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.

This should be fun.

Say I have the following Units in my army...

1. A Space Marine Tactical Squad
2. An Ordo Hereticus Inquisitor
3. An Ordo Malleus Inquisitor
4. An Ordo Xenos Inquisitor

During deployment, I deploy all three Inquisitors (henceforth to be known as Manny, Moe and Jack) with the Tactical Squad. As Manny, Moe and Jack are considered to be a part of the Unit for all rules purposes, the Unit is considered to be a Space Marine Tactical Squad Unit.

Now, during the course of the game, a pesky swarm of Tau Gun Drones fires 24 pulse shots into the Unit. In a rare feat of accuracy and precision for a unit with BS2 and AP5 weapons, the Gun Drones do the Greater Good proud and cause 15 Wounds. Manny is standing up front and takes the first Wound to the chest. He's totally dead. Next up, Meat Shields, er.. Marines #1 through 9 die. A Techmarine must have recited the Litany of Failure by accident when awakening the machine spirits of the armour. Tactical Sargeant Rodriguez deflects the next 4 potential Wounds by cinematically cutting the blasts out of the air with his Chainsword (Forge That Narrative!). Unfortunately, the last of the 15 Wounds hits him in the face. Since he's not wearing a helmet (helmets are for line troops), he dies a valiant death. Moe and Jack just sort of stand there and look around at the carnage. They don't want to be alone right now, so neither decides to leave the other and they run off together to hide in a nearby Ruins in their following Movement phase.

So, you started with a Space Marine Tactical Squad Unit composed of nine Tactical Marines, one Sargeant and three various Inquisitors. The Inquisitors never left the unit and each individually counts as a part of the Unit for all rules purposes. They only revert to being lonely, separate individuals when all the other members of their Unit dies. Moe looks at Jack and sees another model who is a part of the Space Marine Tactical Squad Unit for all rules purposes. Jack looks at Moe and sees another model who is a part of the Space Marine Tactical Squad Unit for all rules purposes.

Do you now have a Space Marine Tactical Squad Unit composed of two Inquisitors and zero Marines? I say yes.
Is the Unit a Unit selected as part of a Space Marine Detachment? I say yes.
If a model with Preferred Enemy (Space Marines) declares the resulting Unit as a target, do they get to re-roll failed To Hit and To Wound rolls of 1? I say yes.
Etc, etc.

What does everyone think? This is non-intuitive, but I believe obeys all rules as written. If you disagree, please cite rules. My main intent here is to point out that the actual models in a Unit can have no bearing on the Faction of the Unit.

*stabs own eyes* WHY DID YOU START THIS!!!! Your argument is logical, and I really hope this never comes up when I'm playing as it's a horrible situation... Didn't you get enough out of the flame wars with the meks thread?

Haha. Just got tired of reading threads about how such and such Unit can't do something because a model left or died. Units don't care what models are in them!

Obviously this only works if the inquisitors were in unit coherency at the time of the units demise or they auto split at the start of their next movement phase.

Whilst I agree RaW that they are a tactical squad and therefore receive all the unit level properties of that squad and get ObSec for instance (if the tac squad was part of a detachment that gave ObSec obviously).

However I'm not convinced on PE(SMs) working on them. Being a space marine is a model level property so is not given to them simply by being part of a tactical squad. Unfortunately PE is a unit level rule (as it effects to hit and to wound rolls which are made against units) so RaW we don't have a definitive answer as to whether PE(SMs) still worked when there were marines in the unit let alone now that there aren't.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Obviously this only works if the inquisitors were in unit coherency at the time of the units demise or they auto split at the start of their next movement phase.

Whilst I agree RaW that they are a tactical squad and therefore receive all the unit level properties of that squad and get ObSec for instance (if the tac squad was part of a detachment that gave ObSec obviously).

However I'm not convinced on PE(SMs) working on them. Being a space marine is a model level property so is not given to them simply by being part of a tactical squad. Unfortunately PE is a unit level rule (as it effects to hit and to wound rolls which are made against units) so RaW we don't have a definitive answer as to whether PE(SMs) still worked when there were marines in the unit let alone now that there aren't.

