We has a gaming situation at the local gaming store last night, and I was wondering if I could get any input on how we should rule it.

My friend was playing Orks, and he had attached a Warboss to his Snikrot Kommando squad and come in on his opponents side of the board. His opponent, another friend of mine playing Tau, proceeded to kill ever member of the squad except the Warboss. There was a debate as to whether the Warboss was forced to take a morale test at this point. The Warboss was attached to a squad that clearly lost more than 25% of its units, indicating that a morale check would normally be necessary. However, the Warboss is an IC, and the question was raised whether the IC was still a part of a squad that had been obliterated, and therefore had to take a morale test. Looking at the IC rules on pages 46 and 47, it indicates that an IC cannot leave a squad during the shooting or assault phases. This would indicated that the Warboss had to take the morale test. However, it is pretty clear he is not a part of the squad anymore as the squad is dead. So, ...

(1) Does an IC have to take a morale test after the squad he is attached to has been wiped out during the shooting phase?
(2) Does the IC count as being detached from the squad immediately after being out of coherency with the squad, or does this only happen during the movement phase?
(3)Does the IC have the opportunity to regroup at the beginning of the next movement phase, since he was a part of a squad which is below half-strength?

Thanks for the input.

Dukal wrote:(1) Does an IC have to take a morale test after the squad he is attached to has been wiped out during the shooting phase?

Yes - the unit he was joined to suffered 25% losses.

(2) Does the IC count as being detached from the squad immediately after being out of coherency with the squad, or does this only happen during the movement phase?

Only during the movement phase (I believe there's an exception for disembarking from a destroyed vehicle, but that doesn't apply here even if I'm correct)

(3)Does the IC have the opportunity to regroup at the beginning of the next movement phase, since he was a part of a squad which is below half-strength?

I'm not 100% sure on that - I'd let him regroup but I don't recall the RAW on this.

I have myself going around in a bit of a catch-22 regarding the IC's ability to regroup. According the IC rules, he detaches from the unit (which no longer exists) whenever he is more than 2' away from the unit. Therefore, he would be able to take a morale test to regroup after the next movement phase. However, the IC rules also state that an IC cannot detach from a unit that is falling back, meaning that it would be impossible for him to ever detach (even though he is clearly 2' away from any member of the destroyed unit), and therefore the IC would be forced to fall back until hitting his own board edge. I am just not sure how to rule this situation, and I would appreciate any specific BRB ruling that could be found.

rigeld2 wrote:

Dukal wrote:(1) Does an IC have to take a morale test after the squad he is attached to has been wiped out during the shooting phase?

Yes - the unit he was joined to suffered 25% losses.

Do you have a reference for this? I just ask because I know IC's don't count toward unit strength for morale tests, so it is odd that they're still affected by a unit that is no longer there, that they do not count for.

puma713 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Dukal wrote:(1) Does an IC have to take a morale test after the squad he is attached to has been wiped out during the shooting phase?

Yes - the unit he was joined to suffered 25% losses.

Do you have a reference for this? I just ask because I know IC's don't count toward unit strength for morale tests, so it is odd that they're still affected by a unit that is no longer there, that they do not count for.

They're still a part of the unit until the next movement phase. For example, if there was one member of the unit left would you argue the IC doesn't run away on failure?
There's no difference - the unit suffered losses, the unit failed the morale test, the unit - including the IC - runs away.

Makes me wonder, a unit of 4 IC's cannot be broken, since none of them count for morale losses?

puma713 wrote:Makes me wonder, a unit of 4 IC's cannot be broken, since none of them count for morale losses?

Sounds valid... interesting if a bit pointless.

I would say no he doesn't run away because the unit no longer exists. Even though he was attached to it, the rules for him detaching only pertain to "choosing" to leave the unit. If the unit no longer exists and the opposing player is awarded the kill point, he is no longer attached.

Where are you getting the ICs don't count toward casualties for morale purposes bit? Page# please?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Unless you are confusing this:
Q: How do Independent Characters that have joined a
squad effect working out if a squad is below half
strength or not? (p48)
A: Independent Characters are not counted when
working out if a squad is below half strength or not.
The exception to this is if an Independent Character is
with a Retinue (in which case he is counted when
working out if the squad is below half strength).

It's in the main book faq on gw website.

Not that I can find.

Kevin949 wrote:It's in the main book faq on gw website.

The FAQ response is dealing with determining if the unit is below 50%.

It does not say that ICs don't count towards unit size for any other purpose. They are a part of the unit, so they are counted when determining 25% casualties for morale tests.

insaniak wrote:

Kevin949 wrote:It's in the main book faq on gw website.

The FAQ response is dealing with determining if the unit is below 50%.

It does not say that ICs don't count towards unit size for any other purpose. They are a part of the unit, so they are counted when determining 25% casualties for morale tests.

You're right, he posted the FAQ as I posted my response and didn't realize they were slightly different (though it's silly that the unit is affected in one situation and not the other, to much nuance in this game).

I still think the original question is important though. I have always played that if the IC is left alone than they don't test, but it appears I may be incorrect.

The IC is a "normal member of tthe unit" (page 48 and 49) until the IC decides to leave it, whcih he can only do in the owning players movement phase.

So yes, he must test, and will fall back again in his movement phase, as he hasnt left until after his movement has ended.

Thanks, Nos!

nosferatu1001 wrote:
So yes, he must test, and will fall back again in his movement phase, as he hasnt left until after his movement has ended.

So an IC may never rally*? Since he was a part of the unit, the unit broke because it was reduced below 25%, and he (still being a part of the unit and still fleeing) cannot leave the unit whilst it is fleeing?






*unless it is has ATSKNF.

puma713 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
So yes, he must test, and will fall back again in his movement phase, as he hasnt left until after his movement has ended.

So an IC may never rally*? Since he was a part of the unit, the unit broke because it was reduced below 25%, and he (still being a part of the unit and still fleeing) cannot leave the unit whilst it is fleeing?






*unless it is has ATSKNF.

No, what happens is:
1) IC fails morale and falls back
2) IC turn comes up and he falls back since he is still in the unit and under half.
3) End of movement phase occurs and he is more than 2" from the unit he was joined to so he is now independent and can rally next turn.

He cannot voluntarily *choose* to leave, however when you determine if he is a member of a unit, you find he isnt. Same way an IC who has his unit shot out around him will leave his unit on his turn, even if he doesnt want to!

How does that mesh with the IC rules which states that "An independent character may not join or leave a unit while either he or the untit is locked in combat or falling back", page 48 of the BRB? I understand that leaving the unit in these circumstances is not voluntary, but the prohibition from leaving the unit does not seem to be have any exceptions.

In the context of the rules this HAS to be a choice, otherwise you would be prohibited from killing the last member of an ICs unit.

I would have said that once the unit ceases to exist the IC can no longer be considered part of the unit.

"An independent character can leave a unit during the Movement phase by moving out of coherency distance with it."

As the rule states the become part of the unit at the end of the movement phase but they leave the unit at any time in the movement phase by not being coherent with it.

As it starts the movement phase out of coherency and it cannot move back into coherency as there is nothing to move into I'd say it is no longer associated with the unit.

I think the vehicle disembarking rule kind of points in that direction.

My vote would be for them to be able to test for regroup at the start of the next movement phase, provided there are no enemies within 6".

That would be my vote as well. Since I play Black Templars and have ATSKNF, this ruling does not affect my army either way, but I feel like that is the best interpretation for my opponents.

puma713 wrote:Makes me wonder, a unit of 4 IC's cannot be broken, since none of them count for morale losses?

Except that is not what the FAQ says. It says they don't count towards the unit being above or below 50%. A joined group of 4 IC (or even just 2) that loses one model is going to have to take a morale test as their "unit" has suffered 25% or more casualties.

"As it starts the movement phase out of coherency and it cannot move back into coherency as there is nothing to move into I'd say it is no longer associated with the unit. "

You check coherency at the end of a units move, not the start. He leaves the unit, therefore, at the end of his move.

Otherwise you are saying the Shrike jump is legal, which it isnt

nosferatu1001 wrote:"As it starts the movement phase out of coherency and it cannot move back into coherency as there is nothing to move into I'd say it is no longer associated with the unit. "

You check coherency at the end of a units move, not the start. He leaves the unit, therefore, at the end of his move.

Otherwise you are saying the Shrike jump is legal, which it isnt

The rule for an IC leaving says it can leave a unit during the movement phase by moving out of coherency with it , I would have thought that the leaving takes place the moment the IC moves out of coherency and it seems logical to follow that if he has nothing to be coherent with he has left.

What is the Shrike jump?

Magpie wrote:The rule for an IC leaving says it can leave a unit during the movement phase by moving out of coherency with it , I would have thought that the leaving takes place the moment the IC moves out of coherency and it seems logical to follow that if he has nothing to be coherent with he has left.

But you don't know if the IC has moved out of coherency until the unit has finished moving.

You don't check coherency while the unit is moving, otherwise you would never be able to move models further than 2" at a time. They just have to finish their movement in coherency... which by extension means that the end of the movement is when you determine that the IC is no longer in coherency.

What is the Shrike jump?

Putting Shrike (or any 'flying' IC) with a slower moving unit, and leapfrogging them over the unit to make use of their extra movement distance by 'leaving' the unit at the start of the movement and finishing the movement still in coherency.

Doesn't actually work, because you leave the unit by moving out of coherency with them, not by declaring that you are going to do so.

insaniak wrote:Doesn't actually work, because you leave the unit by moving out of coherency with them, not by declaring that you are going to do so.

But that is exactly what I am saying, the act of moving out of coherency is the moment you become no longer associated with the unit. So as soon as you move away, in another direction for example or move to a spot the unit can stay in coherency with you is the moment you aren't part of the unit any more. Granted in some cases it will be necessary to check if you are out of coherency, but in most cases it will be obvious and even more so if there is no one else left in the unit.

It bothers me to see a non-existent unit having an effect on an IC like that. Intensive RaW supports the IC falling back, but I would prefer to play it as an IC being unable to be part of a destroyed unit. Could fluff it as a disheartened commander fleeing the scene of grizzly destruction, but I don't like the overall feel of it.
But rules are not feelings. If it's a fun game with friends, play as you will. If it's for keeps and the other guy really want to stick with RaW, take the turns of fall back. Most IC's have a decent leadership anyway, so chances are no fallback will even occur.

Magpie wrote:But that is exactly what I am saying, the act of moving out of coherency is the moment you become no longer associated with the unit.

Except it's not, or the IC would leave the unit every time they are the first to move.

For that matter, you wouldn't ever be able to move an IC without leaving the unit he is joined to, unless the unit keeps its models spread out so that there is always a model within 2" along the path of the IC's movement.

You don't know that the IC has left coherency until the entire unit has finished moving. At any other point in the movement, you haven't finished moving everybody, so there is no way to establish that the unit is out of coherency.

No I don't agree, moving out of coherency has to be more than just moving first.

As an aside if an IC leaves a unit while they are in difficult terrain does he roll with his own "move through cover" or suffer the penalty of his not so enabled unit that he just left ?

He's still a member of the unit until you check for 2" after tr unit moves. You cant just announce intent and move him. This means that until the end of that units movement, the iC is limited to the units movement - including not having MtC

Magpie wrote:No I don't agree, moving out of coherency has to be more than just moving first.

Of course it does. Which was my point.

As an aside if an IC leaves a unit while they are in difficult terrain does he roll with his own "move through cover" or suffer the penalty of his not so enabled unit that he just left ?

He leaves the unit as a part of the unit's movement. So the unit would make one roll for difficult terrain. If the IC moves away from the unit, he leaves it.

Having said that, it's reasonably common for people to play that ICs can make use of their own movement on the turn they leave the unit, which is important for ICs on bikes or with jump packs, for example. The same would apply to difficult terrain rolls.

Magpie wrote:No I don't agree, moving out of coherency has to be more than just moving first.

As an aside if an IC leaves a unit while they are in difficult terrain does he roll with his own "move through cover" or suffer the penalty of his not so enabled unit that he just left ?

You still havent addressed the point that coherency is ONLY checked after you have finished moving. Its in the definition of coherency. Thus given you "leave" by moving out of coherency, and coherncy is only checked when you finish moving....theres really only one conclusion you can make by actually following the rules.

insaniak wrote:So the unit would make one roll for difficult terrain. If the IC moves away from the unit, he leaves it.

Wouldn't that create another contradiction in that is states that when an IC leaves a unit the unit does not count as having moved but the IC is and in the difficult terrain rules, simply rolling the dice counts as the unit moving?

Magpie wrote:

insaniak wrote:So the unit would make one roll for difficult terrain. If the IC moves away from the unit, he leaves it.

Wouldn't that create another contradiction in that is states that when an IC leaves a unit the unit does not count as having moved but the IC is and in the difficult terrain rules, simply rolling the dice counts as the unit moving?

You see a contradiction, I see an exception.

Normally, the unit doesn't count as moving. Because of the difficult terrain test, however, they do.

nosferatu1001 wrote:You still havent addressed the point that coherency is ONLY checked after you have finished moving. Its in the definition of coherency. Thus given you "leave" by moving out of coherency, and coherncy is only checked when you finish moving....theres really only one conclusion you can make by actually following the rules.

Leaving coherency and checking coherency are two different concepts. Checking is to make sure you are/are not in coherency, leaving coherency can happen at any time and is not dependent on measurement.

The requirement is that the unit finishes the movement phase in coherency I don't see how that restricts you to checking coherency at the end, how else how would you know where to move to re-establish coherency ? The requirement to re-establish coherency is that they must move to restore coherency as soon as they have the opportunity. If models are lost in dangerous terrain the unit closes the gaps as they move or at least the subsequent models seek to close up the gaps so you are doing it as you go, before the end of the move so you would need to be monitoring the unit's coherency throughout.

What is the alternative, move the unit's models guess at your coherency and then do a check measure at the end of the movement? If so what then what happens if it isn't coherent? Is the move declared illegal and you move everything back and start again or leave the unit as is and be occupying an illegal footprint until their next movement phase?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

Magpie wrote:

insaniak wrote:So the unit would make one roll for difficult terrain. If the IC moves away from the unit, he leaves it.

Wouldn't that create another contradiction in that is states that when an IC leaves a unit the unit does not count as having moved but the IC is and in the difficult terrain rules, simply rolling the dice counts as the unit moving?

You see a contradiction, I see an exception.

Normally, the unit doesn't count as moving. Because of the difficult terrain test, however, they do.

No I see it as the unit and the IC have parted company and the IC's move is the IC's move and the unit's move is the unit's move, they are now two separate entities.
It is silly to suggest that a unit that doesn't move has to take a terrain test.
Otherwise if they stay as a unit until the end of the movement phase you'll never get away from them.

Magpie wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:You still havent addressed the point that coherency is ONLY checked after you have finished moving. Its in the definition of coherency. Thus given you "leave" by moving out of coherency, and coherncy is only checked when you finish moving....theres really only one conclusion you can make by actually following the rules.

Leaving coherency and checking coherency are two different concepts. Checking is to make sure you are/are not in coherency, leaving coherency can happen at any time and is not dependent on measurement.

How can you know you have left coherency without measuring?

"Leaving coherency and checking coherency are two different concepts. Checking is to make sure you are/are not in coherency, leaving coherency can happen at any time and is not dependent on measurement. "

Explain how you are leaving coherency without measuring to ensure you HAVE left coherency.

Either there is something I am not getting, or this is really a relatively simple concept. You check whether your units are in coherency or not at the end of the movement phase. It doesn't matter if a unit leaves coherency at some point during the movement phase, because the movement of other models may then restore the coherency. If you check for coherency as each model moved, then you would constantly be moving in and out of coherency. After all movement has been completed, you check to see if a unit is on coherency. If not, then an IC has left the squad. If, so then he is still with the squad.

Either way, the question regarding whether the IC can ever regroup still remains murky. Does the IC actually leave the unit at the end of the next movement phase, as he is out of coherency, and therefore have the ability to regroup next movement phase? Or, does the IC stay a part of a non-existent unit, since ICs are prohibited from leaving a unit while falling back?

It isnt murky - when you check to see if the IC is in coherency, at the end of its movement, you find it isnt. It is therefore not part of a unit.

I fyou take the line "cannot leave..." to mean any casuation, then you are prohibited from killing the last model attached to an ICs unit, as that will also cause the IC to leave the unit (at some point in the future)

Nosferatu1001, your second statement doesn't really make any sense. A model dies whenever it dies - this is not restricted in any way. You are taking the line that is in question and applying in it a way that is totally illogical, and has no support whatsoever in the rules.

Your first statement is normally 100% accurate - if an IC is not within 2' of a unit, he is not incoherency with that unit. However, as discussed, an IC cannot leave a unit while falling back. Your answer does not give any indication as to which of these rules should take precedence, and why it should do so.

This is an interesting example that if you follow RAW to the absolute letter, the rules are somewhat broken. It ties in well with http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/433068.page this thread about moving units away from ICs to detach them.

People are arguing about when to measure coherency, and how to move ICs in order to maintain it, but Page 48 of the BRB, third bullet point:

An IC can leave a unit during the movement phase by moving out of coherency with it.

