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.

 erick99 wrote:
Vehicles that are characters yes. Bjorn for sure.
Vehicles that are ICs? Not that I'm aware of.

Ok so Bjorn is the only other character that is also a vehicle, but he cannot join other units or be joined by other ICs.

I ask because in the rules for Look out sir, they make the distinction between non-vehicle characters.

here is the quote:

“Look Out, Sir
When a Wound is allocated to one of your non-vehicle characters”

HIWPI is he can join other units since there is more evidence for him not losing the IC status than not.

 FlingitNow wrote:


Which either makes the unit invulnerable or breaks the game as we have no way of resolving shooting at it.

Precisely.

RAW, it's correct. At the same time, playing it that way is just stupid.

Under the FAQ for the necrons it's still listed as a vehicle fast skimmer. I'm in the no crowd that the catacomb command barge cannot join other units.

I know I know they become one when the overlord buys it, that being said he's referred to as the rider, though he can never disembark, and if ever living comes Into play they both come back. It can be confusing but it simplifies the rules for them and makes me much better.

It's still however a vehicle.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:


Which either makes the unit invulnerable or breaks the game as we have no way of resolving shooting at it.

Precisely.

RAW, it's correct. At the same time, playing it that way is just stupid.

It's simple enough, but somewhat laborious, to resolve the hits against the vehicle one at a time if a pen is possible. You do that so once the Overlord dies you can then have hits spill over to the rest of the unit. This is not RAW but a commonsensical patch of a hole.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ashikenshin wrote:

 erick99 wrote:
Vehicles that are characters yes. Bjorn for sure.
Vehicles that are ICs? Not that I'm aware of.

Ok so Bjorn is the only other character that is also a vehicle, but he cannot join other units or be joined by other ICs.

I ask because in the rules for Look out sir, they make the distinction between non-vehicle characters.

here is the quote:

“Look Out, Sir
When a Wound is allocated to one of your non-vehicle characters”

HIWPI is he can join other units since there is more evidence for him not losing the IC status than not.

Good find. This is interesting. So were they tidying up a loose end to take care of one corner case of one obscure character, or were they making way for the Chariot joining units?

col_impact wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:


Which either makes the unit invulnerable or breaks the game as we have no way of resolving shooting at it.

Precisely.

RAW, it's correct. At the same time, playing it that way is just stupid.

It's simple enough, but somewhat laborious, to resolve the hits against the vehicle one at a time if a pen is possible. You do that so once the Overlord dies you can then have hits spill over to the rest of the unit. This is not RAW but a commonsensical patch of a hole.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ashikenshin wrote:

 erick99 wrote:
Vehicles that are characters yes. Bjorn for sure.
Vehicles that are ICs? Not that I'm aware of.

Ok so Bjorn is the only other character that is also a vehicle, but he cannot join other units or be joined by other ICs.

I ask because in the rules for Look out sir, they make the distinction between non-vehicle characters.

here is the quote:

“Look Out, Sir
When a Wound is allocated to one of your non-vehicle characters”

HIWPI is he can join other units since there is more evidence for him not losing the IC status than not.

Good find. This is interesting. So were they tidying up a loose end to take care of one corner case of one obscure character, or were they making way for the Chariot joining units?

Yeah if Bjorn isn't able to join units because of his lack of IC, then the only other character who can join units and also has a vehicle profile is the CCB Lord. Kinda weird that they would add that exception if no vehicle character is ever able to join a unit don't you think? seems there is no restriction for vehicle characters to join a unit if we go by the wording on LoS.

Whoops! Is that the nail in the coffin?!

 ashikenshin wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:


Which either makes the unit invulnerable or breaks the game as we have no way of resolving shooting at it.

Precisely.

RAW, it's correct. At the same time, playing it that way is just stupid.

It's simple enough, but somewhat laborious, to resolve the hits against the vehicle one at a time if a pen is possible. You do that so once the Overlord dies you can then have hits spill over to the rest of the unit. This is not RAW but a commonsensical patch of a hole.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ashikenshin wrote:

 erick99 wrote:
Vehicles that are characters yes. Bjorn for sure.
Vehicles that are ICs? Not that I'm aware of.

