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.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Are you going to answer the question??? Yes or no is the unit of Warriors + CCB a chariot unit?

what are you getting at? a Unit of Chariots would be a unit comprised wholly of Chariots, A unit of Warriors with an Overlord with CCB upgrade is a Warrior unit with Attached IC.

If I have a SM Captain on a Bike attacked to a Centurion Devastator Squad is it counted as a Bike Squad? or as a Cen Dev Squad with a Captain in it?

In the 7th brb it states a unit with a psyker attached is a psyker unit, so following that logic, yes a unit of warriors with a attached chariot would be a chariot unit.

Edit* for the record, I don't believe a chariot joining infantry was intended. Its obviously an oversight.

Cool lets say I have a unit that fires 100 lascannons at the warrior unit (say 5 warriors) the Chariot is the nearest model. This must therefore be the sequence:

1. Roll hit, lets say I hit 66 times with my lascannons.
2. Roll to wound against majority toughness (in this case 4), lets say I roll 60 wounds
3. Wounds go to wound pool and are allocated one at a time to the chariot.
4. Either the unit takes no damage as we can't resolve wounds against the vehicle or the game breaks.

Please find fault with that sequence without using rules that require you to be targeting a Chariot unit as you say the unit is not a Chariot unit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BarBoBot wrote:
In the 7th brb it states a unit with a psyker attached is a psyker unit, so following that logic, yes a unit of warriors with a attached chariot would be a chariot unit.

Cool so if it is a Chariot unit. When a modelin a chariot unit is reduced to zero wounds or has its chariot have zero hull points it is removed. Therefore as none of the warriors have hull points on their Chariots they are all instantly removed as casualties upon the IC joining them.

 BarBoBot wrote:
In the 7th brb it states a unit with a psyker attached is a psyker unit, so following that logic, yes a unit of warriors with a attached chariot would be a chariot unit.

Ehm, no. That comparison doesn't make sense here.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 BarBoBot wrote:
In the 7th brb it states a unit with a psyker attached is a psyker unit, so following that logic, yes a unit of warriors with a attached chariot would be a chariot unit.

Ehm, no. That comparison doesn't make sense here.

Its is what it is. If a psyker joined to a unit makes it a psyker unit, then its logical that a chariot joined to a warrior unit makes it a chariot unit.

 BarBoBot wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

 BarBoBot wrote:
In the 7th brb it states a unit with a psyker attached is a psyker unit, so following that logic, yes a unit of warriors with a attached chariot would be a chariot unit.

Ehm, no. That comparison doesn't make sense here.

Its is what it is. If a psyker joined to a unit makes it a psyker unit, then its logical that a chariot joined to a warrior unit makes it a chariot unit.

So you agree any unit he joins is instantly removed?

I don't think chariots should be joining infantry. Just my opinion. I think its a rules error.

Psyker is a USR, Chariot is a unit type.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Cool lets say I have a unit that fires 100 lascannons at the warrior unit (say 5 warriors) the Chariot is the nearest model. This must therefore be the sequence:

1. Roll hit, lets say I hit 66 times with my lascannons.
2. Roll to wound against majority toughness (in this case 4), lets say I roll 60 wounds
3. Wounds go to wound pool and are allocated one at a time to the chariot.
4. Either the unit takes no damage as we can't resolve wounds against the vehicle or the game breaks.

Please find fault with that sequence without using rules that require you to be targeting a Chariot unit as you say the unit is not a Chariot unit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BarBoBot wrote:
In the 7th brb it states a unit with a psyker attached is a psyker unit, so following that logic, yes a unit of warriors with a attached chariot would be a chariot unit.

Cool so if it is a Chariot unit. When a modelin a chariot unit is reduced to zero wounds or has its chariot have zero hull points it is removed. Therefore as none of the warriors have hull points on their Chariots they are all instantly removed as casualties upon the IC joining them.

At no point in this scenario is the Warrior unit a Chariot unit. What are you smoking?

If the Chariot is in front, you follow the Chariot rules where the Chariot player decides to resolve hits against vehicle or rider profile.

Have you read the Chariot rules? The rider assigning hits rules requires someone to be "shooting at a Chariot unit" which you've stated is not what is happening. So which is it are they a Chariot unit or not? And please be consistent with your answer this time.

The unit takes no damage.

Didn't say it was a pretty solution, but there is RAW no issue with kpjoining the IC chariot, as proven

 FlingitNow wrote:
Have you read the Chariot rules? The rider assigning hits rules requires someone to be "shooting at a Chariot unit" which you've stated is not what is happening. So which is it are they a Chariot unit or not? And please be consistent with your answer this time.

