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**

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.

And you've still failed to cite permission for this "super unit".

**WarOne**

Suffice to say at this point the argument I made I've done what I could referencing the relevant pages for information and asserted my position. Nothing more can be done.

Remember though this is something I would not play RAW. I would wonder how can the Battle Brother effect be lost when ICs
join an allied unit as these models must be considered BBS from all points of view.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:
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.

And you've still failed to cite permission for this "super unit".

Page 3 where models are grouped into units.

**Lobokai**

Ok, rigeld and Xarin, IF you are correct, can a BB board a DT or a transport while in reserve? I'm going to pitch this to my club and I want the full implications before I do.

**Xarin**

WarOne wrote:
Suffice to say at this point the argument I made I've done what I could referencing the relevant pages for information and asserted my position. Nothing more can be done.

Remember though this is something I would not play RAW. I would wonder how can the Battle Brother effect be lost when ICs
join an allied unit as these models must be considered BBS from all points of view.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:
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.

And you've still failed to cite permission for this "super unit".

Page 3 where models are grouped into units.

The part that most people don't seem to grasp is that nothing is ignored, lost or whatever. It simply does not apply to the situation.

Also the all points of view perspective in this context is quite debatable because where does it say we have to do this?

**Lobokai**

@kambien, you are the reading comprehension poster boy

**kambien**

Lobukia wrote:
@kambien, you are the reading comprehension poster boy

?

**Xarin**

Lobukia wrote:
Ok, rigeld and Xarin, IF you are correct, can a BB board a DT or a transport while in reserve? I'm going to pitch this to my club and I want the full implications before I do.

please treat this answer as an IF we are correct situation then

if your IC has joined the unit(you have declared he becomes part of the unit during pre-battle setup or deployment as normal) and you have declared that the unit is in a transport during deployment he can be on board the transport with the rest of the unit while all are in reserve. As long as it is declared before the unit comes out of reserves I don't see any restrictions just as with an IC from the same detachment.

Hope this helps

**DJGietzen**

Lobukia wrote:
Ok, rigeld and Xarin, IF you are correct, can a BB board a DT or a transport while in reserve? I'm going to pitch this to my club and I want the full implications before I do.

Thanks to page 121 we know that IC will join units in reserve before the choice to deploy that unit in a transport (dedicated or otherwise) is made. The allowance for an BB IC attached to a unit to be deployed in the same transport as that unit would be no different to allowing that IC to embark after the start of the game.

**rigeld2**

WarOne wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
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.

And you've still failed to cite permission for this "super unit".

Page 3 where models are grouped into units.

Yup. That's what it talks about on that page.

Nothing about models belonging to more than one unit, or a unit of units though. And since there's no permission for it...

**WarOne**

rigeld2 wrote:
WarOne wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
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.

And you've still failed to cite permission for this "super unit".

Page 3 where models are grouped into units.

Yup. That's what it talks about on that page.

Nothing about models belonging to more than one unit, or a unit of units though. And since there's no permission for it...

And that is where the permission lies in that statement.

**nosferatu1001**

Except there isnt permission to be a member of two units, at all. Or youc ould cite the specific allowance to be a member of 2+ units.

**WarOne**

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Except there isnt permission to be a member of two units, at all. Or youc ould cite the specific allowance to be a member of 2+ units.

Gladly. Page 3- "In Warhammer 40k, we represent this by grouping models together into units."

Now with that said, they cite one example of a usual example of a model formation composed of several models in a unit- "A unit usually consists of several models that have banded togther."

However, they also say "but a single, powerful model, such as a lone character, a tank, a war engine or a rampaging monster, is considered to be a unit in its own right."

Page 39 under Independent Character rules-

"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."

Ongoing Effects Page 39-
explains the nature of effects staying or leaving when an IC leaves or joins a unit.

Page 112- Levels of Alliance- "To represent this, we have several categories of alliances, each of which imposes certain effects on the game. The Allies Matrix shows the levels of potential alliances between each army."

Page 112- Battle Brothers- "Battle Brothers are treated as 'friendly units' from all points of view. This means, for example, that Battle Brothers:

"Can be joined by allied Independent Characters."

Given that BB is an effect that continues to influence ICs and that under page 3 that asserts grouping models together into units, if we allow a BB IC to join with a BB allied unit, he counts as a 'friendly unit' from all points of view, attaching as a 'friendly unit' to an allied BB unit for that particular alliance level.

I hope this helps with clarity on the matter.

**grendel083**

WarOne wrote:
However, they also say "but a single, powerful model, such as a lone character, a tank, a war engine or a rampaging monster, is considered to be a unit in its own right."