Ok so Bjorn is the only other character that is also a vehicle, but he cannot join other units or be joined by other ICs.

I ask because in the rules for Look out sir, they make the distinction between non-vehicle characters.

here is the quote:

“Look Out, Sir
When a Wound is allocated to one of your non-vehicle characters”

HIWPI is he can join other units since there is more evidence for him not losing the IC status than not.

Good find. This is interesting. So were they tidying up a loose end to take care of one corner case of one obscure character, or were they making way for the Chariot joining units?

Yeah if Bjorn isn't able to join units because of his lack of IC, then the only other character who can join units and also has a vehicle profile is the CCB Lord. Kinda weird that they would add that exception if no vehicle character is ever able to join a unit don't you think? seems there is no restriction for vehicle characters to join a unit if we go by the wording on LoS.

Yea, if it is indeed the case that this rule change can only possibly affect the CCB Lord then it really is very strong supporting evidence that the CCB Lord can join units.

Hmmm I hate to say it but I just realized there could be an example of a vehicle character in a unit. Can a herald on a chariot start off as part of a cavalcade?

It says replace the enchantress with the herald. Does that mean he replaces an enchantress ofnancavalcade?

It's simple enough, but somewhat laborious, to resolve the hits against the vehicle one at a time if a pen is possible. You do that so once the Overlord dies you can then have hits spill over to the rest of the unit. This is not RAW but a commonsensical patch of a hole. 

Or you could go with the more common sense approach of nit letting the CCB join units. Essentially your argument is RaW is broken so I'm going to do what I want and expect my opponent to just take it...

Good find. This is interesting. So were they tidying up a loose end to take care of one corner case of one obscure character, or were they making way for the Chariot joining units?

Or more likely they are covering for the case of Vehicle Characters in Vehicle units (like Russ tank commanders).

 FlingitNow wrote:

It's simple enough, but somewhat laborious, to resolve the hits against the vehicle one at a time if a pen is possible. You do that so once the Overlord dies you can then have hits spill over to the rest of the unit. This is not RAW but a commonsensical patch of a hole. 

Or you could go with the more common sense approach of nit letting the CCB join units. Essentially your argument is RaW is broken so I'm going to do what I want and expect my opponent to just take it...

Good find. This is interesting. So were they tidying up a loose end to take care of one corner case of one obscure character, or were they making way for the Chariot joining units?

Or more likely they are covering for the case of Vehicle Characters in Vehicle units (like Russ tank commanders).

can wounds be allocated in vehicles?

We have no way to resolve wounds against vehicles.

 FlingitNow wrote:
We have no way to resolve wounds against vehicles.

then that quote from the rulebook doesn't work for vehicle squadrons with vehicle characters :(

quote:

“Look Out, Sir
When a Wound is allocated to one of your non-vehicle characters,”

Excerpt From: Games Workshop. “Warhammer 40,000 (Interactive Edition).” Games Workshop, 2014. iBooks. https://itun.es/us/kNVz0.l

So this would have to be a Chariot character starting in play as part of a Chariot unit, right? or else it would only apply to the CCB Lord

No, a Lord on a Barge cannot join another unit.

 loreweaver wrote:
No, a Lord on a Barge cannot join another unit.

After 8 pages of discussion, do you think your comment that is completely uncited with rules would clearly end the issue?

Naw - you failed to support your assertions with rules, again. Concession accepted

Maybe he is pausing for dramatic silence before revealing to us.....the TRUTH!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Back to the topic. Does anyone know whether a herald can be part of a cavalcade? That could be what the look out sir was referencing, not a IC in a vehicle, as some might think.

An interesting consequence of the Look Out Sir change is that a CCB Lord is much less OP if he joins a unit of wraiths.

Why? He makes the unit immortal how is that not OP?

 FlingitNow wrote:
Why? He makes the unit immortal how is that not OP?

He changes them into Immortals? Wow..... I gotta find the page reference for that! Anrakyr will be so pissed....

Having the game come to a screeching halt is not the same thing as making the joined unit 'immortal'. Hyperbole much?