I won't have the rules in front of me for a few hours. So feel free to quote rules and make a case and not expect me to do the work for you by leading me along with questions. Looks like they might need to FAQ away some inconsistency. So GW is definitely being sloppy. Surprise. Either they need to FAQ away the CCBs IC like they did in the Chaos Daemon codex or they need to FAQ in some clarity on wound allocation.

They wouldn't be a chariot unit as there is no rule for saying they are. It's like saying an IC who is riding in a bike who joins a terminator squad makes the terminator a bike unit. They do not. The unit is comprised of infantry and a bike model. This ensures that the biker still takes dangerous terrain and moves as slow as infantry due to the restrictions on his unit.

The reason why the rules break is because I don't think there's any kind of precedent for how to handle a vehicle joining a unit of infantry or otherwise.

Hull Points and wounds are obviously not inter changable as they function completely different in terms of benefits and abilities that can be expected from them. If I was to play a game where I was going against a chariot that was permitted to join a unit of infantry, then I would strictly abide by the shooting phase and ignore the chariot's special abilities when it comes to being shot at. I would assume that because the chariot joined the unit of infantry that it would become, for all intents and purposes, part of that unit. Or a multi-unit type unit and thus I would argue that it loses its "chariot unit type" special abilities as I would no longer consider that unit a chariot unit. However, the model would still count as a chariot model and would inherit any penalties and benefits you can see in being a chariot model that isn't in a chariot unit.

Thus, as per the normal shooting sequence when not shooting at a chariot unit, I would roll against majority toughness and the chariot rider would be forced to take the wounds on his overlord if a wound is allocated to his model.

If 2 chariots joined a unit together, they would still count as being a chariot unit. This is the only way that I can see these rules functioning without fundamentally breaking the game. Ofcourse the other option is to simply make chariots lose their IC rule.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Cool lets say I have a unit that fires 100 lascannons at the warrior unit (say 5 warriors) the Chariot is the nearest model. This must therefore be the sequence:

1. Roll hit, lets say I hit 66 times with my lascannons.
2. Roll to wound against majority toughness (in this case 4), lets say I roll 60 wounds
3. Wounds go to wound pool and are allocated one at a time to the chariot.
4. Either the unit takes no damage as we can't resolve wounds against the vehicle or the game breaks.

Please find fault with that sequence without using rules that require you to be targeting a Chariot unit as you say the unit is not a Chariot unit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BarBoBot wrote:
In the 7th brb it states a unit with a psyker attached is a psyker unit, so following that logic, yes a unit of warriors with a attached chariot would be a chariot unit.

Cool so if it is a Chariot unit. When a modelin a chariot unit is reduced to zero wounds or has its chariot have zero hull points it is removed. Therefore as none of the warriors have hull
points on their Chariots they are all instantly removed as casualties upon the IC joining them.

I have seen this logic and it needs to end.

You are not even looking at how to resolve shooting against a Chariot. Regardless of whether or not CCB is attached to a Unit or not the Shooting is resolved the exact same way.

As per page 86 BRB "When shooting at a Chariot unit, total up the number of successful hits that have been caused. Keep the dice that have scored hits and create a 'pool' where each dice represents a hit.- The player controlling the Chariot unit then allocates each hit pool either to the rider or the chariot of the closest model in the unit."

Your Logic: Choose target, choose weapon, roll to hit, roll to wound, allocate wounds, make saves, choose next weapon. (This is not wrong if shooting phase is unaltered) However, this logic does not work against a Chariot as before any rolls to wound or Armour pen are made the controlling player decides which pool is allocated to which profile.

Example: 10 man Devastator Squad with 4 Lazcannons, Melta Gun, 5 boltguns. shooting at a 20 man Warrior Squad with attached Overlord upgraded with CCB closest model is the chariot.

So the SM player fires his Lazcannons first and hit with all 4, The Necron player decides that those wounds will hit the rider and thus the Hits from that pool roll to wound against majority toughness, wounding on 2+, The Overlord's phase shifter saves all but one wound caused and his total wounds is reduced by 1. Then the SM measures to see that his Melta Gun is out of range and thus can not affect the target unit. Then the Sm player fires hit Bolt guns, The Necron player allocates those hit to the Chariot and as Str 4 cannot hurt AV 13 nothing else happens.

And thus we have resolved shooting against a Chariot from an attacking Unit in game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sonicaucie wrote:
They wouldn't be a chariot unit as there is no rule for saying they are. It's like saying an IC who is riding in a bike who joins a terminator squad makes the terminator a bike unit. They do not. The unit is comprised of infantry and a bike model. This ensures that the biker still takes dangerous terrain and moves as slow as infantry due to the restrictions on his unit.

