This isn't for me but my brother. He wants to use a Riptide with shielded missile drone, linked with a Commander with command and control node + multispectrum tracker suite, linked with Aun'Va and bodyguards. Can this be done?

No. An IC can only join one unit at a time.

Read page 39, it is clear there exactly what an IC can do.

If an IC is already joined to a unit nothing on page 39 expressly forbids it from joining a unit during movement thereby causing it to be joined to two units at once. There is no requirement that the IC be solo in order to join a unit either. So strictly RAW, it's possible.

That being said, that is not how it is generally played and you are unlikely to find anyone who will allow it at their house/shop/tournament. I would not.

 Abandon wrote:
If an IC is already joined to a unit nothing on page 39 expressly forbids it from joining a unit during movement thereby causing it to be joined to two units at once.

Except for the rules on Page 39...

"If the Independent Character is within 2" of more than one unit at the end of its Movement phase, the player must declare which unit it is joining." (39)

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Abandon wrote:
If an IC is already joined to a unit nothing on page 39 expressly forbids it from joining a unit during movement thereby causing it to be joined to two units at once.

Except for the rules on Page 39...

"If the Independent Character is within 2" of more than one unit at the end of its Movement phase, the player must declare which unit it is joining." (39)

And that would forbid it from joining two units in the same movement phase. That does not mean it cannot be joined to two units, it just means it can't join both of them at once. I suggest you re-read my post if you believe that line counters anything I said.

Ahh, since you "must" declare which of the 2 units it isjoining, it is assumed it can only be attatched to one.

It cannot claim to join the new unit and remain to be attatched to the first, otherwise the rule would not state that it must declare which of the 2 units it is joining.

Eihnlazer wrote:
Ahh, since you "must" declare which of the 2 units it isjoining, it is assumed it can only be attatched to one.

It cannot claim to join the new unit and remain to be attatched to the first, otherwise the rule would not state that it must declare which of the 2 units it is joining.

That would be an unfounded assumption. Stating you must chose which unit to join does not imply that you must leave any current attachment. There are rules for IC's leaving units, if you have not fulfilled those requirements you are in fact not permitted to leave the current unit.

@ Abandon

Just curious but do you (or would you try to) actually play this way?

Spartak wrote:@ Abandon

Just curious but do you (or would you try to) actually play this way?

Abandon wrote:If an IC is already joined to a unit nothing on page 39 expressly forbids it from joining a unit during movement thereby causing it to be joined to two units at once. There is no requirement that the IC be solo in order to join a unit either. So strictly RAW, it's possible.

That being said, that is not how it is generally played and you are unlikely to find anyone who will allow it at their house/shop/tournament. I would not.

I missed that, my bad

 Abandon wrote:

Eihnlazer wrote:
Ahh, since you "must" declare which of the 2 units it isjoining, it is assumed it can only be attatched to one.

It cannot claim to join the new unit and remain to be attatched to the first, otherwise the rule would not state that it must declare which of the 2 units it is joining.

That would be an unfounded assumption. Stating you must chose which unit to join does not imply that you must leave any current attachment. There are rules for IC's leaving units, if you have not fulfilled those requirements you are in fact not permitted to leave the current unit.

The IC is joined to A.
He moves to within 2" of B and within 2" of A.
He must declare which unit he is joined to.
If he declares B he did not declare A meaning he is not joined to A.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Abandon wrote:

Eihnlazer wrote:
Ahh, since you "must" declare which of the 2 units it isjoining, it is assumed it can only be attatched to one.

It cannot claim to join the new unit and remain to be attatched to the first, otherwise the rule would not state that it must declare which of the 2 units it is joining.

That would be an unfounded assumption. Stating you must chose which unit to join does not imply that you must leave any current attachment. There are rules for IC's leaving units, if you have not fulfilled those requirements you are in fact not permitted to leave the current unit.

The IC is joined to A.
He moves to within 2" of B and within 2" of A.
He must declare which unit he is joined to.
If he declares B he did not declare A meaning he is not joined to A.

Slightly incorrect by RAW. The IC must declare which unit it is joining. Not which unit it is joined to.

How does that change the outcome of what Rig posted at all?

 DeathReaper wrote:
How does that change the outcome of what Rig posted at all?