As it stand, assigning a wound (rather than a glancing or penetrating hit) to a vehicle fundamentally 'breaks' the game. While this interaction is terrible and almost certainly unaccounted for by whatever genius wrote the rules for the 7th edition chariot, that does not make it any less what is currently written in the rules themselves.

I for one, call for a FAQ to either remove the IC USR from the overlord upon deploying with the CCB, or adding an additional rule to the 'To Wound' sections of the book which would allow for converting a wound to a glancing or penetrating hit (depending on it's strength and applicable USRs) when it is allocated to a vehicle and vice versa.

The removal of the IC USR is the much simpler fix though, so that is what I expect will eventually happen.

We have no way to resolve wounds against a normal vehicle but in this case we have options...... As usual they have not covered things as well as they should have. If they covered that models lost IC it wouldn't be an issue or that if chariots are in a non-vehicle unit all wounds are allocated to the rider..... Just because something is new or different doesn't mean it can not work. If GW has proven one thing it's that they don't think everything or possibility through. Currently we actually have immortal artillery units...... We just spent 8 pages talking about how there are two profiles so to claim there is no way to resolve wounds against this model is...... something, not sure what but something.....

milkboy wrote:Hey Markcron, I've got an example of dual characteristics becoming one model. See if you accept this comparison.

A marine captain has one profile. A power sword has one profile. When you put them together, they are one model. But according to your reasoning that the captains IC rule doesn't get transferred to the other profile, means this poor dude will have to throw away(dismount) his power weapon before joining his brother marines?

I was waiting for this one! The answer is that the weapon is not and was never a model, whereas the Overlord/Rider is.

col_impact wrote:So yes there are contradictions in the way the Chariot section is handled. In that case you have to decide whether to weigh the definitional statements as having more weight or the places where there are slips in terminology as having more weight. I take the definitional section as having more weight since the language is very clear and explicit and intentional, ie the writers are literally giving that statement more weight. If you replace slip ups in their terminology with statements like the "Chariot (via the rider profile)" then everything starts to adhere together.

I agree completely. But the definitional statements *as written* don't support transfer of the IC USR from the Rider to the CCB. I've reproduced all the relevant rules from the Chariot section per the rulebook a couple of times now.

Sigvatr wrote:

MarkCron wrote:

Which assertion? I'm saying that the Rider still has IC. The issue is that the CCB doesn't. So, if the Rider wants to use it, he has to disembark, which he can't. So, IC is useless.

You got nothing to back up your points from a RAW point of view. That is the problem. RAI, I am with you. I think it's stupid to think of a Chariot joining a regular unit and everyone who does so, especially to get totally overpowered combos like Wraiths / Chariots running.

RAW is another issue. You see a conflict in the rules when there isn't. The Overlord has the IC USR. The Chariot doesn't. It doesn't have a rule that disallows joining units either, though. There aren't any rules in conflict. IC does not "go away", it stays and the BRB explicitely says that the CCB / Chariot is considered a single model for all purposes. For all purposes. As a consequence, again, RAW-wise, it shares USRs as well and IC allows it to technically join units.

Actually Sigvatr, I have a load of rules which I've quoted previously (and all my quotes are full and in context, unlike your reference to the "single model"). One of the many flaws in your chain of reasoning is that the Chariot explicitly needs a rule to allow it to join. The fact that it is not disallowed from joining doesn't, in this rule set, mean that it can join. If that were true, I could join a landraider to an MC because there is no rule specifically disallowing that.

milkboy wrote:Hmmm I hate to say it but I just realized there could be an example of a vehicle character in a unit. Can a herald on a chariot start off as part of a cavalcade?

It says replace the enchantress with the herald. Does that mean he replaces an enchantress ofnancavalcade?

IF that is the case, then what I was saying earlier is true. The removal of IC from the Herald was required to prevent breaking the squadron per the codex, as an IC Herald would not be able to be in it, which would be stupid considering it was an upgrade. It isn't applicable to the Cron codex, because we can't have squadrons (Squadron of Anni Barges anyone?)


