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.

Can it join a squad? I got one person saying its ic, and another saying the lord loses ic by becoming a vehicle (charriot)

Which Rules do both sides use to justify their stance?
Long and short of it, if I am remembering this particular problem correctly, is the age of the Necron Codex and the fact that leaves gaps when applied to the 7th Edition Ruleset.

As a contrast compare this Army List Entries wording to that found within the newer 7th edition Codexs, as one will find there are a few other Models with this option for upgrade. Those other options will all contain instructions telling us when A takes the chariot they do X, Y and loose the ability to Join or be Joined by other Units. As the Command Barge, that thing the Lord rides around on right?, was written for in generations past it does not have this particular instruction. This would not normally be an issue, but Game Workshop has an annoying reputation of producing poor quality Frequently Asked Questions to ensure that we must wait for the Codex before they will tell us how to play correctly in the newer Edition.

 inquisitormaus wrote:
Can it join a squad? I got one person saying its ic, and another saying the lord loses ic by becoming a vehicle (charriot)

RAW it can, but keep in mind that this is almost always BAD for the bargeLord.

1) The unit he joins cannot "Look Out, Sir!" for him since the bargeLord is a vehicle character.

2) The unit he joins will almost always be significantly slower than he is.

3) And, when the bargeLord joins a unit, he loses the ability to allocate shooting hits to the chariot, since he is no longer in a chariot unit. So he trades in a huge amount of his survivability!

Number 3 has problems, but the wording used in the Rule has always had issues.
Unit's do not have a Unit Type, it is a cruel and sad joke Game Workshop plays on us!

JinxDragon wrote:
Number 3 has problems, but the wording used in the Rule has always had issues.
Unit's do not have a Unit Type, it is a cruel and sad joke Game Workshop plays on us!

I think you need to look into the problem. I didn't catch it at first and it was pointed out to me in an earlier thread on this topic in YMDC. When you are shooting at a unit that is composed of wraiths + a bargeLord, you are no longer able to allocate hits to bargeLord, since he has joined a wraith unit. The opponent is shooting at a wraith unit and will allocate hits and resolve the wound pool as normal.

SHOOTING AT CHARIOTS

It is a symptom of a larger problem:
What is the Unit Type of a unit?

The issue is not with joining other units and losing the 'chariot Unit' status, it is the fact there is no way to determine the Unit Type of an entire Unit without speculation. That is why I call it the biggest and saddest joke played by Game Workshop, they have given a Model specific object named 'Unit Type' and themselves forgotten that it is Model specific when they wrote Rules related to it. This is just one such Rule in my opinion, interacting at the Unit level while referring to a Model specific Unit Type, and it requires just as much speculation concerning how it functions. It is quite easy to make the assumption that a single Model Unit will be of the same Unit Type as that Model but it would be nice to have some actual Rules to that effect, given that other Rules have the same flaw and are even harder to Resolve then this one.

That is the real puzzle to me, 'mixed Unit-Type Units' have existed for quite a while but the Authors still don't tell us how to determine what Unit-Type they are.
That method would also apply to figuring out if a Chariot is a Chariot Unit, and how it changes the Unit Type of a Joined unit.

JinxDragon wrote:
It is a symptom of a larger problem:
What is the Unit Type of a unit?

The issue is not with joining other units and losing the 'chariot Unit' status, it is the fact there is no way to determine the Unit Type of an entire Unit without speculation. That is why I call it the biggest and saddest joke played by Game Workshop, they have given a Model specific object named 'Unit Type' and themselves forgotten that it is Model specific when they wrote Rules related to it. This is just one such Rule in my opinion, interacting at the Unit level while referring to a Model specific Unit Type, and it requires just as much speculation concerning how it functions. It is quite easy to make the assumption that a single Model Unit will be of the same Unit Type as that Model but it would be nice to have some actual Rules to that effect, given that other Rules have the same flaw and are even harder to Resolve then this one.

That is the real puzzle to me, 'mixed Unit-Type Units' have existed for quite a while but they still don't tell us how to determine what Unit-Type they are which would also apply to figuring out if this is a 'Chariot Unit' or not.

You are over-complicating things though.