I'm assuming that the two remaining Inquisitors are standing within 2" of each other. To be honest, even if they weren't, I don't think they'd split off as there would still be at least one other model from the Unit alive. I think we'd see the same situation as if two Marines on either ends were left alive. They'd simply be out of coherency with each other until they could fix it.

On the PE issue...

I think it's safe to say that a Unit selected from Codex: Space Marines is a Faction: Space Marines Unit. I could probably dig up some citations to back this up, but I'm hoping we can all agree to this. Shooting attacks and Assaults are both declared against Units, so the models involved don't actually matter. That's sort of my whole point. GW has created a situation where things like Objective Secured can effectively be "transferred" to HQ selections from a Detachment that doesn't have the Objective Secured rule.

 Kriswall wrote:
Shooting attacks and Assaults are both declared against Units, so the models involved don't actually matter. That's sort of my whole point.

And this part, as i posted in the other similar thread(BA+NSF), is almost completely dependent on one piece of RaW:

"While an Independent Character is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes, though he still follows the rules for characters."

There is the part from Characters:
"Remember, a character that has joined a unit follows all the normal rules for being part of a unit. If a character is in a unit that charges into close combat, the character charges too, as it is part of the unit. If the character’s unit is locked in close combat, he fights as part of the unit."


As much as it has been said before that "for all rules purposes" leaves NO options, i would also like to highlight the underlined above.

I was then going to make an argument, but realised it has already been done:

 Nem wrote:

Remember, a character that has joined a unit follows all the normal rules for being part of a unit. If a character in a unit that charges into close combat, the character charges too, as it is part of the unit. If the character is locked in close combat he fights as part of the unit.

'All rules purposes' is like a little lie in the book. The following paragraphs go on to show this isn't true, as with other areas. Nothings listed as 'unless otherwise specified' and nothing in those conflicting rules are listed as exceptions. It's quite reasonable to read 'Part of the unit for all rules purposes' to mean as quoted above, rather than that he is absorbed by the unit. - As in, being part of the unit means he runs, charges, shoots etc as part of the unit. Unit in this context being the group of models. He is part, and acts with that group of models.
This however never stops him being a unit as bought on the army list - or an IC would lose all their special rules. We know this isn't the case.

Once at this point all rules are covered, with no other rules issues, and the IC is both part of the unit, and a unit as bought from the codex, still a BB unit.

 Kriswall wrote:

I think it's safe to say that a Unit selected from Codex: Space Marines is a Faction: Space Marines Unit. I could probably dig up some citations to back this up, but I'm hoping we can all agree to this. Shooting attacks and Assaults are both declared against Units, so the models involved don't actually matter. That's sort of my whole point. GW has created a situation where things like Objective Secured can effectively be "transferred" to HQ selections from a Detachment that doesn't have the Objective Secured rule.

I think the problem with PE is it doesn't note what level it's tested against. As in, it's not specifically concerned with what unit faction/ type the unit is, could be relating to models, who knooooows.

 Nem wrote:
who knooooows.

I think that this is the most valid conclusion i would support for these situations, for the RaW arguments.

I think if I were judging a tournament, I would allow PE to be taken against Moe and Jack as they're still technically a Space Marine Faction Unit.

If I were playing with my friends, I think I'd try for a house rule saying that in the absence of non-IC characters, the majority Faction is used. Just HIWPI since I think it's closer to the spirit of the rules and makes more fluff sense.

I think it is very difficult to sustain an argument that the dead unit's rules continue to apply to the HQ. The HQ's can not long be joined to the unit because there is no longer a unit. True, the HQ themselves didn't choose to leave, but didn't have to.

If you continue to believe it's a space marine squad then you get into all sorts of problems when you want one HQ to leave the other. Which member keeps the marine squad status? Both? Neither?

Look at it the other way - if an HQ died but the squad continued, you'd not expect the HQ's rules that transfered to continue. (Necron Phaeron, for example, or an HQ with fearless).

TBH there's neither a RAW or RAI here. I think it's safe to say that it's an abuse of rules if someone plays the marine squad rules remain in force.




