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.

 Hellebore wrote:

Breton wrote:

 Slinky wrote:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:

 Hellebore wrote:
For the combined keywords thing.

Psyker makes the whole unit psyker
Character makes the whole unit character
Epic hero makes the whole unit epic hero


I'm still not clear on how a leader character giving character to their bodyguard works.

In the attached units rules it says you cannot target a character in an attached unit. If everything is a character then you wouldn't be able to target either unit?

Unit vs Model - the unit as a whole has CHARACTER because of the attached leader making it a CHARACTER unit, but the wound allocation rules are specifically about models with CHARACTER, which the bodyguard do not have. Nothing says the CHARACTER keyword (or any keywords for that matter) are transfered to models in the same unit just because the unit as a whole has them.

That's quite a confusing distinction, though

But one they've had fairly often. And in this case a distinction without a difference. You target the unit when you make attacks. Which triggers the Anti-X

Ok so the wraithlord that has a spiritseer join it is now a character unit of one model and thus cannot be targeted. Because as one model it has all the unit's keywords.

No. You allocate to wraithlord like to tacticals lea by captain.

Unit is 2 models. Wraithlord and spiit seer.

And unit has all keywords but all models don't have. Wraithlord misses character.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hellebore wrote:

Some Character units have ‘Leader’ listed on their datasheets. Such Character units are known as Leaders, and the units they can lead – known as their Bodyguard units – are listed on their datasheet.

Attacks cannot be allocated to Character models in Attached units.

According to the rules pdf a unit has the character rule and is also a model with the character rule.

If it wasn't then a character model wouldn't individually have the rule in the first place.

Ergo, by granting Character to the unit they join that unit is also now a character in an attached unit.

The same logic that makes the whole unit psykers applies here. You can't have it both ways.

No. Unit gains keywords. Models don't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hellebore wrote:
Hopefully this explains the logic of what I'm saying better.

TLDR: a unit of one model with character grants character to the model in it, therefore unit keywords apply to models. You can't both protect a character from attacks with the character keyword and deny the attached unit is also all character models. There are no rules that say that only in the instance of a single model do its keywords apply to the model and the unit.

Wrong wrong wrong.

Unit is given keywords. Models not.

You have unit of 2 where unit has character keyword but only 1 model has


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hellebore wrote:

Voss wrote:

They also said that MW get divided before you apply them, which is not how the attack sequence works.

Well, no. Its how the Mortal Wounds rule works. Its an exception. When the rules call out an exception, you use that instead.


For the character stuff, you're reading selectively and piecemeal. Its really straightforward if you read it all.
You've carved it up into so many snippets its no wonder you can't make sense of it.

to sum it up, the game clearly shows that a unit's keywords also apply to the models in the unit.

TLDR: a unit of one model with character grants character to the model in it, therefore unit keywords apply to models. You can't both protect a character from attacks with the character keyword and deny the attached unit is also all character models. There are no rules that say that only in the instance of a single model do its keywords apply to the model and the unit.

To sum it up you are cheating. Unit gets keywords, modelp don't.

Spiritseer has character. Wraithlord hasn't. Combined unit of 2 models has character but wraithlord still hasn't.

Ok, unit has keyword and model doesn't.

Therefore a character unit of 1 model can be allocated attacks as it is a model and doesn't have the character keyword.

 Hellebore wrote:
Ok, unit has keyword and model doesn't.

Therefore a character unit of 1 model can be allocated attacks as it is a model and doesn't have the character keyword.

You can't have it both ways.

Well a character unit of 1 model is just the character, and has the keyword, and can be allocated attacks because they're not being a LEADER which is where the "can't be allocated" comes from.

Breton wrote:

 Hellebore wrote:
Ok, unit has keyword and model doesn't.

Therefore a character unit of 1 model can be allocated attacks as it is a model and doesn't have the character keyword.

You can't have it both ways.

Well a character unit of 1 model is just the character, and has the keyword, and can be allocated attacks because they're not being a LEADER which is where the "can't be allocated" comes from.

There are no rules that state that a unit of 1 model functions differently than a unit of more than 1.

You can't have it both ways.