That's it in full. It doesn't say anything about the start, middle, or end of the movement phase. So a rules lawyer could argue that if an IC is the first to move when it's attached to a unit, it immediately moves out of coherency if it moves more than 2" before the rest of the squad moves. The rest of the squad follow it to maintain coherency and they can't rejoin the IC, because as the other thread demonstrates: There is no provision in the rules for a squad joining an IC (The IC needs to move to join the squad) unless the IC has gone to ground - but that last bit appears to be a completely different argument according to the other thread.

I wouldn't use the above argument because it is blatantly stupid. I play for fun, although there appear to be a lot of people on the forum who don't and seem to play so they can argue with someone over rules interpretations for a game of toy soldiers. But following RAW to the absolute letter, the above argument does seem to hold water.

But for the original question in the thread, I personally would say that they would fall back if the unit is destroyed, but will be able to test to regroup so long as there isn't an enemy unit within 6". If someone argued with that while I was playing, I would let them have their way and just not bother playing that person again, I've got better things to do.

Happy Pig, I basically agree with the way you would play it, and would play it the same way myself. I was simply curious if there is some short of support for which rule should be primary, instead of us being nice guys to our opponents (since with ATSKNF, I am unaffected either way). I am all for the more congenial and, in my opinion, fairer ruling. Thanks everyone for an interesting discussion thus far.

Dukal wrote:Nosferatu1001, your second statement doesn't really make any sense. A model dies whenever it dies - this is not restricted in any way. You are taking the line that is in question and applying in it a way that is totally illogical, and has no support whatsoever in the rules.

Yes, it does. If you are claiming that an involuntary leaving of a unit is prohibited, then killing the last member of a unit while an IC is locked in combat is prohbited, because this WILL cause the IC to leave the unit at some point, and, if the combat is prolonged enough this will occur during combat.

Or, you read the correct context which is all about voluntary joining and leaving, and realise it is a restriction on choosing to leave.

Dukal wrote:Your first statement is normally 100% accurate - if an IC is not within 2' of a unit, he is not incoherency with that unit. However, as discussed, an IC cannot leave a unit while falling back. Your answer does not give any indication as to which of these rules should take precedence, and why it should do so.

I've explained it already, and pointed out how the rules are constructed. You've just ignored it.

My apologies if you feel like I have ignored something, but I really think there has not been a clear explanation. Let's look at it like this:

An IC joins a 10 man squad, making for most purposes an 11 man squad (transport capacity, shooting targets, morale tests, etc are all based on being a singular, 11 man squad). The 11 man squad loses 10 of its members during the shooting phase, leaving just the IC alive. The IC, as a member of a squad which has just lost over 25% of its members, must take a morale test. Falling it, the IC falls back.

Now, at the beginning of the player's next movement phase, the IC must continue to fall back (as the IC has not left the squad yet according to most interpretations on this board, and the squad is at below 50% strength). At the end of the movement phase, the IC is more than 2' away from anyone in the squad. Normally he would leave the squad. The question that continues to be unanswered is whether he may leave, since an IC cannot leave a squad while falling back. There is no indication in the rules that this applies only to voluntarily leaving a squad, as you seem to suggest Nos. If the prohibition from leaving the squad only applies to voluntarily moving away then you are correct, and I would argue that outcome is the correct one as well. However, there is no evidence that the rule only applies to voluntary situations.

Nos, please ignore your argument regarding the hypothetically immortal last squad member, as it really does not have any bearing on the specific question I am asking. I apologize if I am constraining your response, but I think that that argument is simply a straw man that has no support at all. I am not saying that involuntarily leaving a squad is never permitted. I am saying that involuntarily leaving a squad while falling back may be impermissible due to the prohibition on leaving a squad while falling back.

nosferatu1001 wrote:"Leaving coherency and checking coherency are two different concepts. Checking is to make sure you are/are not in coherency, leaving coherency can happen at any time and is not dependent on measurement. "

Explain how you are leaving coherency without measuring to ensure you HAVE left coherency.

By the fact that there is no longer any models with which you can be coherent ? How do you measure to nothing?
Sure in some cases you may not be aware that the unit has left coherency until you measure but that doesn't change the fact that is has left coherency.

A coherency check can also be taken at the start of the movement phase as the rule for coherency requires the unit to return to coherency in the movement phase and as you say how will you know without measuring?

While it is not clear I'd also suggest that units falling back must attempt to restore coherency, as the rule for TRAPPED stipulates that you can move around things so long as you stay in coherency. This would mean that you have to measure the coherency in the assault phase. If the moment at which the IC has left the unit is guided by when the measurement is taken, the leaving has actually already taken place but as the IC can only leave in the movement phase I suppose it carries over until then and his move starts with him not part of the unit.

This is supported by the INATFAQ that say the IC is considered part of the unit until the start of their next turn.

This is also supported by the special rule FEARLESS:

"However, as long as a fearless
character stays with a unit that is not fearless, he loses
this special rule. If a unit that is falling back suddenly
gains this rule, it will automatically regroup at the
beginning of its next Movement phase, regardless of all
normal restrictions on regrouping"

How else would a unit suddenly gain the special rule other than the members all dying and leaving the IC ? For example an IC and a single remaining model of the unit he joined are falling back, the remaining member dies so there for the IC is now released as part of the unit and regroups automatically at the start of the next movement phase. That seems to imply that the IC regains its independent status as soon as the unit no longer exists.

Tyranids falling back into synapse gain fearless. Nothing to do with an IC.

Dukal - again, your example is pointless. It doesnt add anything.

IN THE CONTEXT of the rules, "leaving" and "joining" are voluntary actions, for the most part - so you either read this as disallowing voluntary joining or leaving, which works, or you believe it refers to any joining or leaving, in which case you get an immortal last squad member.

There is no option here. You either read it as the context tells you, in which case it refers to a choice of joining or leaving - and then the rules work. Or, you decide that the rule suddenly refers to any join / leave action, in which case you also arent allowed to kill the last member of a unit while in close combat.

Magpie - measuring to something that doesnt exist is easy - you are not in coherency with them, automatically. You're reading issues into very clear rules.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Magpie - measuring to something that doesnt exist is easy - you are not in coherency with them, automatically. You're reading issues into very clear rules.

So why did you ask "Explain how you are leaving coherency without measuring to ensure you HAVE left coherency." I'm not reading in issues I am answering your question.

And I agree, the unit no longer exists, you are no longer in coherency ergo you are no longer part of the unit.
To suggest that an IC remains part of something that no longer exists is just silly.

It occurs to me that while I've been arguing over the timing of the IC leaving the unit, I hadn't addressed the actual issue.

To whit, I have to agree that the idea of still counting the IC as a part of the non-existant unit the following turn is a little silly.

Yes, he can technically only leave the unit at the end of the phase... but if the unit's no longer there, that's good enough for me.

The reverse, that he is still a part of the unit until the end of the phase, would (as someone else pointed out) seem to indicate that he can never actually leave the unit... If a unit that is destroyed sill counts as being joined to the IC, he can never leave them, as ICs can't leave a unit that is falling back. He would instead have to move to regain coherency... which he can't do, as the unit is no longer on the table... meaning he would just continue to fall back.

Nos, you are argument is that the restriction that "An IC may not join or leave a unit while either he or the unit is locked in combat or falling back" (page 48 BRB) only applies to voluntarily leaving a unit. Where do you infer this context from? There is no indication that this rule only applies to voluntarily leaving a unit. If you are inferring that context, cool. I would hope that it would be ruled that way. However, there is no reason to infer that it only applies to voluntarily leaving a unit, as there is no such restriction in the rules. I am not "suddenly" deciding it applies to any join/leave action - the rule itself makes no distinction between a voluntary or involuntary join/leave action.

It's simple, let's (for the moment) assume, that an IC cannot voluntarily or involuntarily leave a unit that is falling back.
In order for the IC to be attached to a unit he must be in coherency.
In order to be in coherency, at least 1 member of the unit must be alive.
If one member of the unit must be alive, than 1 member of the unit cannot be killed, until after the IC is killed. Otherwise, the IC is no longer in coherency with said unit.

If the IC can involuntarily leave a unit that is falling back, than as soon as the unit is wiped out (save the IC) the IC is no longer attached.

Changed my mind

Dukal wrote: You check whether your units are in coherency or not at the end of the movement phase. It doesn't matter if a unit leaves coherency at some point during the movement phase, because the movement of other models may then restore the coherency.

Mostly agree.

But, there is a myth, that because you only check after the unit finishes moving, that coherency is not a factor whilst actually moving.

True, no particular models have to be coherent at any particular stage, but, coherency has to remain a possibility, or you have made an illegal move.

Lets say I have a coherent unit of 4 models.
I want to move 1 6" to the "north", 1 to the south and so on east and west.
If I do this, the unit will end up out of coherency = illegal move.
But at what point did it become illegal?

Remember, that you must move them in order to form a chain.
Checking that you have done this at the end is a mere formality, proof that you have done what was asked of you.

But, the point in question.
I have argued this one time after time and never ended up at any sort of satisfactory conclusion.

Dukal - all the way through the rules it is voluntary joining and leaving. That gives you your context. You have no clue that suddenly THIS rule is a restriction on involuntary leaving and joining

fuusa wrote:But at what point did it become illegal?

At the end of the unit's movement, since the coherency rules only require the unit to be in coherency when it finishes its movement.

Remember, that you must move them in order to form a chain.

There is no such requirement in the coherency rules. You might be getting confused with the rules for moving assaulting models.

insaniak wrote:

fuusa wrote:Remember, that you must move them in order to form a chain.

There is no such requirement in the coherency rules. You might be getting confused with the rules for moving assaulting models.

Once the unit has finished moving, the models in it must form an imaginary chain ... p12, unit coherency.

So, if I cannot (or at least should not) check, as I am moving, to ensure I have the potential to maintain coherency, I finish moving my unit.
Then I check.
Whoops, that guys 1/2" out of coherency, now what?

I'm going to have to move it, because I must form an imaginary chain if I can.
That means I am moving models, after I have finished moving the unit, which I only found that I had to, after checking coherency, which according to some, can't be done at that point.

If I must form an imaginary chain, I have failed as soon as I move a model in such a way as to make that impossible.

i remember reading something about when a unit that an ic is in is destroyed he just carries on without them. im not sure where... but i remember it from something...maybe 4th ed... idk

fuusa wrote:So, if I cannot (or at least should not) check, as I am moving, to ensure I have the potential to maintain coherency, I finish moving my unit.
Then I check.
Whoops, that guys 1/2" out of coherency, now what?

The world implodes.


In general practice, yes, you need to check the distance between your models as you move, as their is no mechanic provided for correcting the problem if you only discover that they are out of coherency when they finish moving.

But the unit is not actually considered to have broken coherency until[i/] they finish moving. As you move each model, you don't have to place each model within 2" of another. It's perfectly acceptable to move one model, move another model to a point 6" away, and then move other models into the gap in between. The sole requirement is that the unit [i]ends its movement in coherency.

Which means that having an IC out of coherency with the unit doesn't actually mean anything until the unit finishes moving. Until that point, the IC is not out of coherency, because coherency isn't checked (rules-wise) until the end of the movement.

Wow this thread got confused for no apparent reason.

1) The Warboss has to take a Leadership test. He and Snikrot's Kommandos formed a unit and they took 25% casualties.

2) The next turn, if the Warboss failed his Leadership test, he can attempt to regroup. The unit of Snikrot's Kommandos are destroyed and do not exist. To argue otherwise is just dumb.

For an IC to be in coherency with a unit, he'd have to be within 2" of a model in that unit. All the other models are gone, so he's no longer part of the unit. You still take the leadership test because of the way the rules are written. How did this get to two (EDIT: three) pages?

cowmonaut wrote:Wow this thread got confused for no apparent reason.

1) The Warboss has to take a Leadership test. He and Snikrot's Kommandos formed a unit and they took 25% casualties.

2) The next turn, if the Warboss failed his Leadership test, he can attempt to regroup. The unit of Snikrot's Kommandos are destroyed and do not exist. To argue otherwise is just dumb.

For an IC to be in coherency with a unit, he'd have to be within 2" of a model in that unit. All the other models are gone, so he's no longer part of the unit. You still take the leadership test because of the way the rules are written. How did this get to two (EDIT: three) pages?

You're partially correct. The Warboss has to take a morale test (due to loss of 25% models) At the beginning of the Warboss's next movement phase, assuming, he isn't fearless (no codex on hand, but I'm fairly certain he is), he would fall back 2d6". At the end of the movement phase you check to see if he is joined to a unit, and find he is not. At the beginning of his next movement phase, he can attempt to regroup.

cowmonaut wrote: How did this get to two (EDIT: three) pages?

Because the rules for ICs joining and leaving units are not written particularly clearly, and there is some disagreement as to just when the IC is considered to have left the now-nonexistant unit.

It's just one of those odd timing-due-to-unexpected-rules-interactions- issues. It may seem clear to you... but it seems just as clear to those arguig that the IC has to wait until the end of the movement phase to be considered separate from the unit. Hence the multi-page discussion.

As the person who started this thread, I really appreciate insaniak pointing that the rules really are poorly worded, and can be read a number of different ways. It all really depends on whether you read the rules strictly as RAW, or rather you infer certain things based on context (which is probably the fairer way to do things). I would like to thank everyone for contributing to a very interesting discussion. Nos in particular, who I have gone back and forth with a bit, you have had some well-thought out arguments, even if we don't agree on the context, or lack thereof, in the rules. Sorry if I seemed a bit stubborn or somesuch, I appreciate everyone's time and patience. Thanks.

What the debate comes down to, and why it has run for 3 pages is, whether the requirement to be in coherency at the end of the movement phase is a narrowly defined permission of when to measure OR a required outcome.

One camp says you can ONLY measure at the point in which a requirement must be met the other camps says you can measure at any time to ensure the outcome is met.

My thought is that the silly situations that arrive if you don't measure through out a turn is a clear indication that restricting the permission to measure until all is said and done is an indication that the rules shouldn' t be interpreted that way.

Magpie wrote:One camp says you can ONLY measure at the point in which a requirement must be met the other camps says you can measure at any time to ensure the outcome is met.

That's not actually the issue at all. From memory, you're the only one insisting that this particular aspect of the rules is unclear.


The issue is simply whether or not the IC is considered to have left the unit at the start of the turn. The strict RAW seems to indicate that he has not, since he can only have left the unit after movement has been completed. The opposing argument is simply that he cant be considered to be still joined to a unit that no longer exists.

Exactly when you choose to measure coherency has no real bearing on that argument.

insaniak wrote:Exactly when you choose to measure coherency has no real bearing on that argument.

nosferatu1001 wrote:You still havent addressed the point that coherency is ONLY checked after you have finished moving. Its in the definition of coherency. Thus given you "leave" by moving out of coherency, and coherncy is only checked when you finish moving....theres really only one conclusion you can make by actually following the rules.

rigeld2 wrote:How can you know you have left coherency without measuring?

nosferatu1001 wrote:Explain how you are leaving coherency without measuring to ensure you HAVE left coherency.

Dukal wrote:Either there is something I am not getting, or this is really a relatively simple concept. You check whether your units are in coherency or not at the end of the movement phase. It doesn't matter if a unit leaves coherency at some point during the movement phase, because the movement of other models may then restore the coherency.

nosferatu1001 wrote:You check coherency at the end of a units move, not the start. He leaves the unit, therefore, at the end of his move.
Otherwise you are saying the Shrike jump is legal, which it isnt

You think ? The argument here is that the IC is considered a part of the unit up to the point where a measurement can be taken to determine that he is or isn't in coherency.
Which some say can't happen until the end of the turn, others do not.

Sure. But the rules are clear that this happens at the end of the unit's movement.

So the only part of the rules that is actually unclear here is whether or not you are expected to consider the IC to still be in coherency with a unit that no longer exists.

Magpie - because that is when you check coherency. At the end of a units movement.

To say you can check coherency when you want, you are allowing the Shrike jump

I do not agree that it is clear and will remain unconvinced until such time as GW says you cannot measure coherency at anytime before the end of a unit's move.

I'd even go so far as to say you are compelled to measure for coherency though out the move so as to avoid illegal situations at the end. We've still not covered what happens if you check coherency at the end of the move and the unit is incoherent, I'd be interested to know what would then happen.

Using a cheesy move that someone has thought up because they found a bit of a loop hole as being the reason I don't think follows, sure it is a case for requiring the measurement to be at the end but it is certainly not a proscriptive rule.

Perhaps if you can explain the Shrike jump?

Shrike Jump:
Unit that Shrike is with moves 6" forward (without Shrike)
Shrike is no longer in coherency with unit.
Shrike (jump infantry) jumps forward ("moves") 2" in front of the unit he was just with. The owning player claims that he is again attached to the unit as he is in coherency, thus allowing Shrike and hius unit to make 2 different length moves.

Edit: Someone else can probably explain it better.

Ok fair enough that is not legal because a unit cannot leave an IC the IC has to leave the unit so it isn't an issue.
Perhaps this is why units cannot leave IC's

Measuring coherency through out the move is not going to change that

Happyjew wrote:Shrike Jump:
Unit that Shrike is with moves 6" forward (without Shrike)
Shrike is no longer in coherency with unit.
Shrike (jump infantry) jumps forward ("moves") 2" in front of the unit he was just with. The owning player claims that he is again attached to the unit as he is in coherency, thus allowing Shrike and hius unit to make 2 different length moves.

Edit: Someone else can probably explain it better.

You claimed he wasn't in coherency, which can only be determined after you moved the entire unit.

you then proceeded to move another model in the unit, contradicting just that.

