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.

 BlackTalos wrote:

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.

well here's the thing.

Whether mek B is still a unit called Mek B is irrelevant.

if mek a joins mek b, mek b is part of another unit - a unit that's still called "Mek" but contains models other than those originally bought for that unit.

so yes, mek A joins mek B, which becomes a unit called "Mek B". mek B is in the unit called "Mek B", but is already in a unit with other models, from another unit.

Depends who joined who.

If Mek A joins Mek B, then Mek B belongs to Unit "Mek B".

If Mek B joins mek A, then Mek A belongs to Unit "Mek A".

That means they have not joined "another Unit", as they are required to do...

If "Mek AB unit" is "Mek B unit", then Mek B hasn't joined anything yet.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 some bloke wrote:
if mek a joins mek b, mek b is part of another unit - a unit that's still called "Mek" but contains models other than those originally bought for that unit.

so yes, mek A joins mek B, which becomes a unit called "Mek B". mek B is in the unit called "Mek B", but is already in a unit with other models, from another unit.

No, the fact that that Mek B is still in "his own Unit" means he has not joined anyone, regardless of how many models have joined him......

mek B is not his own unit, he is in a unit with itself +1 model which is different than its own starting unit of just Mek B.

stating that mek B is still its own unit is also saying Mek A was not assigned to Mek B, because the unit is no longer the original unit.

Mek A does not lose its identity when joined to Mek B- counting as part of the unit for rules purposes does not mean it no longer exists and there is only Mek B, and Mek B is obviously not the unit of just Mek B anymore, stating otherwise is false.

It is different, but it is still his Unit, of himself +xx.

The mekaniak rule requires the Mek to join a Unit. Has Mek B joined a Unit?
Someone join him, but did he join anything? Can you prove he joined himself?

Then the Mekaniak rule doesn't even need to exist, you can just field Meks on their own.....


Automatically Appended Next Post:

blaktoof wrote:
Mek B is obviously not the unit of just Mek B anymore, stating otherwise is false.

If a Mek joins a Unit of "Burna Boyz", is it no longer a Unit of "Burna Boyz"?

Has it become a Unit of "Burna Boyz with a Mek"?

blaktoof wrote:
regardless of what you state:

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

Correct. However, you did not assign him to that unit. So long as there is at least one other Infantry or Artillery unit in your army, you'd have to assign him to that unit. You can't just say "Well, through a different unit's rule my Mek is now in a unit, so I'm allowed to ignore the requirement that I assign him to an Infantry or Artillery unit". The rule doesn't require he BE in an Infantry/Artillery unit. The rule requires you PUT him in one.

You are required to assign meks that are not already part of another unit.

the unit of Mek A is now an unit of MekAB

There is another model in the unit, it is different than the original unit.

Mek B and Mek A both qualify as units you are allowed to assign to because they are "any infantry or artillery unit" so by the clear RAW you are allowed to join them.

when it comes time to say if you joined Mek A it no longer matters because Mek is no longer by itself, it is part of another unit.

the unit mek A is different than the unit Mek B. One is 1 model, the other is two models and the models do not cease to exist or be just because they are joined in a unit together.

Mek A does not need to be assigned because it is no longer an unit of "Mek A" it now a unit of Mek "AB"

in addition as there is no rule preventing you from joining them, and the RAW clearly shows you are allowed to- there is no rule allowing you to take the Mek out of the unit and put it somewhere else, just as there no rule requiring you to join a Mek joined to an IC or a Boyz unit to a different unit.

clearly you are allowed to join the mek to any infantry or artillery unit, yes?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BlackTalos wrote:
It is different, but it is still his Unit, of himself +xx.

The mekaniak rule requires the Mek to join a Unit. Has Mek B joined a Unit?
Someone join him, but did he join anything? Can you prove he joined himself?

Then the Mekaniak rule doesn't even need to exist, you can just field Meks on their own.....


Automatically Appended Next Post:

blaktoof wrote:
Mek B is obviously not the unit of just Mek B anymore, stating otherwise is false.

If a Mek joins a Unit of "Burna Boyz", is it no longer a Unit of "Burna Boyz"?