When someone is shooting at a unit of wraiths with a bargeLord attached are they shooting at a chariot unit? How are you even getting to the point where you invoke chariot shooting allocation? Short answer, you aren't shooting at a chariot unit and you don't get to invoke chariot shooting allocation. You would have to be shooting at the bargeLord in particular to be able to implement the chariot shot allocation, but in the case of a mixed unit you are not shooting at the bargeLord in particular, so you follow the normal procedure, and effectively the bargeLord loses access to the ability to tank small arms fire on his vehicle profile.

This is a known issue and not an over complication, as Game Workshop often refers to something found on the Model's Profile as if it is a Unit wide thing. The section of the book detailing Unit Type is the most problematic for this phenomenon, the very title itself is 'Unit Type' with the opening introduction informing us we will be able to easily tell which Unit Type a Model falls into. The Authors often refer to the Unit-Type being discussed with the short term of 'Unit,' particularly those Unit Types which are prefix's to other Unit Types such as Jump or Jet-Pack. The context created by the name 'Unit Type,' the way that other sub-sections refer to themselves as 'X units' and few other minor grievances make it impossible to determine what the Rule means when it talks about 'Chariot Units' and what that would mean.

So let us 'over-complicate' your situation once more:
If I fire at Logan, what Rule informs me the Unit-Type being resolved against is 'Chariot' and not the 'Infantry' Type also present?
- Rule Quote, please, or simply accept that there is a gap in the Rules and we must use common sense to fill it... thankfully this one will be closed by a new Codex release unlike other ones of it's ilk.

JinxDragon wrote:
This is a known issue and not an over complication, as Game Workshop often refers to something found on the Model's Profile as if it is a Unit wide thing. The section of the book detailing Unit Type is the most problematic for this phenomenon, the very title itself is 'Unit Type' with the opening introduction informing us we will be able to easily tell which Unit Type a Model falls into. The Authors often refer to the Unit-Type being discussed with the short term of 'Unit,' particularly those Unit Types which are prefix's to other Unit Types such as Jump or Jet-Pack. The context created by the name 'Unit Type,' the way that other sub-sections refer to themselves as 'X units' and few other minor grievances make it impossible to determine what the Rule means when it talks about 'Chariot Units' and what that would mean.

So let us 'over-complicate' your situation once more:
If I fire at Logan, what Rule informs me the Unit-Type being resolved against is 'Chariot' and not the 'Infantry' Type also present?
- Rule Quote, please, or simply accept that there is a gap in the Rules and we must use common sense to fill it... thankfully this one will be closed by a new Codex release unlike other ones of it's ilk.

Your "known complication" simply doesn't apply here.

An IC that joins a unit becomes a part of the joined unit, not the other way around. Shall I repost the rules on that?

So, if the bargeLord joined a unit of chariots then it could access the chariot shooting allocation. Otherwise it simply never gets invoked. When the bargeLord is attached to a unit, an opponent that shoots at the unit simply does not trigger "when shooting at a Chariot unit" unless the bargeLord happens to be joined to a unit of chariots.

If you feel otherwise, feel free to post a logical step by step rules-based solution whereby an opponent, who is shooting at a unit of wraiths with a bargeLord attached to it, arrives at the point where you get to the trigger "when shooting at a Chariot unit." You simply never arrive at that trigger.

Col_Impact,
Why do you think I am disputing the join order?
Where have I stated that the 'Shooting at a Chariot Unit' triggers?
Neither are things I have put forth in any of my posts.

The issue is we do not have a way to determine the Unit Type of the entire Unit, joined or otherwise, so a Rule that would trigger on the Unit's 'Unit Type' is functionally pointless. This has been my problem with this Rule, so this is the only stance I feel the need to defend... but I do have to still ask the questions your stance brings to my mind. I personally like using Logan as an example as it is a 7th Edition Codex and has less problems then the Necron one, but still encounters this little issue as well. The Unit in question begins as nothing more then infantry, purchases an upgrade which allows it to simply 'ride Storm-rider' and that in turn triggers a whole bunch of additional Rules.

Actually... never mind me, I will put it down to being quite tired....
Misapplied something related that, when corrected, fixes my own pondering and allows the Rules to function a lot more smoother.

JinxDragon wrote:
Col_Impact,
Why do you think I am disputing the join order?
Where have I stated that the 'Shooting at a Chariot Unit' triggers?
Neither are things I have put forth in any of my posts.

