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.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

U02dah4 wrote:
If 1 changes then part of that unit is not in that army

Why not? Remember, Codexes override BRB, and it's perfectly feasible just by overriding that one small rule to have a unit be part of an army, with a model within it that isn't part of an army. There's no requirement that every model in a unit be in an army in order for that unit to be in an army. Furthermore, "part of a unit" is an undefined term in the rules. A model, is what you mean. Which is exactly allowed by special exception thanks to the Mirror.

You have not established that the unit is still a unit in your army given not all the models in the unit are in your army.

Well, I have established the unit is in my army because it's in my army, on my army list.

It doesn't actually matter what army all the models in the unit are in, because that has no bearing on what army the unit is in in the BRB. Provided a special rule allowed, they could be owned by 12 different armies, all of which aren't yours. That wouldn't change that the unit is yours though, because why would it? What's the citation in the BRB that says "every model in a unit must be in the same army as that unit"?

you have stated it has no bearing on 2 you have not provided a quote supporting that.saying you don't have to prove it is code for I can't prove it and if you can't establish that you are wrong

That's because it's a permissive ruleset; since GW says what you're allowed to do, there's no reason for them to state what you're NOT allowed to do. You can ONLY do what you're allowed.

I have a quote from GW saying I am allowed to have a model in my unit that does not belong to my army. Do you have a quote that contradicts that that's more specific than the Codex (i.e. not BRB)?

Being feasible isn't enough you have to establish it if not you have no argument just assertion

I don't need to provide those citations they disprove my position. My position is they don't exist. if they don't exist you can't define who a unit with models from multiple armies belong to . If you cant define who it belongs to you can't resolve a wound

Yes you can only do what your allowed which is the player controlling the unit is the only one that can allocate the wound. We have established two players control the models if you cannot establish what happens to the unit your argument doesn't work the absence of such a quote is firm evidence such a quote does not exist

I don't need to prove the opposite because I'm not trying to prove the opposite there being no definition is proof I'm correct and either you can prove that assumption or you cant

U02dah4 wrote:
We have established two players control the models

Correct.

if you cannot establish what happens to the unit

What? Why would the unit change? Why wouldn't it just keep existing like it always would? Nothing in the Mirror's rules affects the unit at all (except that it suffers attacks, which is something that happens to units in 40k all the time).
Presumably the unit just keeps on... being a normal unit?

Again, it's like saying "aircraft can't score objectives, units can score objectives, therefore aircraft aren't units."
????

That's one interpretation a more reasonable one is partial control given we have established clearly that the models are commanded by both players and a unit is a collection of models why wouldnt it change? Presumably control is based on control of the models in the unit I'm also not saying partial control is the answer my answer I acknowledge its a presumption like yours but that has been continuously my point the rules do not define it so it cannot be proved either way so they don't work

It's like im saying we dont know how hovercraft work as their not defined in the rules. while your saying hovercraft definitely work this way so I'm saying show me where it says that and your saying you can't show me hovercraft don't work that way so they can without showing a rule

It doesn't matter if I cant show you. my central argument has been all the way through that if you can't establish your point with a rules quote you have no argument the rules just don't cover it and if they don't cover it the two army interpretation atleast functions

U02dah4 wrote:
That's one interpretation a more reasonable one is partial control given we have established clearly that the models are commanded by both players and a unit is a collection of models. Presumably control is based on control of the models in the unit I'm also not saying partial control is the answer my answer I acknowledge its a presumption like yours but that has been continuously my point the rules do not define it so it cannot be proved either way so they don't work

Why is partial control (which breaks the game in horrific ways as you pointed out) "more reasonable" than "nothing changes about the unit control from normal" (because nothing says it does) which doesn't break the game at all?

It's like im saying we dont know how hovercraft work as their not defined in the rules. while your saying hovercraft definitely work this way so I'm saying show me where it says that and your saying you can't show me hovercraft don't work that way so they can without showing a rule

No, it's not like that at all, it's more like.
Hovercraft function normally in the rules (like a unit does).
A special rule lets your opponent do something with the hovercraft's fan blades (like the Mirror lets your opponent do something with a model).
And you're claiming that the special rule doesn't work because you presume that something about the hovercraft changes because your opponent can do something with the fan blades.

It doesn't matter if I cant show you. my central argument has been all the way through that if you can't establish your point with a rules quote you have no argument the rules just don't cover it and if they don't cover it the two army interpretation atleast functions

But my interpretation:
1) is valid
2) doesn't break the game rules
3) doesn't break the mirror rules
4) functions fine with the rest of the rules, too.

Why wouldn't you use my interpretation, again?

1) invalid - repeatedly stating validity without quoting supporting evidence is evidence of invalidity

2) involves breaking the game rules

3) subjectively breaks mirrors rules

4) doesn't function with the rest of the rules

Because your interpretation is not grounded in the rules. you have to presume and that is evidence you have gone beyond the scope of the rules. It doesn't matter whether your presumption is right or wrong - we do not know. therefore it doesn't work - another player can validly use different presumptions under your interpretation and come to different conclusion
You say it wouldn't work to split command so why not just add more presumptions majority command decides well what about two models well then you roll off. For each interaction you just add more presumptions. Only problem is your getting further and further from the rules as written and more into the rules the way you want them to be. Your basic premise can work but it's irrelevant if you can't rule out the others with evidence

- Your argument is inherently RAI and that's being generous it reads more of a HIWPI. ive asked the RAW support you dont have it. RAW trumps RAI

The two units interpretation of RAW works without any RAI presumptions about how the rule works it is a clear RAW interpretation "considered part of your army for all rules purposes" includes unit. Since you have two clear units every rules interaction functions clearly why would you not use the functional RAW interpretation?

So we have two equally valid RAW interpretations

Interpretation A Breaks and can only be resolved by making RAI interpretaions going beyond the scope of the rules. In order to minimise but not eliminate how much it breaks the rules even in best iteration its logically inconsistent with enemy models in friendly units

Interpretation B works in every interaction

One of those two is clearly a better interpretation and it's not the RAI one - which is why you need to make yours RAW by supporting with quotes or you have one RAW vs one RAI and RAW trumps RAI


And just for fun when the special rule changes the fan blade you presume it doesn't effect how interfaces with the engine i presume it does. The problem as stated is that we are presuming and if you can't evidence your case without need presumption it's RAI not RAW. It doesn't matter whether my presumptions are better than yours

U02dah4 wrote:
The two units interpretation of RAW works...

Listen, I'm mostly here for the popcorn at this point, but your "two units interpretation" is literally just making gak up. There is absolutely nothing anywhere to support your supposition that a turncoat model becomes its own unit.

I ran out of popcorn ages ago. I’m not sure anyone is even bickering over the actual rules in question anymore, tangents begat tangents begat tangents a while back.

My threads get locked within hours, and this is running in circles for days now. Why isnt this locked ?

 JohnnyHell wrote:
I ran out of popcorn ages ago. I’m not sure anyone is even bickering over the actual rules in question anymore, tangents begat tangents begat tangents a while back.

To me, "...makes close combat attacks against its own unit..." seems pretty clear, even in the case of a single model. This has been a lot of hand-wringing for a highly situational relic that rarely gets taken because its cult's psychic power is pretty 'meh'.

Reported. Hopefully this get locked.

Yeah... nah