Let me rephrase it.
Shrike plus unit of non JI.
Shrike "jumps" forward 8" (open to debate, due to whether or not an IC leaving a unit can move faster than the slowest model of the unit. This is not the point).
Rest of the unit moves up 6"
Shrike is now rejoined to the unit due to the fact he is 2" away and thus in coherency.

@Disarray, assuming for the moment that a unit can leave the IC (already being argued elsewhere, I think). After the unit moves without Shrike, and he is no longer in coherency, you can claim that he is his own unit again and can still move. Shrike then moves as he hasn't moved yet, moving to the front of the unit. As he is now in coherency with the unit (again) he joins the unit and gets them that much closer to being able to assault.

Even if Shrike's movment like that would be allowed (which it wouldn't) he still never 're-joined' that unit, because he never left. You don't determine whether something is out of coherency until the entire unit moves, otherwise when I move 1 dude 6" forward, he's "out of coherency with his unit" and then "rejoins it" when I move the next guy 6" up ?


Also, quite related to the topic, I had another thread discussing something similar http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/356748.page

Magpie wrote:I do not agree that it is clear and will remain unconvinced until such time as GW says you cannot measure coherency at anytime before the end of a unit's move.

Despite the rule telling you that is when you check? The reuqirement is you check coherency at the end of movement. You can only measure when told you can. You cannot measure coherency during a move, as you are only allowed to check at the end

It is clear, once you actually read and read and read what coherency is telling you.

@Disarray, I never said the move legal (in fact it isn't for a number of reasons). Magpie had asked about the 'Shrike Jump' which is what I was explaining. If you only check coherency at the end of the phase (as RAW) then the Shrike Jump becomes impossible. If you claim you check coherency as you move models, the Shrike Jump becomes slightly more possible.

Magpie wrote:I do not agree that it is clear and will remain unconvinced until such time as GW says you cannot measure coherency at anytime before the end of a unit's move.

The point is that it doesn't matter if you measure coherency during the unit's move. Measure it whenever you like... but the unit isn't actually considered to be in or out of coherency until they have finished their movement. Because that's the point that the coherency rules tell you to check it.

We've still not covered what happens if you check coherency at the end of the move and the unit is incoherent, I'd be interested to know what would then happen.

Yes, actually, we have.

Not sure why you would want to do that.

But OK I can see how the rules might be read to allow that, but not really tho'. I see the rule as saying the IC joins the unit at the end of their movement phase, i.e. after the unit has moved, or if they haven't moved they can no longer move.

I'd also say that if it is part of the unit at the start of the phase and part of a unit at the end of a phase then it was part of a unit through out the phase.

That still has no bearing on the being able to check coherency at any time for what ever reason.

Magpie wrote:I see the rule as saying the IC joins the unit at the end of their movement phase, i.e. after the unit has moved, or if they haven't moved they can no longer move.

And the reason it happens at the end of the movement phase is because that's when you check coherency.

So why would you think it works any differently for the IC leaving the unit?

Because the bullet point rules says

"An independent character can leave a unit during the Movement phase by moving out of coherency distance with it"

"During" not "at the end" and not "coherency" as an overall state of the unit but "coherency distance." as a specific relationship between the IC and the unit.

During encompasses the end....

Coherency distance does not mean what you just said it means. Coherency or COherency distance would mean the same here

But end does not encompass during.

" Coherency or COherency distance would mean the same here"

Not true, a unit is in coherency if all of it's models are in coherency distance, the two are quite different. You check coherency by measuring coherency distance.

Magpie wrote:Not true, a unit is in coherency if all of it's models are in coherency distance, the two are quite different. You check coherency by measuring coherency distance.

And when do you do that?

Go have another look at the Coherency rules on page 12. In particular, the second half of the first paragraph. The bit that starts with 'So, once a unit has finished moving...'


That is the bit that tells us how unit coherency applies to movement. There is no rule that says that coherency is considered at any other point in the unit's movement. You do not consider a model to be out of coherency while the unit is still moving, because the coherency rules don't tell you to do so. They simply ask that once the unit has finished moving you confirm coherency.

So when your IC moves away in the movement phase, you can move him in whatever direction you want, and he won't be considered to be out of coherency until the unit has finished moving... because that's when you determine that the unit is in coherency. You can measure all you want at any other time. You can determine, before the rest of the unit moves, that the IC is now 6" away from the unit... but that won't actually mean anything until the unit has finished moving.

But the rule for the IC leaving does not require the IC to "be out of coherency" merely "by moving out of coherency distance with it"

" There is no rule that says that coherency is considered at any other point in the unit's movement. "

The rules of regrouping require you to consider if the unit is in coherency before you move.
You must be coherent when you disembark
IC's getting out of vehicle don't remain part of the unit "both unit and characters can disembark together and in coherency, but then the characters can leave the unit as they move, as normal."
Enemy models are moved during tank shock but must be placed back in coherency.

You also consider coherency throughout the assault phase.

Magpie wrote:But the rule for the IC leaving does not require the IC to "be out of coherency" merely "by moving out of coherency distance with it"

In order for the IC to have moved out of coherency distance, it would have to be out of coherency. Otherwise it hasn't moved out of coherency distance.

The rules of regrouping require you to consider if the unit is in coherency before you move.

They require you to determine if the unit is in coherency before you regroup. Not during the unit's move.

You must be coherent when you disembark

Which, again, has no effect on coherency while the unit is moving.

IC's getting out of vehicle don't remain part of the unit "both unit and characters can disembark together and in coherency, but then the characters can leave the unit as they move, as normal."

As above.

Enemy models are moved during tank shock but must be placed back in coherency.

Not sure how you think that goes against what I've been arguing, to be honest.

You also consider coherency throughout the assault phase.

Which doesn't happen during the unit's movement.

The simple fact is that there is no rules mechanic whereby a model is considered to be out of coherency with his unit while that unit is in the middle of its movement. The act of moving the IC away from the unit doesn't cause him to leave the unit the moment he is more than 2" away from the unit, because he's not out of coherency yet... because the unit is still moving.

He's not out of coherency until you have to actually decide whether or not the unit is in coherency. Which is after the unit finishes their movement.
So he hasn't moved out of coherency until that point. Because you can't claim that he has moved out of coherency until he is actually determined to be out of coherency.

No

You made the statement " There is no rule that says that coherency is considered at any other point in the unit's movement. "

I have just shown there are several.

Additionally are you suggesting that an IC that disembarks with a unit is considered part of that unit through out the movement phase?
because the line : "but then the characters can leave the unit as they move, as normal." pretty much wraps up this entire debate for me.

Magpie wrote:No

You made the statement " There is no rule that says that coherency is considered at any other point in the unit's movement. "

I have just shown there are several.

You made a bunch of statements that have nothing to do with measuring coherency during a unit's movement.

Magpie wrote:Additionally are you suggesting that an IC that disembarks with a unit is considered part of that unit through out the movement phase?
because the line : "but then the characters can leave the unit as they move, as normal." pretty much wraps up this entire debate for me.

An IC that disembarks with a unit is placed with the unit, and is then free to move off, just as he would be if the unit had started the turn on the table. Disembarking doesn't change the process for the IC leaving the unit. He leaves the unit by moving out of coherency with it.

insaniak wrote:In general practice, yes, you need to check the distance between your models as you move, as their is no mechanic provided for correcting the problem if you only discover that they are out of coherency when they finish moving.

Its quite a loop then, as you "must" form the chain.
The chain "must" be formed before it is checked but according to you, there is no way to be sure of this or correct it if its wrong.
If you can't correct it, then you have failed the requirement to remain coherent which you "must" do.

insaniak wrote:But the unit is not actually considered to have broken coherency until[i/] they finish moving. As you move each model, you don't have to place each model within 2" of another. It's perfectly acceptable to move one model, move another model to a point 6" away, and then move other models into the gap in between. The sole requirement is that the unit [i]ends its movement in coherency.

Of course, I'm not saying otherwise.

What I am saying, is that there is no prohibition on measuring distances between models as you move them, none at all.
There is no requirement, to have any distance relationship between any particular models, as you move them, until the point where coherency becomes compromised.

For eg, the middle diagram on p12.
Lets say, I have moved the marines into the box-shape, but have yet to move the sergeant, who is 6" away, off the diagram.
The front 2 marines are 2.0001" away from the rear ones.

At this point, the unit is neither coherent, nor out of coherency ("My unit is incoherent!"), but, there is nothing that prevents me from measuring what is where.

This circumstance, makes it clear, that the only place I can put the sergeant, is where it is in the diagram, in order to be coherent.
This is not something I can do, if I want, I must.

insaniak wrote:Which means that having an IC out of coherency with the unit doesn't actually mean anything until the unit finishes moving. Until that point, the IC is not out of coherency, because coherency isn't checked (rules-wise) until the end of the movement.

If that's true, the ic cannot leave the unit at all.
Only the ic can move in such a way as to purposefully break coherency.
If the ic moved off 6" thataway, the rest of the unit, would be compelled to follow as it must remain coherent.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Despite the rule telling you that is when you check? The reuqirement is you check coherency at the end of movement. You can only measure when told you can. You cannot measure coherency during a move, as you are only allowed to check at the end.

The rule only tells you what you must accomplish, not when the only time you may check is.

insaniak wrote:

Magpie wrote:No

You made the statement " There is no rule that says that coherency is considered at any other point in the unit's movement. "

I have just shown there are several.

You made a bunch of statements that have nothing to do with measuring coherency during a unit's movement.

Magpie wrote:Additionally are you suggesting that an IC that disembarks with a unit is considered part of that unit through out the movement phase?
because the line : "but then the characters can leave the unit as they move, as normal." pretty much wraps up this entire debate for me.

An IC that disembarks with a unit is placed with the unit, and is then free to move off, just as he would be if the unit had started the turn on the table. Disembarking doesn't change the process for the IC leaving the unit. He leaves the unit by moving out of coherency with it.

Ok not statements a direct quote Page 46
"A unit falling back can attempt to regroup by taking a Regroup test in the Movement phase just before they move. This is a special type of Leadership test, which falling back units cannot attempt if any of the following conditions apply:
• The unit is below half strength.
• There are enemies within 6".
• The unit is not in coherency."

Just as you must measure the 6" to the enemy , the coherency status of the unit must be determined at the start of their movement phase, which is a rule that considers coherency at a point other than the end of the movement phase. It clearly shows that there is nothing that restricts measuring coherency to the end of the movement phase. If a rule requires it you can measure it at other times, at the beginning for Regroup and "during" for IC's leaving.

As I said before " can leave the unit as they move, as normal" is a clear statement that the IC leaves the unit "as they move" not after they move but AS they move.

As fuusa says the requirement to be in coherency at the end of the move is a requirement not a prohibition, the rule for units made incoherent by misfortunes points you to that as well, they are required to re-cohere ASAP and the only way to know if their proposed move is legal is to measure the coherency so they'll know were to go.

Magpie wrote: the rule for units made incoherent by misfortunes points you to that as well, they are required to re-cohere ASAP and the only way to know if their proposed move is legal is to measure the coherency so they'll know were to go.

Exactly, its daft.

Say I have a unit of marines, mauled by shooting.
Casualties leave me unsure if I am still in coherency, I'm not sure I should even look at them, as that may constitute "checking" them.

I want to stay stationary to shoot back, but I don't even know if I'm allowed to.

fuusa wrote:Its quite a loop then, as you "must" form the chain.
The chain "must" be formed before it is checked but according to you, there is no way to be sure of this or correct it if its wrong.
If you can't correct it, then you have failed the requirement to remain coherent which you "must" do.

I'm a little lost as to the point you're making here.

You have to make sure that your models are in coherency, yes. But you don't have to move each model so that it is always in coherency with others. You just have to ensure that coherency is there when the unit has finished moving.

What I am saying, is that there is no prohibition on measuring distances between models as you move them, none at all.

No, there's not. There's also no specific permission to do so, though.

Technically, you're not given permission to check coherency until the unit finishes moving. It's simply an accepted convention that you'll need to measure the distance between models as you move the unit in order for the game not to break when you finish moving and discover that the unit isn't actually in coherency.

For eg, the middle diagram on p12.
Lets say, I have moved the marines into the box-shape, but have yet to move the sergeant, who is 6" away, off the diagram.
The front 2 marines are 2.0001" away from the rear ones.

At this point, the unit is neither coherent, nor out of coherency ("My unit is incoherent!"), but, there is nothing that prevents me from measuring what is where.

This circumstance, makes it clear, that the only place I can put the sergeant, is where it is in the diagram, in order to be coherent.
This is not something I can do, if I want, I must.

This is more or less correct, yes, with the disclaimer as per the whole 'permission to measure' thing.

If that's true, the ic cannot leave the unit at all.
Only the ic can move in such a way as to purposefully break coherency.
If the ic moved off 6" thataway, the rest of the unit, would be compelled to follow as it must remain coherent.

The ability for the IC to leave the unit is a specific permission granted by the IC rules. You move the unit. When you check coherency at the end of their movement, if the IC is found to be more than 2" away he has left the unit.

It's the idea that coherency applies as the unit moves that would cause issues with the IC leaving the unit, and would require the unit to follow him if he tries to move away.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Magpie wrote:Just as you must measure the 6" to the enemy , the coherency status of the unit must be determined at the start of their movement phase, which is a rule that considers coherency at a point other than the end of the movement phase.

But which still has nothing to do with measuring coherency during the unit's movement, which has been your claim all the way through this thread. Nitpicking at one imprecise statement of mine doesn't change the fact that your entire argument (that coherency can be determined in the middle of the unit's movement) is not actually based on any existing rules.

The fact that the rules require to to sometimes check coherency before the unit moves does not mean that you can check coherency whenever you please.

insaniak wrote:The fact that the rules require to to sometimes check coherency before the unit moves does not mean that you can check coherency whenever you please.

I'm not saying you can measure it when you please I am saying you can measure it when the IC leaves the unit because the rules require you too as the permission is granted by the rule that states "the IC leaves the unit by moving out of coherency distance with it".

How is that not a permission ?

Magpie wrote:I'm not saying you can measure it when you please I am saying you can measure it when the IC leaves the unit because the rules require you too as the permission is granted by the rule that states "the IC leaves the unit by moving out of coherency distance with it".

How is that not a permission ?

It's a permission. It's just not a permission to do what you think it is permitting.

Because regardless of when you choose to measure the distance between models, the unit is not out of coherency until it has finished moving. Moving the IC away from the unit and immediately declaring him out of coherency means nothing, because he can't actually be out of coherency until the unit has finished moving... because that's when coherency is determined for a unit that is moving.

He doesn't have to be incoherent he just has to be outside coherency distance.

I don't see how that is any different to being 2" from a door way when you disembark and coherent or any of the vast range of situations where you have to measure throughout the movement phase.

Saying that there is no permission to measure but you have to measure coherency through out the move because otherwise you can end up incoherent and if you do there is no way to deal with it really doesn't make any sense to me.

Measure as you go = illegal situation avoided
Measure ONLY at the end = chaos

Magpie wrote:He doesn't have to be incoherent he just has to be outside coherency distance.

So, if you move him last, he has left the unit the moment the last squad member moves more than 2" away from him?

Being outside coherency distance during the unit's movement does not cause him to be out of coherency.

Saying that there is no permission to measure but you have to measure coherency through out the move because otherwise you can end up incoherent and if you do there is no way to deal with it really doesn't make any sense to me.

The permission to measure is a side issue. Yes, there is technically no permission to measure as you move. It's one of those things that we just have to assume, because otherwise the game breaks.

The whole point is simply that regardless of when you measure, coherency (or lack thereof) is not actually established until the end of the unit's movement. You can measure all you want while they move... but this measurement is purely for reference, to make sure that the game isn't going to break the moment the unit stops moving. You don't move one model, spot that it is now 6" away from its nearest squad-mate, and as such determine that the unit is now out of coherency... coherency doesn't apply while the unit is moving, just when they stop.

insaniak wrote:

Magpie wrote:He doesn't have to be incoherent he just has to be outside coherency distance.

So, if you move him last, he has left the unit the moment the last squad member moves more than 2" away from him?

Being outside coherency distance during the unit's movement does not cause him to be out of coherency.

Saying that there is no permission to measure but you have to measure coherency through out the move because otherwise you can end up incoherent and if you do there is no way to deal with it really doesn't make any sense to me.

The permission to measure is a side issue. Yes, there is technically no permission to measure as you move. It's one of those things that we just have to assume, because otherwise the game breaks.

The whole point is simply that regardless of when you measure, coherency (or lack thereof) is not actually established until the end of the unit's movement. You can measure all you want while they move... but this measurement is purely for reference, to make sure that the game isn't going to break the moment the unit stops moving. You don't move one model, spot that it is now 6" away from its nearest squad-mate, and as such determine that the unit is now out of coherency... coherency doesn't apply while the unit is moving, just when they stop.

If he stands there while the squad moves away it is quite clear he cannot leave the unit because he has to leave the unit cannot leave him. He has to do the moving to leave and he does so by moving out side the coherency distance of a unit that has not yet moved.

So we have to assume we can measure in the movement phase otherwise the game breaks? How does this not completely overturn the assumption that you cannot measure until the end of the turn?
"The rule says this but we actually have to do this" to me means that the interpretation of the rule is incorrect.

