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.

 Kriswall wrote:
If you are required to resolve each assignment individually, the second Mek won't be around yet for the first to be assigned to.

What do you mean "won't be around yet" - he's around; his model's probably unpacked, his entry is in the army list... where would he be if not "around"

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
If you are required to resolve each assignment individually, the second Mek won't be around yet for the first to be assigned to.

What do you mean "won't be around yet" - he's around; his model's probably unpacked, his entry is in the army list... where would he be if not "around"

I meant in the same sense of how you can't attach an IC to a unit you haven't deployed yet. I don't have all my rulebooks with me, so I can't look up the interactions. BUT...

Here's my potential issue. No rules backup as I don't have rulebooks on me. I'm not sure there ARE rules to cover this situation.

Mek A is assigned to "Infantry Unit B" that contains Mek B (which is currently a Unit of 1). At this point, there is only one Infantry Unit containing both Meks. Assigning Mek B to the Infantry Unit containing Mek A is really assigning him to his own original Unit, "Infantry Unit B". The rules don't cover this situation, but I think it's going against RaI, so HIWPI is to not allow Meks to be assigned to each other. It feels like you shouldn't be allowed to assign a Mek to his own original Unit. No rules backup, but this feels like a loophole that GW would close if they ever wrote in-depth FAQs.

You could also argue that if you assign Mek A to "Infantry Unit B" and at the same time assign Mek B to "Infantry Unit A", you'd end up with two lone Meks, each in a seperate Unit. You wouldn't end up with two Meks together in one Unit. Again, huge potential loophole that seems to run counter to RaI.

loopholes not necessary, and it implies that meks are in fact meant to be able to join one another. the rule states "Any mek that is not already part of another unit must, if possible, be assigned to any unit with the infantry or artillery type in their detachment."

I think the case may be closed!

Meks can join other meks.

 some bloke wrote:
loopholes not necessary, and it implies that meks are in fact meant to be able to join one another. the rule states "Any mek that is not already part of another unit must, if possible, be assigned to any unit with the infantry or artillery type in their detachment."

I think the case may be closed!

Meks can join other meks.

Case not closed. Here's the issue...

Meks must be assigned to any unit with the infantry or artillery type. If you assign the first Mek to the second Mek (since the second Mek is really an Infantry Unit composed of 1 model), then there is no longer a unit for the second Mek to be assigned to. You can't assign him to his own unit and there is only one unit on the table.

 Kriswall wrote:

 some bloke wrote:
loopholes not necessary, and it implies that meks are in fact meant to be able to join one another. the rule states "Any mek that is not already part of another unit must, if possible, be assigned to any unit with the infantry or artillery type in their detachment."

I think the case may be closed!

Meks can join other meks.

Case not closed. Here's the issue...

Meks must be assigned to any unit with the infantry or artillery type. If you assign the first Mek to the second Mek (since the second Mek is really an Infantry Unit composed of 1 model), then there is no longer a unit for the second Mek to be assigned to. You can't assign him to his own unit and there is only one unit on the table.

Why can't he attach to another unit? There are certainly other units present!

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Why can't he attach to another unit? There are certainly other units present!

Certainly, he can attach to any other Unit, but that would not create the "Only 2 Meks" Unit some here are trying to create (for reasons unknown)

 BlackTalos wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Why can't he attach to another unit? There are certainly other units present!

Certainly, he can attach to any other Unit, but that would not create the "Only 2 Meks" Unit some here are trying to create (for reasons unknown)

Yeah he can absolutely be assigned to a different unit... just not the "other Mek unit" as the other mek unit no longer exists.

 Kriswall wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Why can't he attach to another unit? There are certainly other units present!

Certainly, he can attach to any other Unit, but that would not create the "Only 2 Meks" Unit some here are trying to create (for reasons unknown)

Yeah he can absolutely be assigned to a different unit... just not the "other Mek unit" as the other mek unit no longer exists.

Still an IC though

Meks are not ICs.

 Kriswall wrote:
Meks are not ICs.

Yes but the two of them could join an IC as we determined earlier.

 some bloke wrote:
it implies that meks are in fact meant to be able to join one another.

You missed where this was the "new subject" currently.

okay, I'm going to repost this with emphasis and explanations, as it seems to have missed a few people.

"Any mek that is not already part of another unit must, if possible, be assigned to any unit with the infantry or artillery type in their detachment."

so here's how it works:

Mek A and mek B want to be together.

Mek A is assigned to mek B, who form a unit of 2 meks.

Mek B is now part of another unit (as he is with mek A by virtue of mek A being with him) so does not have to be assigned. this uses the phrase "Any mek that is not already part of a unit" from the rule.

therefore, mek a and mek b live happily ever after.

 some bloke wrote:
okay, I'm going to repost this with emphasis and explanations, as it seems to have missed a few people.