A character in a unit isn't "lone", now is it?

**Abandon**

rigeld2 wrote:
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.

Not as a separate unit.

(when single shines the triple sun)
The two are made one.

**WarOne**

grendel083 wrote:
WarOne wrote:
However, they also say "but a single, powerful model, such as a lone character, a tank, a war engine or a rampaging monster, is considered to be a unit in its own right."
A character in a unit isn't "lone", now is it?

You are correct and hence the difference between regular characters (normally considered a part of a unit of models) and Independent Characters, the latter of which is what I have argued represents their own unique unit.

**Abandon**

Xarin wrote:
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.

Or you could just dismiss points out of hand without any real argument. Is that how rules debates go?

I have made my claims based on the rules and all you an say is 'well I could say the opposite'. I'm starting to doubt you are really interested in a rules debate.

**rigeld2**

Abandon wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:
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.

Not as a separate unit.

(when single shines the triple sun)
The two are made one.

... Which is literally what I've said. Repeatedly. Thanks for agreeing.

**Abandon**

rigeld2 wrote:
Abandon wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:
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.

Not as a separate unit.

(when single shines the triple sun)
The two are made one.

... Which is literally what I've said. Repeatedly. Thanks for agreeing.

That is not the part I disagreed on so... your welcome

I'm saying that everything that made the Tau IC unit a Tau IC unit (which is the Tau IC model) is now attributed to the unit it joins effectively adding the two units together into one unit that has all the same characteristics each had independently.

**rigeld2**

Abandon wrote:
I'm saying that everything that made the Tau IC unit a Tau IC unit (which is the Tau IC model) is now attributed to the unit it joins effectively adding the two units together into one unit that has all the same characteristics each had independently.

And you've also been unable to cite rules supporting that statement. So...

Automatically Appended Next Post:

WarOne wrote:
nosferatu1001 wrote:
Except there isnt permission to be a member of two units, at all. Or youc ould cite the specific allowance to be a member of 2+ units.

Gladly. Page 3- "In Warhammer 40k, we represent this by grouping models together into units."

Now with that said, they cite one example of a usual example of a model formation composed of several models in a unit- "A unit usually consists of several models that have banded togther."

However, they also say "but a single, powerful model, such as a lone character, a tank, a war engine or a rampaging monster, is considered to be a unit in its own right."

Page 39 under Independent Character rules-

"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."

Ongoing Effects Page 39-
explains the nature of effects staying or leaving when an IC leaves or joins a unit.

Page 112- Levels of Alliance- "To represent this, we have several categories of alliances, each of which imposes certain effects on the game. The Allies Matrix shows the levels of potential alliances between each army."

Page 112- Battle Brothers- "Battle Brothers are treated as 'friendly units' from all points of view. This means, for example, that Battle Brothers:

"Can be joined by allied Independent Characters."

Given that BB is an effect that continues to influence ICs and that under page 3 that asserts grouping models together into units, if we allow a BB IC to join with a BB allied unit, he counts as a 'friendly unit' from all points of view, attaching as a 'friendly unit' to an allied BB unit for that particular alliance level.

I hope this helps with clarity on the matter.

All of those rules quotes and not a single one allowing a model to be a member of two units at the same time. Wow.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

WarOne wrote:
grendel083 wrote:
WarOne wrote:
However, they also say "but a single, powerful model, such as a lone character, a tank, a war engine or a rampaging monster, is considered to be a unit in its own right."
A character in a unit isn't "lone", now is it?

You are correct and hence the difference between regular characters (normally considered a part of a unit of models) and Independent Characters, the latter of which is what I have argued represents their own unique unit.

When they're alone, yes they're a unique unit.
Whe. They've joined another unit they aren't alone. (Hint - that's what joined means)

**WarOne**

rigeld2 wrote:

All of those rules quotes and not a single one allowing a model to be a member of two units at the same time. Wow.

It starts with Page 3 as the rulebook allows grouping models together into units, not a unit, but units.

**AnonAmbientLight**

rigeld2 wrote:
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?

Battle Brothers can never embark on transports. Ever. There's no rule exception here anywhere that i can find.

The reason why i gave the Tau example with markerlights is that the Codex itself specifically states that markerlights can only be used by Tau Codex units and no one else. You can have a Chaplain join a squad of FWs, but he cannot use the markerlights. He doesn't suddenly be a part of the Tau Codex just because he's hanging out with them.

What happens when a SM Chaplain joins a Tau Commander. Are they now a super unit that can embark in ANY transport?