...because declaring which unit you are joining is not the same as declaring which unit you are joined to.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Abandon wrote:

Eihnlazer wrote:
Ahh, since you "must" declare which of the 2 units it isjoining, it is assumed it can only be attatched to one.

It cannot claim to join the new unit and remain to be attatched to the first, otherwise the rule would not state that it must declare which of the 2 units it is joining.

That would be an unfounded assumption. Stating you must chose which unit to join does not imply that you must leave any current attachment. There are rules for IC's leaving units, if you have not fulfilled those requirements you are in fact not permitted to leave the current unit.

The IC is joined to A.
He moves to within 2" of B and within 2" of A.
He must declare which unit he is joined to.
If he declares B he did not declare A meaning he is not joined to A.

The IC is joined to A.
He moves to within 2" of B and within 2" of A.
He must declare which unit he is joining.
He declares B per the rules for joining units and has not yet left unit A.

 Abandon wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
How does that change the outcome of what Rig posted at all?

...because declaring which unit you are joining is not the same as declaring which unit you are joined to.

Actually it kind of is.

Declaring which unit you are joining means that you have to nominate a unit to join, and as such be joined to...

 Abandon wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Abandon wrote:

Eihnlazer wrote:
Ahh, since you "must" declare which of the 2 units it isjoining, it is assumed it can only be attatched to one.

It cannot claim to join the new unit and remain to be attatched to the first, otherwise the rule would not state that it must declare which of the 2 units it is joining.

That would be an unfounded assumption. Stating you must chose which unit to join does not imply that you must leave any current attachment. There are rules for IC's leaving units, if you have not fulfilled those requirements you are in fact not permitted to leave the current unit.

The IC is joined to A.
He moves to within 2" of B and within 2" of A.
He must declare which unit he is joined to.
If he declares B he did not declare A meaning he is not joined to A.

The IC is joined to A.
He moves to within 2" of B and within 2" of A.
He must declare which unit he is joining.
He declares B per the rules for joining units and has not yet left unit A.

By virtue of joining B, and declaring he is joining B, he is not joining A...

Right, he's not joining A, he's already joined to A. He does not need to join it again nor has he fulfilled the rules for leaving unit A... He's still part of unit A

 Abandon wrote:
Right, he's not joining A, he's already joined to A. He does not need to join it again nor has he fulfilled the rules for leaving unit A... He's still part of unit A

You are incorrect, as the rules say you need to declare which unit you are joining. (39)

This tells us that he can only be a part of one unit at a time.

Having to declare which unit you are joining does not state in any way shape or form that you need to leave a unit you are already with.

Joining a unit, by declaring one of two unit to join, precludes you from joining the other unit.

Therefore when you check to see which unit you are going to join you see that you are only joined to one unit.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Joining a unit, by declaring one of two unit to join, precludes you from joining the other unit.

Therefore when you check to see which unit you are going to join you see that you are only joined to one unit.

...except the IC is already part of unit A and does not need to 'join' the unit for that to continue. At that point you actually need permission to no longer be a part of the unit in order to be considered a separate entity from it again. Given the wording, simply declaring the IC is joining unit B does not constitute permission to leave unit A.

DR - he is saying the requirement to say "I am joining X" does not *undo* that you are currently joined to Y

When joined to a unit the IC becomes a member of the unit for all rules purposes while retaining the rules for characters. This is the problem here. Being a member of a unit prevents him from joining another unit as long hes a member. Since theres no permission to be a member of two units at the same time.

On the other hand there is no other requirement to join a unit then being within coherrency and if there are multiple units within coherrency you have to declare which one you are joining. Theres simply a sentence missing that creates a restriction on being part of two units at the same time or having to leave one unit before joining another or is there one?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
DR - he is saying the requirement to say "I am joining X" does not *undo* that you are currently joined to Y

Okay, thank you, I was not understanding his point.

Abandon, you still have not cited any rules saying that a model can belong to two units at once, do you have any? Page and Graph will suffice.

Rather brilliantly, the permission is the very first line of the Independent Character rule, page 39:
"An Independent Character can join other units."