The reason why the rules break is because I don't think there's any kind of precedent for how to handle a vehicle joining a unit of infantry or otherwise.

Hull Points and wounds are obviously not inter changable as they function completely different in terms of benefits and abilities that can be expected from them. If I was to play a game where I was going against a chariot that was permitted to join a unit of infantry, then I would strictly abide by the shooting phase and ignore the chariot's special abilities when it comes to being shot at. I would assume that because the chariot joined the unit of infantry that it would become, for all intents and purposes, part of that unit. Or a multi-unit type unit and thus I would argue that it loses its "chariot unit type" special abilities as I would no longer consider that unit a chariot unit. However, the model would still count as a chariot model and would inherit any penalties and benefits you can see in being a chariot model that isn't in a chariot unit.

Thus, as per the normal shooting sequence when not shooting at a chariot unit, I would roll against majority toughness and the chariot rider would be forced to take the wounds on his overlord if a wound is allocated to his model.

If 2 chariots joined a unit together, they would still count as being a chariot unit. This is the only way that I can see these rules functioning without fundamentally breaking the game. Ofcourse the other option is to simply make chariots lose their IC rule.

Can you show where a Model joining a unit loses its special rules when it has different special rules in regard to the unit it is joining. I have seen in the BRB several times where a unit is restricted from benefiting from the full effect of its Special rules (SM IC on BIke joined to non-bike unit must remain within unit coherency).

This is not 6th ed anymore this is 7th ed and there are new things we have to adjust to, I know that many are opposed to change. This does not change the fact that at this time this is RAW, and we have to adjust to it or not play the game.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
The unit takes no damage.

Didn't say it was a pretty solution, but there is RAW no issue with kpjoining the IC chariot, as proven

That is so, so wrong. Let me summarise the RAW positions for you.

RAW - ANTI JOINING

RAW : Treat 2 characteristic profiles as one model

RAW - ERB Pg 510, first para under "Chariots" = "A Chariot is an unusual unit with a dual profile - a non vehicle profile for the rider of the Chariot (see below), and a vehicle profile for the Chariot itself. However a Chariot is always treated as a single model." For reference the "see below" is to a diagram showing CHARACTERISTIC profiles, with no reference at all to either wargear or special rules. It also does not say "model" anywhere in the example.


RAW : The Rider and Chariot have separate USR which cannot be used by each other

ERB pg 510 under heading "Characters Riding Chariots" = "If the rider has a special rule that returns it to play after it has been removed as a casualty, such as Necron's Ever-living special rule, that model's Chariot is also returned to play with a single Hull Point."

ERB pg 512 "Challenges" = "A Rider who is a character can issue and accept challenges as normal, but cannot perform a glorious intervention".

ERB pg 513 "Special Rules" = "A Chariot has the hammer of wrath special rule ...." and also "A Rider has the Fearless and Relentless special rules. A rider can fire Overwatch if its Chariot is charged, but cannot shoot any of the weapons mounted on the Chariot itself"

Anti Joining RAW Summary

To avoid confusion here are defined terms applicable to the Chariot rules in the ruleboo.:

"Profile" - a representation of CHARACTERISTICS excluding wargear and special rules as shown in the example profile under the Chariot rules in the ERB.

"Model" - a term defined to mean one or more profiles, together with wargear/USR and or other special rules. Note that USR can only be assigned to a model and must be explicity assigned.

"CCB" - a model which is the result of applying the Chariot rules per the ERB. It consists of a Chariot and a Rider.

"Chariot" - The Chariot characteristic profile plus the following wargear and special rules as assigned in the rulebook/Codex: Tesla Cannon/Gauss Cannon, Relentless, Open Topped, Skimmer, Living Metal, Symbiotic Repair, Quantum shielding

"Rider" - The Rider model consisting of the Rider characteristic profile and wargear and special rules as assigned in the rulebook/Codex : Wargear as selected on the Overlord, Independent Character, Ever-Living, Ability to issue and accept challenges, ability to overwatch, Relentless, Fearless, ability to Sweep attack

In summary: RAW - the combination of Characteristic profiles into the CCB does not combine "models". USR and special rules available to the Rider or the Chariot CANNOT be used by the other. The Chariot for example cannot overwatch, nor can it use it's weapon to perform sweep attacks, nor can it accept challenges. The Rider cannot use symbiotic repair or the weapon on the Chariot.