LOL, so we have to assume we can measure in the movement phase otherwise the game breaks?
How is an IC running about being a part of something that no longer exists not broken?

Magpie wrote:So we have to assume we can measure in the movement phase otherwise the game breaks? How does this not completely overturn the assumption that you cannot measure until the end of the turn?

You've apparently completely misinterpreted my point.

Whether or not you measure during the unit's movement makes no difference to when you determine if they are actually in coherency.


We assume that we have to measure as they move because that's the only way for the coherency rules as written to work. But that measurement during movement doesn't determine whether or not the unit is in coherency... it's purely for reference, so that we know that the unit will be in coherency when the rules call for them to be.

"The rule says this but we actually have to do this" to me means that the interpretation of the rule is incorrect.

In this particular case, what it actually means is simply that the rule is badly written. That happens from time to time.

How is an IC running about being a part of something that no longer exists not broken?

It's not broken, but it is a little silly. Which is why I pointed out some time ago that I don't agree with that interpretation.

So how do we resolve the disembarking situation?

"When the unit disembarks, each model is deployed within 2" of one of the vehicle’s access points, and within unit coherency."

I'm not seeing the problem. You disembark them within coherency. Then you move them if you choose, and if they are able.

That's a specific situation in which you are told to check coherency.

So why is the specific situation of an IC leaving coherency held over to the end then ?

How is the requirement to disembark within coherency different to moving out of coherency distance ?

Magpie wrote:So why is the specific situation of an IC leaving coherency held over to the end then ?

Because you don't determine if the unit is in coherency while it is moving... You can't, because the unit has to break coherency to move more than 2" at a time.

How is the requirement to disembark within coherency different to moving out of coherency distance ?

It's not. In both cases, you are given specific times to determine if the unit is in coherency. For disembarking, you have to place the models in coherency outside the vehicle. For movement, you have to place the models so that when the unit has finished moving the models are all in coherency.



Edit: Note that under your interpretation that you determine coherency during the action, and you apply that equally to disembarking, then it would actually be impossible to ever disembark units with more than one model unless you can put them all on the table at exactly the same time. The moment you place your first model, he is not in coherency with the rest of the unit.

for the movement of a unit yes it has to end in coherency but the IC dosn't have to end it's move out of coherency to have left, it simply has to move out of the coherency distance.

Given that the unit hasn't moved yet the coherency status of the unit isn't an issue, it is the relationship of the IC to the unit.

Magpie wrote:... it simply has to move out of the coherency distance.

...which it hasn't done until it comes time to determine coherency. Which is at the end of the unit's movement.

To clarify here a little: you can (or at least the general convention is that you can...) measure for coherency at any point in the unit's movement. You have to, or the game breaks.

But you don't determine coherency until the rules tell you to. Which is after the unit's movement has finished.


So you can measure that the IC is more then 2" away from the unit whenever you please. But he hasn't left the unit until the unit finishes moving.

Given that the unit hasn't moved yet the coherency status of the unit isn't an issue, it is the relationship of the IC to the unit.

The IC is a part of the unit until he leaves it. So the coherency status of the unit most definitely is the issue.

No the rule quite clearly says he leaves by moving outside coherency distance without qualification.

Yes, that's what the rules says.

It doesn't mean what you think it means.


But I think I've explained why about as many different ways as I can, so I'm about done here.

It doesn't mean what you think it means so, yeh I guess we are.

No Magpie, you are ignoring when you check coherency (at the end of a units move) and trying to claim youy can check it during the units move

One has support in the rules, one doesnt. Yours is the latter.

In your view, which I respect if not accept.

It's just we cannot see how you can parse an explicit defined period when you check coherency as being anything but that explicit defined period.

That is the problem, you'd need to work on it a bit to see it from my view point I guess.

All the units models will technically leave unit coherency and rejoin it every time you move them. They are not actually considered in or out of coherency untill you are done moving them though.

I'm of the camp that says the IC is no longer a part of the unit as soon as they are removed form the board. The only way you can choose for him to leave a unit is to move him out of coherency during movement but if the unit has been wiped out he can never perform this action.

Bear in mind that if you consider him a part of the unit after they have been removed he can never leave them and will be considered as that unit the rest of the game. You cannot, after all, move out of coherency with a unit which only has one model.

Except he isnt "that unit", he is the IC unit seeing if he is within 2" of a non-IC unit, which you certainly can measure.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Except he isnt "that unit", he is the IC unit seeing if he is within 2" of a non-IC unit, which you certainly can measure.

You are saying he is still a part of the unit and can't leave it until his movement phase but the rule your referring to says he must move out of coherency with the unit and as he is the only member of that unit left this cannot happen. A unit consisting of one model cannot move out of coherency. This would create absurd scenarios where he cannot join a unit becase he can't leave his current one. If he falls back he'll never regroup because his units at less than half strength. Actually his unit size is zero because he does not count toward unit size... ect.

That is also only a rule for how he may leave a unit. Once the unit has suffered 100% casualties I'd say they have been seperated without choice.

I'm very confused about some of the shenanigans in this thread, so if for no other reason, I'm going to participate just to figure out what is going on. To do this I will demonstrate how I've been playing a specific scenario in my games.


Scenario 1:

Abaddon the Despoiler, a Fearless IC, is attached to a unit of Chaos Terminators, non-fearless elites.

They suffer wounds equal to or greater than 25% of the unit, counting Abaddon as a member of the unit for this purpose.

They must take a leadership test at the end of the phase. If they fail, they fall back. Providing that this is in the Shooting phase or they are not destroyed in a Sweeping Advance in CC, they move 2d6" towards my table edge.

If the squad is less than half strength, NOT counting Abaddon for this purpose, the unit may no longer rally and continues falling back at the beginning of my next turn. (Also applies if enemy models are found to be within 6" when I attempt to rally, even if above 50%).

If any single model's base would contact my table edge, the unit is immediately removed, including Abaddon. They also count as destroyed at the end of the game even if they are still on the table.



Scenario 2:

The above steps are repeated except that every Terminator in the unit is destroyed and only Abaddon remains. When wounds and saves are complete and either combat resolution or the normal period for a morale test arrives, the only remaining unit is Abaddon, who is Fearless, and as such cannot flee from wounds suffered in the shooting phase and is forced to take additional armor saves if the enemy won close combat.

Abandon - he is a member of the unit until you determine if he is out of coherency with the unit he joined. As per the rules for an IC.

You determine coherency AFTER moving, not before.

insaniak wrote:You have to make sure that your models are in coherency, yes. But you don't have to move each model so that it is always in coherency with others. You just have to ensure that coherency is there when the unit has finished moving.

It sounds like I need to clarify.

It is not necessary to keep any particular models in coherency as they move.
Back to the middle diagram on p12.

I move the tac marines into the box formation, they are all more than 2" apart. No problem.
When it comes to moving the sergeant, the only place he can go, is in the centre. If he does go there, the unit will have finished moving and the unit will be in coherency = fine.

This ^ may be obvious to the eye, it may not, it requires checking.
In the book, where does it specifically mention that this should be checked? It doesn't.
Even though it is obvious that it needs to be checked, it doesn't ask you to, it just tells you what you must do.
It doesn't ask you to check, so it certainly doesn't limit you to checking at the end, but the burden of proof, lies in the checking.
That's what it is, proof that you have obeyed the rule.

When I decide to move the sergeant, in order to know where I must place it, because there is only 1 place he can go (give or take a few mm), I have to check.
This may be by sight or measuring, if its unclear.

Just by looking and deciding that is true, I have checked and conformed to the rule.
Coherency doesn't have to be a line that is drawn through the models as you move, but, it is an overriding concern as you move them, because you cannot, that is cannot, move a unit, in such a way, that it is out of coherency at the end of its movement.
Rather, you must move the models in such a way, as to make it possible, even if its the last model that moves that proves it, to form a coherent unit.

Tac squad, unsure if its coherent at the start of its movement phase. Can I justify not moving it so I can fire over 24"?

fuusa wrote:In the book, where does it specifically mention that this should be checked?

Page 12. Once a unit has finished moving.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Abandon - he is a member of the unit until you determine if he is out of coherency with the unit he joined. As per the rules for an IC.

You determine coherency AFTER moving, not before.

He would not be out of coherency with the unit at that time as he is the only member of the unit left. A model cannot be out of coherency with itself.

The IC rules you are referring to only specify a means to voluntarily leave a unit which they cannot preform after the rest of the unit has been wiped out.

Youre again ignoring the rules for ICs, whereby they check to see if they are in coherency with the unit they joined. He is a "normal member" of the unit he joined, but that doesnt override the IC rules for joining and leaving.

You are never in coherency with yourself, that is a chronic misreading of the coherency rules - which specify a chain between members of a unit. Coherency is not relevant for single model units.

kirsanth wrote:

fuusa wrote:In the book, where does it specifically mention that this should be checked?

Page 12. Once a unit has finished moving.

That's not true.

No-where does it tell you to check, that's an assumption on our part and a quite necessary one, since in order to comply you have to.
But, it simply does not tell you when you can or cant.
To suggest you can only check after the fact and not while on-going, is an invention.

There is no choice in the matter, when you move a unit, it must end its move coherent.
There is no wiggle room to allow you to move in whichever manner you wish and to end up out of coherency, wether by accident or design.
You must be coherent.

If I am to move a unit, I am under an absolute demand for accurracy.
I am not told I cannot check this accurracy while I am moving, just that I must achieve it by the end.

By checking if my unit is capable of remaining coherent by the end and, please note, that does not mean maintaining coherency as I move each model, but, that I have not, or am not about to render the imperative impossible, I am not breaking any rules.

What I am doing, is ensuring I am obeying, that is, in the process of obeying, the rules set down, because each model I move, may be the one that first makes coherency impossible to achieve.
If I must attain coherency (I must, no choice), by placing any one model, in a position, that makes it subsequently impossible to do what I must, I am clearly doing something I musn't.

On p3, measuring distances, it states that generally you are not allowed to measure "except where the rules call for it."
If I must end up in coherency then I must ensure that I don't end up out of coherency, therefore, I must check to prevent me from performing an illegal move, which may be at one of the many steps in moving the models within a unit.

Can't check, becomes must check the process, not only the result.

fuusa wrote:That's not true.

No-where does it tell you to check, that's an assumption on our part and a quite necessary one, since in order to comply you have to.
But, it simply does not tell you when you can or cant.
To suggest you can only check after the fact and not while on-going, is an invention.

You are told when a measurement needs to be done, since you are given a distance and an exact time that distance needs to be correct.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Youre again ignoring the rules for ICs, whereby they check to see if they are in coherency with the unit they joined. He is a "normal member" of the unit he joined, but that doesnt override the IC rules for joining and leaving.

You are never in coherency with yourself, that is a chronic misreading of the coherency rules - which specify a chain between members of a unit. Coherency is not relevant for single model units.

And you are ignoring the fact that a unit of one model can never move out of coherency per the very IC rule you say I'm ignoring which states:

"An independent character can leave a unit during the Movement phase by moving out of coherency distance with it."

So tell me, how is the IC to perform this action while it cannot move in or out of coherency?

RAW if the squad is killed the IC can never actually leave it, since he can't move away from it if it's not there?
Seems implicit to me that if the squad is wiped out the IC is on his own.

Abandon wrote:So tell me, how is the IC to perform this action while it cannot move in or out of coherency?

IC moves.
Now, measure coherency to the unit it was with to determine if it's still a member of that unit.
There is no unit within 2".
The IC is now on his own.

rigeld2 wrote:

Abandon wrote:So tell me, how is the IC to perform this action while it cannot move in or out of coherency?

IC moves.
Now, measure coherency to the unit it was with to determine if it's still a member of that unit.
There is no unit within 2".
The IC is now on his own.

No. You said he's still a member of the unit until you move him out of coherency with it. In that case he'd be the only member of that unit and cannot be found to be out of coherency with it. Can a unit with one model move out of coherency? No.

"An independent character can leave a unit during the Movement phase by moving out of coherency distance with it." <--This rule does not serve the purpose you seem to think it does regarding this situation.

Would it still be an IC? Yes.
Would it ever be allowed to leave the unit? No.
Would this be absurd? Yes.
Does Abandon agree with Joey? Yes.

Abandon wrote:No. You said he's still a member of the unit until you move him out of coherency with it. In that case he'd be the only member of that unit and cannot be found to be out of coherency with it. Can a unit with one model move out of coherency? No.

Correct - he cannot be out of coherency with himself.

Your interpretation of that sentence means that an IC can *never* leave a unit, regardless of how big it currently is. You aren't measuring coherency to the IC - you cannot.
You are measuring coherency to his "home" unit - the home unit is not within 2", therefore he has left the unit.

"An independent character can leave a unit during the Movement phase by moving out of coherency distance with it." <--This rule does not serve the purpose you seem to think it does regarding this situation.

Lets look at this.

I have an IC.
I've moved.
I measure coherency distance.
I am not within 2" of the unit.
I have left the unit.

What part of those 5 steps are you saying is incorrect?

Would it still be an IC? Yes.
Would it ever be allowed to leave any unit regardless of casualties? No.
Would this be absurd? Yes.
Does Abandon agree with Joey? Yes.

Are they both wrong? Yes. BTW, I fixed that for you. Your interpretation means that you always include the IC in the measurement, which means it's not possible, ever, to leave the unit.

Abandon - youre ignoring page 12. Again. And again, and again.

Coherency is IRRELEVANT for single model units. It does not apply. Please, actually read some rules before replying again, espeically after rigeld has already schooled you.

Or an i now biased against ICs as well?

nosferatu1001 wrote:Coherency is IRRELEVANT for single model units. It does not apply.

Then why are you demanding that people measure coherency for a single model unit?

You can't have it both ways.

Can we stick to the original question?

In the shooting phase.
An IC is in coherrency with a 5 man unit.
The 5 man unit is shot and killed.

Does the IC take a moral check for the unit taking 25% casualties?

No. What nobody has mentioned yet: The unit has left the IC. It actually has left the game too. It's dead and gone.

The IC is no longer part of a unit. The IC didn't leave. The unit left.

Does the IC fall back now for it's unit being below 50%?

No. The IC is no longer part of that unit. That unit left the game.

The unit takes moral checks, and any joined IC's are effected too. The unit falls back after losing models, the IC falls back with the unit is has joined. If the unit is gone and dead, the IC is no longer effected by conditions that are caused to the unit.

Nemesor Dave wrote:Does the IC take a moral check for the unit taking 25% casualties?

No. What nobody has mentioned yet: The unit has left the IC. It actually has left the game too. It's dead and gone.

The unit is gone now, yes. But the IC was a part of the unit when it was shot. Therefore, the IC a part of a unit that took 25% casualties that phase... and so takes a morale test.

The morale test for casualties is taken for actions that occurred in the preceding phase. So the fact that the unit is gone does not preclude survivors taking a morale test. By your logic, a unit would never take a morale test for casualties, as the 'dead' squad members have left the game and so are no longer counted as a part of the unit...

Does the IC fall back now for it's unit being below 50%?

No. The IC is no longer part of that unit. That unit left the game.

He will fall back if he fails his morale test. He simply won't be restricted by being unable to rally, as he is no longer joined to the unit that is no longer on the table.

insaniak wrote:

Nemesor Dave wrote:Does the IC take a moral check for the unit taking 25% casualties?

No. What nobody has mentioned yet: The unit has left the IC. It actually has left the game too. It's dead and gone.

The unit is gone now, yes. But the IC was a part of the unit when it was shot. Therefore, the IC a part of a unit that took 25% casualties that phase... and so takes a morale test.

The unit is dead, so it no longer has to take a moral test. Dead units don't take moral tests. The IC is no longer part of the unit the moment the last model from the unit has been removed.

insaniak wrote:

The morale test for casualties is taken for actions that occurred in the preceding phase. So the fact that the unit is gone does not preclude survivors taking a morale test. By your logic, a unit would never take a morale test for casualties, as the 'dead' squad members have left the game and so are no longer counted as a part of the unit...

Moral test is based on the original size of the unit, so your argument is invalid.

Dead units also do not fall back. The IC is not required to fall back. The second the unit is gone, the IC ceases to be effected by it.

Nemesor Dave wrote:The unit is dead, so it no longer has to take a moral test. Dead units don't take moral tests. The IC is no longer part of the unit the moment the last model from the unit has been removed.

At the time it took the casualties, the IC was a part of the unit. The IC was therefore a part of a unit that took 25% casualties... which is the trigger for a morale test.

Moral test is based on the original size of the unit,...

Which is exactly my point.

Nemesor Dave wrote:The IC is no longer part of the unit the moment the last model from the unit has been removed.

Citation please. IC's only have permission to leave units at the end of the movement phase.

rigeld2 wrote:

Nemesor Dave wrote:The IC is no longer part of the unit the moment the last model from the unit has been removed.

Citation please. IC's only have permission to leave units at the end of the movement phase.

The IC did not leave the unit. The unit left the game, and therefore left the IC.

Yes, units are allowed to leave IC's by dying.

Nemesor Dave wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Nemesor Dave wrote:The IC is no longer part of the unit the moment the last model from the unit has been removed.

Citation please. IC's only have permission to leave units at the end of the movement phase.

The IC did not leave the unit. The unit left the game, and therefore left the IC.

Yes, units are allowed to leave IC's by dying.

Please clarify - are you arguing RAW or RAI?