The issue is we do not have a way to determine the Unit Type of the entire Unit, joined or otherwise, so a Rule that would trigger on the Unit's 'Unit Type' is functionally pointless. This has been my problem with this Rule, so this is the only stance I feel the need to defend... but I do have to still ask the questions your stance brings to my mind. I personally like using Logan as an example as it is a 7th Edition Codex and has less problems then the Necron one, but still encounters this little issue as well. The Unit in question begins as nothing more then infantry, purchases an upgrade which allows it to simply 'ride Storm-rider' and that in turn triggers a whole bunch of additional Rules. None of the Rules involved mention anything about changing the Unit Type of the Unit, they can not because that concept simply does not exist in a Rule as Written context, so I arrive back to this one question:

Would you state Logan is a Chariot Unit?
If so, what Rule would you use to prove this?

Your line of thinking is totally irrelevant.

The question you post is interesting and I can always count on you for being thoughtful and it may fruitfully apply to some other issue, but it bears absolutely no weight on the actual issue we are discussing in this thread. It is an aside. Answering it in this thread would lend an air of weight to it that it does not have. Feel free to post a separate thread exploring the issue of unit types and I will be happy to post my thoughts on the issue.

The logic of the issue we are debating simply never has to tackle your concern.

If I am shooting at a unit of wraiths with a bargeLord attached to it, am I shooting at the unit of wraiths/jump infantry or chariots? The answer is wraiths/jump infantry.



For rules purposes, we are unequivocally dealing with a unit of wraiths/jump infantry. Is chariot on the wraith profile?

The problem is best illustrated with a Riptide with Shielded Missile Drones.

Is it a MC? Is it Jet Pack Infantry? Is it both or neither?

The IC rule seems to alleviate the problem, but the wording is vague enough that I doubt it will be settled definitively.
But hey, the new 7e Necron Codex sounds like it is reanimating soon, so hopefully this will be address... Or GW will just give it a new coat of paint and leave us with the same problems.

 Nilok wrote:
The problem is best illustrated with a Riptide with Shielded Missile Drones.

Is it a MC? Is it Jet Pack Infantry? Is it both or neither?

The IC rule seems to alleviate the problem, but the wording is vague enough that I doubt it will be settled definitively.

For this thread we aren't dealing with a Riptide with Shielded Missile Drones. We are dealing with a bargeLord attached to a unit of wraiths. We cannot arrive logically at a situation where the opponent is shooting at a chariot unit until the bargeLord leaves the unit of wraiths or all the wraiths are dead. So why are we even talking about Riptides attached to Shield Drones or Jinx's Logan example?

Bringing up irrelevant lines of thinking that simply seek to undermine the categories that we are forced by the rules to deal with is just a "Chewbacca Argument"



Like I said, feel free to logically work through the problem and see if you come up with a counter solution to the problem.

Col, I was saying that the mixed unit type problem is indeed a problem that has no answer, but the the IC rules seems to solve the problem with the CCB.

Believe it or not, I was agreeing with you, but going on a long explanation on why you think my post was worthless or has "irrelevant lines of thinking" is not helpful to the discussion and can be viewed as insulting.

Damn did not realise it was one of these. Luckily bao rules being used for the tournament we are prepping for says it loses ic.

He had it at the front of a warrior squad, so technically the first for wound allocation, and was look out sir'ing a bunch of grav cannon wounds, 6 6's and six or seven four up wounds, he got through the 6's only taking one on the barge and then had the normal wounds left that would normally do nothing to the barge but would toast warriors and thats when i knew something was broken.

 Nilok wrote:
Col, I was saying that the mixed unit type problem is indeed a problem that has no answer, but the the IC rules seems to solve the problem with the CCB.

Believe it or not, I was agreeing with you, but going on a long explanation on why you think my post was worthless or has "irrelevant lines of thinking" is not helpful to the discussion and can be viewed as insulting.

I did not mean to insult you. If I take what you submit for discussion to task logically, I am only taking your argument to task and please do not take it personally. Your prior post did not come out and agree with me as you claim. Instead you were saying that . . .



Basically you were saying that because of the Unit Type issue that nothing can be settled definitively as far as if a bargeLord loses the ability to allocate hits to his vehicle profile when he joins a unit of wraiths.