Yes, the RIDER has IC. However, the CCB DOES NOT have it. IC cannot be transferred to any other unit, or model under any circumstances. IF the rider could disembark, then they would be able to join another unit.

Remember, you have to have EXPRESS permission to do something in this rule set.

RAW - PRO JOINING

RAW - ERB Pg 510, EXTRACT from first paragraph "Chariots" = "However a Chariot is always treated as a single model."

Pro Joining RAW Summary
The sentence says the Chariot is a single model. Hence all USR for the Rider and Chariot are available to the CCB. This means:

A) The CCB (not the Rider) can issue and accept challenges (in contravention of the BRB)
b) The CCB (not the Rider) can fire overwatch with the Chariot Weapon (in contravention of the BRB)
c) The CCB (Not the Rider) can sweep attack with the Chariot Weapon (Contravening the FAQ and Codex)
d) All references to the "Rider" in the ERB are incorrect as it should say "Chariot" because all special rules need to be assigned to a model, ie the CCB. Therefore the Rider is NOT Fearless and the CCB can be swept in combat. Further the CCB is unable to issue or accept challenges as this authority was granted to a Rider, which doesn't exist.
e) The everliving rule does not apply to the CCB because the ERB clearly states "that model's chariot ...". As there is no Rider Model, this can never happen.
f) The CCB is an independent character and can join units.

* * * * *

So considering the above, do you still think that RAW CCB can join units?

If so, then by definition you accept that a-e above are also true?

Can you show where a Model joining a unit loses its special rules when it has different special rules in regard to the unit it is joining. I have seen in the BRB several times where a unit is restricted from benefiting from the full effect of its Special rules (SM IC on BIke joined to non-bike unit must remain within unit coherency).

This is not 6th ed anymore this is 7th ed and there are new things we have to adjust to, I know that many are opposed to change. This does not change the fact that at this time this is RAW, and we have to adjust to it or not play the game.

My point wasn't that it would lose its special rules; rather the opposite. But simply that if a chariot joined a unit of infantry, it would no longer fufill the requirements in order for it to make use of the rule "shooting at a chariot" in its profile.

It makes a direct reference to "chariot unit". a CCB joined to a warrior squad is not a chariot unit as joining the warrior unit makes the chariot a part of the unit for all intents and purposes. What you now have is an infantry unit with a chariot model in it and thus the normal shooting sequence applies to it. Thus the attacking player is free to use majority toughness from all the models in the unit.

It only starts to break when a wound is assigned to the chariot model since there is no clear rule defining what happens if a wound is assigned to the model in general and not allocated through its specific shooting sequence. However, most people would take it to assume that the overlord has now taken a wound because any other outcome would cause the game to halt.

Your summarizing of the CCB retains IC position is silly and does not deserve a response. Quit filibustering with silly straw man lines of argumentation.

My view towards this issue is on the fence but leaning towards "IC is OK". Unfortunately they don't directly spell it out in the brb otherwise we wouldn't be here. Here's some of my issues that make me lean towards the IC side of the house:

#1. Second paragraph on page 86 says: "However, a Chariot is always treated as a single model." This is a problem since all USRs apply to "the model" which means to me that any USR the overlord drags along with it, if possible, should apply to the model - hence what he's driving around on since it's all technically the same model and the rider can't exist without the chariot they are ostensibly inseparable. In a few places where I guess GW thought it would be an issue they clarified mechanics (see #2 and also about overwatch, etc).

#2. Also on page 86 under the Characters Riding Chariots paragraph. They're already allowing special rules to flow from one profile to another mostly I think here to clear up a mechanic that would otherwise be left to interpretation (i.e the rider cannot exist without the chariot therefore the chariot must get ever living otherwise the overlord loses it).

#3. The removal of IC from the heralds in the Daemon FAQ.

col_impact wrote:

Spoiler:

MarkCron wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
The unit takes no damage.

Didn't say it was a pretty solution, but there is RAW no issue with kpjoining the IC chariot, as proven

That is so, so wrong. Let me summarise the RAW positions for you.

RAW - ANTI JOINING

RAW : Treat 2 characteristic profiles as one model

RAW - ERB Pg 510, first para under "Chariots" = "A Chariot is an unusual unit with a dual profile - a non vehicle profile for the rider of the Chariot (see below), and a vehicle profile for the Chariot itself. However a Chariot is always treated as a single model." For reference the "see below" is to a diagram showing CHARACTERISTIC profiles, with no reference at all to either wargear or special rules. It also does not say "model" anywhere in the example.