The rules say you can't assign attacks to a model with the character keyword in an attached unit.

By your argument, a marine captain unit has character, but the model of the marine captain does not.

Therefore, in an attached unit it can be assigned attacks because it specifies models with character can't be allocated.

It says it clearly in the leader rules - the MODEL must have the character keyword in order to not be attackable.

But by your argument, only the unit has the keyword not the model.

 Hellebore wrote:

Breton wrote:

 Hellebore wrote:
Ok, unit has keyword and model doesn't.

Therefore a character unit of 1 model can be allocated attacks as it is a model and doesn't have the character keyword.

You can't have it both ways.

Well a character unit of 1 model is just the character, and has the keyword, and can be allocated attacks because they're not being a LEADER which is where the "can't be allocated" comes from.

There are no rules that state that a unit of 1 model functions differently than a unit of more than 1.

You can't have it both ways.

No, but there is a rule that states the character-wound allocation mechanic you're referring to only applies when the character is leading a unit.

Each time an attack sucessfully wounds an Attached
unit, that attack cannot be allocated to a Character
model in that unit, even if that Character model

The Captain model has the Character keyword because the Captain datasheet says he does.

Page 37 of the Core Rules: "Each unit has a datasheet that lists the characteristics, wargear, abilities and keywords of its models.
This section presents a summary of these elements and how they relate to playing the game."

So the keywords on a Datasheet are for the individual models in the unit. This can be seen to even great effect with a unit like Saint Celestine, which first lists all the keyword shared by all models in the datasheet's unit (Celestine and the Geminae) and then lists the additional keywords Celestine herself has.

Celestine is a Character while the Geminae are not, which gives the cool interaction of being able to sacrifice Geminae even when the unit is attached as a Leader.

Which won't apply if the leader model can't have the character keyword (because its unit has it).

This the crux of my argument.

If a unit has keywords and not models, then a leader unit of 1 model doesn't technically have the character keyword, because it's the unit that has it.

If as I argue models DO have keywords, then it means any unit attached with a leader ALSO gains character on each model.


The argument is that there is no distinction between units based on model count.

So if a 1 model unit gives keywords to the model, then a multi model unit also gives keywords to its models.

Either all models use their unit keywords or none do.

Until there is a rule that provides a special exception for 1 model character units, all units are treated identically.


The leader rule only cares about model keywords.


So either models have keywords or they don't. But if they don't then character units of 1 model don't have keywords.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
The Captain model has the Character keyword because the Captain datasheet says he does.

Page 37 of the Core Rules: "Each unit has a datasheet that lists the characteristics, wargear, abilities and keywords of its models.
This section presents a summary of these elements and how they relate to playing the game."

So the keywords on a Datasheet are for the individual models in the unit. This can be seen to even great effect with a unit like Saint Celestine, which first lists all the keyword shared by all models in the datasheet's unit (Celestine and the Geminae) and then lists the additional keywords Celestine herself has.

Celestine is a Character while the Geminae are not, which gives the cool interaction of being able to sacrifice Geminae even when the unit is attached as a Leader.

Great, so when character is granted to models in an attached unit, none can be assigned attacks.

Where the heck are you getting that "models don't have keywords" from?

Models have keywords
Units have the keywords of all models in the unit

That's the relationship. Again, page 37 of the Core Rules specifically says "Each unit has a datasheet that lists the characteristics, wargear, abilities and keywords of its models.
This section presents a summary of these elements and how they relate to playing the game."

Datahsheets tell you what keywords models have. This in turn defines what keywords the unit has because units have the keywords of all models in it. This does not mean that all models in a unit have all keywords of the units though as the reverse is not true.

TARGETING is against units
WOUND ALLOCATING is against models
How is this so difficult for you?

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
Where the heck are you getting that "models don't have keywords" from?

Models have keywords
Units have the keywords of all models in the unit

That's the relationship. Again, page 37 of the Core Rules specifically says "Each unit has a datasheet that lists the characteristics, wargear, abilities and keywords of its models.
This section presents a summary of these elements and how they relate to playing the game."