For what it's worth, I believe the context is important here and that this line simply means you may choose to join a choice of other units, but are then limited further on in the rule to only joining one *at a time* - the parts about joining a unit during the Movement phase, etc, are all clear in their context and no further mention of joining multiple units is made except with the implication that you have to choose one option - but, I had to mention the above line once I'd seen it.

 Super Ready wrote:
Rather brilliantly, the permission is the very first line of the Independent Character rule, page 39:
"An Independent Character can join other units.

However that does not give permission to join two units at once.

Is there any rule preventing a model from being part of two units?

If we accept the silly RaW argument that he can join one unit, then another without leaving the first, then that's de facto permission to join two units simultaneously. Absent an overriding rule preventing such a state, the question of whether there's a rule that a model "can belong to two units at once" is moot.

Pyrian wrote:
Is there any rule preventing a model from being part of two units?

""The rules don't say I can't!"

This is the most annoying argument ever made. If you've been forced to resort to it, your argument is immediately false. The rules don't say I can't place my models back on the board after you've killed them and use them next turn, but that doesn't mean I can do it. The rules system is permissive: this means you may only do things you are expressly allowed to do or that the rules imply you can do. You are not allowed to do anything else."

Found here:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/wiki/en/How_to_Have_an_Intelligent_Rules_Debate

Dangit, and I had this huge logical rule bound reason why an IC cannot be apart of 2 units at once and you ruined it by quoting the forums rules and being all rules like

I know I shouldn't be doing this at work, can't do the research I would like to do, but I want to throw out this thought:

When an Independent Character joins with a unit he becomes part of that unit for all purposes and they also become part of the independent characters 'unit' for all rule purposes. By attempting to join the independent character to a second unit at the time one isn't just trying to join a single model to another unit, but is trying to join every model within the first unit to the second unit at that very moment. Given that none of the other models in the unit have a rule stating they can join other units, the inclusion of them in the equation prevents you from joining the independent character to the second unit as well.

This is why drones have a special rule which grant permission for them to join another unit at the same time as an independent character.

"and they also become part of the independent characters 'unit' for all rule purposes"
Do you havea rules quote to back that up?

You will have to wait till I get home and can put more research into it but I think you will find it within the independent character rule set within the special rule section of the book.

I will admit the inclusion of the 'models within the unit becoming part of his units' could be taken incorrectly if you really want to split hairs. It might not be an exact quote from the rules to state that they both join each other but it doesn't change the way the rules themselves function. Wither stated as 'he joins their units' or 'they join his unit' or 'they both join each others unit' the effect is still the same as per the rules; they are now treated as if they are a single unit unless otherwise stated. There are probably a handful of rules that do not treat the independent join character as part of the unit they joined, but the majority of rules are resolved as if the independent-joined unit is a single unit, not some situation where there is a unit within a unit.

In this situation it would mean you are not trying to join the independent character to a second unit but are instead trying to join the whole first unit to the second unit; which would require permission for every model in the first unit to join another unit.

Page 39, last I read, does not contain any such vebiage. The IC joins *them*, it doesnt get joined by the unit

Accepted, but that doesn't change the fact it is all treated as a single unit afterwards.

In order to join these two units together, one already containing the Independent Character and the second unit he wishes to also join, all models in the first unit would need a special rule granting permission to carry out such a merger with the second group. Simply having access to a special rule on a single model does not grant permission for every other model in the unit to also benefit, unless it out right states that it grants a benefit to the unit as a whole of course. In order to join these two units one would need more then just an Independent Character and an argument that is summed up as 'it exists in a state between the two of them, while they remain as separate units.' There needs to be a specific rule granting permission for the rest of the unit containing the independent character to also join the other unit.

JinxDragon wrote:
Accepted, but that doesn't change the fact it is all treated as a single unit afterwards.

In order to join these two units together, one already containing the Independent Character and the second unit he wishes to also join, all models in the first unit would need a special rule granting permission to carry out such a merger with the second group. Simply having access to a special rule on a single model does not grant permission for every other model in the unit to also benefit, unless it out right states that it grants a benefit to the unit as a whole of course. In order to join these two units one would need more then just an Independent Character and an argument that is summed up as 'it exists in a state between the two of them, while they remain as separate units.' There needs to be a specific rule granting permission for the rest of the unit containing the independent character to also join the other unit.