Has it become a Unit of "Burna Boyz with a Mek"?

the burna boyz are obviously still burned boyz, and the mek is joined to the unit, but the mek is not a burna boy does not use its unit entry for any purposes and obviously has the rules and statline etc from the mek entry. So while the unit may move together, shoot/assault together, take casualties and morale together, they are not all the same. obviously one model is a Mek from its own unit entry and the other models are burna boyz from their own unit entry.

there is no actual rules regarding naming units on the tabletop, or unit identities in the way you are using them. So although we have a convention of saying "the burna boyz disembark and fire their burnas at your unit" and if the mek is in the unit we are aware as players it is there because the model is physically there, the mek obviously is not a burna boy and it is a unit of burna boyz with an attached mek.

Here is the Rule:

"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."

"Mek B Unit" can not be "another unit" for Mek B.

Even if Mek A joins him and they are now a new "Mek B Unit" with 2 models. Mek B is still in his own Unit. Just like the Bunra boyz are always Burna boyz

Mek B is an unit

Mek BA is another unit.

blaktoof wrote:
Mek B is an unit

Mek BA is another unit.

Mek BA is a unit that doesn't exist.

Blaktoof...

Attaching another model to a unit doesn't make it a new and different unit. It's the same unit with an extra model in it.

If you believe it becomes a new unit, cite some rules.

there is permission to attach the Mek to a Mek, cite a rule stating there is not.

an unit consisting of Mek A

is different than an unit consisting of MekAB, a combination which you are told you are allowed to do per the rules as Mek B is any infantry unity.

Unless you can show you are not allowed to attack Mek A to Mek B, as we are given explicit permission that we can attach Mek A to any infantry unit, and Mek B is an infantry unit.

Then there is no actual conflict in being permitted to attach the Meks together within the rules for assigning Meks, which is contained within the Mek rule.

There is a conflict. One of the Mek's ends up not being assigned to a unit as dictated by the Mekaniaks rule.

blaktoof wrote:
there is permission to attach the Mek to a Mek, cite a rule stating there is not.

an unit consisting of Mek A

is different than an unit consisting of MekAB, a combination which you are told you are allowed to do per the rules as Mek B is any infantry unity.

Unless you can show you are not allowed to attack Mek A to Mek B, as we are given explicit permission that we can attach Mek A to any infantry unit, and Mek B is an infantry unit.

Then there is no actual conflict in being permitted to attach the Meks together within the rules for assigning Meks, which is contained within the Mek rule.

Ugh. Good times. Let's do this.

Relevant sentence from the Mekaniaks rule... "Before the battle, immediately after determining Warlord Traits, 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; a Mek cannot leave his unit and is treated as part of it for the entire battle for all rules purposes."

Since we're getting nowhere in this debate, I'm going to use the following CAD as an example.

Combined Arms Detachment - Codex: Orks
HQ - Warboss (Warlord)
HQ - Weirdboy
HQ - Mek (who we will call Jim)
HQ - Mek (who we will call John)
Troops - 10 Boyz
Troops - 10 Grots w/1 Runtherd

Ok, so before the battle and immediately after determining Warlord Traits, we need to resolve the rules bit above. I haven't deployed anything, so the ICs are still both seperate. We currently have 6 Units. I'm going to avoid naming them and instead use numbers...

Unit #1 (Warboss)
Unit #2 (Weirdboy)
Unit #3 (Mek Jim)
Unit #4 (Mek John)
Unit #5 (10 Boyz)
Unit #6 (10 Grots/1 Runtherd)

Let's look at Mek Jim. Is he "already part of another unit"? Well, he's part of the unit he started in and that's definitely not "another unit". So, no. What do I need to do? Mek Jim "must, if possible, be assigned to any unit with the Infantry or Artillery type". Does Unit #4 have the Infantry Type? It does. I'm assigning Mek Jim to Unit #4. New setup...

Unit #1 (Warboss)
Unit #2 (Weirdboy)
Unit #4 (Mek John/Mek Jim)
Unit #5 (10 Boyz)
Unit #6 (10 Grots/1 Runtherd)

As you can see, Unit #3 is no longer around as it no longer has any members. Unit #4 is still Unit #4. It has simply had another model assigned to it.

But... we still need to look at Mek John. He also has the same rule. Is he "already part of another unit"? Well, just like Mek Jim, he's part of the unit he started in and that's definitely not "another unit". So, no. What do I need to do? Mek John "must, if possible, be assigned to any unit with the Infantry or Artillery type". I have 4 "another" units with the Infantry type... units #1, #2, #5 and #6. Let's assign John to Unit #1. New Setup...