RAW : The Rider and Chariot have separate USR which cannot be used by each other

ERB pg 510 under heading "Characters Riding Chariots" = "If the rider has a special rule that returns it to play after it has been removed as a casualty, such as Necron's Ever-living special rule, that model's Chariot is also returned to play with a single Hull Point."

ERB pg 512 "Challenges" = "A Rider who is a character can issue and accept challenges as normal, but cannot perform a glorious intervention".

ERB pg 513 "Special Rules" = "A Chariot has the hammer of wrath special rule ...." and also "A Rider has the Fearless and Relentless special rules. A rider can fire Overwatch if its Chariot is charged, but cannot shoot any of the weapons mounted on the Chariot itself"

Anti Joining RAW Summary

To avoid confusion here are defined terms applicable to the Chariot rules in the ruleboo.:

"Profile" - a representation of CHARACTERISTICS excluding wargear and special rules as shown in the example profile under the Chariot rules in the ERB.

"Model" - a term defined to mean one or more profiles, together with wargear/USR and or other special rules. Note that USR can only be assigned to a model and must be explicity assigned.

"CCB" - a model which is the result of applying the Chariot rules per the ERB. It consists of a Chariot and a Rider.

"Chariot" - The Chariot characteristic profile plus the following wargear and special rules as assigned in the rulebook/Codex: Tesla Cannon/Gauss Cannon, Relentless, Open Topped, Skimmer, Living Metal, Symbiotic Repair, Quantum shielding

"Rider" - The Rider model consisting of the Rider characteristic profile and wargear and special rules as assigned in the rulebook/Codex : Wargear as selected on the Overlord, Independent Character, Ever-Living, Ability to issue and accept challenges, ability to overwatch, Relentless, Fearless, ability to Sweep attack

In summary: RAW - the combination of Characteristic profiles into the CCB does not combine "models". USR and special rules available to the Rider or the Chariot CANNOT be used by the other. The Chariot for example cannot overwatch, nor can it use it's weapon to perform sweep attacks, nor can it accept challenges. The Rider cannot use symbiotic repair or the weapon on the Chariot.

Yes, the RIDER has IC. However, the CCB DOES NOT have it. IC cannot be transferred to any other unit, or model under any circumstances. IF the rider could disembark, then they would be able to join another unit.

Remember, you have to have EXPRESS permission to do something in this rule set.

RAW - PRO JOINING

RAW - ERB Pg 510, EXTRACT from first paragraph "Chariots" = "However a Chariot is always treated as a single model."

Pro Joining RAW Summary
The sentence says the Chariot is a single model. Hence all USR for the Rider and Chariot are available to the CCB. This means:

A) The CCB (not the Rider) can issue and accept challenges (in contravention of the BRB)
b) The CCB (not the Rider) can fire overwatch with the Chariot Weapon (in contravention of the BRB)
c) The CCB (Not the Rider) can sweep attack with the Chariot Weapon (Contravening the FAQ and Codex)
d) All references to the "Rider" in the ERB are incorrect as it should say "Chariot" because all special rules need to be assigned to a model, ie the CCB. Therefore the Rider is NOT Fearless and the CCB can be swept in combat. Further the CCB is unable to issue or accept challenges as this authority was granted to a Rider, which doesn't exist.
e) The everliving rule does not apply to the CCB because the ERB clearly states "that model's chariot ...". As there is no Rider Model, this can never happen.
f) The CCB is an independent character and can join units.

* * * * *

So considering the above, do you still think that RAW CCB can join units?

If so, then by definition you accept that a-e above are also true?

Your summarizing of the CCB retains IC position is silly and does not deserve a response. Quit filibustering with silly straw man lines of argumentation.

You are correct, the CCB gets IC position is silly. Thanks for agreeing.

So, to be clear, you are saying that one line taken out of context in the rulebook magically allows the CCB to be an IC, but all the rest of the rules are still ok? Are you combining models so there is only one model or not? And, are you allocating special rules to a "model" or not?

This is the entire problem with the pro-joining argument. As soon as your position is logically extended to the rest of the USR and the rest of the chariot rules in the BRB, it fails spectacularly and creates situations which you don't want to see. So, you promptly ignore them and choose not to respond.

As soon as you quote a RAW rule (in context) I'll stop and the thread can become a RAI/HIWPI argument.

necron99 wrote:My view towards this issue is on the fence but leaning towards "IC is OK". Unfortunately they don't directly spell it out in the brb otherwise we wouldn't be here. Here's some of my issues that make me lean towards the IC side of the house:

#1. Second paragraph on page 86 says: "However, a Chariot is always treated as a single model." This is a problem since all USRs apply to "the model" which means to me that any USR the overlord drags along with it, if possible, should apply to the model - hence what he's driving around on since it's all technically the same model and the rider can't exist without the chariot they are ostensibly inseparable. In a few places where I guess GW thought it would be an issue they clarified mechanics (see #2 and also about overwatch, etc).