"Any mek that is not already part of another unit must, if possible, be assigned to any unit with the infantry or artillery type in their detachment."

so here's how it works:

Mek A and mek B want to be together.

Mek A is assigned to mek B, who form a unit of 2 meks.

Mek B is now part of another unit (as he is with mek A by virtue of mek A being with him) so does not have to be assigned. this uses the phrase "Any mek that is not already part of a unit" from the rule.

therefore, mek a and mek b live happily ever after.

Except Mek B is not part of another unit. He is still part of the "Mek B" unit.

 some bloke wrote:
okay, I'm going to repost this with emphasis and explanations, as it seems to have missed a few people.

"Any mek that is not already part of another unit must, if possible, be assigned to any unit with the infantry or artillery type in their detachment."

so here's how it works:

Mek A and mek B want to be together.

Mek A is assigned to mek B, who form a unit of 2 meks.

Mek B is now part of another unit (as he is with mek A by virtue of mek A being with him) so does not have to be assigned. this uses the phrase "Any mek that is not already part of a unit" from the rule.

therefore, mek a and mek b live happily ever after.

by the RAW this is allowed.

Mek A and B are both units. a unit can be a model of 1, we are never told meks cannot be a unit. We are told they must join a unit of artillery or infantry if there are any. If there are not any infantry or artillery and you have 1 mek the mek can obviously be placed by itself as it is not required to join anything.

So a mek is an unit, which everyone should already know.

A mek is also an unit with the type "infantry" as per the rules therefore a mek can join an unit with the type infantry, which could be another mek.

The other mek is now a part of a unit.

in fact by the RAW if you have no infantry or artillery units other than say, 2 meks, you would have to assign them together because they are the only infantry or artillery unit.

blaktoof wrote:

 some bloke wrote:
okay, I'm going to repost this with emphasis and explanations, as it seems to have missed a few people.

"Any mek that is not already part of another unit must, if possible, be assigned to any unit with the infantry or artillery type in their detachment."

so here's how it works:

Mek A and mek B want to be together.

Mek A is assigned to mek B, who form a unit of 2 meks.

Mek B is now part of another unit (as he is with mek A by virtue of mek A being with him) so does not have to be assigned. this uses the phrase "Any mek that is not already part of a unit" from the rule.

therefore, mek a and mek b live happily ever after.

by the RAW this is allowed.

Mek A and B are both units. a unit can be a model of 1, we are never told meks cannot be a unit. We are told they must join a unit of artillery or infantry if there are any. If there are not any infantry or artillery and you have 1 mek the mek can obviously be placed by itself as it is not required to join anything.

So a mek is an unit, which everyone should already know.

A mek is also an unit with the type "infantry" as per the rules therefore a mek can join an unit with the type infantry, which could be another mek.

The other mek is now a part of a unit.

in fact by the RAW if you have no infantry or artillery units other than say, 2 meks, you would have to assign them together because they are the only infantry or artillery unit.

RAW it is not allowed. Unless you have no infantry/artillery units.

Mek A is assigned to Mek B's unit. No problem. Mek A is now part of another unit. Mek B, however, is not part of another unit and must, if possible, be assigned to a unit. As such you are left with Mek A in Mek B's unit and Mek B in another unit entirely. Mek B cannot be assigned to Mek A's unit as Mek A's unit ceased to exist when he was assigned to Mek B's unit.

Well, technically, RAW is broken anyhow - simply by virtue of existing, they are "part of another unit:" A unit of one model; their own unit.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Well, technically, RAW is broken anyhow - simply by virtue of existing, they are "part of another unit:" A unit of one model; their own unit.

Except he would be a part of his own unit, not "part of another unit".

if Mek A is assigned to Mek B, when it comes time to assign Mek B to something, whether that be a different time or the same time, Mek B is a part of another unit by the RAW because it is in a unit consisting of a model other than itself.

as neither are ICs they do not gain the units identity they are joined to, so the other member of the unit is definately a unit other than Mek B.

blaktoof wrote:
if Mek A is assigned to Mek B, when it comes time to assign Mek B to something, whether that be a different time or the same time, Mek B is a part of another unit by the RAW because it is in a unit consisting of a model other than itself.

as neither are ICs they do not gain the units identity they are joined to, so the other member of the unit is definately a unit other than Mek B.

What unit is Mek A in?
What unit is Mek B in?

 Happyjew wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
if Mek A is assigned to Mek B, when it comes time to assign Mek B to something, whether that be a different time or the same time, Mek B is a part of another unit by the RAW because it is in a unit consisting of a model other than itself.

as neither are ICs they do not gain the units identity they are joined to, so the other member of the unit is definately a unit other than Mek B.

What unit is Mek A in?
What unit is Mek B in?