Datahsheets tell you what keywords models have. This in turn defines what keywords the unit has because units have the keywords of all models in it. This does not mean that all models in a unit have all keywords of the units though as the reverse is not true.

TARGETING is against units
WOUND ALLOCATING is against models
How is this so difficult for you?

I agree with you. Others have been trying to argue that models don't have keywords because if they do then combing them in attached units creates really stupid interactions.


Look at the leader rule. Look at the keyword commentary where it says that attached models combine their keywords with the bodyguard unit.

It is very clear as I've described multiple times, that this means bodyguard units can't be assigned attacks.


Attacks cannot be assigned to models in attached units with the character keyword. Attaching a character to a bodyguard unit gives them the character keyword. Therefore as character models in an ATTACHED unit, they cannot have attacks assigned to them.

Your evidence only supports my position more as there is a clear rule that says models have the keywords of.the unit.

This is the unfortunate consequence of combining keywords.

 Hellebore wrote:
Which won't apply if the leader model can't have the character keyword (because its unit has it).

This the crux of my argument.

If a unit has keywords and not models, then a leader unit of 1 model doesn't technically have the character keyword, because it's the unit that has it.

If as I argue models DO have keywords, then it means any unit attached with a leader ALSO gains character on each model.

Nobody says models don't have keywords. They're saying when a character joins a unit, the combined unit has the keywords of all the subcomponent units, however the models themselves do not get the keywords of the other subcomponent units - most of us are also saying that's a distinction without a difference in multiple stupid ways - because attacks target the unit (and their keywords) and not the models which can cause some rather silly interactions.

It's the assign attacks stage where it falls apart.

You'll have to provide evidence that attached units have a unique definition of combined keywords but not really.

Currently I only see rules that say a model has a keyword or doesn't. And then an additional commentary that says they combine keywords


If you are combining units within a rules framework of 'have keywords or don't have keywords ' then they either do or don't.

You cant selectively say they kind of do for some things and not for others unless it explicitly says so. And I haven't seen anything that says so.

 Hellebore wrote:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
Where the heck are you getting that "models don't have keywords" from?

Models have keywords
Units have the keywords of all models in the unit

That's the relationship. Again, page 37 of the Core Rules specifically says "Each unit has a datasheet that lists the characteristics, wargear, abilities and keywords of its models.
This section presents a summary of these elements and how they relate to playing the game."

Datahsheets tell you what keywords models have. This in turn defines what keywords the unit has because units have the keywords of all models in it. This does not mean that all models in a unit have all keywords of the units though as the reverse is not true.

TARGETING is against units
WOUND ALLOCATING is against models
How is this so difficult for you?

I agree with you. Others have been trying to argue that models don't have keywords because if they do then combing them in attached units creates really stupid interactions.


Look at the leader rule. Look at the keyword commentary where it says that attached models combine their keywords with the bodyguard unit.

It is very clear as I've described multiple times, that this means bodyguard units can't be assigned attacks.


Attacks cannot be assigned to models in attached units with the character keyword. Attaching a character to a bodyguard unit gives them the character keyword. Therefore as character models in an ATTACHED unit, they cannot have attacks assigned to them.

Your evidence only supports my position more as there is a clear rule that says models have the keywords of.the unit.

This is the unfortunate consequence of combining keywords.

No, models do not have the keywords of the unit, the unit has the keywords of the models.
It's a very distinct difference. The abstract collective known as the unit has the Character keyword, but only the individual model(s) that were already Characters to begin with have the Character keyword in that unit.

Go see a proctologist, Hellebore.

Once you've done that, take a look at the Platoon Command Squad or Cadian Command Squad datasheets, as well as page 7 of the Rules Commentary.

If every model in the unit got the Character keyword due to keyword sharing, there'd be no need to specify that only the Officer model in each unit gets the keyword.

What you keep failing to grasp - and keep flailing about - is that there is a difference here between unit and model when it comes to keyword inheritance and interactions.

Let me spoiler this quote from the Rules Commentary...



When a Leader is attached to a unit, the overall unit has a pool of all keywords from both the Leader and the attached unit. This is why Anti-Character, for example, will trigger for everybody, or why Kastellans suddenly become vulnerable to Anti-Infantry weapons.