*********

We've been going around for pages now, and RAW, while possibly confusing, is clear and consistent in the Chariot section as written - There are two models, one Chariot, One Rider, and the Chariot model has dual profiles - hence CCB can't join the unit. However, as people are continuing to use part of a single sentence out of context, I suggest we do something constructive and work out how a joined unit would work.

So, lets go back to col_impacts point about reading the rules as if they said "rider profile". IF we assume that, then the chariot becomes exactly the same as Fateweaver or Orikan. There are two profiles, with different abilities, and you use them at certain times. In the case of Fatey, you pick a head, and use that for your turn. In the case of Orikan, the dice roll effectively determines which profile is active.

For the CCB, again, IF you change all the rulebook wording to refer to rider/chariot profile, nothing is broken. The Chariot profile can't overwatch because you have to use the rider profile for that, same with challenges.

Now, as col-impact suggested, you use the rider profile to join a unit. Logically, as the Chariot profile CAN"T join the unit, that rider profile has to be active for the entire time you are joined to that unit (because the rider profile is the only one with IC). And, somewhat conveniently, that also solves all the problems with shooting at the unit, because the Rider profile has wounds. That also doesn't break the chariot rules per se, because you auto allocate hits to the Rider profile (effectively you have chosen the Rider profile to be permanently active when you choose to join the unit) and roll to wound as normal.

In respect of FlingItNows concern, I suggest that a unit with a joined CCB (in rider profile mode) is actually a mixed unit, similar to joining an IC on foot to a unit of bikes - or Obyron to a unit of Spyders. As a mixed unit, each part (ie the IC vs the Joined unit) retains its original unit type. So, the infantry unit joined doesn't auto disappear because their chariot doesn't exist, and the CCB is not immortal because the Rider profile is active (and auto allocation of hits to the rider profile means you can skip this step and go straight to wound allocation).

If the rider profile is permanently active while joined to a unit then:

a) The chariot can't shoot the chariot weapons.
b) you can't allocate hits against the chariot profile (as noted above, you've chosen the rider profile to be active)
c) for obvious reasons, you can't sweep attack
d) the joined units moves and assaults at the speed of the unit joined or the Rider profile whichever is lower

Looking at it, effectively, you just end up with an overlord tanking. That doesn't break the game, but does make joining the chariot a bit pointless (although you can hide it in a unit if you wanted to).

So, to summarise my post. RAW, no, the unit can't join. RAI (using col_impacts allocation to rider profile argument) you can, but you'd have to use exclusively use the Rider profile while joined.

I like your line of thought and the jist of what you are doing, I just think you do too much and it seems like you are nerfing for no reason. If the only problem is wound allocation, then apply a narrow fix to that. You could say that by joining a unit the CCB Lord loses the ability to invoke his vehicle profile during wound allocation (ie he cannot maneuver his Chariot to ward off incoming blows or maybe he purposefully juts himself out as a leader of the unit). Problem elegantly avoided and with surgical precision.

MarkCron wrote:

milkboy wrote:Hey Markcron, I've got an example of dual characteristics becoming one model. See if you accept this comparison.

A marine captain has one profile. A power sword has one profile. When you put them together, they are one model. But according to your reasoning that the captains IC rule doesn't get transferred to the other profile, means this poor dude will have to throw away(dismount) his power weapon before joining his brother marines?

I was waiting for this one! The answer is that the weapon is not and was never a model, whereas the Overlord/Rider is.

Glad I could make you happy.

But I was not comparing the weapon to the Overlord. I was comparing the weapon to the chariot.

Both are bought as upgrades
Both cannot exist alone (No floating weapon nor riderless chariot)

When I give the Overlord the sword, he can join units. Yet when I give him a chariot, you say he cannot he cannot because the chariot does not receive the IC UDSR. But neither does the sword..

In both cases, the IC USR does not get passed around like cocktail punch. Yet you handle both situations differently.

Perhaps you can explain the rationale?

Also, I am really curious how efffective a CCB Lord is when he joins a unit if you simply let the CCB invoke either the vehicle or the rider profile and followed a commonsense approach to wound allocation (one at a time resolving of any hit to the vehicle profile that could glance or pen).

