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.

Wow. It's interesting that you both back off from strict RAW in the reserves situation or show a bit of discomfort with it and want to soften the blow of the roll off (for the sake of sportsmanship, etc.) Let's just sweep that little bit of messiness under the rug and not draw attention to it, right?

But we can't really. It's all one big RAW sandwich we have to swallow. Like I said, RAW cries out for a FAQ or a house rule. In the absence of a FAQ or house rule we have to follow RAW, but we don't have to like it. You are relying on sequencing to accomplish something in a situation where sequencing should not matter at all. And, in the reserves situation it really becomes highlighted as a dumb interaction.

But sure I will adhere to RAW in the absence of a FAQ or house rule.

By the way, there is another unit besides O'vesa that this discussion (about MC IC being able to join a unit with IC attached) bears upon. But that's just a tangent and doesn't bear on this discussion at all.

Who is the other MC IC?




Automatically Appended Next Post:

col_impact wrote:
Wow. It's interesting that you both back off from strict RAW in the reserves situation or show a bit of discomfort with it and want to soften the blow of the roll off (for the sake of sportsmanship, etc.) Let's just sweep that little bit of messiness under the rug and not draw attention to it, right?

But we can't really. It's all one big RAW sandwich we have to swallow. Like I said, RAW cries out for a FAQ or a house rule. In the absence of a FAQ or house rule we have to follow RAW, but we don't have to like it. You are relying on sequencing to accomplish something in a situation where sequencing should not matter at all. And, in the reserves situation it really becomes highlighted as a dumb interaction.

But sure I will adhere to RAW in the absence of a FAQ or house rule.

By the way, there is another unit besides O'vesa that this discussion (about MC IC being able to join a unit with IC attached) bears upon. But that's just a tangent and doesn't bear on this discussion at all.

Not backing off from RaW at all. Just saying how I would play it. It's perfectly acceptable during gameplay, so if I won the roll off I would let my opponent do it before deployment also. Not relevant to a RaW discussion, but definitely HIWPI.

 Kriswall wrote:
Who is the other MC IC?

Not an MC IC but a Vehicle IC.

The same line of argumentation supports the bargeLord joining units with IC attached to them. Of course, a bargeLord joining units is generally bad for the bargeLord, nonetheless I am pointing it out because there are broader repercussions of the argument, so just noting them. Luckily for the argument at hand it isn't opening up broken stuff.

How are we backing off?

We both agreed that the Rules as Written play out exactly as stated, and then explained how we are able to use the actual Written Rules to come to a conclusion that doesn't paint us as 'that ******* guy.' If anything, that is embracing the Rule as Written, on top of providing a solution to the problem which is both Rule as Written supported and How We Would Play It: The winning player has permission to make the choice, they can just as easily choose not to ruin their opponents enjoyment.

JinxDragon wrote:
How are we backing off?

We both agreed that the Rules as Written play out exactly as stated, and then explained how we are able to use the actual Written Rules to come to a conclusion that doesn't paint us as 'that ******* guy.' If anything, that is embracing the Rule as Written, on top of providing a solution to the problem which is both Rule as Written supported and How We Would Play It: The winning player has permission to make the choice, they can just as easily choose not to ruin their opponents enjoyment.

And I am agreeing with you both to play it out as RAW. But I am showing you that RAW is hard to swallow and demands an FAQ.

Col_impact,
A quick question:
Why do you think the vast majority of Chariot riding Independent Characters have a clause which specifically restricts them from Joining other Units?
Ignore the one or two exceptions that lack this clause, and simply ask yourself why did the Authors feel the need to specifically restrict Joining in these instances....


I will agree a Frequently Asked Question is required, but not for the same reasons you are claiming. We do not need it to fix what might be a broken Rule, as it is the questionable Models themselves which need to be addressed by Frequently Asked Question. After all the vast majority of people do not get confused about how a Model goes about Joining another Unit, they only have questions about this specific Model or that specific Model. We simply need the Authors to clarify what they intended for us to do with these Models and to create a Restriction for those they do not want to Join other Units that prevents just those Models from doing so.