It's Schrödinger's Unit From the point of view of Mek A he's a part of the Mek B unit and vice versa. Both Mek units exist and don't exist simultaneously until you decide which Mek you're using for your point of view.

 Ghaz wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
if Mek A is assigned to Mek B, when it comes time to assign Mek B to something, whether that be a different time or the same time, Mek B is a part of another unit by the RAW because it is in a unit consisting of a model other than itself.

as neither are ICs they do not gain the units identity they are joined to, so the other member of the unit is definately a unit other than Mek B.

What unit is Mek A in?
What unit is Mek B in?

It's Schrödinger's Unit From the point of view of Mek A he's a part of the Mek B unit and vice versa. Both Mek units exist and don't exist simultaneously until you decide which Mek you're using for your point of view.

Not really.

I attach Mek A to Mek B;s unit. You currently have Mek B unit composed of Mek A and Mek B. Mek B must still be assigned to another unit if possible.

What blaktoof is trying to do however is Schrödinger's Unit.

the logic you're using to approach this conclusion suggests that mek b isn't with mek a, only mek a is with mek b.

the exact same logic (entirely the way you are using it) suggests the following:

warboss A moves to join warboss B. warboss A is now in the unit with warboss B. However, Warboss B is not in the unit with warboss A, as an IC has to move into coherency, and warboss B didn't do so.

if A joins B, B is joined to A. if B wasn't joined to A, then A can't be joined to B.

I'm going to challenge you now, and if you can achieve what I ask, you're clearly right.

Please write "A" and "B", next to each other (EG: "AB") so that A is next to B but B isn't next to A.

 Happyjew wrote:

I attach Mek A to Mek B;s unit. You currently have Mek B unit composed of Mek A and Mek B. Mek B must still be assigned to another unit if possible.

Please stop implying that the name of a unit has any bearing on whether it is, in fact, a unit. i can call it a flower power unit, and in that unit will still be 2 meks. nowhere does the game start claiming that the meks take the unit name of the unit they join, nor that the unit name even persists once the mek joins - if he joins a unit of boys, the unit would probably be called "Ork Boys and a Mek". the mek joins the mek, this forms a larger unit. both meks are now in a unit, so they no longer need to be placed. seeing as unit upgrade meks don't have the rule, please give any other example in which the "that is not already in a unit" stipulation could ever apply.

 some bloke wrote:
the logic you're using to approach this conclusion suggests that mek b isn't with mek a, only mek a is with mek b.

the exact same logic (entirely the way you are using it) suggests the following:

warboss A moves to join warboss B. warboss A is now in the unit with warboss B. However, Warboss B is not in the unit with warboss A, as an IC has to move into coherency, and warboss B didn't do so.

if A joins B, B is joined to A. if B wasn't joined to A, then A can't be joined to B.

I'm going to challenge you now, and if you can achieve what I ask, you're clearly right.

Please write "A" and "B", next to each other (EG: "AB") so that A is next to B but B isn't next to A.

 Happyjew wrote:

I attach Mek A to Mek B;s unit. You currently have Mek B unit composed of Mek A and Mek B. Mek B must still be assigned to another unit if possible.

Please stop implying that the name of a unit has any bearing on whether it is, in fact, a unit. i can call it a flower power unit, and in that unit will still be 2 meks. nowhere does the game start claiming that the meks take the unit name of the unit they join, nor that the unit name even persists once the mek joins - if he joins a unit of boys, the unit would probably be called "Ork Boys and a Mek". the mek joins the mek, this forms a larger unit. both meks are now in a unit, so they no longer need to be placed. seeing as unit upgrade meks don't have the rule, please give any other example in which the "that is not already in a unit" stipulation could ever apply.

I use "Mek A" and "Mek B" to differentiate between the two units. You can call the units "Bob" and "Steve". "Bob" is composed (at list creation) of a Mek. "Steve" is composed (at list creation) of a Mek. At the start of the game (or whenever assignment is done), I assign the Mek from "Bob" to the unit called "Steve". The Mek originally from "Steve" still has not been assigned to another unit. He cannot be assigned to the unit being called "Bob" as that unit does not exist. Similar to a Royal Court ceases to exist if all members are assigned to other units.

 Happyjew wrote:

I use "Mek A" and "Mek B" to differentiate between the two units. You can call the units "Bob" and "Steve". "Bob" is composed (at list creation) of a Mek. "Steve" is composed (at list creation) of a Mek. At the start of the game (or whenever assignment is done), I assign the Mek from "Bob" to the unit called "Steve". The Mek originally from "Steve" still has not been assigned to another unit. He cannot be assigned to the unit being called "Bob" as that unit does not exist. Similar to a Royal Court ceases to exist if all members are assigned to other units.

the main issue here is how you can explain that unit A is joined to unit B, but unit B is not joined to unit A.

if unit B isn't joined to unit A, then unit A can't be joined to unit B. it's like (not the same as, I don't want to go into the slightly different way IC's work) saying warboss A is joined to warboss B, but warboss B isn't joined to warboss A. so when you shoot at them, which one do you aim at.