I

**rigeld2**

WarOne wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:

All of those rules quotes and not a single one allowing a model to be a member of two units at the same time. Wow.

It starts with Page 3 as the rulebook allows grouping models together into units, not a unit, but units.

And what does a unit consist of? It's almost like the plural there is because you will have multiple units in an army.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

AnonAmbientLight wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:
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?
Battle Brothers can never embark on transports. Ever. There's no rule exception here anywhere that i can find.

Then you're not reading and understanding the thread.

The reason why i gave the Tau example with markerlights is that the Codex itself specifically states that markerlights can only be used by Tau Codex units and no one else. You can have a Chaplain join a squad of FWs, but he cannot use the markerlights. He doesn't suddenly be a part of the Tau Codex just because he's hanging out with them.

The marker light rule that was quoted absolutely disagrees with you. You can argue intent all you want, but that doesn't change what's written.

What happens when a SM Chaplain joins a Tau Commander. Are they now a super unit that can embark in ANY transport?

No. It'd be a Tau unit (since the Chaplain joined the Commander). If the Commander joined the Chaplain it'd be an SM unit.

**WarOne**

rigeld2 wrote:
WarOne wrote:

All of those rules quotes and not a single one allowing a model to be a member of two units at the same time. Wow.

It starts with Page 3 as the rulebook allows grouping models together into units, not a unit, but units.
And what does a unit consist of? It's almost like the plural there is because you will have multiple units in an army.

As per page 3, a unit usually consists of models. However, you can have models also in units.

**rigeld2**

WarOne wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:
WarOne wrote:

All of those rules quotes and not a single one allowing a model to be a member of two units at the same time. Wow.

It starts with Page 3 as the rulebook allows grouping models together into units, not a unit, but units.
And what does a unit consist of? It's almost like the plural there is because you will have multiple units in an army.

As per page 3, a unit usually consists of models. However, you can have models also in units.

The first sentence is permitted by page 3. The second is completely made up and has no support from page 3.
Can you admit this multiple-unit unit? Page 3 doesn't support it at all and it breaks numerous rules. Units with an IC would never be allowed to embark a non-Apoc transport, for example, because they can only transport a single unit.

**WarOne**

rigeld2 wrote:
WarOne wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:
WarOne wrote:

All of those rules quotes and not a single one allowing a model to be a member of two units at the same time. Wow.

It starts with Page 3 as the rulebook allows grouping models together into units, not a unit, but units.
And what does a unit consist of? It's almost like the plural there is because you will have multiple units in an army.

As per page 3, a unit usually consists of models. However, you can have models also in units.

The first sentence is permitted by page 3. The second is completely made up and has no support from page 3.
Can you admit this multiple-unit unit? Page 3 doesn't support it at all and it breaks numerous rules. Units with an IC would never be allowed to embark a non-Apoc transport, for example, because they can only transport a single unit.

I can admit this, Page 3 states this by"grouping models together into units."

I appreciate the critique and critical analysis of course, but such as it is, I believe that we have delved as far as can possible go into this particular debate. RAW leaves little left else to dissect as unit composition pretty much begins and ends on Page 3.

**rigeld2**

WarOne wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:
WarOne wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:
WarOne wrote:

All of those rules quotes and not a single one allowing a model to be a member of two units at the same time. Wow.

It starts with Page 3 as the rulebook allows grouping models together into units, not a unit, but units.
And what does a unit consist of? It's almost like the plural there is because you will have multiple units in an army.

As per page 3, a unit usually consists of models. However, you can have models also in units.

The first sentence is permitted by page 3. The second is completely made up and has no support from page 3.
Can you admit this multiple-unit unit? Page 3 doesn't support it at all and it breaks numerous rules. Units with an IC would never be allowed to embark a non-Apoc transport, for example, because they can only transport a single unit.

I can admit this, Page 3 states this by"grouping models together into units."

I appreciate the critique and critical analysis of course, but such as it is, I believe that we have delved as far as can possible go into this particular debate. RAW leaves little left else to dissect as unit composition pretty much begins and ends on Page 3.

It uses the plural there because if it didn't you'd only be able to have a single unit ever. You have 20 models. 10 in that unit, 9 in that unit, 1 in that unit. There - modelS have been grouped into unitS.

Since you won't bother conceding the point, will you at least stop arguing it? Your viewpoint has literally no rules support except for you taking one single word and twisting how it's used.

**WarOne**

rigeld2 wrote:
WarOne wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:
WarOne wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:
WarOne wrote:

All of those rules quotes and not a single one allowing a model to be a member of two units at the same time. Wow.