However, the bit you keep quoting from the Leader ability about wound assignment says this:

Each time an attack sucessfully wounds an Attached unit, that attack cannot be allocated to a Character model in that unit, even if that Character model has lost one or more wounds or has already had attacks allocated to it this phase.

Note the emphasis on Attached unit vs. Character model - if the model does not come with the Character keyword, it doth not matter for Wound Allocation purposes if the whole unit does.

Back to the topic of the thread:

Does Ghazghkull Thraka take up 18 slots in a transport, or 19? The battlewagon states he takes up 18 slots, but is this inclusive of Makari, or does Makari take up a slot of his own?

Ghaz takes up 18, Makari takes up 1.
He's still a model (rather than a token), and that honestly doesn't really need to be clarified in a FAQ.

His card says the unit composition is 1 Ghaz, 1 Makari.

Voss wrote:
Ghaz takes up 18, Makari takes up 1.
He's still a model, and that honestly doesn't really need to be clarified in a FAQ.

His card says the unit composition is 1 Ghaz, 1 Makari.

I'd agree, Makari has his own profile and since he's not mentioned on the list of things that take more than one space, he'd default to taking up one.

Voss wrote:Ghaz takes up 18, Makari takes up 1.
He's still a model (rather than a token), and that honestly doesn't really need to be clarified in a FAQ.

His card says the unit composition is 1 Ghaz, 1 Makari.

Tsagualsa wrote:

Voss wrote:
Ghaz takes up 18, Makari takes up 1.
He's still a model, and that honestly doesn't really need to be clarified in a FAQ.

His card says the unit composition is 1 Ghaz, 1 Makari.

I'd agree, Makari has his own profile and since he's not mentioned on the list of things that take more than one space, he'd default to taking up one.

This is the way I was interpreting it, but there's an argument that it says "Ghaz takes up 18 slots" and Makari is included as part of the Ghaz card, as opposed to it being "Ghaz and Makari", thus Ghaz and Makari only take up 18 slots total.

So it would be the argument as whether the 18 slots refers to the "Ghaz unit" or the "Ghaz model".

I personally think it refers to the models, so Ghaz takes up 19 slots, including Makari, but it would be nice to have the clarification.

Oddly enough, the rule is it can carry 1 Ghazghkull Thraka. However, Ghazghkull Thraka and Markari have the exact same keywords including Ghazghkull Thraka.

RAW is a Ghazghkull Thraka unit that includes Ghazghkull Thraka and Markari cannot fit into any of the transports because a Ghazghkull Thraka unit contains 2 Ghazghkull Thraka models that both take 18 spaces.

This is a ludicrous result and is obviously unintended. However, it is also rather silly that he take the space of 18 models considering how heavily they nerfed him compared to 9th Edition. Even if you rule that both Ghazghkull Thraka and Markari together take 18 space, that means he can only have 1 Meganob bodyguard with him if he embarks into a vehicle.

I am pretty sure the -1 damage thing has been resolved as it does not reduce below one in the designer commentary, so not sure if you want to remove that from the beginning of this post. Auspex Tactics has pointed this out.

Also a unit has a key word but one model in that unit can also have a separate key word that does not apply to the rest of the unit, i.e. look at rubric marines who do not have the psychic key work only the aspiring sorcerer does. That point seems really really clear.

 xeen wrote:
Also a unit has a key word but one model in that unit can also have a separate key word that does not apply to the rest of the unit, i.e. look at rubric marines who do not have the psychic key work only the aspiring sorcerer does. That point seems really really clear.

The unit has the keyword for purposes which apply at the unit level - and Psyker is even used as the example, IIRC, with a unit being targeted with an Anti-Psyker weapon - but individual Rubrics within the unit won't if an effect is looking at the model level.

 alextroy wrote:
Oddly enough, the rule is it can carry 1 Ghazghkull Thraka. However, Ghazghkull Thraka and Markari have the exact same keywords including Ghazghkull Thraka.