Unit #1 (Warboss/Mek John)
Unit #2 (Weirdboy)
Unit $4 (Mek Jim)
Unit #5 (10 Boyz)
Unit #6 (10 Grots/1 Runtherd)

There is no possible way to obey the rules for both Meks and end up with a unit consisting of Mek Jim and Mek John. The rules just don't support it. It IS possible to end up with a Mek by himself using the above as an example.

If you have three Meks, it's possible to have two together, but the third must be assigned to another unit. You would simply assign Meks Jim and John to the unit containing Mek #3 and then assign Mek #3 to another unit.

You contention that adding a model to an existing unit turns the unit into a different unit is unfounded. The rules don't support this. It's the same unit... simply with an extra member. If you feel that I am wrong, cite the rules and provide an example, as I have. I'm happy to reverse my position if you can provide actual rules citations and examples showing how you think those rules work.

On a side note... you know that units and models aren't the same, right? Meks have no permission to be assigned to other Meks. They have permission to be assigned to other UNITS. If that other unit happens to contain a Mek, fine, but the Mek is never being assigned to a specific model. It's always to the Unit and units can change member models without becoming new units.

 Kriswall wrote:

Ugh. Good times. Let's do this.

Relevant sentence from the Mekaniaks rule... "Before the battle, immediately after determining Warlord Traits, 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; a Mek cannot leave his unit and is treated as part of it for the entire battle for all rules purposes."

Since we're getting nowhere in this debate, I'm going to use the following CAD as an example.

Combined Arms Detachment - Codex: Orks
HQ - Warboss (Warlord)
HQ - Weirdboy
HQ - Mek (who we will call Jim)
HQ - Mek (who we will call John)
Troops - 10 Boyz
Troops - 10 Grots w/1 Runtherd

Ok, so before the battle and immediately after determining Warlord Traits, we need to resolve the rules bit above. I haven't deployed anything, so the ICs are still both seperate. We currently have 6 Units. I'm going to avoid naming them and instead use numbers...

Unit #1 (Warboss)
Unit #2 (Weirdboy)
Unit #3 (Mek Jim)
Unit #4 (Mek John)
Unit #5 (10 Boyz)
Unit #6 (10 Grots/1 Runtherd)

Let's look at Mek Jim. Is he "already part of another unit"? Well, he's part of the unit he started in and that's definitely not "another unit". So, no. What do I need to do? Mek Jim "must, if possible, be assigned to any unit with the Infantry or Artillery type". Does Unit #4 have the Infantry Type? It does. I'm assigning Mek Jim to Unit #4. New setup...

Unit #1 (Warboss)
Unit #2 (Weirdboy)
Unit #4 (Mek John/Mek Jim)
Unit #5 (10 Boyz)
Unit #6 (10 Grots/1 Runtherd)

As you can see, Unit #3 is no longer around as it no longer has any members. Unit #4 is still Unit #4. It has simply had another model assigned to it.

But... we still need to look at Mek John. He also has the same rule. Is he "already part of another unit"? Well, just like Mek Jim, he's part of the unit he started in and that's definitely not "another unit". So, no. What do I need to do? Mek John "must, if possible, be assigned to any unit with the Infantry or Artillery type". I have 4 "another" units with the Infantry type... units #1, #2, #5 and #6. Let's assign John to Unit #1. New Setup...

Unit #1 (Warboss/Mek John)
Unit #2 (Weirdboy)
Unit $4 (Mek Jim)
Unit #5 (10 Boyz)
Unit #6 (10 Grots/1 Runtherd)

There is no possible way to obey the rules for both Meks and end up with a unit consisting of Mek Jim and Mek John. The rules just don't support it. It IS possible to end up with a Mek by himself using the above as an example.

If you have three Meks, it's possible to have two together, but the third must be assigned to another unit. You would simply assign Meks Jim and John to the unit containing Mek #3 and then assign Mek #3 to another unit.

You contention that adding a model to an existing unit turns the unit into a different unit is unfounded. The rules don't support this. It's the same unit... simply with an extra member. If you feel that I am wrong, cite the rules and provide an example, as I have. I'm happy to reverse my position if you can provide actual rules citations and examples showing how you think those rules work.

On a side note... you know that units and models aren't the same, right? Meks have no permission to be assigned to other Meks. They have permission to be assigned to other UNITS. If that other unit happens to contain a Mek, fine, but the Mek is never being assigned to a specific model. It's always to the Unit and units can change member models without becoming new units.