Obviously quite, quite unlike a cryptek or necron lord deploying with a unit of warriors which dies but a ghost ark comes along and restores them...

Ffyllotek wrote:
I think it is very difficult to sustain an argument that the dead unit's rules continue to apply to the HQ. The HQ's can not long be joined to the unit because there is no longer a unit. True, the HQ themselves didn't choose to leave, but didn't have to.

If you continue to believe it's a space marine squad then you get into all sorts of problems when you want one HQ to leave the other. Which member keeps the marine squad status? Both? Neither?

Look at it the other way - if an HQ died but the squad continued, you'd not expect the HQ's rules that transfered to continue. (Necron Phaeron, for example, or an HQ with fearless).

TBH there's neither a RAW or RAI here. I think it's safe to say that it's an abuse of rules if someone plays the marine squad rules remain in force.




Obviously quite, quite unlike a cryptek or necron lord deploying with a unit of warriors which dies but a ghost ark comes along and restores them...

RaW is actually quite clear. This only works if all members of the original Unit (pre-deployment) die and there are at least two ICs joined. The Unit itself is still there while it has models in it. The ICs don't automatically split off from the Unit so long as there is at least one other member of the Unit alive. Each IC sees the other IC as a living member of the Unit, and so will not automatically leave. You'd have to CHOOSE to move them off.

Now, if you choose for Moe to leave, Moe would revert to being himself. Jack would technically still be a member of the Space Marines Unit for about a split second until immediately afterwards when Jack sees that all the other members of his Unit have died and he also reverts to being himself. They would only remain a Space Marines Unit so long as they stayed together. The second one chooses to leave, both revert to being regular Inquisition Units composed of one Inquisitor each.

the faction of the remaining models is not space marine.

preferred enemy is based on the models faction, not their unit name.

there is no unit type "space marines" and there is no preferred enemy "tactical squad"

blaktoof wrote:
the faction of the remaining models is not space marine.

preferred enemy is based on the models faction, not their unit name.

there is no unit type "space marines" and there is no preferred enemy "tactical squad"

The underlined is a made up rule. Please stop making up rules.

 Kriswall wrote:

Ffyllotek wrote:
I think it is very difficult to sustain an argument that the dead unit's rules continue to apply to the HQ. The HQ's can not long be joined to the unit because there is no longer a unit. True, the HQ themselves didn't choose to leave, but didn't have to.

If you continue to believe it's a space marine squad then you get into all sorts of problems when you want one HQ to leave the other. Which member keeps the marine squad status? Both? Neither?

Look at it the other way - if an HQ died but the squad continued, you'd not expect the HQ's rules that transfered to continue. (Necron Phaeron, for example, or an HQ with fearless).

TBH there's neither a RAW or RAI here. I think it's safe to say that it's an abuse of rules if someone plays the marine squad rules remain in force.




Obviously quite, quite unlike a cryptek or necron lord deploying with a unit of warriors which dies but a ghost ark comes along and restores them...

RaW is actually quite clear. This only works if all members of the original Unit (pre-deployment) die and there are at least two ICs joined. The Unit itself is still there while it has models in it. The ICs don't automatically split off from the Unit so long as there is at least one other member of the Unit alive. Each IC sees the other IC as a living member of the Unit, and so will not automatically leave. You'd have to CHOOSE to move them off.

Now, if you choose for Moe to leave, Moe would revert to being himself. Jack would technically still be a member of the Space Marines Unit for about a split second until immediately afterwards when Jack sees that all the other members of his Unit have died and he also reverts to being himself. They would only remain a Space Marines Unit so long as they stayed together. The second one chooses to leave, both revert to being regular Inquisition Units composed of one Inquisitor each.

That is one interpretation. But equally Moe and Jack may also look at each other and decided "I can't actually join with you, you're an HQ/IC like me, and I can only join a unit, and they are all dead". That's RaW as well.

The Unit itself is still there while it has models in it.