That sentence is continually being taken out of context. The full paragraph clearly refers to profiles being combined and does not, anywhere, refer to models being combined. In fact there are later rules (the ever living rule for example) which refer to a Rider "model" which clearly means that the "models" are not combined.

necron99 wrote:#2. Also on page 86 under the Characters Riding Chariots paragraph. They're already allowing special rules to flow from one profile to another mostly I think here to clear up a mechanic that would otherwise be left to interpretation (i.e the rider cannot exist without the chariot therefore the chariot must get ever living otherwise the overlord loses it).

The special rules don't flow between profiles. They simply affect different models. So the Rider exercises the special rule, which then has an effect on the chariot profile. It is not the same as the chariot being able to use ever-living.

necron99 wrote:#3. The removal of IC from the heralds in the Daemon FAQ.

Which is unrelated to RAW for the Necron codex. In particular there are no squadrons in the Necron codex. This is a key point because the IC rule does not play well with vehicle squadrons.

Quit straw manning.

No one is magically allocating special rules to anything. You are failing to show how IC is dropped or how it can not be simply invoked since nothing is in fact preventing the IC rule from being simply invoked.

The CCB is an upgrade option to the Necron Overlord. You can only get the CCB as an upgrade option to the Necron Overlord.

The Necron Overlord very clearly has IC. There is no line that takes away IC when he chooses the upgrade. Such a line exists in the Chaos Demon codex, but not in the Necron Codex. This is a critical bit of info since GW is showing here that it chooses to differentiate between the Necron chariot and the Chaos chariot.

When he upgrades to a CCB, he takes on a vehicle profile as part of a dual profile that is the Chariot. There is no incompatibility between his having a vehicle profile and IC. So there is no mechanic taking away IC. IC is still very clearly on the Chariot and invokable. There is no line anywhere that says a vehicle cannot have IC. No such restriction is placed on IC.

Other codexes have instances of Characters with IC taking on Bikes or Jetbikes as upgrade options and therewith changing their unit type from infantry to bike or jetbike. Their model changes. They do not lose IC in the process. So changing unit type or acquiring some new profile like a bike profile or change in model does not cause IC to be dropped.

We are told in the BRB that "the Chariot is always treated as a single model". The Overlord does not join the chariot, nor does he embark on the Chariot as a dedicated transport. He is fused into the Chariot.

The Overlord simply invokes the IC which allows him to join a unit. Nothing is preventing a simple invoking and application of the rule.


Per IC rules, he cannot join vehicles or monstrous creatures.

Another IC may not join him as per the restriction on IC that does not allow an IC to join a vehicle.


SO . . . there needs to be a line on a FAQ that takes off IC off the Overlord when he upgrades to the CCB since it is on there and there is nothing preventing it from being invoked and simply applied as in the rules.

Please show me some line in a FAQ or some mechanic that takes away IC from the CCB.

You're just trolling now aren't you

col_impact wrote:
Quit straw manning.

No one is magically allocating special rules to anything. You are failing to show how IC is dropped or how it can not be simply invoked since nothing is in fact preventing the IC rule from being simply invoked.

I have clearly said that IC is not dropped. Further, from RAW, the RIDER is able to exercise it, but the CCB is not. So if the RIDER could get off (which he can't) then he could exercise it. As it is, it is useless.

col_impact wrote:
The CCB is an upgrade option to the Necron Overlord. You can only get the CCB as an upgrade option to the Necron Overlord. You do not purchase a CCB and take a Necron Overlord as a rider.

The Necron Overlord very clearly has IC. There is no line that takes away IC when he chooses the upgrade.

Correct. There is also no line that provides that to the CCB when the Overlord becomes the rider. This simple fact is the entire problem. You have yet to show any RAW which gives the CCB IC.

And, before you go off about "there is only 1 model" meaning that you combine models, please quote from the rulebook where it says that. The rulebook says you combine 2 CHARACTERISTIC profiles into 1 model. It does not "combine models" and it specifically refers to the RIDER's model later on.

col_impact wrote:
Such a line exists in the Chaos Demon codex, but not in the Necron Codex. This is a critical bit of info since GW is showing here that it chooses to differentiate between the Necron chariot and the Chaos chariot.

