Bojazz wrote:
Okay, let's compare that to another rule that says a unit can do something. Eldar Crystal Targeting Matrix. - "One use only. A non-Walker vehicle with this upgrade can fire one weapon, at the vehicle’s full Ballistic Skill, after moving Flat Out in the Shooting phase."

The unit CAN.. again "CAN" fire a weapon at full ballistic skill. Can the unit fire at full ballistic skill if it jinked? No, it must snap fire. Saying a unit CAN do something does not give it permission to ignore every other restriction that would affect that action. Saying a unit "can" do something gives it permission to attempt it, while obeying all normal restrictions unless specifically stated otherwise.

So while the Tyrant has permission to attempt to join as if it were an Independent Character, the new FAQ has made it so that a Monstrous Creature Independent Character would not be able to join, so the join attempt fails.


This has nothing to do with independent character joining MC units, this has to do with Monstrous Creature Independent Character joining normal units - which they cannot do as per the new FAQ.

"Q: If a Monstrous Creature is also an Independent Character,
can it join other units? Can other Independent Characters then
join the unit that the Monstrous Creature is now a part of?
A: No, to both question."

 Charistoph wrote:

Q: If the Veil of Darkness is used while with a group of warriors and you go into Ongoing Reserves due to a Deep Strike Mishap, can you come in by Deep Striking?
A: Only if all of the models involved have the Deep Strike rule.

Q: If a unit has successfully manifested the Gate of Infinity psychic power but mishaps with its Deep Strike and gets the Delayed result, how does it come back into play the next round – walking on from its own table edge or by Deep Strike?
A: It arrives by Deep Strike.

Q: Can units that are Battle Brothers embark in each other’s Transport vehicles during deployment?
A: No.

Q: Can units from two Detachments with the same Faction embark in each other’s Transport vehicles during deployment?
A: Yes.

Double Standards still exist.

Q: When listing Formations, sometimes it states ‘1 model’ (like 1 Tomb Spyder), while other times it lists ‘1 Unit of models’ (like 1 unit of Tomb Blades). Are these interchangeable?
A: No. The former means a single model of the type listed, while the later means a single unit of the type listed.

No Chapter Masters for the Demi-Company.

Still that crap about ICs not having detachment rules apply to them, never mind that most operate in the same method as Stubborn, Slow and Purposeful, etc.

And still that crap about using a grenade in Assault as being "thrown".

 Amishprn86 wrote:

Thst rules in question was talking about after moving flat out, not at all times or when jinking... Also 1 ruling from a different rule cant alway be used for another rule, we've seen this turn out wrong many times.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

pm713 wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

Bojazz wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

Bojazz wrote:

Fragile wrote:

Bojazz wrote:


-
- Tyrants May join Hive Guard "Exactly as if it were an Independent Character", which is now officially FAQ'd to mean "Not at all".

Codex still trumps BRB and this rule is specific, so its fine.

Codex may trump BRB, but if you're joining a unit that an Independent Character isn't able to join, then you are not joining "Exactly like an Independent Character", and breaking the rule in the codex.

"like a IC joining a unit" thats what it is referring to, its a reference to how it is working not the rules to let it do so.

Codex Nids is worded so you can do this.

Let's test the same interpretation in another scenario. Imagine a psychic power that said "While this power is in effect, target non-vehicle unit can join units exactly as if it were an Independent Character". I realize there is no such power in the game, but the wording and the hypothetical scenario in which it would be used is the same as Shieldwall from the Tyranid codex
- If "Exactly as if it were an Independent Character" is only giving it permission to perform a joining action without any of the restrictions of being an Independent Chararacter, the target unit would be able to join vehicle units, monstrous creatures, heck, even enemy units.
- If "Exactly as if it were an Independent Character" means to treat it as if it were an Independent Character for the joining action, then it would not be able to join Vehicles or Monstrous Creatures as normal.

I agree that RAI - The Tyrant should absolutely be able to join the guard, that's the entire purpose of the rule. Unfortunately, I believe the new ruling by GW would prevent it.

"As if it was an IC" aka not a MC.

And anyways Codex > BrB so it doesnt matter, why are you even arguing this?

Where on Earth does the not an MC part come from? The rule just makes the Tyrant an IC when trying to join the Tyrant Guard which does nothing now.

The rule states it acts like a IC that CAN.. again "CAN" join this unit.... why is that so hard for you? Now you are just arguing semantics to argue.

Rules state "Codex rules over BrB" Codex states "This unit CAN join the Hive Tyrant"

End.

Amishprn86 wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Q: Can units that are Battle Brothers embark in each other’s Transport vehicles during deployment?
A: No.

Q: Can units from two Detachments with the same Faction embark in each other’s Transport vehicles during deployment?
A: Yes.

Double Standards still exist.

The BB in transport vs 2 formations.

That makes sense that, If i had 2 DE formations and 1 Eldar, my DE can use each others vehicles in Depolyment, its there technology, its their vehicles still, where the eldar vehicles are theirs.