I think it's disengenuos to call two HQ's who used to be joined to a unit "the original unit", or event "a unit". The original unit that they joined is dead.

rigeld2 wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
the faction of the remaining models is not space marine.

preferred enemy is based on the models faction, not their unit name.

there is no unit type "space marines" and there is no preferred enemy "tactical squad"

The underlined is a made up rule. Please stop making up rules.

quote some preferred enemy things based on unit names then, and as per the OPs post he stated preferred enemy space marines, then discussed the unit still being tactical marines, and nothing about preferred enemy(tactical marines) so your post is 100% without merit, why did you bother?

Once the actual space marine tacticle squad is dead and removed from the table, the two remaining inquisitors would no longer be a unit of space marines tactical marines.


This is because you have to immediately count the Tac squad as destroyed for kill points or maelstrom cards. If the unit is destroyed for the purpose of kill points, then it can no longer be considered on the table, even if the attached characters are still on the table.

 Eihnlazer wrote:
This is because you have to immediately count the Tac squad as destroyed for kill points or maelstrom cards. If the unit is destroyed for the purpose of kill points, then it can no longer be considered on the table, even if the attached characters are still on the table.

I think this makes a lot of sense.

I understood your primary point Kriswall, but i'd put it back to a "common sense" usage, like having Vehicles (Bastions) the right way up.

They are both HQ, they are both Faction (Inquisition), and they are a Unit of combined IC. Even with the set-up you mentioned, they would "loose" the Faction (SM) and Troop status when the last Marine dies.
This is from a logical conclusion and there will be no RaW quotes to find. It's more of a "the game breaks otherwise" conclusion.

 Eihnlazer wrote:
Once the actual space marine tacticle squad is dead and removed from the table, the two remaining inquisitors would no longer be a unit of space marines tactical marines.


This is because you have to immediately count the Tac squad as destroyed for kill points or maelstrom cards. If the unit is destroyed for the purpose of kill points, then it can no longer be considered on the table, even if the attached characters are still on the table.

This is a really good point in the matter.

They would be tac marines until their next movement phase when they are out of 2" coherency of a unit of tac marines.

I don't have my rule book on me atm, but don't the rules state that if an independent character is 2" or more away from the unit he joins in the movement phase that he leaves the unit? If so, then I think having the original unit removed from play would count as being more than 2".

from indepdent characters in the rulebook

If an Independent Character joins a unit, and all other models in that unit are killed, he again becomes a unit of one model at the start of the following phase.

blaktoof wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
the faction of the remaining models is not space marine.

preferred enemy is based on the models faction, not their unit name.

there is no unit type "space marines" and there is no preferred enemy "tactical squad"

The underlined is a made up rule. Please stop making up rules.

quote some preferred enemy things based on unit names then, and as per the OPs post he stated preferred enemy space marines, then discussed the unit still being tactical marines, and nothing about preferred enemy(tactical marines) so your post is 100% without merit, why did you bother?

It wasn't without merit. You asserted a fact and didn't back it up with a rules quote. I pointed out you actually made up that fact and that it isn't rules.
Support your statement with actual rules please.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ffyllotek wrote:
That is one interpretation. But equally Moe and Jack may also look at each other and decided "I can't actually join with you, you're an HQ/IC like me, and I can only join a unit, and they are all dead". That's RaW as well.

... ICs can join other ICs. Why would they ever say they can't be joined to each other?

blaktoof wrote:
from indepdent characters in the rulebook

If an Independent Character joins a unit, and all other models in that unit are killed, he again becomes a unit of one model at the start of the following phase.

Yup. And this works awesomely well so long as there is only one IC in the unit. If there are two ICs and both are still alive, then you haven't fulfilled the "all other models in that unit are killed" requirement. Remember that if you have a Tactical Squad and three Inquisitors, there are thirteen models in that Unit... not 10. We're specifically talking about the Unit on the table and not the Army List Selection. Each IC views the other IC as a model in that unit that is still alive. Remember that the other IC will count as a member of the unit for all rules purposes including whether or not all other models in that unit are killed.