By virtue of another unit joining a unit, the second unit becomes itself part of another unit.

if a painboy joins a warboss, does it become a warboss unit, a painboy unit, or it's own unit? I'm of the opinion it becomes its own unit.

so if a mek joins another mek, the second mek is already part of another unit.

to disprove this, please do as I asked and write "AB" or "BA" with A next to B but B not next to A.

 some bloke wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

I use "Mek A" and "Mek B" to differentiate between the two units. You can call the units "Bob" and "Steve". "Bob" is composed (at list creation) of a Mek. "Steve" is composed (at list creation) of a Mek. At the start of the game (or whenever assignment is done), I assign the Mek from "Bob" to the unit called "Steve". The Mek originally from "Steve" still has not been assigned to another unit. He cannot be assigned to the unit being called "Bob" as that unit does not exist. Similar to a Royal Court ceases to exist if all members are assigned to other units.

the main issue here is how you can explain that unit A is joined to unit B, but unit B is not joined to unit A.

A Warboss (unit A) joins a quad of boyz (unit B). Please use the rules to explain how the Boyz join the IC.

if unit B isn't joined to unit A, then unit A can't be joined to unit B. it's like (not the same as, I don't want to go into the slightly different way IC's work) saying warboss A is joined to warboss B, but warboss B isn't joined to warboss A. so when you shoot at them, which one do you aim at.

By virtue of another unit joining a unit, the second unit becomes itself part of another unit.

if a painboy joins a warboss, does it become a warboss unit, a painboy unit, or it's own unit? I'm of the opinion it becomes its own unit.

If a Painboy joins a Warboss, you have a Warboss unit composed of a Warboss and a Painboy. As per the IC rules.

Yeah, it's important to remember that Joining is an active thing. Two ICs never Join each other. One Joins the other. The other is being Joined by the first. They end up Joined together as one unit, but it's because one of them did the Joining.

If Mek A is assigned to the Unit containing Mek B, you have a Unit containing both Meks. However, per the rules, you still have to assign Mek B to a unit and you haven't yet. You can't assign him to the Mek A Unit, because it doesn't exist anymore. It ceased to exist as soon as you assigned Mek A to a Unit.

the arguments using ICs are not relavent, as ICs donot have the same rules as meks, which are not ICs, they are infantry (character).

If you have 2 meks, Mek A and Mek B

You have permission to join them as they are infantry.

So you could join Mek A to Mek B.

Mek B no longer has to be joined to anything because it is already part of another unit(other than the unit of itself). Stating that Mek B is not part of a unit is false as it is part of a unit other than itself.

Mek A = Unit 1
Mek B = Unit 2
Mek AB= Unit 3

Both Mek A and Mek B are units in their own right, their own unit.

When Mek A is joined to Mek B the unit now consists of 2 models, both Mek A and Mek B, noted as unit 3. Mek B is no longer a unit of its own, unit 2, it is now part of another unit, as there is another model in the unit, Mek A.

Claiming that mek B is not part of a unit other then the unit it previously was is false, as there is clearly other models in the unit and it is part of a unit.

blaktoof wrote:
the arguments using ICs are not relavent, as ICs donot have the same rules as meks, which are not ICs, they are infantry (character).

If you have 2 meks, Mek A and Mek B

You have permission to join them as they are infantry.

So you could join Mek A to Mek B.

Mek B no longer has to be joined to anything because it is already part of another unit(other than the unit of itself). Stating that Mek B is not part of a unit is false as it is part of a unit other than itself.

Mek A = Unit 1
Mek B = Unit 2
Mek AB= Unit 3

Both Mek A and Mek B are units in their own right, their own unit.

When Mek A is joined to Mek B the unit now consists of 2 models, both Mek A and Mek B, noted as unit 3. Mek B is no longer a unit of its own, unit 2, it is now part of another unit, as there is another model in the unit, Mek A.

Claiming that mek B is not part of a unit other then the unit it previously was is false, as there is clearly other models in the unit and it is part of a unit.

No, that is incorrect because when you join Mek A to Mek B, this happens:
Mek A = Unit 1
Mek B = Unit 2
Mek A +> Mek B = Unit 2

Or, if you decide to join Mek B to Mek A, then the resulting unit is:
Unit 1, of Mek A, which Mek B has now joined.

You never get "Unit 3", because Mek A or Mek B are not joining anything else than themselves.

regardless of what you state:

Mek AB unit Mek B is part of a unit other then itself, correct or incorrect?