The IC rule makes no mention of the entire unit needing it for it to operate.

After a careful review of the IC and unit rules I find no evidence that the two units could be considered joined into one unit in any case. So in answer to the OP, no, an IC cannot join two units together. They would, most brokenly, be two separate units that share the IC as a member. On the up side, he'd get to shoot twice in the shooting phase but on the down side, figuring out how to make a charge move would be a nightmare....

As stated before I would not play that way. I'm just pointing out and absurdity in RAW, not HYWPI or RAI.

Except that is not RAW, as an IC does not have permission to join two units at once.

 Abandon wrote:

The IC rule makes no mention of the entire unit needing it for it to operate.

With a permissive rules set they wouldn't need to. You would need a rule that would allow the two units to join each other.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Except that is not RAW, as an IC does not have permission to join two units at once.

"does not have permission to join two units at once". Yes, it is denied that possibility.

You have yet to provide a rule stating that it cannot be joined to two units at once. I think you are still confused about the differences in wording.

'...join two units at once' - This wording indicates an action... of joining two units a the same time. As in it was not part of either unit and all at once joins both. Permission for that is denied because during movement it can only pick one unit to join.

'...be joined to two units at once' - This wording indicates a state of being... part of to two units at the same time that does not denote how or when the unions came about and is not denied to the IC.

An action is not the same as a state of being. The action of joining two units at once is denied by the rule that limits the IC to having to choose which unit to join during movement. There is nothing to stop the IC though from joining unit A and then on its next turn joining unit B without leaving unit A because it did not join both at once, it joined them on different turns one at a time.... I don't know how to be more clear.

"If the Independent Character is within 2" of more than one unit at the end of its Movement phase, the player must declare which unit it is joining."
This only limits the number of units it can join at the end of the movement phase and says nothing about the total number of units it can be a part of at once.

Also, remember you must take specific action to remove the IC from unit A, if that is not done when it joins unit B you have no RaW standing to claim it's not part of both units.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ghaz wrote:

 Abandon wrote:

The IC rule makes no mention of the entire unit needing it for it to operate.

With a permissive rules set they wouldn't need to. You would need a rule that would allow the two units to join each other.

Abandon wrote:
After a careful review of the IC and unit rules I find no evidence that the two units could be considered joined into one unit in any case. So in answer to the OP, no, an IC cannot join two units together. They would, most brokenly, be two separate units that share the IC as a member...

If you have joined to two units then at some point you were joining two units.

Do you have a rules quote that backs up your claim, you have not provided one yet.

 Abandon wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Except that is not RAW, as an IC does not have permission to join two units at once.

"does not have permission to join two units at once". Yes, it is denied that possibility.

You have yet to provide a rule stating that it cannot be joined to two units at once. I think you are still confused about the differences in wording.

'...join two units at once' - This wording indicates an action... of joining two units a the same time. As in it was not part of either unit and all at once joins both. Permission for that is denied because during movement it can only pick one unit to join.

'...be joined to two units at once' - This wording indicates a state of being... part of to two units at the same time that does not denote how or when the unions came about and is not denied to the IC.

An action is not the same as a state of being. The action of joining two units at once is denied by the rule that limits the IC to having to choose which unit to join during movement. There is nothing to stop the IC though from joining unit A and then on its next turn joining unit B without leaving unit A because it did not join both at once, it joined them on different turns one at a time.... I don't know how to be more clear.

"If the Independent Character is within 2" of more than one unit at the end of its Movement phase, the player must declare which unit it is joining."
This only limits the number of units it can join at the end of the movement phase and says nothing about the total number of units it can be a part of at once.

Also, remember you must take specific action to remove the IC from unit A, if that is not done when it joins unit B you have no RaW standing to claim it's not part of both units.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ghaz wrote:

 Abandon wrote:

The IC rule makes no mention of the entire unit needing it for it to operate.

With a permissive rules set they wouldn't need to. You would need a rule that would allow the two units to join each other.

Abandon wrote:
After a careful review of the IC and unit rules I find no evidence that the two units could be considered joined into one unit in any case. So in answer to the OP, no, an IC cannot join two units together. They would, most brokenly, be two separate units that share the IC as a member...