The IC is a normal member of the unit until he leaves the unit.
The unit, except for the IC, is destroyed.
The IC has to make a morale check.

The IC only moves first when assaulting otherwise he just moves with the unit.

insaniak wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Coherency is IRRELEVANT for single model units. It does not apply.

Then why are you demanding that people measure coherency for a single model unit?

You can't have it both ways.

I'm not, if you would read a little closer.

I am demanding that you measure coherency to the now-dead unit. Which you can only do at the *end* of the movement phase.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

White Ninja wrote:The IC only moves first when assaulting otherwise he just moves with the unit.

The exact opposite is true when it comes to ICs and assaults. The IC only moves first when assaulting IF and ONLY IF he is the closest model. He ALWAYS moves first during defenders react and pile in moves

White Ninja wrote:The IC only moves first when assaulting otherwise he just moves with the unit.

He doesn't even move first while assaulting.

I'm pretty sure it's only Pile-In, but I can't find the rules quote atm.

rigeld2 wrote:

Nemesor Dave wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Nemesor Dave wrote:The IC is no longer part of the unit the moment the last model from the unit has been removed.

Citation please. IC's only have permission to leave units at the end of the movement phase.

The IC did not leave the unit. The unit left the game, and therefore left the IC.

Yes, units are allowed to leave IC's by dying.

Please clarify - are you arguing RAW or RAI?

The IC is a normal member of the unit until he leaves the unit.
The unit, except for the IC, is destroyed.
The IC has to make a morale check.

I would call this more a question of simple math and logic.

Your first statement is incorrect.

"The IC is a normal member of the unit until he leaves the unit." is wrong. The unit may leave the IC by dying. The IC is not in coherency with a dead unit. The IC may not leave the unit. The unit however may die and leave the IC.

I have an IC which is effected by the unit is has joined. Now I subtract the unit.
IC is not part of a dead unit. The IC is out of coherency.
The dead unit does not take moral checks or fall back.

Another example:
An IC that is not fearless and is part of a fearless unit so it gain's the fearless rule.
That unit is destroyed in the shooting phase and then the IC is assualted.
Is the IC fearless?
Absolutely no. The unit granting fearless to the IC is dead.

No, you have a failure in reading rules. Again.

Please find a rule saying the unit can leave the IC. It isnt on page 48, unless *at best* you believe the shaky vice versa line.

Meaning your entire argument fails from the get go

Nemesor Dave wrote:Your first statement is incorrect.

"The IC is a normal member of the unit until he leaves the unit." is wrong. The unit may leave the IC by dying. The IC is not in coherency with a dead unit. The IC may not leave the unit. The unit however may die and leave the IC.

Citation needed. Also, please answer RAW vs RAI.

rigeld2 wrote:

Nemesor Dave wrote:Your first statement is incorrect.

"The IC is a normal member of the unit until he leaves the unit." is wrong. The unit may leave the IC by dying. The IC is not in coherency with a dead unit. The IC may not leave the unit. The unit however may die and leave the IC.

Citation needed. Also, please answer RAW vs RAI.

The same rule that says a character that has gained the fearless USR by joining a unit with fearless, loses fearless when it leaves the unit.

The same rule that says a wrecked tank may not shoot.

We can agree the IC may join or leave a unit under certain conditions. If the unit has been removed from play, the IC did neither and those rules don't apply. The unit is gone!

p.44 BRB "A unit losing 25%..." The unit is dead. Show me where you roll morale checks for dead units.

Nemesor Dave wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Nemesor Dave wrote:Your first statement is incorrect.

"The IC is a normal member of the unit until he leaves the unit." is wrong. The unit may leave the IC by dying. The IC is not in coherency with a dead unit. The IC may not leave the unit. The unit however may die and leave the IC.

Citation needed. Also, please answer RAW vs RAI.

The same rule that says a character that has gained the fearless USR by joining a unit with fearless, loses fearless when it leaves the unit.

The same rule that says a wrecked tank may not shoot.

We can agree the IC may join or leave a unit under certain conditions. If the unit has been removed from play, the IC did neither and those rules don't apply. The unit is gone!

p.44 BRB "A unit losing 25%..." The unit is dead. Show me where you roll morale checks for dead units.

I still have no idea if you're arguing RAW or RAI.

None of the rules you quoted say that a unit may leave an IC.

The IC is a normal member of the unit.
The unit gets shot and suffers losses.
The unit must take a morale save.
The unit fails this morale save.
The unit falls back.
Find a rule that contradicts any of the last 5 lines.

rigeld2 wrote:

Nemesor Dave wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Nemesor Dave wrote:Your first statement is incorrect.

"The IC is a normal member of the unit until he leaves the unit." is wrong. The unit may leave the IC by dying. The IC is not in coherency with a dead unit. The IC may not leave the unit. The unit however may die and leave the IC.

Citation needed. Also, please answer RAW vs RAI.

The same rule that says a character that has gained the fearless USR by joining a unit with fearless, loses fearless when it leaves the unit.

The same rule that says a wrecked tank may not shoot.

We can agree the IC may join or leave a unit under certain conditions. If the unit has been removed from play, the IC did neither and those rules don't apply. The unit is gone!

p.44 BRB "A unit losing 25%..." The unit is dead. Show me where you roll morale checks for dead units.

I still have no idea if you're arguing RAW or RAI.

None of the rules you quoted say that a unit may leave an IC.

The IC is a normal member of the unit.
The unit gets shot and suffers losses.
The unit must take a morale save.
The unit fails this morale save.
The unit falls back.
Find a rule that contradicts any of the last 5 lines.

An IC is never a normal member of a unit. The rules still address the IC and the unit separately. The unit and the IC are still two separate entities. The IC may not leave the unit if the unit is falling back. You see? Two things, remove one. That leaves the IC alone, not in a unit.

When the unit is dead, the IC is not in a unit anymore.

Nemesor Dave wrote:
An IC is never a normal member of a unit.

Page 49 BRB wrote:Once all attacks have been resolved, these
characters are once again treated as normal members
of the unit they have joined (from determining assault
results onwards).

Emphasis mine.

The IC is a normal member of the unit.
The unit gets shot and suffers losses and is wiped out.
The unit must take a morale save. No, the unit is dead.
The unit fails this morale save. No, the unit is dead.
The unit falls back. No, the unit is dead.
Find a rule that contradicts any of the last 5 lines.

Nemesor Dave wrote:The IC is a normal member of the unit.
The unit gets shot and suffers losses and is wiped out.
The unit must take a morale save. No, the unit is dead.
The unit fails this morale save. No, the unit is dead.
The unit falls back. No, the unit is dead.
Find a rule that contradicts any of the last 5 lines.

So you've accepted that you were wrong about him not being a normal member of the unit - good.
If the unit is wiped out, the IC is also dead as he's a normal member of the unit.
If everyone but the IC is dead, the unit is still alive and has taken significant casualties - so must take a morale test.
The unit (again - consisting of the IC that is a normal member of the unit) fails this morale test with a boxcars.
Every member of the unit (in case you haven't been keeping track, that includes the IC) falls back.

rigeld2 wrote:

Nemesor Dave wrote:
An IC is never a normal member of a unit.

Page 49 BRB wrote:Once all attacks have been resolved, these
characters are once again treated as normal members
of the unit they have joined (from determining assault
results onwards).

Emphasis mine.

You're ignoring context. You cannot take a single sentence outside the context that it is used. This sentence is referring attacking and allocating wounds. It is not saying that an IC is exactly the same as any other member of the unit in every possible way.

The extreme you're taking this to is outside the realm of common interpretation of the language and ignoring all logic. This is not what following RAW means.

1) The unit is dead.
2) the IC did not leave the unit.
3) The dead unit does not make any morale checks.

The IC no longer benefits from the unit it was part of and no longer is penalized by the unit it was part of.

What? Youre the one ignoring the perfectly clear rules - the IC is a NORMAL MEMBER of the unit. It has precisely *nothing* to do with allocating wounds - youre just making things up at this point.

Find a rule that allows the unit to leave the unit, or concede.

Nemesor Dave wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Nemesor Dave wrote:
An IC is never a normal member of a unit.

Page 49 BRB wrote:Once all attacks have been resolved, these
characters are once again treated as normal members
of the unit they have joined (from determining assault
results onwards).

Emphasis mine.

You're ignoring context. You cannot take a single sentence outside the context that it is used. This sentence is referring attacking and allocating wounds. It is not saying that an IC is exactly the same as any other member of the unit in every possible way.

The extreme you're taking this to is outside the realm of common interpretation of the language and ignoring all logic. This is not what following RAW means.

1) The unit is dead.
2) the IC did not leave the unit.
3) The dead unit does not make any morale checks.

The IC no longer benefits from the unit it was part of and no longer is penalized by the unit it was part of.

Independent characters that have
joined a unit are considered part of that unit and so
may not be picked out as targets.

Part of that unit.

Page 49 BRB wrote:Once all attacks have been resolved, these
characters are once again treated as normal members
of the unit they have joined (from determining assault
results onwards).

"Once again" treated as normal members of the unit - meaning they must have been treated that way before, then changed for handling assault, and once again are treated that way.
The words "with" and "joined" are used quite often.

You still have zero rules basis for your assertion that the IC is now alone, despite being prevented from leaving a unit outside the Movement phase.

BRB Page 48 wrote:An independent character may not join or leave a
unit during the Shooting and Assault phases –
once shots are fired or assaults are launched it is
too late to join in or duck out!

nosferatu1001 wrote:What? Youre the one ignoring the perfectly clear rules - the IC is a NORMAL MEMBER of the unit. It has precisely *nothing* to do with allocating wounds - youre just making things up at this point.

Find a rule that allows the unit to leave the unit, or concede.

Find a rule that says a IC is still part of a dead unit or concede.

How about a little reality.

On the table in front of you I have an captain and a 5 man unit of scouts. They are in a unit together in coherrency.

Now take away the 5 man unit and tell me what is left.

The IC is left. The unit is gone.

Now tell me what unit on the table, is the IC part of?

Nemesor Dave wrote:How about a little reality.

How about you decide if you're arguing RAW or RAI?

Nemesor Dave wrote:Now tell me what unit on the table, is the IC part of?

Depends on context - did the scout unit move away and disappear, or were they shot off the table?
Since the IC can only leave the unit during the Movement phase...

rigeld2 wrote:

Nemesor Dave wrote:Now tell me what unit on the table, is the IC part of?

Depends on context - did the scout unit move away and disappear, or were they shot off the table?
Since the IC can only leave the unit during the Movement phase...

There are not scouts on the table. There are no scouts left. The lone IC is not part of the scouts unit any more.

Nemesor Dave wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Nemesor Dave wrote:Now tell me what unit on the table, is the IC part of?

Depends on context - did the scout unit move away and disappear, or were they shot off the table?
Since the IC can only leave the unit during the Movement phase...

There are not scouts on the table. There are no scouts left. The lone IC is not part of the scouts unit any more.

So you're contriving a scenario outside the rules to make someone give you the answer you want so you can jump out from the side and say "AH HA!"

Yeah, no. Not a successful method of debating.

Nemesor Dave wrote:
Find a rule that says a IC is still part of a dead unit or concede.

The rule saying an IC only leaves a unit by moving out of coherency with it, and that there are no rules saying the unit can leave the IC. Oh wait, your false dichotomy is wrong, again. Surprise.

So, found the rule allowing the unit to leave the IC?

Thought you hadnt - just you, making up rules, again.

Nemesor Dave wrote:
Now take away the 5 man unit and tell me what is left.

The IC is left. The unit is gone.

Now tell me what unit on the table, is the IC part of?

How did the unit leave? They dont have any rules allowing THEM to leave, so what happened?

Your attempts at making up rules are so incredibly transparent.

Nemesor Dave wrote:Find a rule that says a IC is still part of a dead unit or concede.

It's not an issue of the IC still being part of the dead unit. It's the fact that the IC's unit took casualties.

The fact that the squad is now dead doesn't change that. At the time the wounds were inflicted, the IC was a part of the unit. So the unit that the IC was a part of took 25% casualties that phase... so whatever remains of that unit (a unit made up of the squad and the IC) must take a morale test.


I agree that from the next phase onwards the IC is no longer joined to the squad, because the squad no longer exists... But for the purposes of resolving things that happened to the IC while he was joined to the squad, they were a single unit.

Hey uh, nos and rigeld, I found where it says a unit can leave an IC. However it is circumstantial. The only possible way is if the unit and IC are embarked on a vehicle. Then the unit can leave, while the IC stays on boarb (Page 67).

Okay so there are no rules that pertain to this situation that allow the IC to leave, and especially not outside the movement phase.

rigeld2 wrote:

Abandon wrote:No. You said he's still a member of the unit until you move him out of coherency with it. In that case he'd be the only member of that unit and cannot be found to be out of coherency with it. Can a unit with one model move out of coherency? No.

Correct - he cannot be out of coherency with himself.

Your interpretation of that sentence means that an IC can *never* leave a unit, regardless of how big it currently is. You aren't measuring coherency to the IC - you cannot.
You are measuring coherency to his "home" unit - the home unit is not within 2", therefore he has left the unit.

"An independent character can leave a unit during the Movement phase by moving out of coherency distance with it." <--This rule does not serve the purpose you seem to think it does regarding this situation.

Wrong again.
If there is more than one model in the unit the IC can move out of coherency per the IC rule for leaving units. There being more than one model allows for the rules for coherency to apply at all and makes moving out of it a legal action. Coherency does not apply to a unit with only one model and you are therefore not permitted to measure for coherency.

rigeld2 wrote: I have an IC.
I've moved.
I measure coherency distance.
I am not within 2" of the unit.
I have left the unit.

What part of those 5 steps are you saying is incorrect?

You went wrong at the third line when you measured coherency for a one model unit.
The fourth line is false by your own ideas as the IC would still be a 'normal member' of the unit. Still your illegally measuring coherency on a one model unit.
Line 5 would then also be incorrect.

You must measure coherency for an IC to make sure you're still in the unit.

How is step 3 wrong? If you don't measure coherency, how do you know when the IC is no longer in coherency with the unit?

rigeld2 wrote:Okay so there are no rules that pertain to this situation that allow the IC to leave, and especially not outside the movement phase.

This is correct. There are actually no rules in the RAW allowing an IC to leave a unit of which it is the only member. Of course the idea that it would still be a member of a unit it joined when the rest of the unit has been wiped out is also absurd.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:You must measure coherency for an IC to make sure you're still in the unit.

This would be correct if it were not the only one left.

Happyjew wrote:How is step 3 wrong? If you don't measure coherency, how do you know when the IC is no longer in coherency with the unit?

A unit with one model cannot be measured to be either in or out of coherency. That is the point. Without other members of the unit being in play it can never be determined that the ' IC is no longer in coherency with the unit'.

Happyjew wrote:How is step 3 wrong? If you don't measure coherency, how do you know when the IC is no longer in coherency with the unit?

The unit being dead would normally be a clue.

insaniak wrote:

Happyjew wrote:How is step 3 wrong? If you don't measure coherency, how do you know when the IC is no longer in coherency with the unit?

The unit being dead would normally be a clue.

Agreed

Abandon wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:Okay so there are no rules that pertain to this situation that allow the IC to leave, and especially not outside the movement phase.

This is correct. There are actually no rules in the RAW allowing an IC to leave a unit of which it is the only member. Of course the idea that it would still be a member of a unit it joined when the rest of the unit has been wiped out is also absurd.

Actually, my wording was incorrect - There are no rules that pertain to this situation that allow the unit to leave the IC, so the IC is still a member of the unit.
He can absolutely leave the unit - at the end of the movement phase.

rigeld2 wrote:You must measure coherency for an IC to make sure you're still in the unit.

This w=ould be correct if it were not the only one left.

Cite the exception in the rules please.

Happyjew wrote:How is step 3 wrong? If you don't measure coherency, how do you know when the IC is no longer in coherency with the unit?

A unit with one model cannot be measured to be either in or out of coherency. That is the point. Without other members of the unit being in play it can never be determined that the ' IC is no longer in coherency with the unit'.

That's not true.
The IC rules say that you are automatically a member of any unit within 2", and that if you move out of coherency of a unit you are no longer a member of that unit.
The IC falls back.
The IC is not within 2" of any unit.
The IC is now not a member of any unit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

insaniak wrote:

Happyjew wrote:How is step 3 wrong? If you don't measure coherency, how do you know when the IC is no longer in coherency with the unit?

The unit being dead would normally be a clue.

Could you cite the rule that allows that to happen?
Because I don't think there is one. Therefore the IC falls back during movement, you check to see if he's within 2" of any unit, he isn't, he's by himself and can therefore regroup/stop falling back.

He's still a part of the unit until the end of the next movement phase because there is no permission to measure coherency or check his status until then.

Instead of discussing how the rules should be (because I agree - a dead unit should not penalize the IC) discuss the rules as they are written. Or, as the tenets of the forum require, please make it clear that you're discussing RAI or HYWPI... because I've asked for that clarification multiple times (not from insaniak) and gotten no response, so I must assume you're attempting to discuss RAW. Without citing any rules.

I've cited rules backing up my portion. Please do me the courtesy of doing the same.

rigeld2 wrote:He's still a part of the unit until the end of the next movement phase because there is no permission to measure coherency or check his status until then.

Doesn't the rule on Page 46 in regards of the pre-requisites for Regrouping at the start of the movement phase, not give you permission to A. Measure to enemy units and B.Measure to check coherency?