 Charistoph wrote:

Amishprn86 wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Q: Can units that are Battle Brothers embark in each other’s Transport vehicles during deployment?
A: No.

Q: Can units from two Detachments with the same Faction embark in each other’s Transport vehicles during deployment?
A: Yes.

Double Standards still exist.

The BB in transport vs 2 formations.

That makes sense that, If i had 2 DE formations and 1 Eldar, my DE can use each others vehicles in Depolyment, its there technology, its their vehicles still, where the eldar vehicles are theirs.

It is a double standard since Battle Brothers and units from the same Faction both treat each other exactly the same according to the rulebook, "friendly units". No distinction of difference is noted during Deployment in either Transport Rules, Ally Rules, or the Deployment section. They can Embark on each others' Transports during the game, but they couldn't have hopped a ride?

Eldar make as much sense as Space Marines in this case. Dark Eldar were using Eldar equipment before Space Marines were created, and should be sufficiently familiar.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Togusa wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
They kept the stupid "only one model may use a grenade in assault" grenade ruling. Shame.

. . .That's not how actual combat works. . .

Obviously I can't change the ruling, but that argument never made sense to me for a number of reasons. But rather than re-hash that entire debate, the clearest issue with the ruling to me is the "twenety-man unit with lots of grenades is only as effective as a three-man unit with one grenade."

Pick up only those models actively displaced by the
Tank Shock, and place them on the battlefield with all
models within unit coherency, as close as possible to
their starting location and with no models within 1" of
an enemy unit. Any models that cannot be placed in
this way will be removed as casualties. If the whole unit
is displaced, it will be moved together as above, and
because of this it is impossible to remove an entire unit
from play with a Tank Shock, unless the unit is unable to
move; units that have Gone to Ground return to normal
immediately, as it counts as being forced to move.

 Galef wrote:
I've known of this issue since 5th ed. Under the 7th ed rules, it is "possible" but mathematically improbably if you must move in a straight line to your primary target. I liked that they changed the answer to "No", but wish they worded it more inclusively

Bojazz wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

Thst rules in question was talking about after moving flat out, not at all times or when jinking... Also 1 ruling from a different rule cant alway be used for another rule, we've seen this turn out wrong many times.

And the Guard rule is talking about treating the Tyrant like an Independent Character, not giving it blanket permission to join.

Okay, let's look at a closer scenario.
If the Tyrant guard were locked in combat, would the Hive Tyrant be able to join them? No, because Independent Characters cannot join units that are locked in combat. Here you see that the restrictions on what Independent Characters can and cannot join still apply, the Shieldwall special rule does not give the Tyrant blanket permission to ignore all restrictions. It gives the Hive Tyrant permission to join when an Independent Character normally would be able to. The FAQ just changed when a MC IC would be able to to "Never".

As I said earlier, I doubt anyone would actually deny you the ability to join, because it is clearly the RAI - however I feel the new ruling in the FAQ broke the RAW on this one.

Fragile wrote:
The FAQ just stopped the silly "This MC IC will join last rules lawyering that everyone was saying was possible"

Trasvi wrote:
Guys, I guarantee you that the change to IC MCs will hit affect the hive Tyrant. Getting in to nutty gritty debate about it is entirely a waste of time.

One relic per model

Bojazz wrote:

Fragile wrote:
The FAQ just stopped the silly "This MC IC will join last rules lawyering that everyone was saying was possible"

I totally get that this was the reason for the rule change, and I agree with the reasoning, but they ended up breaking this at the same time. If the Hive Tyrant is allowed to ignore joining restrictions because it is not an Independent Character even though it is being treated as one, then would you also allow it to join Tyrant Guard locked in combat? Tyrant Guard across the table? Tyrant Guard that are currently in Reserve? These are all restrictions for Independent Characters joining units. If not, then why would you force it to abide by those restrictions but not the new one?

Fragile wrote:
Again your failing to apply basic vs advanced. You have a codex rule telling you to allow a Tyrant to join a unit exactly like an IC would. It does not give the Tyrant the IC rule, which would be the scenario you put forth. So you follow all of those rules in the IC section for joining.

BRB says it cant join because its a MC.
Codex says it can join due to special, specific rule.

Codex wins.

Your making more complicated than it is.

edit:: I bet Ovesa get a rule stated similarly, whenever they update

 Mr Morden wrote:

One relic per model

Waiting for clarification about Tau on this and their "relics".

 Unusual Suspect wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

One relic per model

Waiting for clarification about Tau on this and their "relics".

It still includes "unless specifically noted otherwise" and I believe the entries for the Tau allow them to take multiple Sig Systems. The commander, for example, "may take items from the Signature System list." If they can take items, they aren't limited to one. Whether that's considered to be an instance of "specifically noted otherwise" is potentially up for debate.

I'd agree that, despite not using the word "Relic" in their name and description, Signature Systems are "relics" of the Tau Empire.

 Kriswall wrote:

 Unusual Suspect wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

One relic per model

Waiting for clarification about Tau on this and their "relics".