Find permission for a member of a unit to join a different one.

DeathReaper wrote:If you have joined to two units then at some point you were joining two units.

Do you have a rules quote that backs up your claim, you have not provided one yet.

But did not join them in the same movement phase, which is not denied.

You want me to quote the rule that allows ICs to join units? I'd think you'd be rather familiar with those but alright.

"In order to join a unit, an Independent Character simply has to move so that he is within the 2" unit coherency distance of a friendly unit at the end of their Movement phase. If the Independent Character is within 2" of more than one unit at the end of its Movement phase, the player must declare which unit it is joining." -Page 39 BRB

So there, the IC can join up to one unit during the movement phase. If it's already attached to a unit when it joins another, it's now attached to both.

Tactical_Genius wrote:
Find permission for a member of a unit to join a different one.

If that member has the IC SR the IC rules give it permission.

 Abandon wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:If you have joined to two units then at some point you were joining two units.

Do you have a rules quote that backs up your claim, you have not provided one yet.

But did not join them in the same movement phase, which is not denied.

Yea, permissive ruleset...

"The rules don't say I can't!"

This is the most annoying argument ever made. If you've been forced to resort to it, your argument is immediately false. The rules don't say I can't place my models back on the board after you've killed them and use them next turn, but that doesn't mean I can do it. The rules system is permissive: this means you may only do things you are expressly allowed to do or that the rules imply you can do. You are not allowed to do anything else.

Abandon wrote:
"In order to join a unit, an Independent Character simply has to move so that he is within the 2" unit coherency distance of a friendly unit at the end of their Movement phase. If the Independent Character is within 2" of more than one unit at the end of its Movement phase, the player must declare which unit it is joining." -Page 39 BRB

So there, the IC can join up to one unit during the movement phase. If it's already attached to a unit when it joins another, it's now attached to both.

While the BRB does say that, I think your interpretation is a bit off. By your reading, a Lord Commissar can start the movement phase attached to a ten man squad, then move to within 2" of a heavy weapons squad and join them too, then the next turn the whole fan club moves up to a special weapons team and they join the Lord Commissar's party. Which is of course a little absurd.

By applying that rule exactly as it is written. When (from the previous example) the Lord commissar moves up to within 2" of the heavy weapons team he is now within two inches of both the ten man squad and the heavy weapons team. He must now choose which squad he is going to spend the turn with. The fact that he was joined to the previous unit does not matter since the rule requires you to check to see if the IC is within 2" of a squad after he has moved. Then the rule tells us what to do if multiple squads are within 2" of the IC.

In addition. I wish you good luck finding a judge or TO that would agree with your interpretation.

The way they have written it an IC can join as many units as he would like but he then falsl under all the restrictions as such. As soon as he joins a second unit he cannot move as you cannot move a second unit until you have finished moving the first which you cannot complete. He would also be subject to wounds from attacks against all the units he has joined. He cannot shoot just as with movement nor can he charge thereby eliminating all the units from charging. So you now have a blob based around a single IC that can't do much. They are all individual units with a single member that is part of other units. I can see where you might want to do this to provide a more durable bubble wrap but in the end a single model such as a high toughness MC could conceivably tar pit all the units.

Actually I've just thought of something which goes against the "can be joined to more than one unit" theory.
The rule states that the IC must "choose" which it is joining. Te word "choose" implies a choice between one or more units. If he cannot choose the unit he is already joined to, then there is no choice of units, therefore you cannot "choose". This means the interpretation must be false.

DeathReaper wrote:

 Abandon wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:If you have joined to two units then at some point you were joining two units.

Do you have a rules quote that backs up your claim, you have not provided one yet.

But did not join them in the same movement phase, which is not denied.

Yea, permissive ruleset...

"The rules don't say I can't!"

This is the most annoying argument ever made. If you've been forced to resort to it, your argument is immediately false. The rules don't say I can't place my models back on the board after you've killed them and use them next turn, but that doesn't mean I can do it. The rules system is permissive: this means you may only do things you are expressly allowed to do or that the rules imply you can do. You are not allowed to do anything else.