Good question. I'll check my rule book in the morning.

rigeld2 wrote:Could you cite the rule that allows that to happen?
Because I don't think there is one. Therefore the IC falls back during movement, you check to see if he's within 2" of any unit, he isn't, he's by himself and can therefore regroup/stop falling back.

To be honest, I don't think the rules adequately cover either interpretation.

Yes, there is no rule that says that the IC ceases to be considered to be joined to the squad when the squad is no longer on the table... But similarly, the rules don't give a way to judge coherency in a unit that no longer has more than one model, because it's not normally necessay.

So as far as I can determine from the existing rules, either the squad is dead, in which case the IC reverts to being a unit of 1... or the IC is still considered joined to a unit that is no longer there, and at the start of his movement is therefore required to move to regain coherency with that unit and continue to fall back. In that latter case, he will never be able to rally, and will never be able to leave the unit. He can't leave the unit at the end of the movement phase by being out of coherency with them, because the rules forbid ICs from leaving units that are falling back,.

Either of those interpretations is equally valid given the rules as they currently stand... so I'm personally inclined to stick with the one that makes more sense. Which is to assume that if the squad is no longer on the table, the IC can't be still joined to it.

rigeld2 wrote:You must measure coherency for an IC to make sure you're still in the unit.

Ok, then, how about this ...

I pick a unit to move, unit + ic is chosen.
Ic moves away 6".
The ic is still part of the unit at this point and is a normal member of it.
What can I do with the rest of the unit?

"So, once a unit has finished moving, the models in it must form an imaginary line ... coherency."

The ic that moved away is still part of the unit, he can't leave it until the entire unit finishes its movement, that's the only point you can measure and prove he has left, so the other models in the unit must form the chain with it.
= ic's stuck forever.

rigeld2 wrote:Good question. I'll check my rule book in the morning.

He has made that point before.
Also, I asked something along similar lines, that was left unanswered, so if you wouldn't mind.

I have a unit, mauled by shooting, I do not know if they are in coherency or not or perhaps it is obvious they are not.
Can I justify leaving them stationary to shoot over 24"?
+
What does "lose unit coherency" mean?

fuusa wrote:I have a unit, mauled by shooting, I do not know if they are in coherency or not or perhaps it is obvious they are not.
Can I justify leaving them stationary to shoot over 24"?
+
What does "lose unit coherency" mean?

Kinda touched on that one before too I think

insaniak wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:Could you cite the rule that allows that to happen?
Because I don't think there is one. Therefore the IC falls back during movement, you check to see if he's within 2" of any unit, he isn't, he's by himself and can therefore regroup/stop falling back.

To be honest, I don't think the rules adequately cover either interpretation.

Yes, there is no rule that says that the IC ceases to be considered to be joined to the squad when the squad is no longer on the table... But similarly, the rules don't give a way to judge coherency in a unit that no longer has more than one model, because it's not normally necessay.

So as far as I can determine from the existing rules, either the squad is dead, in which case the IC reverts to being a unit of 1... or the IC is still considered joined to a unit that is no longer there, and at the start of his movement is therefore required to move to regain coherency with that unit and continue to fall back. In that latter case, he will never be able to rally, and will never be able to leave the unit. He can't leave the unit at the end of the movement phase by being out of coherency with them, because the rules forbid ICs from leaving units that are falling back,.

Either of those interpretations is equally valid given the rules as they currently stand... so I'm personally inclined to stick with the one that makes more sense. Which is to assume that if the squad is no longer on the table, the IC can't be still joined to it.

Well said.

The mistake that is being made here is "the IC leaving the unit" keeps being mentioned. In no way are we talking about an IC leaving the unit. Those rules simply do not apply.
The unit ceases to exist therefore the IC cannot be part of it at that very moment.

No rule says that out of two, if you remove one, the one remaining is the only one left because it is that obvious and simple logic.

The same thing happens in assualt when a non-fearless IC is joined to a fearless squad. Lets say at I4 the squad is wiped out. At I3,I2,I1 and for combat resolution, the IC is no longer fearless! There is no fearless unit for him to be a part of.

fuusa - except the IC does have permission to leave the unit. He is the only one who CAN break coherency with a unit, as he has express permission to do so. So he moves away, you move the rest of the unit, measure coherency, find out he is more than 2" away - boom, he has left the unit

Really not tricky, and follows the rules exactly

Abandon - again, you are ignoring the rules which determine if an IC has left a unit; you measure to OTHER members of the unit (because coherency is irrelevant, as in DOES NOT APPLY, to single models) - find there arent any, and boom, the IC has left.


You keep claiming that a model is always in coherency with itself - which STILL ignores the rules for coherency. A model is NEVER in coherency with itself,because coherency only applies *between* models, as per the rules on page 12.

There's only so many ways to prove you are wrong

nosferatu1001 wrote:

You keep claiming that a model is always in coherency with itself - which STILL ignores the rules for coherency. A model is NEVER in coherency with itself,because coherency only applies *between* models, as per the rules on page 12.

There's only so many ways to prove you are wrong

If it's how you say it is, lets say the IC + 1remaing model is falling back and that last model from the unit dies. In the following turn, the IC cannot leave the unit so continues to fall back. The unit is below 50% so it can never rally.

I only need one way to prove your entire point wrong. All the rules you are quoting don't apply. Put away your tape measure, there is no measuring coherency because anyone can tell you by looking at the table the IC is left and the unit is gone.

It's this simple:
Is the IC still part of a unit that has been destroyed? No.

Nemesor Dave wrote:[If it's how you say it is, lets say the IC + 1remaing model is falling back and that last model from the unit dies. In the following turn, the IC cannot leave the unit so continues to fall back. The unit is below 50% so it can never rally.

Shock, youre still wrong.

You are now, deliberately I assume, misinterpreting a very clear position and just making yet more rules up.

A falling back IC falls back then, at the end of movement checks to see if they are in coherency with a member of the unit they joined. Shockingly enough, when you try to measure 2" to the nearest member of that unit, as the coherency rules require, you find the IC ISNT a member of the unit any longer, because they are outside of 2" of the nearest member of the unit. As such they have left the unit, and NEXT TURN can rally.

There's only so many ways to explain a concept

Nemesor Dave wrote:I only need one way to prove your entire point wrong. All the rules you are quoting don't apply.

Ah, so youre going to prove me wrong by making rules up? Brilliant bit of arguing there, A+

Nemesor Dave wrote: Put away your tape measure, there is no measuring coherency because anyone can tell you by looking at the table the IC is left and the unit is gone.

So you are free to ignore the ruels on page 48 then? How are you free to do so? Where is your RULE telling you this? Or are you now arguing "HWYPI" and, again in contrary to the rules of the forum you are posting in you are not clearly denoting this in your post

So which is it - are you posting HYWPI or are you making up rules?

Nemesor Dave wrote:It's this simple:
Is the IC still part of a unit that has been destroyed? No. at the end of the movement phase, as the rules for ICs leaving untis tells you, as I have been unable to find a rule allowing the unit to leave the IC that isnt disembarking a vehicle, despite repeated requests to find something, anything written that supports my position

FTFY (my additions in bold)

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Nemesor Dave wrote:[If it's how you say it is, lets say the IC + 1remaing model is falling back and that last model from the unit dies. In the following turn, the IC cannot leave the unit so continues to fall back. The unit is below 50% so it can never rally.

Shock, youre still wrong.

You are now, deliberately I assume, misinterpreting a very clear position and just making yet more rules up.

A falling back IC falls back then, at the end of movement checks to see if they are in coherency with a member of the unit they joined. Shockingly enough, when you try to measure 2" to the nearest member of that unit, as the coherency rules require, you find the IC ISNT a member of the unit any longer, because they are outside of 2" of the nearest member of the unit. As such they have left the unit, and NEXT TURN can rally.

There's only so many ways to explain a concept

An IC may not leave a falling back unit. If the IC is falling back because it is part of a non-existent unit, it still may not leave that non-existent unit. Your explanation still fails.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Nemesor Dave wrote:It's this simple:
Is the IC still part of a unit that has been destroyed? No. at the end of the movement phase, as the rules for ICs leaving untis tells you, as I have been unable to find a rule allowing the unit to leave the IC that isnt disembarking a vehicle, despite repeated requests to find something, anything written that supports my position

FTFY (my additions in bold)

I would really hope the mods of this board do not support quoting someone and then changing the text that they wrote to misrepresent their opinion. I did not write the above, don't put my name on it.

DO NOT WRITE A COMMENT AND PUT IT AS A QUOTE FROM ME.

Nemesor Dave wrote:would really hope the mods of this board do not support quoting someone and then changing the text that they wrote to misrepresent their opinion. I did not write the above, don't put my name on it.

Posters do this quite a bit, especially when someone posts wrong information. If I were to post that a rule can be found on the top of page 75 right hand column, when it's on the left, the next person should post either a correction, or quote me and make the necessary changes. Granted, however, I think nos went a little overboard on his reply.

Nemesor Dave wrote:An IC may not voluntarily leave a falling back unit. If the IC is falling back because it is part of a non-existent unit, it still may not leave that non-existent unit. Your explanation still fails.

Oh, and fixed that for you. If the IC cannot involuntarily leave a unit that is falling back, a memeber of the unit would have to stay alive, granting you an unkillable model.

Nemesor - an IC may not voluntarily leave. If he is not allowed to leave, period, then you are not allowed to kill the last member of a unit + IC that is locked in combat.

I did not alter your words at all - I clearly marked my additions to your incorrect statement, pointing out that the conclusion reached is only valid at a specific point in time. If you havea huge issue with it, the report button is there for a reason

Magpie wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:He's still a part of the unit until the end of the next movement phase because there is no permission to measure coherency or check his status until then.

Doesn't the rule on Page 46 in regards of the pre-requisites for Regrouping at the start of the movement phase, not give you permission to A. Measure to enemy units and B.Measure to check coherency?

Yes, you're allowed to measure to enemy units and measure coherency.
There's no permission to change an IC's status at this stage.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

insaniak wrote:So as far as I can determine from the existing rules, either the squad is dead, in which case the IC reverts to being a unit of 1... or the IC is still considered joined to a unit that is no longer there, and at the start of his movement is therefore required to move to regain coherency with that unit and continue to fall back. In that latter case, he will never be able to rally, and will never be able to leave the unit. He can't leave the unit at the end of the movement phase by being out of coherency with them, because the rules forbid ICs from leaving units that are falling back

Actually, you're right - I misread the IC rule.

An independent character may not join or leave a
unit while either he or the unit is locked in combat
or falling back.

I withdraw my support from the position that the IC would be able to regroup. Which means that yes, the IC would be routed off the field imo.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

fuusa wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:Good question. I'll check my rule book in the morning.

He has made that point before.

I must've missed it before. Oops.

Also, I asked something along similar lines, that was left unanswered, so if you wouldn't mind.

I have a unit, mauled by shooting, I do not know if they are in coherency or not or perhaps it is obvious they are not.
Can I justify leaving them stationary to shoot over 24"?
+
What does "lose unit coherency" mean?

No, you can't justify that - it'd be an illegal move because you must end your move in coherency.
Coherency is defined pretty well in the rulebook.

nosferatu1001 wrote:fuusa - except the IC does have permission to leave the unit. He is the only one who CAN break coherency with a unit, as he has express permission to do so.

Ok, lets have a look at what you said there ...

the IC does have permission to leave the unit
= certainly correct.

He is the only one who CAN break coherency with a unit
= 100% agree, he is the ONLY one that can.

nosferatu1001 wrote:So he moves away, you move the rest of the unit, measure coherency, find out he is more than 2" away - boom, he has left the unit.

find out he is more than 2" away
= where we have major problems.

If we assume you cannot measure coherency at the start of a units move, or, that you are capable of forming a coherent unit at the end of its move as you go. Just measuring at the end.

I select, the ic + infantry unit to move.
the IC does have permission to leave the unit
Good, that's what I want to do.
So he moves away
I move him 6" away from the unit.

At this point, he is still a member of the unit, the unit is still moving, he has not left it, you cannot check yet (even though, if all remains as is, its obvious what will happen).
Is that ok so far???

you move the rest of the unit
What I would like to do, is leave the rest stationary, to fire over 24"/fire heavy weapons.
But ...

He is the only one who CAN break coherency with a unit
Which he hasn't done, because he is still part of the unit and you havent finished moving the unit, until you have moved everything that must, and so have conformed to the rules.

"So, once a unit has finished moving, the models in it must (snip) coherency."
If they are still a unit, until the end of their movement, they will be compelled to move in such a way as to remain coherent with all of their unit. The ic hasn't yet left.

The models in a unit must be coherent at the end of their move.
He is the only one who CAN break coherency with a unit

Its a bizarre loop and this is what allows it ...
find out he is more than 2" away

Nemesor Dave wrote:The mistake that is being made here is "the IC leaving the unit" keeps being mentioned. In no way are we talking about an IC leaving the unit. Those rules simply do not apply.
The unit ceases to exist therefore the IC cannot be part of it at that very moment.

So you're debating RAI? Then I agree with you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

fuusa wrote:
you move the rest of the unit
What I would like to do, is leave the rest stationary, to fire over 24"/fire heavy weapons.
But ...

He is the only one who CAN break coherency with a unit
Which he hasn't done, because he is still part of the unit and you havent finished moving the unit, until you have moved everything that must, and so have conformed to the rules.

Move the unit. Measure coherency to ensure it's a legal move.
You find out the IC is out of coherency with the rest of the unit.
Not an illegal move because the IC is allowed to leave coherency.

I'm not sure what loop you're pretending exists.

"So, once a unit has finished moving, the models in it must (snip) coherency."
If they are still a unit, until the end of their movement, they will be compelled to move in such a way as to remain coherent with all of their unit. The ic hasn't yet left.

The models in a unit must be coherent at the end of their move.
He is the only one who CAN break coherency with a unit

Its a bizarre loop and this is what allows it ...
find out he is more than 2" away

... Which happens at the end of the unit's movement when you ensure you're able to make a legal move.

Yep, there isnt an illegal move.

rigeld2 wrote:

Magpie wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:He's still a part of the unit until the end of the next movement phase because there is no permission to measure coherency or check his status until then.

Doesn't the rule on Page 46 in regards of the pre-requisites for Regrouping at the start of the movement phase, not give you permission to A. Measure to enemy units and B.Measure to check coherency?

Yes, you're allowed to measure to enemy units and measure coherency.
There's no permission to change an IC's status at this stage.

How do you figure that? When does the IC gain permission to change status?

I thought he fundamental principle being debated here is that the IC is considered part of the unit because we have no permission to measure the coherency to determine if he has left or not?

Because the rules for ICs, as you have been told many times now, tell you they leave a unit once out of coherency distance - and you only get to measure that distance at the end of the movement.

For the 90th time now.

Magpie wrote:I thought he fundamental principle being debated here is that the IC is considered part of the unit because we have no permission to measure the coherency to determine if he has left or not?

We have no permission during the shooting or assault phases to measure for coherency.

It's a moot point, however, because the IC cannot leave the unit that is falling back.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Because the rules for ICs, as you have been told many times now, tell you they leave a unit once out of coherency distance - and you only get to measure that distance at the end of the movement.

For the 90th time now.

And for the 91st time, Rigel himself has just said you can measure coherency at the start, for exactly the situation that the IC finds himself in, i.e. wanting to regroup after falling back.

Magpie wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Because the rules for ICs, as you have been told many times now, tell you they leave a unit once out of coherency distance - and you only get to measure that distance at the end of the movement.

For the 90th time now.

And for the 91st time, Rigel himself has just said you can measure coherency at the start, for exactly the situation that the IC finds himself in, i.e. wanting to regroup after falling back.

Yes. You can measure coherency. You leave a unit once out of coherency distance at the end of your move.
Not that it matters as the IC cannot leave the falling back unit.

Whatever guys

Magpie wrote:Whatever guys

Nice addition to the debate. Well said.

rigeld2 wrote:I'm not sure what loop you're pretending exists.

Pretending???

1. "An independent character can leave a unit during the movement phase by moving out of coherency distance with it."
VS.
2. "While an independent character is part of a unit, he must obey the usual coherency rules."

Normally (afaiac) there is no clash here, but when odd interpretations are added, it falls apart.

I believe that the notion that you can only measure (and in some cases, even prove) that a unit is coherent at the end of its move is dead. This does not mean, however, that you can prove coherency in any particular unit, as you go along.

As Magpie pointed out, just regrouping proves this. Therefore you can measure during the units move, that is, between selecting it and ending the entire units move.

If an ic, is part of a unit, until after that entire unit finishes moving, he is subject to the coherency laws until he has left. No?
If an ic is part of a unit, despite moving 6" away from the rest and you cannot prove that this is him having left the unit, that makes point 1 incorrect, or at least incomplete. No?
If only an ic can leave the unit, until he has left it, that other part of the unit must move in such a way as to form a coherent line. No?

By insisting that the ic cannot leave, by moving out of coherency (which he is allowed, specifically to do), you are making him obey coherency laws with the unit he is still part of.
By insisting that the ic is still a part of a unit, you are compelling that part of the unit to maintain coherency, because they have no choice.

By allowing that part of the unit, which must stay in coherency with the rest of its unit (when you choose to move it away) to move in such a way as to make it impossible to form a coherent unit, including ALL members of that unit (which the ic still is), you have ignored the rule that a unit must be coherent, after it finishes moving.