It starts with Page 3 as the rulebook allows grouping models together into units, not a unit, but units.
And what does a unit consist of? It's almost like the plural there is because you will have multiple units in an army.

As per page 3, a unit usually consists of models. However, you can have models also in units.

The first sentence is permitted by page 3. The second is completely made up and has no support from page 3.
Can you admit this multiple-unit unit? Page 3 doesn't support it at all and it breaks numerous rules. Units with an IC would never be allowed to embark a non-Apoc transport, for example, because they can only transport a single unit.

I can admit this, Page 3 states this by"grouping models together into units."

I appreciate the critique and critical analysis of course, but such as it is, I believe that we have delved as far as can possible go into this particular debate. RAW leaves little left else to dissect as unit composition pretty much begins and ends on Page 3.

It uses the plural there because if it didn't you'd only be able to have a single unit ever. You have 20 models. 10 in that unit, 9 in that unit, 1 in that unit. There - modelS have been grouped into unitS.

Since you won't bother conceding the point, will you at least stop arguing it? Your viewpoint has literally no rules support except for you taking one single word and twisting how it's used.

I believe we had an exhaustive, constructive debate about the subject am I agree that the RAW interpretation would probably not work with a RAI ruling so to that point we can shift the debate to another area.

For example, how to define the relationship of a Battle Brother IC in an allied unit when the allied rule from Page 112 asks us to treat all Battle Brothers as 'friendly units.'

i.e. the current debate between other members on this thread.

**rigeld2**

WarOne wrote:
I believe we had an exhaustive, constructive debate about the subject am I agree that the RAW interpretation would probably not work with a RAI ruling so to that point we can shift the debate to another area.

Your interpretation has no basis in rules and cannot be considered RAW.

**Abandon**

rigeld2 wrote:
Abandon wrote:
I'm saying that everything that made the Tau IC unit a Tau IC unit (which is the Tau IC model) is now attributed to the unit it joins effectively adding the two units together into one unit that has all the same characteristics each had independently.

And you've also been unable to cite rules supporting that statement. So...

I've cited rules for my arguments though none have been asked for as the rules surrounding this issue are well known by the relevant parties.

Abandon wrote:
"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)

So as far as we can tell a unit by itself is only defined essentially as a group of models. Not a group belonging to a specific codex, not of a specific characteristic, etc. So a unit of Space Marines is such not by default or because you purchased the unit that way but because it contains Space Marines. In light of that fact a unit that contains more than just Space Marines will be more than just a unit of Space Marines.

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

Here it is made clear the IC is as much a part of the unit as every other member of that unit and therefore it's own characteristics are also taken into consideration for the unit as a whole just like every other models characteristics in the unit.

I'll add another citation though I really did not think it necessary "Independent Characters can join other units." page 39, BRB

IC's join units. They do not disappear into them. They are not subsumed or absorbed into them. They are joined which signifies nothing more than an attachment, a connection or link causing them to be considered one unit instead of two. Joining is a two way relationship indicating each side is attached to the other. How you may have twisted this around to mean something other than two entities being connected together to form a new whole is unclear to me.

**rigeld2**

Abandon wrote:
I've cited rules for my arguments though none have been asked for as the rules surrounding this issue are well known by the relevant parties.

You've cited rules. They don't actually support your argument.

Abandon wrote:
"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)

So as far as we can tell a unit by itself is only defined essentially as a group of models. Not a group belonging to a specific codex, not of a specific characteristic, etc. So a unit of Space Marines is such not by default or because you purchased the unit that way but because it contains Space Marines. In light of that fact a unit that contains more than just Space Marines will be more than just a unit of Space Marines.

As far as the rules for embarking are concerned that's an irrelevant distinction.

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

Here it is made clear the IC is as much a part of the unit as every other member of that unit and therefore it's own characteristics are also taken into consideration for the unit as a whole just like every other models characteristics in the unit.

Relevancy? Codex membership isn't a characteristic.

I'll add another citation though I really did not think it necessary "Independent Characters can join other units." page 39, BRB

IC's join units. They do not disappear into them. They are not subsumed or absorbed into them. They are joined which signifies nothing more than an attachment, a connection or link causing them to be considered one unit instead of two. Joining is a two way relationship indicating each side is attached to the other. How you may have twisted this around to mean something other than two entities being connected together to form a new whole is unclear to me.

Have I said it isn't a two way relationship?
Have you cited what rule keeps him being a unit? No? So what is your actual point?