is still a BB until a rule specifically removes that status. true, but non applicable to the situation at hand
He cannot ride the transport as per BB ICs attached to an allied BB unit as per rules of page 112. Not true and a sudden leap in reasoning without showing how you got to this point

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?

The BB status is not lost, this is never said. We are given permission by the fact that the check is made at the unit level and not the individual squad member. Is it explicit? no. Does it need to be? well, no.

PanzerLeader wrote:
Xarin wrote:
PanzerLeader wrote:

That is not what we are saying. Following our logic, there is nothing illegal. Well, except that your logic contradicts and ignores large parts of the rulebook. The rules give you permission to create ad hoc units once the game has started (to include deployment).
Oh really, and where is this in the rulebook? It is denied but no permission is given.

and this is in the rulebook where exactly? The rest of your argument has been countered by proper arguments so many times now that I'm not even gonna bother

Better reread your own original post. You refered to it as creating a new unit yourself.

No I do not and sorry if my explanation is somehow unclear on this. I create a new status for an existing unit. Never, ever do I say a new unit is created. I gave it a different name in the explanation because it is necessary for the explanation, not because it somehow creates a new unit

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Xarin wrote:

- The moment an independent character joins a unit it is considered part of this unit for ALL rules intents and purposes(passive ability).
This makes the independent character part of the unit(for better or for worse) until that character leaves the unit.
The independent character seizes to exist as an independent unit and is as such absorbed into the joined unit, creating a new unit (passive triggered rule).
This is [independent character] +[unit] = unit.. This applies to both allied and codex independent characters.

I brought the relevant part of the OP down for you. You refer to the creation of new units explicitly and in the same terms I do. You assume the IC + unit combination remains in the same detachment as the base unit. I say the rules don't give you permission to make that assumption. We have applied the same rules and come to two different end points as my conclusion is that a unit consisting of models from both detachments cannot be determined to be part of either by RAW.

Okay, I see what you mean and how you can interpret my post in this way. This is exactly why I posted this, to see the flaws and this is one of wording, thank you for that.
Let me rephrase it then. The independent character does not register as an independent unit as far as the rules are concerned and is as such absorbed into the host unit(for want of a better term). This does not create a new unit but changes the status of the host unit to now exist with the IC as a joined model with it's own characteristics, special rules, status and wargear. The status of the IC at this point is checked at the model level, not the unit level(he checks his status in regard to the other models in his host unit, not outside his unit as would any other model in his unit).

I hope this clears it up

**WarOne**

rigeld2 wrote:
You're seriously asserting he's still a unit unto himself?
Really?

So you're okay with me shooting your IC and not the unit he's with?
And forbidding him from using Look Out sir! Of course because that only applies to models in the same unit.
Want more places that fails?

Also keep in mind that he can still join the other unit, but he is a unit unto himself as well as outlined on Page 3 indicating that powerful individual models can be units unto themselves.

And unfortunately, the rules would not explicitly forbid him Look Out Sir rolls because while he is a unit unto himself, he is also apart of the unit he attaches to as well. But yes, you would be able to shoot him if you are able to target a unique unit.

But then again, I'm going with a strict interpretation of the permissive rule set given me. Under no circumstances does it deny me able to make multi-unit units by "grouping models together into units."

**Xarin**

WarOne wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:
You're seriously asserting he's still a unit unto himself?
Really?

So you're okay with me shooting your IC and not the unit he's with?
And forbidding him from using Look Out sir! Of course because that only applies to models in the same unit.
Want more places that fails?

Also keep in mind that he can still join the other unit, but he is a unit unto himself as well as outlined on Page 3 indicating that powerful individual models can be units unto themselves.

And unfortunately, the rules would not explicitly forbid him Look Out Sir rolls because while he is a unit unto himself, he is also apart of the unit he attaches to as well. But yes, you would be able to shoot him if you are able to target a unique unit.

But then again, I'm going with a strict interpretation of the permissive rule set given me. Under no circumstances does it deny me able to make multi-unit units by "grouping models together into units."