RAI. This is not relevant to a Rules As Written argument. Is the Overlord a Herald? No.

col_impact wrote:
When he upgrades to a CCB, he takes on a vehicle profile as part of a dual profile that is the Chariot. There is no incompatibility between his having a vehicle profile and IC. So there is no mechanic taking away IC. IC is still very clearly on the Chariot and invokable. There is no line anywhere that says a vehicle cannot have IC. No such restriction is placed on IC.

Ahem. Have you read the chariot rules? The Overlord does not "take on" the vehicle profile. The Chariot obtains a RIDER, and has a RIDER characteristic profile added.

col_impact wrote:
Other codexes have instances of Characters with IC taking on Bikes or Jetbikes as upgrade options and therewith changing their unit type from infantry to bike or jetbike. Their model changes. They do not lose IC in the process. So changing unit type or acquiring some new profile like a bike profile or change in model does not cause IC to be dropped.

Again, you are quoting RAI. None of the examples you quoted end up with dual profiles, nor are any of them vehicles. Further, I have already agreed that IC is not lost, only that the RIDER is the only model that can use it. (and before you go off about there not being a rider model, refer to the rule book and the statement about everliving).

What you are proposing is the same as this scenario. A Wolf Guard in terminator armour is detached to join a grey hunter squad. The Wolf Guard is inseparable from the Grey hunters. Under your logic, the entire squad can now deep strike, because the wolf guard had the rule before he joined, once they joined the rule auto transfers to the grey hunters, so therefore everyone in the unit has deep strike.

col_impact wrote:
We are told in the BRB that "the Chariot is always treated as a single model". The Overlord does not join the chariot, nor does he embark on the Chariot as a dedicated transport. He is fused into the Chariot.

Yes, when you continually misquote the rulebook and take things out of context, things sound much more reasonable. Shall we reproduce the entire paragraph?

"A Chariot is an unusual unit with a dual profile - a non vehicle profile for the rider of the Chariot (see below), and a vehicle profile for the Chariot itself. However a Chariot is always treated as a single model. For the purposes of characteristics tests, always use the rider's profile. Furthermore, any characteristics modifiers that affect a Chariot model apply to both rider and Chariot."

For reference the "see below" is to a diagram showing CHARACTERISTIC profiles, with no reference at all to either wargear or special rules. It also does not say "model" anywhere in the example.

So, please show where, RAW, you get authority to combine models? Also, what is your explanation for the Everliving rule which specifically refers to the RIDER's model?

col_impact wrote:
The Overlord simply invokes the IC which allows him to join a unit. Nothing is preventing a simple invoking and application of the rule.

You mean, the RIDER simply invokes IC. Sure, all he has to do is disembark and he can do it.

col_impact wrote:
Please show me some line in a FAQ or some mechanic that takes away IC from the CCB.

I don't need to because the CCB NEVER had the rule in the first place. That rule was and is available to the RIDER, in exactly the same way as the RIDER can overwatch and the RIDER can issue a challenge. So, the CCB can't overwatch, it can't challenge and it can't join a unit.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Yes, if the CBC joins the IC unit. Again, this is allowed in the general allowance for joining units. It is also a correct way of reading the rules, and, for once, it would be good for you to actually provide some, for the first time...

..and this, of course, is incorrect. The joining is not asymmetric, no matter how hard you try.

any rules to back up your argument,as per the tenets, or will you just hand wave away, again?

Show me the permission for an IC to join a vehicle.

I have explained my position on this. I will categorize this inder "to be corrected" by GW and leave it at that.

MarkCron wrote:

You mean, the RIDER simply invokes IC. Sure, all he has to do is disembark and he can do it.

Why would he have to disembark? It's just invoked and then it happens. The model joins another unit. And he couldn't disembark anyway. The rider is not a separate model. It is one of two profiles. You are providing the restriction that the rider profile would somehow have to separate from the CCB model first, not the rules. The CCB is all treated as one model by definition. I am explicitly told to treat it as a single model. You point out some places where it seems to break with the handling of the Chariot as a single model, where there are places where it mentions a "rider model". So? We are still told explicitly to treat it as a single model. If they are sloppy/inconsistent with their handling of terminology it doesn't mean we get to toss out a clear directive.

As you admit, IC is on the dual profile of the CCB, specifically on the rider profile. The CCB invokes it via its rider profile and it simply happens since nothing prevents it from doing its thing.

col_impact wrote:

MarkCron wrote:

You mean, the RIDER simply invokes IC. Sure, all he has to do is disembark and he can do it.