The bit where you went wrong here, I think, is that when mek A joined mek B, then mek B joined the warboss, he would have taken mek A with him, as mek A counts as part of the unit and cannot leave it.

I can, however, see where you're coming from regarding mek B not being part of another unit. It does still strike me as incorrect, as mek A and B are joined so by all logical rights are assigned to one another.

so in order to make a unit of meks on their own, you have to join them to an IC, then move the IC away. a little more hassle but with clever deployment, entirely feasable without any disruption to the army:

deploy IC with meks next to gorkanaught or whatever, and also next to a unit for the IC to join.
move IC into the other unit, move meks into gorkanaught.

Yes you would have to assign the meks to units at the same time. You cannot sequentially join one and then the other causing the first to be a unit consisting of himself.

Kris, I do understand what you are stating.

My point is that before a mek joins an unit and counts as part of it for rules purposes, a Mek has permission to be assigned to any infantry or artillery unit, with no listed exceptions.

As such h a Mek has permission to join a Mek.

What happens after that is a RAI discussion that is based on what part of another unit means.

Is the Mek part of an unit other than Mek?

Is the Mek part of an unit with other models?

Both satisfy what another could intend. And the rule offers no clarity beyond that.

Despite that part, prior to that the Mek is allowed to be assigned to the other Mek and nothing tells us about unassigning the Mek, or that it cannot be assigned to another Mek. Additionally we do not have permission to join a Mek unit of more than a Mek to anything.

blaktoof wrote:
Kris, I do understand what you are stating.

My point is that before a mek joins an unit and counts as part of it for rules purposes, a Mek has permission to be assigned to any infantry or artillery unit, with no listed exceptions.

As such h a Mek has permission to join a Mek.

What happens after that is a RAI discussion that is based on what part of another unit means.

Is the Mek part of an unit other than Mek?

Is the Mek part of an unit with other models?

Both satisfy what another could intend. And the rule offers no clarity beyond that.

Despite that part, prior to that the Mek is allowed to be assigned to the other Mek and nothing tells us about unassigning the Mek, or that it cannot be assigned to another Mek. Additionally we do not have permission to join a Mek unit of more than a Mek to anything.

I still don't think you understand the difference between individual models and units consisting of one model. The Mek is never, at any point, EVER given permission to be assigned to another model. He is given permission to be assigned to another UNIT. The other Mek isn't a unit. He's IN a unit, but he's not a unit. He's a model. Sure, he's the only one in the unit.

The rules are extremely straightforward so long as you understand the difference between individual models and units consisting of one model. If you don't understand this difference, you'll never understand how this rule works or why you can't have two Meks "join each other".

I've never argued that you can't assign Mek A to the UNIT that Mek B starts in. I'm arguing that if you don't then assign Mek B to ANOTHER UNIT, as the rules require, you're skipping a rule. You can't do that if you plan on playing by RaW. If you're house ruling, go crazy, but mark it as HYWPI.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Eihnlazer wrote:
Yes you would have to assign the meks to units at the same time. You cannot sequentially join one and then the other causing the first to be a unit consisting of himself.

If I assign Mek A to Unit B and Mek B to Unit A at the same time... I'm left with two Units, each with one Mek. I'm not left with two Meks in one Unit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 some bloke wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

Ugh. Good times. Let's do this.

Relevant sentence from the Mekaniaks rule... "Before the battle, immediately after determining Warlord Traits, 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; a Mek cannot leave his unit and is treated as part of it for the entire battle for all rules purposes."

Since we're getting nowhere in this debate, I'm going to use the following CAD as an example.

Combined Arms Detachment - Codex: Orks
HQ - Warboss (Warlord)
HQ - Weirdboy
HQ - Mek (who we will call Jim)
HQ - Mek (who we will call John)
Troops - 10 Boyz
Troops - 10 Grots w/1 Runtherd

Ok, so before the battle and immediately after determining Warlord Traits, we need to resolve the rules bit above. I haven't deployed anything, so the ICs are still both seperate. We currently have 6 Units. I'm going to avoid naming them and instead use numbers...