"can be" being the primary issue here, not "must be" or "always are". And if you want to treat him as a separate unit in one situation, he must therefor be treated as a separate unit in all other situations as well, which means that following that logic(not that it is not mine) you can target an IC in a unit and then still use look out sir because both unit exist separately and independent at the same time.

The existence of an newly created unit not owned by any player nor present on any army list(which is what creating a multi unit does, it makes something new)seems like an illegal state of game to me(I'm not saying cheating, but the game itself is in a situation it is not allowed to be in by it's own definitions)

In short, pick a version of the IC is a part of the unit situation and stick to it, don't use it one way or the other whenever it is most suited for you.

**WarOne**

Xarin wrote:
WarOne wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:
You're seriously asserting he's still a unit unto himself?
Really?

So you're okay with me shooting your IC and not the unit he's with?
And forbidding him from using Look Out sir! Of course because that only applies to models in the same unit.
Want more places that fails?

Also keep in mind that he can still join the other unit, but he is a unit unto himself as well as outlined on Page 3 indicating that powerful individual models can be units unto themselves.

And unfortunately, the rules would not explicitly forbid him Look Out Sir rolls because while he is a unit unto himself, he is also apart of the unit he attaches to as well. But yes, you would be able to shoot him if you are able to target a unique unit.

But then again, I'm going with a strict interpretation of the permissive rule set given me. Under no circumstances does it deny me able to make multi-unit units by "grouping models together into units."

"can be" being the primary issue here, not "must be" or "always are". And if you want to treat him as a separate unit in one situation, he must therefor be treated as a separate unit in all other situations as well, which means that following that logic(not that it is not mine) you can target an IC in a unit and then still use look out sir because both unit exist separately and independent at the same time.

In short, pick a version of the IC is a part of the unit situation and stick to it, don't use it one way or the other whenever it is most suited for you.

Correct, you assume all the positives and negatives of the situation due to a RAW interpretation.

**Xarin**

true and seeing as I can not peer into the heads of the games designers RAW is what I have to work with. Whether or not RAW is a good thing is another discussion completely, but it's been here since GW decided it to be in 3,75 so not much we can do about that. However without RAW you leave the door open for as much own interpretation of the rules as the player sees fit at that moment and that is not a situation that I believe we should strive for as it means we would be playing ruleshammer instead of warhammer.

In general I really try to be as neutral as possible in the rules, I want a fair game not an easy win. If that means pointing out a rule to my opponent that makes me lose, but would otherwise make me win by ignoring that rule, I will point it out. I want to understand the rules for myself first and foremost so that I can have the most fun during the battle itself and not get bogged down by the rules(after all, it is no fun to have a 3 hour match consist of 2 hours rules debate, I want to have fun playing the game with my opponent, not argue with him/her)

**WarOne**

I think though once you accept RAW gets absurd, you then have to consider How I Would Play It (HIWPI).

If you cannot guess RAI, you have to make a logical assumption at what the RAI was meant to do.

Looking at page 112 of Allies, it tells you that each army has a potential alliance level, one of which is Battle Brothers.

Battle Brothers as a special rule tells you that Battle Brothers are treated as 'friendly units' from all points of view. But what does that mean?

Can a single IC model in a unit from another army still be a Battle Brother when attached to an allied unit even if the rules tell you to treat the IC model as a member of that unit from all rule purposes (Page 39)?

But does that mean the IC loses his Battle Brother status? Page 39 says that special rules or ongoing effects cannot be conferred from the IC to an allied unit and vice versa. While Battle Brother is not a special rule, it is an overarching special effect conferred to an allied IC when his army is a Battle Brother to another army (unless you want to treat being a Battle Brother as a special rule). Given that Page 112 considers Alliances an effect on the second paragraph. This effect does not expire (else the Alliance would not exist anymore), it is an ongoing effect and even if the IC joins a BB unit, this effect does not get shared per the rules on Page 39.