If that's all my argument boiled down to you'd be right but the fact is you are given permission to join units during movement. It only limits it to joining one per turn.

lordwellingstone wrote:

Abandon wrote:
"In order to join a unit, an Independent Character simply has to move so that he is within the 2" unit coherency distance of a friendly unit at the end of their Movement phase. If the Independent Character is within 2" of more than one unit at the end of its Movement phase, the player must declare which unit it is joining." -Page 39 BRB

So there, the IC can join up to one unit during the movement phase. If it's already attached to a unit when it joins another, it's now attached to both.

While the BRB does say that, I think your interpretation is a bit off. By your reading, a Lord Commissar can start the movement phase attached to a ten man squad, then move to within 2" of a heavy weapons squad and join them too, then the next turn the whole fan club moves up to a special weapons team and they join the Lord Commissar's party. Which is of course a little absurd.

By applying that rule exactly as it is written. When (from the previous example) the Lord commissar moves up to within 2" of the heavy weapons team he is now within two inches of both the ten man squad and the heavy weapons team. He must now choose which squad he is going to spend the turn with. The fact that he was joined to the previous unit does not matter since the rule requires you to check to see if the IC is within 2" of a squad after he has moved. Then the rule tells us what to do if multiple squads are within 2" of the IC.

In addition. I wish you good luck finding a judge or TO that would agree with your interpretation.

Gravmyr wrote:The way they have written it an IC can join as many units as he would like but he then falsl under all the restrictions as such. As soon as he joins a second unit he cannot move as you cannot move a second unit until you have finished moving the first which you cannot complete. He would also be subject to wounds from attacks against all the units he has joined. He cannot shoot just as with movement nor can he charge thereby eliminating all the units from charging. So you now have a blob based around a single IC that can't do much. They are all individual units with a single member that is part of other units. I can see where you might want to do this to provide a more durable bubble wrap but in the end a single model such as a high toughness MC could conceivably tar pit all the units.

Extremely broken is what I'd call it. As I previously stated, I'm only pointing out an RAW absurdity. I'm not suggesting that anyone plays this way or that I do.

Tactical_Genius wrote:Actually I've just thought of something which goes against the "can be joined to more than one unit" theory.
The rule states that the IC must "choose" which it is joining. Te word "choose" implies a choice between one or more units. If he cannot choose the unit he is already joined to, then there is no choice of units, therefore you cannot "choose". This means the interpretation must be false.

Choosing to join unit B does not detach the IC from unit A as it is written. The only way to do that would be to move more than 2" away from unit A. Barring that action, the IC continues to be part of unit A when it decides to join unit B.

It limits you to choosing one of the two units to join...

Choosing unit B and not choosing unit A means he is not a part of unit A (A concept you are not grasping).

 DeathReaper wrote:


Choosing unit B and not choosing unit A means he is not a part of unit A

Citation required.

Edit: This is the part you are not grasping

Again: where does it say you detach from Unit A?

Page and para.

He has a choice of units to join...

He chooses A then he has not joined B and as such is detached from B by virtue of not joining them...

"If the Independent Character is within 2" of more than one unit at the end of its Movement phase, the player must declare which unit it is joining."

If you declare A then you are not joining B even though you are within 2 inches of them and as such you leave B if you choose to join A.

 DeathReaper wrote:
He has a choice of units to join...

He chooses A then he has not joined B and as such is detached from B by virtue of not joining them...

"If the Independent Character is within 2" of more than one unit at the end of its Movement phase, the player must declare which unit it is joining."

If you declare A then you are not joining B even though you are within 2 inches of them and as such you leave B if you choose to join A.

That quote does not say what you think it says. Unless otherwise noted, joining unit A only means you are joining unit A and joining unit B only means you are joining unit B. There is no leaving of anything mentioned.

Jesus mary and joseph simple flipping english here. The UNIT does not join the IC the IC joins the unit.

Ok the IC at the end of the IC's movement is with 2inches of 2 or more units. It specifically orders you to declare which unit he is joining.

IF it joins that unit it becomes a CHARACTER of the unit it joins until it leaves. (page 39 IC last paragraph on the left side of the entry) thus while a member of any unit until leaving IC's are only characters

wargamer1985 wrote:
Jesus mary and joseph simple flipping english here. The UNIT does not join the IC the IC joins the unit.