It still includes "unless specifically noted otherwise" and I believe the entries for the Tau allow them to take multiple Sig Systems. The commander, for example, "may take items from the Signature System list." If they can take items, they aren't limited to one. Whether that's considered to be an instance of "specifically noted otherwise" is potentially up for debate.

I'd agree that, despite not using the word "Relic" in their name and description, Signature Systems are "relics" of the Tau Empire.

I disagree that Tau Empire Signature Systems are "Relics/Artifacts". Doesn't match the fluff. They're not unique and beautiful snowflakes. They're generally pieces of prototype wargear which would presumably be handed out in limited numbers for testing purposes before being rolled out en masse. For an in game perspective, look at a couple of the weapons that used to be "relics", but are now available to any Crisis Suit. In any case, their Codex specifically allows them to take items from the list... items (plural) being a permission to take more than one.

 Kriswall wrote:
In any case, their Codex specifically allows them to take items from the list... items (plural) being a permission to take more than one.

 Happyjew wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
In any case, their Codex specifically allows them to take items from the list... items (plural) being a permission to take more than one.

Does that mean Farseers and Autarchs ("May take items from the Remnants of Glory") can take more than one Remnant?

 Kriswall wrote:

 Unusual Suspect wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

One relic per model

Waiting for clarification about Tau on this and their "relics".

It still includes "unless specifically noted otherwise" and I believe the entries for the Tau allow them to take multiple Sig Systems. The commander, for example, "may take items from the Signature System list." If they can take items, they aren't limited to one. Whether that's considered to be an instance of "specifically noted otherwise" is potentially up for debate.

I'd agree that, despite not using the word "Relic" in their name and description, Signature Systems are "relics" of the Tau Empire.

I disagree that Tau Empire Signature Systems are "Relics/Artifacts". Doesn't match the fluff. They're not unique and beautiful snowflakes. They're generally pieces of prototype wargear which would presumably be handed out in limited numbers for testing purposes before being rolled out en masse. For an in game perspective, look at a couple of the weapons that used to be "relics", but are now available to any Crisis Suit. In any case, their Codex specifically allows them to take items from the list... items (plural) being a permission to take more than one.

Bojazz wrote:
Okay, let's compare that to another rule that says a unit can do something. Eldar Crystal Targeting Matrix. - "One use only. A non-Walker vehicle with this upgrade can fire one weapon, at the vehicle’s full Ballistic Skill, after moving Flat Out in the Shooting phase."

The unit CAN.. again "CAN" fire a weapon at full ballistic skill. Can the unit fire at full ballistic skill if it jinked? No, it must snap fire. Saying a unit CAN do something does not give it permission to ignore every other restriction that would affect that action. Saying a unit "can" do something gives it permission to attempt it, while obeying all normal restrictions unless specifically stated otherwise.

So while the Tyrant has permission to attempt to join as if it were an Independent Character, the new FAQ has made it so that a Monstrous Creature Independent Character would not be able to join, so the join attempt fails.


This has nothing to do with independent characters joining MC units, this has to do with Monstrous Creature Independent Characters joining normal units - which they cannot do as per the new FAQ.

"Q: If a Monstrous Creature is also an Independent Character,
can it join other units? Can other Independent Characters then
join the unit that the Monstrous Creature is now a part of?
A: No, to both question."

Lord Perversor wrote:
...you are just told to follow the IC rules to join the unit.

 insaniak wrote:

Lord Perversor wrote:
...you are just told to follow the IC rules to join the unit.

...which tell us that he can't join if he's a monstrous creature.

Fragile wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

Lord Perversor wrote:
...you are just told to follow the IC rules to join the unit.

...which tell us that he can't join if he's a monstrous creature.

Which is irrelevant, since there is a codex rule that tells you to join him.

The Tyrant is not an IC so cannot join a unit. The Tyrant is a MC, so cannot join a unit. Codex tells you to ignore both those and join him exactly like the IC rules tell you to.

pm713 wrote:

Fragile wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

Lord Perversor wrote:
...you are just told to follow the IC rules to join the unit.

...which tell us that he can't join if he's a monstrous creature.

Which is irrelevant, since there is a codex rule that tells you to join him.

The Tyrant is not an IC so cannot join a unit. The Tyrant is a MC, so cannot join a unit. Codex tells you to ignore both those and join him exactly like the IC rules tell you to.

It doesn't tell you to ignore anything. It gives you the Independant Character rule regarding one unit not permission to ignore anything.

Fragile wrote:

pm713 wrote:

Fragile wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

Lord Perversor wrote:
...you are just told to follow the IC rules to join the unit.

...which tell us that he can't join if he's a monstrous creature.

Which is irrelevant, since there is a codex rule that tells you to join him.

The Tyrant is not an IC so cannot join a unit. The Tyrant is a MC, so cannot join a unit. Codex tells you to ignore both those and join him exactly like the IC rules tell you to.

It doesn't tell you to ignore anything. It gives you the Independant Character rule regarding one unit not permission to ignore anything.

Perhaps you should reread the rule, you appear confused as to what the rule actually says.

pm713 wrote:

I know it says to follow the IC rules.