Keep in mind that with the changes to the LOS rule, you can no longer LOS a character that is a vehicle. This is a huge throttling.

 milkboy wrote:

MarkCron wrote:

milkboy wrote:Hey Markcron, I've got an example of dual characteristics becoming one model. See if you accept this comparison.

A marine captain has one profile. A power sword has one profile. When you put them together, they are one model. But according to your reasoning that the captains IC rule doesn't get transferred to the other profile, means this poor dude will have to throw away(dismount) his power weapon before joining his brother marines?

I was waiting for this one! The answer is that the weapon is not and was never a model, whereas the Overlord/Rider is.

Glad I could make you happy.

But I was not comparing the weapon to the Overlord. I was comparing the weapon to the chariot.

Both are bought as upgrades
Both cannot exist alone (No floating weapon nor riderless chariot)

When I give the Overlord the sword, he can join units. Yet when I give him a chariot, you say he cannot he cannot because the chariot does not receive the IC UDSR. But neither does the sword..

In both cases, the IC USR does not get passed around like cocktail punch. Yet you handle both situations differently.

Perhaps you can explain the rationale?

Sure. The chariot, when purchased, is a separate model. Think of the chariot in the same way as a Cryptek or a Lord. The Chariot is capable of separable actions (eg shooting with the chariot weapon) whereas the weapon isn't.

So, because it is a separable model, you have to transfer the IC rule. The fact that the Overlord can't disembark doesn't mean that the models are combined (and PLEASE don't misquote the sentence from the chariot rules again ) It's absolutely clear that an Overlord with a pair of Royal Court Crypteks (or even 1 Cryptek, just to keep the number of models the same) are unable to join a unit, why would a CCB be different?

But the chariot can never be a separate model, as much as a sword can be a separate model. It just does not exist in this edition.

col_impact wrote:
Also, I am really curious how efffective a CCB Lord is when he joins a unit if you simply let the CCB invoke either the vehicle or the rider profile and followed a commonsense approach to wound allocation (one at a time resolving of any hit to the vehicle profile that could glance or pen).

Keep in mind that with the changes to the LOS rule, you can no longer LOS a character that is a vehicle. This is a huge throttling.

Thing is, as FlingItNow has pointed out, if you allow the vehicle profile to be used you end up breaking the game because the unit being shot at is not a "chariot unit". Restricting to the Rider profile doesn't break the game and is a logical follow on from the pro-joining argument.

Much, much easier just to go with RAW - you can't join the unit in the first place


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 milkboy wrote:
But the chariot can never be a separate model, as much as a sword can be a separate model. It just does not exist in this edition.

I think you have that confused. The Chariot IS the separable model according to the pro joining argument.

Anyway, this is why RAW not joining works. In the Chariot section of the rules there are references to both the Chariot model (dual profiles treated as a single model) and the Rider's model (in the everliving rule adjustment "that model's Chariot").

This whole argument comes down to the definition of the "profile" that gets treated as one. RAW, that doesn't include the special rules or wargear. RAW there is no reference to combining/joining/treating models as one. So the Chariot model and the Rider model are separate. Hence, the Chariot is in the same category as an RC Lord/Cryptek (but a different category to a warscythe ).

MarkCron wrote:

col_impact wrote:
Also, I am really curious how efffective a CCB Lord is when he joins a unit if you simply let the CCB invoke either the vehicle or the rider profile and followed a commonsense approach to wound allocation (one at a time resolving of any hit to the vehicle profile that could glance or pen).

Keep in mind that with the changes to the LOS rule, you can no longer LOS a character that is a vehicle. This is a huge throttling.

Thing is, as FlingItNow has pointed out, if you allow the vehicle profile to be used you end up breaking the game because the unit being shot at is not a "chariot unit". Restricting to the Rider profile doesn't break the game and is a logical follow on from the pro-joining argument.

Much, much easier just to go with RAW - you can't join the unit in the first place

Wound allocation only breaks if you are a Robot requiring explicit commands coming from the BRB every step of the way.

"Chariot unit . . . does not compute! does not compute! Fzzzzz Pop!"

It's real easy to sort out a commonsense solution. Sure you have to break a little from the exact steps laid out in the BRB, but its easily, easily dealt with.