RAW is a Ghazghkull Thraka unit that includes Ghazghkull Thraka and Markari cannot fit into any of the transports because a Ghazghkull Thraka unit contains 2 Ghazghkull Thraka models that both take 18 spaces.

This is a ludicrous result and is obviously unintended. However, it is also rather silly that he take the space of 18 models considering how heavily they nerfed him compared to 9th Edition. Even if you rule that both Ghazghkull Thraka and Markari together take 18 space, that means he can only have 1 Meganob bodyguard with him if he embarks into a vehicle.

I’d argue that the unit Ghazghkull Thraka takes up 18 slots. The Battlewagon datacard specifies “Ork infantry models” but doesn’t specify model when referring to Ghaz, so I infer that as referring to the unit of the same name.

 Dysartes wrote:

 xeen wrote:
Also a unit has a key word but one model in that unit can also have a separate key word that does not apply to the rest of the unit, i.e. look at rubric marines who do not have the psychic key work only the aspiring sorcerer does. That point seems really really clear.

The unit has the keyword for purposes which apply at the unit level - and Psyker is even used as the example, IIRC, with a unit being targeted with an Anti-Psyker weapon - but individual Rubrics within the unit won't if an effect is looking at the model level.

Yes I agree with this

Aash wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
Oddly enough, the rule is it can carry 1 Ghazghkull Thraka. However, Ghazghkull Thraka and Markari have the exact same keywords including Ghazghkull Thraka.

RAW is a Ghazghkull Thraka unit that includes Ghazghkull Thraka and Markari cannot fit into any of the transports because a Ghazghkull Thraka unit contains 2 Ghazghkull Thraka models that both take 18 spaces.

This is a ludicrous result and is obviously unintended. However, it is also rather silly that he take the space of 18 models considering how heavily they nerfed him compared to 9th Edition. Even if you rule that both Ghazghkull Thraka and Markari together take 18 space, that means he can only have 1 Meganob bodyguard with him if he embarks into a vehicle.

I’d argue that the unit Ghazghkull Thraka takes up 18 slots. The Battlewagon datacard specifies “Ork infantry models” but doesn’t specify model when referring to Ghaz, so I infer that as referring to the unit of the same name.

If it said Ghazghkull Thraka unit, I would agree. But they said 1 Ghazghkull Thraka. That being said, I wouldn't expect anyone to play it the way it is written.

Daed, can we add the Taurox Prime Frag Missile profile being S8 to the list, please?

It's hilarious, don't get me wrong, but it's also a fairly obvious typo.

Also, for Space Marines - given a Multi-Melta is defined on the Armory card as a S9 weapon, is it intended that the Gladiator Valiant features S10 Multi-Melta?

The drop pod lacks the dedicated transport keyword.

 KingGarland wrote:
The drop pod lack the dedicated transport keyword.

What if that's intentional?

Imperial Guard - Heavy Weapon Teams (inc. Veteran HWTs, if it matters) - Count as two models when it comes to fitting in a transport, but not for 1-per-10-models upgrades. In the case of a 10 man Infantry Squad, that means the classic 2nd ed loadouts - with a HWT and a special weapon - are all invalid. Is this intentional, or an oversight?

Leagues of Votann enhancement.

APPRAISING GLARE

Leagues of Votann model only. In your Command phase, you can select one objective marker your opponent controls. Until the end of the phase, while an enemy unit is within range of that objective marker, it counts as having one more Judgement token than it actually has (to a maximum of 2).

It begins and ends in your command phase. Currently, it does nothing at all.

Its rather important if it lasts until the end of your turn or the end of the battle round (though that has the potential to suck if you go second). Best case, it should last until the start of your next command phase.

 Dysartes wrote:
Imperial Guard - Heavy Weapon Teams (inc. Veteran HWTs, if it matters) - Count as two models when it comes to fitting in a transport, but not for 1-per-10-models upgrades. In the case of a 10 man Infantry Squad, that means the classic 2nd ed loadouts - with a HWT and a special weapon - are all invalid. Is this intentional, or an oversight?

It, and the missing voxcaster upgrade, are obviously oversights.

The point of thread is to collect (and submit) oversights, obvious and otherwise, so they stop being overlooked