If, on the other hand ...

You can measure coherency before the end of the units movement, which has been proved to be the case, an ic can leave by moving out of coherency with the rest of the unit, exactly as it is written.
The rest of the erstwhile unit is free to act as it wishes. It can move away, it can even remain stationary.

No-problems there.
The problems occur when you make stuff up that isn't there, notably, that you can't check coherency during a move, only at the end.

The IC ceases to be part of the unit it has joined when the unit is wiped out.

This is not a matter of what does it say in the rules but of basic logic and simple math.

Can something still be part of something that ceases to exist? If I have two items and I take away one, are there still two items?

The IC is no longer part of the unit when the unit has been destroyed. When the last model from the unit has been removed, there is no unit.

To explain any further is to explain what "part of" means. Seriously claiming you need RAW to tell you that something must exist in the game for something else to be "a part of it" is absurd.

Wow this thread has really gone off the deep end.

You guys are still measuring coherency for a one model unit? This cannot be done as there are no other models to measure against.

"An independent character can leave a unit during the Movement phase by moving out of coherency distance with it"
He has left the unit when he 'moves out of coherency distance with it'. The rule does not say when he's 'found to be out of coherency'. He must move 2" away from the rest of the unit to leave it. Unfortunately if they have all been removed from the play area it is not possible to measure 2" or more to them as they no longer exist for all intents and purposes except scoring at the end. Not finding the rest of the unit within 2" and moving away 2" from the rest of the unit are not the same. As it cannot move away, it cannot then leave the unit. As written this rule does not allow an IC to leave a unit that has otherwise been wiped out.

"While an independent character is part of a unit, he must obey the usual coherency rules"
One model units have no rules regarding coherency.

"An independent character may not join or leave a unit during the Shooting and Assault phases"
Ok, cannot leave except during movement. Got it.

"An independent character may not join or leave a unit while either he or the unit is locked in combat or falling back"
Yes, if in this absurd state the IC is falling back it will never regroup.

Note: These rules are regarding when the IC will voluntarily be allowed to leave the unit. That is not to say it cannot be forced out of the unit. Much like an immobile unit cannot choose to move but can be forced to move via an enemy tank shock.

nosferatu- You keep saying I'm ignoring the rule on page 48... I've read them all several times... care to be more specific?



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Nemesor Dave wrote:The IC ceases to be part of the unit it has joined when the unit is wiped out.

This is not a matter of what does it say in the rules but of basic logic and simple math.

Can something still be part of something that ceases to exist? If I have two items and I take away one, are there still two items?

The IC is no longer part of the unit when the unit has been destroyed. When the last model from the unit has been removed, there is no unit.

To explain any further is to explain what "part of" means. Seriously claiming you need RAW to tell you that something must exist in the game for something else to be "a part of it" is absurd.

Agreed. The IC will stop being part of a unit when the rest of that unit was wiped. As we all know, things that are not on the battlefield or in reserve do not exist. Before you ask where it is permitted for the IC has left the unit or the unit to leave th IC, please tell us all where it says a IC can be part of a unit that does not exist.

Abandon - sorry, what?

Yes, you can measure 2" from the IC and find that there are no members of the unit within that distance. That is 100% possible. Try it for yourself - take a tape measure and see.

Now yu've understood that youre just talking literal nonsense, maybe you can get off this idea that an IC is always in coherency with the dead unit,? Because they arent. I can prove, with 100% certainty (heisenberg excepting) that there are or are not models within X" of another model. That is trivial.

So, you fall the IC back (because he IS a member of the unit until you are allowed to check if he isnt, and the unit IS falling back) and then check to see if he is stilla member of the unit - you find he isnt, so he reverts back to being a single model unit, as he has involuntarily left the unit (the rules only cover voluntary leaving and joining). This can then attempt to regroup on his next turn

(Now, if the proof was the other way arond - you have to prove that members of the unit are not within 2" of the IC - then you would be correct. You cannot measure 2"+ *starting from* a non existent point, for obvious reasons. Good job the rule doesnt actually ask this)

NEmesor - so, you still have no rules to back up your position, and continue to break the tenets of this forum by stating you are now in "HWYPI" mode.

Abandon wrote:You guys are still measuring coherency for a one model unit? This cannot be done as there are no other models to measure against.

That's not what we're doing. We're checking to see if anything is within coherency of the IC.

"An independent character can leave a unit during the Movement phase by moving out of coherency distance with it"
He has left the unit when he 'moves out of coherency distance with it'. The rule does not say when he's 'found to be out of coherency'. He must move 2" away from the rest of the unit to leave it. Unfortunately if they have all been removed from the play area it is not possible to measure 2" or more to them as they no longer exist for all intents and purposes except scoring at the end. Not finding the rest of the unit within 2" and moving away 2" from the rest of the unit are not the same. As it cannot move away, it cannot then leave the unit. As written this rule does not allow an IC to leave a unit that has otherwise been wiped out.

Not true. You measure coherency distance (which has been defined as 2"). Is there a unit in that distance? No? IC is on his own.

"While an independent character is part of a unit, he must obey the usual coherency rules"
One model units have no rules regarding coherency.

Correct. Irrelevant, but correct.

"An independent character may not join or leave a unit while either he or the unit is locked in combat or falling back"
Yes, if in this absurd state the IC is falling back it will never regroup.

Unless it becomes Fearless.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Yes, you can measure 2" from the IC and find that there are no members of the unit within that distance.

What happened to coherency not applying to single-model units...?

Insaniak - seriously?

You are required to determine if the IC is within 2" of a member of another unit. This is a check for coherency TO ANOTHER UNIT and is NOT the same as saying coherency applies for single models, which it doesnt. This is due to the special nature of the IC , and is not a general condition - which you are implying it is.

Otherwise how do you check to see if the IC is in coherency with another unit, given it is always a single model?

I am required to check to see if a member of a unit the IC can join, or was joined to, is within 2". This is not the same as attempting to claim, as Abandon does, that the IC is "in coherency" with himself, as he is a normal member of the unit. Because coherency does not apply to single models *in terms of determining if THEY are in coherency with their OWN unit*

nosferatu1001 wrote:Insaniak - seriously?

Absolutely seriously.

You are required to determine if the IC is within 2" of a member of another unit.

Which you can't do if the other unit is not on the table.

If I want to determine whether or not I am within a day's drive of the magical kingdom of Landover, how do I go about measuring that distance? The short answer is: I can't. I'm not 'over a day's drive from it'... the distance is simply unmeasurable, because the thing I am trying to measure to doesn't exist.

I can stretch as far as the idea that the IC remains 'joined' to the unit for the rest of the game, and so will just fall back without a chance to rally. In fact, if I remember correctly, that's exactly how it worked in 3rd edition.

I can allow that, regardless of what the rules appear to say about when ICs leave units, the IC is considered to be separate from the unit the moment the unit is destroyed.

But the idea that you have to go through the motions of measuring coherency to a unit that no longer exists... that way lies madness. Particularly when the people arguing in favour of that interpretation are also arguing that coherency doesn't apply to single model units.. which is exactly what the IC is from the moment the squad he is joined to is destroyed.


Either coherency applies to him until he leaves... in which case he can never leave, because you can't measure to models that are no longer on the board.
Or coherency doesn't apply to him, because he can't be joined to a unit that no longer exists.
Or coherency doesn't apply to him, in which case he can't leave the now removed unit and so is unable to rally.
Or coherency doesn't apply to him... because the unit he was in coherency with previously is no longer on the table.

Counting him as a part of the unit that isn't there until the end of the next movement phase is just crazy Whether or not you think it's what the rules require (and I don't) it would be a downright peculiar way to play.

You don't have to measure to the unit. The IC rules allow you to see if *any* unit is within 2". Since none would be, you've left every unit.

rigeld2 wrote:You don't have to measure to the unit. .

To leave them you do. The rules require you to move out of coherency with them. The only way to determine that you are out of coherency with them is to measure to them. You can't measure to something that isn't there... so either he can't leave, or we assume that in that situation he doesn't need to.

Well, he can't leave because the unit is falling back.
But since we know what the coherency distance is, if you measure (which you're permitted to do) and nothing is inside that distance...

rigeld2 wrote:But since we know what the coherency distance is, if you measure (which you're permitted to do) and nothing is inside that distance...

...then you haven't measured the distance to the unit, so have not determined how far away he is from them.

insaniak wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:But since we know what the coherency distance is, if you measure (which you're permitted to do) and nothing is inside that distance...

...then you haven't measured the distance to the unit, so have not determined how far away he is from them.

He's guaranteed to be outside coherency distance - which means he left coherency in his movement phase.
Not that he can leave anyway, but we'll pretend he's granted Fearless.

You're saying you cannot measure to see if you are more than 2" away from the unit?

I'm fairly certain I can do so. If I put a tape measure round in a 2" circle, and this does not intersect with any member of the unit, then I am not within 2" of a member of the unit and am thus out of coherency with them, by the definition of coherency. (you are allowed to check for there being no more than 2" of gap; allowing you to check to see if there is 2" of gap, meaning you can measure to empty space, not to a models base)

nosferatu1001 wrote:Abandon - sorry, what?

Yes, you can measure 2" from the IC and find that there are no members of the unit within that distance. That is 100% possible. Try it for yourself - take a tape measure and see.

Now yu've understood that youre just talking literal nonsense, maybe you can get off this idea that an IC is always in coherency with the dead unit,? Because they arent. I can prove, with 100% certainty (heisenberg excepting) that there are or are not models within X" of another model. That is trivial.

So, you fall the IC back (because he IS a member of the unit until you are allowed to check if he isnt, and the unit IS falling back) and then check to see if he is stilla member of the unit - you find he isnt, so he reverts back to being a single model unit, as he has involuntarily left the unit (the rules only cover voluntary leaving and joining). This can then attempt to regroup on his next turn

(Now, if the proof was the other way around - you have to prove that members of the unit are not within 2" of the IC - then you would be correct. You cannot measure 2"+ *starting from* a non existent point, for obvious reasons. Good job the rule doesn't actually ask this)

NEmesor - so, you still have no rules to back up your position, and continue to break the tenets of this forum by stating you are now in "HWYPI" mode.

To 'move out of coherency distance from the rest of the unit' the IC must first be within coherency distance and then leave it. As the rest of the unit does not exist, this is not possible. Proving the rest of the unit is not within 2" and taking the action of moving away 2" are not the same as I said. Tell me where it says 'if the IC is more than 2" away from..', oh wait, you can't because it says the IC can leave by 'moving out of coherency distance'. The RAW does not back your opinion.

You say he is treated like a normal member of the unit until the end of your movement phase. What is a 'normal' member of a unit containing only an IC treated like?

I'm also still waiting for you to tell me where in this permissive rule system is says an IC can be part of a unit that does not exist. Wait, you can't do that either since it's not there obviously. The IC in this case is part of and joined to nothing. Any special rules regarding the IC and the unit will be invalidated as soon as either one is removed from the battlefield.

Edit: You are not being asked to determine whether or not you are within a day's drive of the magical kingdom of Landover. You are actually asked to move a days drive or more away from it.

nosferatu1001 wrote:You're saying you cannot measure to see if you are more than 2" away from the unit?

Yes, I'm saying you can't measure how far away you are from something that doesn't exist.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Abandon wrote:Edit: You are not being asked to determine whether or not you are within a day's drive of the magical kingdom of Landover. You are actually asked to move a days drive or more away from it.

Which was pretty much my point, just slightly better expressed.

insaniak wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:You're saying you cannot measure to see if you are more than 2" away from the unit?

Yes, I'm saying you can't measure how far away you are from something that doesn't exist.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Abandon wrote:Edit: You are not being asked to determine whether or not you are within a day's drive of the magical kingdom of Landover. You are actually asked to move a days drive or more away from it.

Which was pretty much my point, just slightly better expressed.

I agree completely with this bit of common sense that is so lacking in some arguments here.

If I'm standing in a puddle and the water drains away, apparently if I can't measure my distance to the water then I'm still standing in a puddle.

Does this make any sense: We cannot tell if the character has left the unit until we measure. Because even though you can plainly see every model of the unit is gone and the character remains nobody knows for certain. We haven't measured at the end of the movement phase yet.

The IC's status of "joined to a unit" is granted by the other models in play that collectively are "a unit". When those models have been removed, show me RAW that say the IC is allowed to keep the status "joined to a unit".

insaniak wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:You're saying you cannot measure to see if you are more than 2" away from the unit?

Yes, I'm saying you can't measure how far away you are from something that doesn't exist.

Good job that isnt waht you are being asked to do then.

You are NOT being asked to measure to another unit and determine how far away it is.

You ARE being asked to determine if you are within 2" of the unit. If you measure 2" and find you are not touching a member of that unit, you have satisfactorily answered whether you are within 2" of the unit or not - you are not.

Again, I really dont see your issue here - because you are attempting to answer a question that is not the question being asked.

insaniak wrote:Automatically Appended Next Post:

Abandon wrote:Edit: You are not being asked to determine whether or not you are within a day's drive of the magical kingdom of Landover. You are actually asked to move a days drive or more away from it.

Which was pretty much my point, just slightly better expressed.

No, you are being asked to move more than 2" away from any member of the unit, as you are not being asked a "within" but a "without" measurement (in order to leave) - the converse of joining.

You are told that, in order to leave, you must move so you are more than 2" away from the unit. If, when you move, you measure coherency you find you are more than 2" away from the unit, you have fulfilled the criteria and have left that unit.

If "that unit" is entirely destroyed, when you measure 2" from your base - note, you are not required to measure BETWEEN units here - you will always be more than 2" from it, fulfilling the condition of having move out of coherency distance, which is moving more than 2" away from any member of the unit.

Your error is in readnig the moving out of coherency requirement as still being a requrement to meqasure unit to unit - it isnt. Measuring a 2" _base radius radius circle around your base IS sufficient to prove you have moved more than 2" away from any membe of the unit, and therefore CAN be shown

ND - so, still making a HWYPI argument. posts (not poster) ignored due to continued irrelevancy to a rules discussion. We've shown you the rules, countless times, that tell you when you are permitted to no longer be joined to a unit. YOU have to show permission to leave the unit earlier, because thats how the rules actually work

nosferatu1001 wrote:

insaniak wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:You're saying you cannot measure to see if you are more than 2" away from the unit?

Yes, I'm saying you can't measure how far away you are from something that doesn't exist.

Good job that isnt waht you are being asked to do then.

You are NOT being asked to measure to another unit and determine how far away it is.

You ARE being asked to determine if you are within 2" of the unit. If you measure 2" and find you are not touching a member of that unit, you have satisfactorily answered whether you are within 2" of the unit or not - you are not.

Again, I really dont see your issue here - because you are attempting to answer a question that is not the question being asked.

This just isn't true. Every place you see rules on how to measure coherency you see diagrams and explanations of measuring the distance between two models and THEN evaluating if something is in range. Even the diagrams show measuring two models 3" apart to decide of they are within 2". Every type of measurement is done this way. If you're shooting at a unit, you don't just measure the max range of the gun, you measure how far and then decide otherwise how would you couldn't measure rapid fire weapons. You will have to find some other way to support your argument than this.

Again, we're not talking about the IC leaving the unit. The unit no longer exists so it is impossible for the IC to voluntarily leave the unit. Show me any RAW that explain what to do when a unit is destroyed.

In fact you'll not find any rule saying how a destroyed unit interacts with the game at all, simply because it doesn't. I'm not arguing HWYPI, I'm arguing its the logic presented in the RAW. Models removed as casualties are no longer part of the game. If there are no models left in a unit, it is no longer part of the game.

Abandon wrote:To 'move out of coherency distance from the rest of the unit' the IC must first be within coherency distance and then leave it.

False.
I've moved (check) and am not in coherency distance of any unit, let alone the one I was joined to. By definition I have moved out of coherency distance of the unit I was joined to.

I'm also still waiting for you to tell me where in this permissive rule system is says an IC can be part of a unit that does not exist. Wait, you can't do that either since it's not there obviously. The IC in this case is part of and joined to nothing. Any special rules regarding the IC and the unit will be invalidated as soon as either one is removed from the battlefield.

You have that backwards.

The IC is joined to a unit.
The rest of the unit is removed.
What rule gives you permission to re-evaluate the IC's joined state? I'll wait.

Edit: You are not being asked to determine whether or not you are within a day's drive of the magical kingdom of Landover. You are actually asked to move a days drive or more away from it.

Drive for one day and then measure a days distance around you. Is the magical kingdom of Landover in that circle? No? You've moved a days drive or more away from it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Nemesor Dave wrote:This just isn't true. Every place you see rules on how to measure coherency you see diagrams and explanations of measuring the distance between two models and THEN evaluating if something is in range. Even the diagrams show measuring two models 3" apart to decide of they are within 2". Every type of measurement is done this way. If you're shooting at a unit, you don't just measure the max range of the gun, you measure how far and then decide otherwise how would you couldn't measure rapid fire weapons. You will have to find some other way to support your argument than this.

The IC rules tell you to determine if you have moved out of coherency distance, not just out of coherency.
Coherency distance is 2".
If you are not within 2" of another model in the unit, by definition you have moved out of coherency distance.

If there are no models left in a unit, it is no longer part of the game.