Why would he have to disembark? It's just invoked and then it happens. The model joins another unit. And he couldn't disembark anyway. The rider is not a separate model. It is one of two profiles. You are providing the restriction that the rider profile would somehow have to separate from the CCB model first, not the rules. The CCB is all treated as one model by definition. I am explicitly told to treat it as a single model. You point out some places where it seems to break with the handling of the Chariot as a single model, where there are places where it mentions a "rider model". So? We are still told explicitly to treat it as a single model. If they are sloppy/inconsistent with their handling of terminology it doesn't mean we get to toss out a clear directive.

As you admit, IC is on the dual profile of the CCB, specifically on the rider profile. The CCB invokes it via its rider profile and it simply happens since nothing prevents it from doing its thing.

I think he is saying that similar to if you upgrade your Overlord with a warscythe, the warscythe cannot issue challenges, cannot join units. So to join a unit, your Overlord has to leave the warscythe behind. Sounds so simple eh?

The IC Rule isn't attached to the Rider profile. It's attached to the Rider, which are not the same thing.

The Rider can challenge, the Rider can overwatch, the Rider is fearless, the Rider is IC and can join a unit. These rules are explicitly assigned to the Rider in the same way that a warscythe is only useable by a Rider.

As much as you'd like the famously misquoted sentence to mean "mash the models wargear, profile and special rules together" that isn't what the rulebook says.

So, the CCB can't overwatch, it can't challenge or accept challenges and it can't join a unit because it doesn't have any of the special rules necessary.

The fact that the Rider has the special rule doesn't help, because the CCB itself has no authority to be able to join the unit.

I think an IC can join a non vehicle/non MC unit. The Hive tyrant can join hive guard just as if it were an IC. There is an example of a MC treated as an IC can join a unit and why they took it away from demons and should do the same for Necrons. I don't know why they left it on.

 BLADERIKER wrote:

I have seen this logic and it needs to end. 

You are not even looking at how to resolve shooting against a Chariot. Regardless of whether or not CCB is attached to a Unit or not the Shooting is resolved the exact same way. 

As per page 86 BRB "When shooting at a Chariot unit, total up the number of successful hits that have been caused. Keep the dice that have scored hits and create a 'pool' where each dice represents a hit.- The player controlling the Chariot unit then allocates each hit pool either to the rider or the chariot of the closest model in the unit." 

Your Logic: Choose target, choose weapon, roll to hit, roll to wound, allocate wounds, make saves, choose next weapon. (This is not wrong if shooting phase is unaltered) However, this logic does not work against a Chariot as before any rolls to wound or Armour pen are made the controlling player decides which pool is allocated to which profile. 

Example: 10 man Devastator Squad with 4 Lazcannons, Melta Gun, 5 boltguns. shooting at a 20 man Warrior Squad with attached Overlord upgraded with CCB closest model is the chariot. 

So the SM player fires his Lazcannons first and hit with all 4, The Necron player decides that those wounds will hit the rider and thus the Hits from that pool roll to wound against majority toughness, wounding on 2+, The Overlord's phase shifter saves all but one wound caused and his total wounds is reduced by 1. Then the SMmeasures to see that his Melta Gun is out of range and thus can not affect the target unit. Then the Sm player fires hit Bolt guns, The Necron player allocates those hit to the Chariot and as Str 4 cannot hurt AV 13 nothing else happens. 

And thus we have resolved shooting against a Chariot from an attacking Unit in game.

Wow just wow. You even quote the rules that proves you wrong. What is the first sentence of the rule you quoted? "When shooting at a CHARIOT UNIT". We know the unit isn't a chariot unit so we know this rule can not be used. So try again without using that rule. I have explained this what 5 times now?

@Mythra, those examples aren't the same, because the Hive Tyrant is specifically granted the rule to enable him to do that. In this case, the CCB is not granted the IC rule. The rule is granted to the Rider.

The debate is essentially whether the Rider having it permits the CCB to do it. RAW, the answer appears to be no.

 BarBoBot wrote:
In the 7th brb it states a unit with a psyker attached is a psyker unit, so following that logic, yes a unit of warriors with a attached chariot would be a chariot unit.

Edit* for the record, I don't believe a chariot joining infantry was intended. Its obviously an oversight.

juat want to point out this is incorrect we are never given permission to do this the only psyker units are brotherhood, pysker is just a psyker rule doesnt confer same as IC doesnt confer.

But anyway back to this hilarious debate.

MarkCron wrote:
@Mythra, those examples aren't the same, because the Hive Tyrant is specifically granted the rule to enable him to do that. In this case, the CCB is not granted the IC rule. The rule is granted to the Rider.

The debate is essentially whether the Rider having it permits the CCB to do it. RAW, the answer appears to be no.

Should I leave my Warscythe behind too? Since it does not have the IC rule?