I countered that the IC rule means we logically totally avoid any Unit Type confusion altogether and that a continued discussion of Unit Types is completely irrelevant.

I appreciate though that in your latest post that you are now agreeing with my argument and see that "the the IC rules seems to solve the problem with the CCB."





Automatically Appended Next Post:

 inquisitormaus wrote:
Damn did not realise it was one of these. Luckily bao rules being used for the tournament we are prepping for says it loses ic.

He had it at the front of a warrior squad, so technically the first for wound allocation, and was look out sir'ing a bunch of grav cannon wounds, 6 6's and six or seven four up wounds, he got through the 6's only taking one on the barge and then had the normal wounds left that would normally do nothing to the barge but would toast warriors and thats when i knew something was broken.

The rules allow you to join an bargeLord to a unit of warriors. However, he was playing against the rules as I pointed out above if he was Look Out, Sirring for the bargeLord. The Look Out Sir rules explicitly do not allow that.



Also, when he tried to allocate hits to vehicle profile while in the unit, he was breaking the rules.

The next time he tries that you should simply point out the rules and how he just made a terrible mistake by joining the bargeLord to a unit of warriors and then take out the bargeLord with the small arms fire that it would otherwise be invulnerable to.

one of the profiles of the model may be an IC, but the model is also a vehicle, and the vehicle profile does not have permission to join a squad.

regardless, its not smart to do this, as -if- it is allowed you are firing at a unit with majority toughness, so you cannot allocate hits to CCB ever if it were joined, because you roll versus toughness against a unit with a majority toughness value and at that point you have no option to go back and roll versus armor penetration as the next step is allocate wounds.

Also I have yet to find a situation where in the new maelstrom missions there is any benefit to attaching a CCB Lord to a unit. Even attaching it to wraiths you lose the 18in turbo boost. Maybe in the old 6ed eternal war missions there may have been a benefit but mobility seems to be favored at this time.

Also a Lord on a CCB cannot make LOS as LOS prohibits Models with the Vehicle "Type" from taking them, and a CCB has both the Infantry and Vehicle types as part of the model.

Other than those points, RAW for now you can attach a CCB/Lord to another unit of Infantry, I just cannot not see the benefit of doing it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

blaktoof wrote:
one of the profiles of the model may be an IC, but the model is also a vehicle, and the vehicle profile does not have permission to join a squad.

regardless, its not smart to do this, as -if- it is allowed you are firing at a unit with majority toughness, so you cannot allocate hits to CCB ever if it were joined, because you roll versus toughness against a unit with a majority toughness value and at that point you have no option to go back and roll versus armor penetration as the next step is allocate wounds.

For the record it is not the vehicle rule that prevents a vehicle from joining another unit, it is the IC rule that prevents an IC from joining any unit that contains an MC or a vehicle.

So the CCB is both and IC and vehicle for now, there is no resrtiction on it joining a unit just that other IC's cannot join it.

blaktoof wrote:
one of the profiles of the model may be an IC, but the model is also a vehicle, and the vehicle profile does not have permission to join a squad.
.

The IC rule is on the chariot model and the rule is simply invoked. The Chaos chariot rules and the Space Wolves chariot rules explicitly remove IC from their chariots in order to take away the ability from them. They would otherwise also have the ability to join units and it would also be a generally BAD for them to join a chariot to a unit, just as it is in the case of the Necron chariot.

 BLADERIKER wrote:
Also I have yet to find a situation where in the new maelstrom missions there is any benefit to attaching a CCB Lord to a unit. Even attaching it to wraiths you lose the 18in turbo boost. Maybe in the old 6ed eternal war missions there may have been a benefit but mobility seems to be favored at this time.

Also a Lord on a CCB cannot make LOS as LOS prohibits Models with the Vehicle "Type" from taking them, and a CCB has both the Infantry and Vehicle types as part of the model.

Other than those points, RAW for now you can attach a CCB/Lord to another unit of Infantry, I just cannot not see the benefit of doing it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

blaktoof wrote:
one of the profiles of the model may be an IC, but the model is also a vehicle, and the vehicle profile does not have permission to join a squad.

regardless, its not smart to do this, as -if- it is allowed you are firing at a unit with majority toughness, so you cannot allocate hits to CCB ever if it were joined, because you roll versus toughness against a unit with a majority toughness value and at that point you have no option to go back and roll versus armor penetration as the next step is allocate wounds.