There are models left in the unit. That IC over there.

rigeld2 wrote:

Abandon wrote:To 'move out of coherency distance from the rest of the unit' the IC must first be within coherency distance and then leave it.

False.
I've moved (check) and am not in coherency distance of any unit, let alone the one I was joined to. By definition I have moved out of coherency distance of the unit I was joined to.

This is not how measurements in 40k are made. You measure the distance between two models then evaluate.

rigeld2 wrote:

I'm also still waiting for you to tell me where in this permissive rule system is says an IC can be part of a unit that does not exist. Wait, you can't do that either since it's not there obviously. The IC in this case is part of and joined to nothing. Any special rules regarding the IC and the unit will be invalidated as soon as either one is removed from the battlefield.

You have that backwards.

The IC is joined to a unit.
The rest of the unit is removed.
What rule gives you permission to re-evaluate the IC's joined state? I'll wait.

My approach to this is based on the logic of the game. Units removed from the game are - gone! Your interpretation leads to further logic problems and the necessity to evaluate distances to non-existent units. Why would you believe your interpretation was correct if it could be read either way?

Nemesor Dave wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Abandon wrote:To 'move out of coherency distance from the rest of the unit' the IC must first be within coherency distance and then leave it.

False.
I've moved (check) and am not in coherency distance of any unit, let alone the one I was joined to. By definition I have moved out of coherency distance of the unit I was joined to.

This is not how measurements in 40k are made. You measure the distance between two models then evaluate.

BRB page 48 wrote:An independent character can leave a unit during
the Movement phase by moving out of coherency
distance with it.

I you move and nothing is within 2", then by definition you have moved out of coherency distance.

rigeld2 wrote:

I'm also still waiting for you to tell me where in this permissive rule system is says an IC can be part of a unit that does not exist. Wait, you can't do that either since it's not there obviously. The IC in this case is part of and joined to nothing. Any special rules regarding the IC and the unit will be invalidated as soon as either one is removed from the battlefield.

You have that backwards.

The IC is joined to a unit.
The rest of the unit is removed.
What rule gives you permission to re-evaluate the IC's joined state? I'll wait.

My approach to this is based on the logic of the game. Units removed from the game are - gone! Your interpretation leads to further logic problems and the necessity to evaluate distances to non-existent units. Why would you believe your interpretation was correct if it could be read either way?

a) I don't believe it *can* be read either way.
b) I'm not trying to bring anything in to add to the rules except exactly what the rules say.
c) RAI and HIWPI I agree with you. I've said that before. You haven't clarified which way you're arguing, which means according to the tenets of this subforum you must be arguing RAW.

Okay, this seems to be a rather contentious debate, but I have another question/scenario to throw in here. Last night during a game, a situation came up with this exact issue, and I'd like to hear opinions on it.

Draigo and a battered squad of Paladins were sitting pretty on an objective. Necron shooting blew the whole squad away, and left Draigo standing there with two wounds left. Now, Draigo is Fearless, and the squad isn't, so normally when he's in the squad they take Morale checks as normal. That a given.

Also, it seems that everyone agrees that if he fell back he would automatically regroup in his next Movement phase, because he is no longer part of a unit and he is Fearless.

However, does he take a Morale check at the end of the Shooting phase for 25% casualties if the whole squad is gone and he's sitting there by himself with his Fearlessness? It would seem to me that the people who are arguing that an IC can't leave the unit until the Movement phase would say that he had to test, while the people who are arguing that you can't belong to a wiped out squad would say he doesn't have to test.

Personally, I believe that you can't belong to a squad that doesn't exist. I think that in this situation, an IC whose squad was wiped out would have to test for morale, because he was part of a unit that suffered 25% casualties during that phase. However, in Draigo's particular case, because there are no Paladins around when the check is made he reverts to Fearless, and thus passes the check automatically.

Roboute wrote:Okay, this seems to be a rather contentious debate, but I have another question/scenario to throw in here. Last night during a game, a situation came up with this exact issue, and I'd like to hear opinions on it.

Draigo and a battered squad of Paladins were sitting pretty on an objective. Necron shooting blew the whole squad away, and left Draigo standing there with two wounds left. Now, Draigo is Fearless, and the squad isn't, so normally when he's in the squad they take Morale checks as normal. That a given.

Also, it seems that everyone agrees that if he fell back he would automatically regroup in his next Movement phase, because he is no longer part of a unit and he is Fearless.

However, does he take a Morale check at the end of the Shooting phase for 25% casualties if the whole squad is gone and he's sitting there by himself with his Fearlessness? It would seem to me that the people who are arguing that an IC can't leave the unit until the Movement phase would say that he had to test, while the people who are arguing that you can't belong to a wiped out squad would say he doesn't have to test.

Personally, I believe that you can't belong to a squad that doesn't exist. I think that in this situation, an IC whose squad was wiped out would have to test for morale, because he was part of a unit that suffered 25% casualties during that phase. However, in Draigo's particular case, because there are no Paladins around when the check is made he reverts to Fearless, and thus passes the check automatically.

You have exactly described the situation in debate. There are basicly three camps on this.

1) The unit is gone and draigo is not in a unit. The evaporated unit no longer helps or hinders him. No moral checks for dead units. Etc.

2) Draigo being part of a unit is a "status" that he has not lost. He loses this status at the end of his next movement phase when you can measure and determine he is not in coherency.

3) Draigo being part of a unit is a "status" that he has not lost. If he is falling back, he can never leave his unit because an IC may not leave a unit that is falling back. Unless he has combat tactics he'll run off the board.

I say this is why we're playing a game with models and not a roleplaying game. You can look at the table and see, the unit is gone. Draigo by himself is fearless. No need to measure distance to an imaginary dead unit.

Nemesor Dave wrote:You have exactly described the situation in debate. There are basicly three camps on this.

1) The unit is gone and draigo is not in a unit. The evaporated unit no longer helps or hinders him. No moral checks for dead units. Etc.

2) Draigo being part of a unit is a "status" that he has not lost. He loses this status at the end of his next movement phase when you can measure and determine he is not in coherency.

3) Draigo being part of a unit is a "status" that he has not lost. If he is falling back, he can never leave his unit because an IC may not leave a unit that is falling back. Unless he has combat tactics he'll run off the board.

I say this is why we're playing a game with models and not a roleplaying game. You can look at the table and see, the unit is gone. Draigo by himself is fearless. No need to measure distance to an imaginary dead unit.

I agree completely with your last statement. The unit is destroyed, Draigo by definition cannot be a part of it. If the unit were still present, Draigo would certainly not be able to leave it in the Shooting phase, even if the unit consisted of one Paladin sitting far out of coherency with Draigo. However, this is moot because the unit is destroyed.

There are two situations that I believe support my interpretation. Of these situations, I think the second is more compelling.

1) Reverse of the above. An IC has joined a Fearless unit. RAW, the character gains the Fearless rule as long as he's with the unit. In the Shooting phase, the unit is wiped out and the character remains. Does that character get a free pass for being Fearless, even though the Fearless unit has been destroyed?

2) This is the big one. People are arguing that an IC being part of a unit is a "status" that the character does not lose until the Movement phase, unless the IC is falling back, in which case he cannot "leave" the unit until he regroups (and would theoretically keep falling back because the unit is under 50%). So in this scenario, the character is still a member of the unit because he has joined the unit, right?

Kill Points: "At the end of the game, each player receives 1 'kill point' for each enemy unit that has been completely destroyed" (BRB p.91). If Draigo is, at the end of the game, falling back because he is still part of a unit, then clearly, the Paladins would not give up a kill point in this scenario, because the unit has not been completely destroyed. How could it, if the character is still a part of it?

In this scenario, any sane player would say, "That's silly. You've killed the whole unit of Paladins, you get the kill point for them." But if that's the case, and the unit is "completely destroyed," how can the IC still be joined to the unit? If we're going to get into the nitty-gritty here, the word "join" implies a relationship between two parties, aka the IC joins the unit. If only one party remains, no joining or leaving can take place. The condition merely ceases to be upon the destruction of one of the parties.

For that matter, if a squad is joined by an IC, and that IC is killed by shooting, does he still count as joined to the squad? I can't think of a situation where it would matter, but why shouldn't he still count as joined to the squad, as it is not the movement phase and he can no longer move out of coherency? If the unit then falls back, he would then, clearly, be unable to leave the squad at any point, because he cannot leave a unit that is falling back.

Roboute wrote:Kill Points: "At the end of the game, each player receives 1 'kill point' for each enemy unit that has been completely destroyed" (BRB p.91). If Draigo is, at the end of the game, falling back because he is still part of a unit, then clearly, the Paladins would not give up a kill point in this scenario, because the unit has not been completely destroyed. How could it, if the character is still a part of it?

Falling back models are removed and considered destroyed at the end of the game, before victory conditions are decided.

Draigo would be removed, and therefore so would the Paladin unit - netting 2KP.

rigeld2 wrote:

Roboute wrote:Kill Points: "At the end of the game, each player receives 1 'kill point' for each enemy unit that has been completely destroyed" (BRB p.91). If Draigo is, at the end of the game, falling back because he is still part of a unit, then clearly, the Paladins would not give up a kill point in this scenario, because the unit has not been completely destroyed. How could it, if the character is still a part of it?

Falling back models are removed and considered destroyed at the end of the game, before victory conditions are decided.

Draigo would be removed, and therefore so would the Paladin unit - netting 2KP.

Lets say Draigo isn't falling back but his unit was wiped out a the end of turn 5. Now according to you at the end of the game the unit has not been destroyed because Draigo is still part of the unit. You never measured coherency and there was no following movement phase. No kill point awarded.

rigeld2 wrote:

Roboute wrote:Kill Points: "At the end of the game, each player receives 1 'kill point' for each enemy unit that has been completely destroyed" (BRB p.91). If Draigo is, at the end of the game, falling back because he is still part of a unit, then clearly, the Paladins would not give up a kill point in this scenario, because the unit has not been completely destroyed. How could it, if the character is still a part of it?

Falling back models are removed and considered destroyed at the end of the game, before victory conditions are decided.

Draigo would be removed, and therefore so would the Paladin unit - netting 2KP.

Fair enough. But what about this scenario: In the last player turn of the game, the Paladins are killed and Draigo passes his Morale check (assuming he has to make one). He can't leave the unit until his next Movement phase, and the game has just ended. Do you get a KP for the Paladins?

Edit: Ninja'd!

Nemesor Dave wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Roboute wrote:Kill Points: "At the end of the game, each player receives 1 'kill point' for each enemy unit that has been completely destroyed" (BRB p.91). If Draigo is, at the end of the game, falling back because he is still part of a unit, then clearly, the Paladins would not give up a kill point in this scenario, because the unit has not been completely destroyed. How could it, if the character is still a part of it?

Falling back models are removed and considered destroyed at the end of the game, before victory conditions are decided.

Draigo would be removed, and therefore so would the Paladin unit - netting 2KP.

Lets say Draigo isn't falling back but his unit was wiped out a the end of turn 5. Now according to you at the end of the game the unit has not been destroyed because Draigo is still part of the unit. You never measured coherency and there was no following movement phase. No kill point awarded.

RAW I agree, no KP rewarded.
RAI - I agree with you. As. I've. Continuously. Said.

Is RAW sometimes absolutely stupid? Yes. But that's the basis we use to discuss things in YMDC.

rigeld2 wrote:
RAW I agree, no KP rewarded.
RAI - I agree with you. As. I've. Continuously. Said.

Is RAW sometimes absolutely stupid? Yes. But that's the basis we use to discuss things in YMDC.

I don't think this is RAW. There is no rule you are interpreting. There just isn't a rule that says "if something doesn't exist, nothing else can be a part of it". RAW still requires you to use good reasoning to draw conclusions based on the RAW. Yet there's no confusing statement you are following.

There's absolutely no basis for you conclusion. No rule that says "the IC's unit that has been destroyed" or any scenario where a destroyed unit is taken into consideration. Following RAW means you still consider context, the laws of geometry, nature, English and reason. Following RAW does not mean leave your brain at home.

Can something be part of nothing? Of course not.

Is any written rule leading you to conclude that a removed unit has any continued effect? That would be following RAW.

The RAW never said "approach the table" so you and your opponent may not approach the table to play?

Nemesor Dave wrote:Can something be part of nothing? Of course not.

The IC isn't part of nothing. They're part of the unit. The unit hasn't ceased to exist - the IC is still a part of it.

The RAW never said "approach the table" so you and your opponent may not approach the table to play?

BRB page 88 wrote:Standard missions are designed to be played on a 6’x4’
gaming surface, with each player sitting behind one of
the long table edges (‘his own’ table edge, see diagram
below).

If you're sitting behind the table...

rigeld2 wrote:

Nemesor Dave wrote:Can something be part of nothing? Of course not.

The IC isn't part of nothing. They're part of the unit. The unit hasn't ceased to exist - the IC is still a part of it.

Before the unit dies, I can say "show me the unit the IC is joined to". You will point to all models except the IC.

Now after all of these models are dead and removed and I can ask you "show me the unit the IC is joined to". You can't, because the unit is gone.

Show me the unit that the IC is now going to leave. Can't?

Whether you agree he's allowed to or not, show me the unit the IC has left after the following movement phase. You can't because it doesn't exist in the game any more.

This is not a failure of RAW.

Nemesor Dave wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Nemesor Dave wrote:Can something be part of nothing? Of course not.

The IC isn't part of nothing. They're part of the unit. The unit hasn't ceased to exist - the IC is still a part of it.

Before the unit dies, I can say "show me the unit the IC is joined to". You will point to all models except the IC.

Now after all of these models are dead and removed and I can ask you "show me the unit the IC is joined to". You can't, because the unit is gone.

Show me the unit embarked in your vehicle.

I can't point to them on the table, just like you can't point to the embarked unit on the table.

This is not a failure of RAW.

So you've found permission to have the IC leave the unit in the shooting phase?

ND - are you arguing RAW or made up? Hard to tell.

DIstances BETWEEN UNITS are measured BETWEEN UNITS. Measuring a coherency DISTANCE is measurnig a DISTANCE, which is not necessarily to another unit. Understand the difference?

If I measure a 2" circle around my base,and no unit is within that distance, I have moved out of coherency distance. By definition.

rigeld2 wrote:

Nemesor Dave wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Nemesor Dave wrote:Can something be part of nothing? Of course not.

The IC isn't part of nothing. They're part of the unit. The unit hasn't ceased to exist - the IC is still a part of it.

Before the unit dies, I can say "show me the unit the IC is joined to". You will point to all models except the IC.

Now after all of these models are dead and removed and I can ask you "show me the unit the IC is joined to". You can't, because the unit is gone.

Show me the unit embarked in your vehicle.

I can't point to them on the table, just like you can't point to the embarked unit on the table.

This is not a failure of RAW.

So you've found permission to have the IC leave the unit in the shooting phase?

I don't think this example is looking at things in the right way. Bringing up embarked units refutes his particular example, but is comparing apples to oranges as far as the game is concerned. A unit in a transport is still "on the table," they are assumed to exist inside the transport. A unit that has been eliminated is "completely destroyed," and ceases to exist as far as the game is concerned. Can you move, shoot or assault with a destroyed unit? No, but you can certainly shoot out of a transport or disembark and assault.

Let's take a look at the words "join" and "leave," because these seem to form the crux of the debate. Joining a unit, in the context of the game, creates a relationship between two separate units in which they act together. This relationship cannot be severed other than in the Movement phase. However, by necessity, a "joining" requires two parties two be joined, as something joined by nothing is not "joined" in any sense of the word. If two parties are "joined" and one ceases to be, there can be no "joined" condition. Period.

But, the counterargument goes, the IC has already joined the unit, and is therefore a part of the unit until he gets a chance to leave. This argument would say that because the IC has joined the unit, the unit has not been destroyed, because he is a part of it, and thus the relationship continues. However, this argument is in error, because nowhere in the RAW does the character "become a member of the unit."

I can find no language that specifies the character's designation as a separate "unit" overlaps or is subsumed into the squad's "unit" designation. They are merely joined together, a condition that is predicated on two parties doing the joining.

The list of bullet points on p.48 contains 8 bullet points, and only one of these even mentions the character as "part" of the unit. I think this is a rather sloppy wording but I wouldn't have expected the writers to foresee this particular debate. This one sentence seems to imply a greater degree of "togetherness" than the rest of the passage, but the previous point which explains how a character "joins" a unit does not explain how a character becomes "part of" a unit. I think the evidence is very much in favor of interpreting this bullet point as an oversight, particularly because the RAW tells you how to "join" a character to a unit and not how he becomes a "part" of a unit.

Everyone who has argued that ICs remain a part of a destroyed unit has made the assumption that an IC in some way becomes a member of a unit. He doesn't, he just acts like it while he is "joined" to a unit. They remain separate "unit" entities at all times. If you believe differently, show me the BRB passage where a character "becomes a member of the unit."

He is treated as a normal member of the unit. That's more than just 2 individual units that happen to chill together.

rigeld2 wrote:He is treated as a normal member of the unit. That's more than just 2 individual units that happen to chill together.

See, that's what everyone seems to be assuming, when in actuality, there is no more RAW basis for this position than for my own. Can you show me where he, RAW, becomes a member of the unit?

And again I'm drawn back to your language. You even use the phrase "treated as," rather than "is." If I dress in drag, people will treat me as a woman, but that sure as heck won't do anything to change my actual gender.