Unit #1 (Warboss)
Unit #2 (Weirdboy)
Unit #3 (Mek Jim)
Unit #4 (Mek John)
Unit #5 (10 Boyz)
Unit #6 (10 Grots/1 Runtherd)

Let's look at Mek Jim. Is he "already part of another unit"? Well, he's part of the unit he started in and that's definitely not "another unit". So, no. What do I need to do? Mek Jim "must, if possible, be assigned to any unit with the Infantry or Artillery type". Does Unit #4 have the Infantry Type? It does. I'm assigning Mek Jim to Unit #4. New setup...

Unit #1 (Warboss)
Unit #2 (Weirdboy)
Unit #4 (Mek John/Mek Jim)
Unit #5 (10 Boyz)
Unit #6 (10 Grots/1 Runtherd)

As you can see, Unit #3 is no longer around as it no longer has any members. Unit #4 is still Unit #4. It has simply had another model assigned to it.

But... we still need to look at Mek John. He also has the same rule. Is he "already part of another unit"? Well, just like Mek Jim, he's part of the unit he started in and that's definitely not "another unit". So, no. What do I need to do? Mek John "must, if possible, be assigned to any unit with the Infantry or Artillery type". I have 4 "another" units with the Infantry type... units #1, #2, #5 and #6. Let's assign John to Unit #1. New Setup...

Unit #1 (Warboss/Mek John)
Unit #2 (Weirdboy)
Unit $4 (Mek Jim)
Unit #5 (10 Boyz)
Unit #6 (10 Grots/1 Runtherd)

There is no possible way to obey the rules for both Meks and end up with a unit consisting of Mek Jim and Mek John. The rules just don't support it. It IS possible to end up with a Mek by himself using the above as an example.

If you have three Meks, it's possible to have two together, but the third must be assigned to another unit. You would simply assign Meks Jim and John to the unit containing Mek #3 and then assign Mek #3 to another unit.

You contention that adding a model to an existing unit turns the unit into a different unit is unfounded. The rules don't support this. It's the same unit... simply with an extra member. If you feel that I am wrong, cite the rules and provide an example, as I have. I'm happy to reverse my position if you can provide actual rules citations and examples showing how you think those rules work.

On a side note... you know that units and models aren't the same, right? Meks have no permission to be assigned to other Meks. They have permission to be assigned to other UNITS. If that other unit happens to contain a Mek, fine, but the Mek is never being assigned to a specific model. It's always to the Unit and units can change member models without becoming new units.

The bit where you went wrong here, I think, is that when mek A joined mek B, then mek B joined the warboss, he would have taken mek A with him, as mek A counts as part of the unit and cannot leave it.

I can, however, see where you're coming from regarding mek B not being part of another unit. It does still strike me as incorrect, as mek A and B are joined so by all logical rights are assigned to one another.

so in order to make a unit of meks on their own, you have to join them to an IC, then move the IC away. a little more hassle but with clever deployment, entirely feasable without any disruption to the army:

deploy IC with meks next to gorkanaught or whatever, and also next to a unit for the IC to join.
move IC into the other unit, move meks into gorkanaught.

Do you have any rules saying that Mek B would take Mek A with him? We're assigning the Mek to another unit... not the Mek plus any other models that happen to currently be in his unit. What you're contending isn't supported by the rules. If you believe otherwise, please cite your rules source.

But otherwise, yes. Your example of the IC is exactly how that would work. Assign both Meks to an IC and then just have the IC leave in turn 1.

 Kriswall wrote:


Do you have any rules saying that Mek B would take Mek A with him? We're assigning the Mek to another unit... not the Mek plus any other models that happen to currently be in his unit. What you're contending isn't supported by the rules. If you believe otherwise, please cite your rules source.

But otherwise, yes. Your example of the IC is exactly how that would work. Assign both Meks to an IC and then just have the IC leave in turn 1.

Well, the way I see it is that if something is assigned to a unit, and can never leave that unit unless the unit dies, then if that unit is elsewhere on the table and still alive, it must have left it. the IC rules allow this to happen, but as we all know, meks aren't IC's.

I'm seeing now that this is all stemming from confusion over "models" and "Units".

the rule states:

"Before the battle, immediately after determining Warlord Traits, 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; a Mek cannot leave his unit and is treated as part of it for the entire battle for all rules purposes."

You're saying that this is referring to the model "Mek".

I'm saying this refers to the unit "Mek".

and as we've all established now that Mek A joins mek B, forming a unit called mek B, when the unit called mek B joins a squad, the whole unit does so, not just one model in it.

SO, this appears to have been beaten into the ground by this point...