I agree this seems stupid, seems counterintuitive, defies common sense, etc... but it does appear to be what the rule tells us. I'm not arguing common sense or HIWPI. I'm arguing RaW. I think this is a mistake/example of poor writing on GW's part and needs an Errata. I think the rule should read "If an IC joins a unit, and all other non-IC models in that unit are killed, he again becomes..." or similar. The rules for what happens when all original models in a unit are killed break when you have multiple ICs in a unit.

rigeld2 wrote:

blaktoof wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
the faction of the remaining models is not space marine.

preferred enemy is based on the models faction, not their unit name.

there is no unit type "space marines" and there is no preferred enemy "tactical squad"

The underlined is a made up rule. Please stop making up rules.

quote some preferred enemy things based on unit names then, and as per the OPs post he stated preferred enemy space marines, then discussed the unit still being tactical marines, and nothing about preferred enemy(tactical marines) so your post is 100% without merit, why did you bother?

It wasn't without merit. You asserted a fact and didn't back it up with a rules quote. I pointed out you actually made up that fact and that it isn't rules.
Support your statement with actual rules please.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ffyllotek wrote:
That is one interpretation. But equally Moe and Jack may also look at each other and decided "I can't actually join with you, you're an HQ/IC like me, and I can only join a unit, and they are all dead". That's RaW as well.

... ICs can join other ICs. Why would they ever say they can't be joined to each other?

so you have no actual comments, good to know.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kriswall wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
from indepdent characters in the rulebook

If an Independent Character joins a unit, and all other models in that unit are killed, he again becomes a unit of one model at the start of the following phase.

Yup. And this works awesomely well so long as there is only one IC in the unit. If there are two ICs and both are still alive, then you haven't fulfilled the "all other models in that unit are killed" requirement. Remember that if you have a Tactical Squad and three Inquisitors, there are thirteen models in that Unit... not 10. We're specifically talking about the Unit on the table and not the Army List Selection. Each IC views the other IC as a model in that unit that is still alive. Remember that the other IC will count as a member of the unit for all rules purposes including whether or not all other models in that unit are killed.

I agree this seems stupid, seems counterintuitive, defies common sense, etc... but it does appear to be what the rule tells us. I'm not arguing common sense or HIWPI. I'm arguing RaW. I think this is a mistake/example of poor writing on GW's part and needs an Errata. I think the rule should read "If an IC joins a unit, and all other non-IC models in that unit are killed, he again becomes..." or similar. The rules for what happens when all original models in a unit are killed break when you have multiple ICs in a unit.

no specific RAW covers the situation of multiple ICs joined to a unit and what happens when the models die. If you ahve 3 ICs joined to a unit, and all non IC models are dead, then you have three ICs with all other models being dead. There is a case for a RAW argument that you have satisifed all other models being dead, as all other models could be all non IC models. If you went with that stance, the ICs would be left as a unit of the ICs possibly.

blaktoof wrote:
so you have no actual comments, good to know.

Given that the Malanthrope goes out of its way to name the codex a unit comes from instead of just the unit, it's not a given that PE can only be against factions.
And even then, your statement wasn't true because you target units with shooting, and the unit of tac marines is what faction?

Seriously, cite a rule for your statement or admit you made it up.

no specific RAW covers the situation of multiple ICs joined to a unit and what happens when the models die. If you ahve 3 ICs joined to a unit, and all non IC models are dead, then you have three ICs with all other models being dead. There is a case for a RAW argument that you have satisifed all other models being dead, as all other models could be all non IC models. If you went with that stance, the ICs would be left as a unit of the ICs possibly.

Yes, if you make up rules you are left with something different.

Are there models left in the unit? Undeniably so. Then why are you invoking a rule that triggers when there are no other models left in the unit?

]no specific RAW covers the situation of multiple ICs joined to a unit and what happens when the models die. If you ahve 3 ICs joined to a unit, and all non IC models are dead, then you have three ICs with all other models being dead. There is a case for a RAW argument that you have satisifed all other models being dead, as all other models could be all non IC models. If you went with that stance, the ICs would be left as a unit of the ICs possibly.

Yes, if you make up rules you are left with something different.