Does that mean that even if the IC joins a BB unit, is he still a Battle Brother? Page 112 tells you that a Battle Brother is treated as an allied unit from all points of view but page 39 tells you he is a part of that unit for all rule purposes.

In short, can a singular model in a unit be considered a friendly unit unto itself? Do the rules tell you to disregard Battle Brother status or the fact that he is an allied unit from all points of view?

In super short, the rules fail to clarify the situation as we can have any number of interpretations through reading all the rules given to us by GW.

**Xarin**

The risk with playing RAI or (HIWPI) of course being that it leaves a lot open to the interpretation of the moment, that is why, in my opinion, we need to rely on raw as much as possible in this rules set until things are clarified to make sure both players are playing the same game. It just seems to me like very thing ice to be standing on.

So as far as I see it, RAW says that techically my interpretation is correct but RAI suggests that it possible might not have been intended to be(the why of this does not matter). I think that for my personal situation I'll just consult with my opponent/tournament organiser beforehand if I possibly want to use this rule in my army. After all the game should feel as fair to both players.

Thanks everyone for your imput so far, I have seen both sides of the argument and can see both points of view, as well as having seen the flaw in my original post and having corrected it to be correct. I personally have not seen any true reason for my reasoning to be wrong so far, although several side-notes are to be made(especially considering RAI) but RAW or RAI ruling is to be decided on a local level by players and Tournament organisers, not a global one.

**WarOne**

Xarin wrote:
The risk with playing RAI of course being that it leaves a lot open to the interpretation of the moment, that is why, in my opinion, we need to rely on raw as much as possible in this rules set until things are clarified to make sure both players are playing the same game.

YMDC is actually a good source of finding common ground once a discussion finds that yes there is an issue with RAW, so then the most logical assumption should be is how can we make it work. The fewest deviations from RAW would suffice, but it also has personal investment in how the idea is implemented. Some people consider a Space Marine captain wearing a Tau mask and jumping in a Devilfish with his best buddies something unfathomably unfluffy/wierd they wouldn't accept it in any event for example.

**rigeld2**

WarOne wrote:
Also keep in mind that he can still join the other unit, but he is a unit unto himself as well as outlined on Page 3 indicating that powerful individual models can be units unto themselves.

So, I'm looking at page 3 and I don't see anything defining a multiple unit unit. Could you show me where it is? I'm sure I'm just missing it.

But then again, I'm going with a strict interpretation of the permissive rule set given me. Under no circumstances does it deny me able to make multi-unit units by "grouping models together into units."

Yes, you can group models into units. You have no permission to group multiple units into units. You have no permission to treat the IC as a separate hint even after he joins a unit. Unless you'd care to cite something that supports your extraordinary statements?

**WarOne**

Page 3 cites that models can be grouped into units. Further they only give one definition of a usual composition of a unit composed of several models, again leaving the door open to various interpretations of unit composition. A second definition included individual models being a unit all to themselves as well.

**rigeld2**

WarOne wrote:
Page 3 cites that models can be grouped into units. Further they only give one definition of a usual composition of a unit composed of several models, again leaving the door open to various interpretations of unit composition. A second definition included individual models being a unit all to themselves as well.

Models are grouped into units. Not can.
They don't "leave the door open" in a permissive rule set - you're making assumptions without rules support.

**WarOne**

Models are grouped into units, correct. And a model such as powerful individuals can be a unit in and of themselves. Which would also allow a Battle Brother IC to retain his BBC status even when attached to an allied unit.

**Xarin**

gonna have to agree with rigel on this one.

WarOne wrote:
Models are grouped into units, correct. And a model such as powerful individuals can be a unit in and of themselves. Which would also allow a Battle Brother IC to retain his BBC status even when attached to an allied unit.

the first two sentences are correct and can be found in the rulebook. The second one has the word 'can' in it , not "must" or "is". Can means possibility, not mandatory state of being. This makes your third sentence invalid