For the record it is not the vehicle rule that prevents a vehicle from joining another unit, it is the IC rule that prevents an IC from joining any unit that contains an MC or a vehicle.

So the CCB is both and IC and vehicle for now, there is no resrtiction on it joining a unit just that other IC's cannot join it.

for me the issue is that the CCB model is not a lord on a CCB, it is a model that has 2 profiles. 1 is the lord, the other is the vehicle. One doesnt have precedence over the other in terms of anything unless specific rules say so, ie shooting/assault/etc

in this case yes the IC has permission to join things generally, but the vehicle does not. If you are joining the IC to a unit, you are also saying the vehicle is allowed to join a unit, as it is a single model with both profiles. not an IC riding a chariot.

So yes, half of the model has permission, but the other half does not. Generally can you join a vehicle to a unit? No. The CCB model is not a unit, so it is not a case of an IC being joined to the chariot profile, and the chariot profile which is 100% part of the dual profile model does not have the IC rule.

If they both had the IC rule, it would be no discussion, RAW it could join.

blaktoof wrote:
Generally can you join a vehicle to a unit? No.

This is incorrect. There is no rule that says a vehicle can not join a unit. So generally yes you can join a vehicle to a unit (if there was somehow a way to do it). There is only a rule that says an IC cannot join a unit of vehicles.

Looks like another direction issue. ICs can't join Vehicles, but Vehicle ICs can join whatever they want.

BargeLord can Join Vanilla Overlord.
Vanilla Overlord can't Join BargeLord.

This is very similiar to the Monstrous Creature IC issue.

O'Vesa can Join Farsight.
Farsight can't Join O'Vesa.

Order of operations matters.

In any case, I'll bet anyone that the inevitable 7th Edition Necron Codex will have wording saying that BargeLords can never join another unit like just about every other Chariot entry out there. This is likely to be a moot point. I wouldn't suggest building your army or strategy around a BargeLord being able to join another unit.

Col_Impact,
The Rule you continue to quote did nothing to solve my little dilemma, as no one is disputing that an Independent Character joins another Unit regardless of how many attempts you take to make that into 'the problem.' The true problem I kept alluding too still exists, but Chariots have an out that can be used whenever the 'What Unit-Type is a Unit' spectator rises. It probably wasn't even intentional, reads more like a basic introduction, but it created a solution none the less. ' A Chariot is an unusual unit... is how the Rule begins, so it is the Rule which can be used to verify if someone meets the requirement to be a 'Chariot Unit.'

col_impact wrote:

 Nilok wrote:
Col, I was saying that the mixed unit type problem is indeed a problem that has no answer, but the the IC rules seems to solve the problem with the CCB.

Believe it or not, I was agreeing with you, but going on a long explanation on why you think my post was worthless or has "irrelevant lines of thinking" is not helpful to the discussion and can be viewed as insulting.

I did not mean to insult you. If I take what you submit for discussion to task logically, I am only taking your argument to task and please do not take it personally. Your prior post did not come out and agree with me as you claim. Instead you were saying that . . .

Spoiler:

The IC rule seems to alleviate the problem, but the wording is vague enough that I doubt it will be settled definitively.

Basically you were saying that because of the Unit Type issue that nothing can be settled definitively as far as if a bargeLord loses the ability to allocate hits to his vehicle profile when he joins a unit of wraiths.

I countered that the IC rule means we logically totally avoid any Unit Type confusion altogether and that a continued discussion of Unit Types is completely irrelevant.

I appreciate though that in your latest post that you are now agreeing with my argument and see that "the the IC rules seems to solve the problem with the CCB."

Col, I would appreciate if you would actually read my posts instead of skimming and responding incorrectly. My original post I was agreeing with you. I stated the main problem, the mixed unit type, then stated that the IC rule alleviates (makes better) the problem, but there is still an argument that can be made for the other side. I did not change my statement, however, you assumed my statement about the Riptide also applied to the CCB, when I did not say that.

Well thank you all for the help. I doubt hes gonna wanna run it with a squad now that i know all the restrictions. Definitely not worth the points