Are there models left in the unit? Undeniably so. Then why are you invoking a rule that triggers when there are no other models left in the unit?

blaktoof wrote:

no specific RAW covers the situation of multiple ICs joined to a unit and what happens when the models die. If you ahve 3 ICs joined to a unit, and all non IC models are dead, then you have three ICs with all other models being dead. There is a case for a RAW argument that you have satisifed all other models being dead, as all other models could be all non IC models. If you went with that stance, the ICs would be left as a unit of the ICs possibly.

Yes, if you make up rules you are left with something different.

Are there models left in the unit? Undeniably so. Then why are you invoking a rule that triggers when there are no other models left in the unit?

so you can show that other models means any other model, and doesn't state models other than an IC that was joined to the unit?

Well, yes. Because the latter requires more words to be added to the sentence that don't exist.

the rule deals with 1 IC joined, but if three are joined the three ICs are each an IC joined to a unit and all other models are dead. Other models being non IC models.

All other models are not dead. Simple test - are there models other than the IC left in the unit? Answering no means you're adding words to the rule.

or you can show that an unit joined to an unit counts as being from that units codex and not its own?

Units don't join units. Models join units.
Yes, contrary to what you've ever been able to prove, a model in a unit is part of that unit.

all models other than ICs are dead.

if an IC is part of the unit it is a model in the unit. if I look at unit of 10models +1 IC and the 10 other models are dead there is an IC left.

if three independent ICs join an unit and the unit is dead all models other than an IC are dead.

All other models are not dead. Simple test - are there models other than the IC left in the unit? Answering no means you're adding words to the rule.

your statement, carefully worded but wrong.

All other models are not dead. Simple test - are there models other than an IC left in the unit? Answering no means you're adding words to the rule.

corrected for you.

there are no models left other than ICs.


not sure what your last statement is about, looks like some made up stuff.

Of course if a model is in a unit it is part of that unit, but if the unit is gone the unit is gone.

and if a unit is a model, then a unit is joining a unit.

an IC is a unit before it joins another unit after all.

blaktoof wrote:
all models other than ICs are dead.

if an IC is part of the unit it is a model in the unit. if I look at unit of 10models +1 IC and the 10 other models are dead there is an IC left.

Yes. All other models are dead. That's what the rule is asking for.

if three independent ICs join an unit and the unit is dead all models other than an IC are dead.

Is that what the rule says? Let's look again, shall we?

and all other models in that unit
Does it say "all models other than ICs in that unit? No.
Does it say "all models that were originally in that unt? No.

All other models are not dead. Simple test - are there models other than the IC left in the unit? Answering no means you're adding words to the rule.

your statement, carefully worded but wrong.

All other models are not dead. Simple test - are there models other than an IC left in the unit? Answering no means you're adding words to the rule.

corrected for you.

That's not what the rule says. You're inserting words/changing the rule.

there are no models left other than ICs.

Stop changing the rule.

not sure what your last statement is about, looks like some made up stuff.

You asked a question. I answered it. I made nothing up and resent the accusation. You've demonstrably made up rules multiple times in this thread and continue to do so, and you've never been able to prove that an IC isn't part of the unit.

Of course if a model is in a unit it is part of that unit, but if the unit is gone the unit is gone.

Correct!

and if a unit is a model, then a unit is joining a unit.

Incorrect. Units are not models. Units contain models. Units do not join units. Models join units. An IC that joins a unit is no longer a unit by himself. Proven using actual rules, despite your choice to ignore it.

an IC is a unit before it joins another unit after all.

An IC is in a unit before it joins another unit. He ceases to be a member of that unit when he joins another unit.
But you've been shown this before and ignored it. Do you really want me to prove it again? Or will you just ignore it again?

and yet again you failed to prove anything or show any actual point.

in a unit with 1 ic and other non IC models, if the non ic models are dead the IC is now a model of 1.

nothing prevents the rule from applying in an unit where there are more than 1 IC models, and all other models are dead.

all models other than IC models dead in a unit? then the IC remain in an unit.

You asked a question and I answered it, I made nothing up and I resent your baseless accusation.

You have demonstrably made up restrictions that are not written, in essence making up rules.