Sadly, for Command Barge that really does need it, we are likely going to have to wait for the Codex before we find out it has a 'can not join others' clause as well....

The BargeLord is embarked upon a Chariot and isn't allowed to disembark. How do you propose that an embarked IC joins a unit? Are you proposing that the Chariot is able to join, say, a unit of Immortals?

JinxDragon wrote:
Col_impact,
A quick question:
Why do you think the vast majority of Chariot riding Independent Characters have a clause which specifically restricts them from Joining other Units?
Ignore the one or two exceptions that lack this clause, and simply ask yourself why did the Authors feel the need to specifically restrict Joining in these instances....

Because otherwise the chariots would have the ability to join units per RAW.

By the way there are really only 3 chariots in the game - some flavors of chaos chariots, a space wolves chariot, and the necron chariot. One of these chariots is not like the others and has no restrictions on joining units. RAW is clear. And this is tangential to the argument at hand. If you want to debate RAW then you can do so in the YMDC thread dealing with that specifically.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kriswall wrote:
The BargeLord is embarked upon a Chariot and isn't allowed to disembark. How do you propose that an embarked IC joins a unit? Are you proposing that the Chariot is able to join, say, a unit of Immortals?

You really need to catch up on the argument. Chariots are not dedicated transports.

And if you really catch up on the argument then you will see it all comes together RAW in terms of game play. It's generally terrible for the Chariot to join units but there are cases where it can be decent strategy and those all lead to fluffy and fully balanced game play.

Agreed, we can, but do keep in mind that you brought it.

JinxDragon wrote:
Agreed, we can, but do keep in mind that you brought it.

The repercussions of an argument should be duly noted, but we shouldn't go off on a tangent that has no weight on the current discussion. If the tangent produced an OP or broken situation then we would have more to delve into. Just making sure people are aware that this argument has broader implications and doesn't just affect O'vesa.

Lot more then you realize.
It would be nice if I could remember that one tactic that involves a single "Before the Game" Rule that could break the tactic if it was applied last....

col_impact wrote:

JinxDragon wrote:
Col_impact,
A quick question:
Why do you think the vast majority of Chariot riding Independent Characters have a clause which specifically restricts them from Joining other Units?
Ignore the one or two exceptions that lack this clause, and simply ask yourself why did the Authors feel the need to specifically restrict Joining in these instances....

Because otherwise the chariots would have the ability to join units per RAW.

By the way there are really only 3 chariots in the game - some flavors of chaos chariots, a space wolves chariot, and the necron chariot. One of these chariots is not like the others and has no restrictions on joining units. RAW is clear. And this is tangential to the argument at hand. If you want to debate RAW then you can do so in the YMDC thread dealing with that specifically.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kriswall wrote:
The BargeLord is embarked upon a Chariot and isn't allowed to disembark. How do you propose that an embarked IC joins a unit? Are you proposing that the Chariot is able to join, say, a unit of Immortals?

You really need to catch up on the argument. Chariots are not dedicated transports.

And if you really catch up on the argument then you will see it all comes together RAW in terms of game play. It's generally terrible for the Chariot to join units but there are cases where it can be decent strategy and those all lead to fluffy and fully balanced game play.

Fair. Chariots are pretty rare in game and I don't routinely play with them or against them. It was my understanding that while the rider has the IC rule, the Chariot itself wouldn't. I see now that it's a single model and that the RaW would take some research. For the sake of argument, I'll take your word that a Chariot that hasn't been restricted from doing so can join a unit using standard IC rules in much the same way that O'Vesa can. I would, however, bet money that when GW puts out a 7th Edition Necron Codex that the BargeLord will have similar wording to other Chariot riding ICs preventing a join to or from other units and ICs. Just my best guess and no bearing on RaW.