Ok the IC at the end of the IC's movement is with 2inches of 2 or more units. It specifically orders you to declare which unit he is joining.

IF it joins that unit it becomes a CHARACTER of the unit it joins until it leaves. (page 39 IC last paragraph on the left side of the entry) thus while a member of any unit until leaving IC's are only characters

That is incorrect. Not only is it no stated in the rules but being an IC is the only thing that allows it to leave the unit by moving 2 inches away. If it were treated as just a character, it would be unable to leave the unit. The IC rules are necessarily retained while it is with the unit it joins.

 Abandon wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
He has a choice of units to join...

He chooses A then he has not joined B and as such is detached from B by virtue of not joining them...

"If the Independent Character is within 2" of more than one unit at the end of its Movement phase, the player must declare which unit it is joining."

If you declare A then you are not joining B even though you are within 2 inches of them and as such you leave B if you choose to join A.

That quote does not say what you think it says. Unless otherwise noted, joining unit A only means you are joining unit A and joining unit B only means you are joining unit B. There is no leaving of anything mentioned.

It doesn't need to specifically mention leaving, as declaring which unit you are joining tells us that you are leaving the other unit to which you were attached.

 Abandon wrote:

Tactical_Genius wrote:Actually I've just thought of something which goes against the "can be joined to more than one unit" theory.
The rule states that the IC must "choose" which it is joining. Te word "choose" implies a choice between one or more units. If he cannot choose the unit he is already joined to, then there is no choice of units, therefore you cannot "choose". This means the interpretation must be false.

Choosing to join unit B does not detach the IC from unit A as it is written. The only way to do that would be to move more than 2" away from unit A. Barring that action, the IC continues to be part of unit A when it decides to join unit B.

No, my point is, if it must choose one of the units, and according to you unit A is not a valid choice (it can't join again), then there is no "choice". This means your interpretation invalidates part of the RAW, and so must be incorrect.

It CLEARLY states an ic becomes a member of the unit it CHOOSES to join and acts like a character while a member oc said unit. It also states CLEARLY that you must choose which unit an IC is attached to at the end of the IC's movement phase.
Lets see some citation of actual rules that allows you to do what ypu claim and not just your opinion as as at least 2 of us have now pointed the rule in its correct use and people who want to do it are giving the opinion they can with no rule back up

DR - stating "I am joining Steam" (Unit B) does not mean I have to have left Origin.

I am joined to A. I declare I am joining B. Nothing in that statement states I am also leaving A.

Where you are failing is that you have not proven that the rules state you can only be joined to a single unit at a time. If you can prove this, then by default joining B requires leaving A. However this is *not* something you have proved.

And no, this is NOT a "it doesnt say I cant" argument. I have unlimited permission to join units, and no restriciton on how many I join. If you think otherwise, prove it.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
DR - stating "I am joining Steam" (Unit B) does not mean I have to have left Origin.

It does within the 40k ruleset. It is implied that a model with the IC rule, by virtue of choosing which unit to join, has left any units they did not choose to join.

There is no such implication. You certainly cannot state it is RAW.

Nos - have you looked at my last post? It throws in implications you have not countered.

Yes, however you are missing the context of the sentence - which is an unjoined IC ending within range of 2 or more eligible units. This is a different situation, not covered on page 39

DeathReaper wrote:

 Abandon wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
He has a choice of units to join...

He chooses A then he has not joined B and as such is detached from B by virtue of not joining them...

"If the Independent Character is within 2" of more than one unit at the end of its Movement phase, the player must declare which unit it is joining."

If you declare A then you are not joining B even though you are within 2 inches of them and as such you leave B if you choose to join A.

That quote does not say what you think it says. Unless otherwise noted, joining unit A only means you are joining unit A and joining unit B only means you are joining unit B. There is no leaving of anything mentioned.

It doesn't need to specifically mention leaving, as declaring which unit you are joining tells us that you are leaving the other unit to which you were attached.

So the rules don't need to specifically say the IC is leaving a unit for it to leave a unit, you just know it happens even though it's not mentioned. Nope, permissive rules say the IC leaves the unit when the rules say it leaves the unit. Period.

Tactical_Genius wrote:

 Abandon wrote:

Tactical_Genius wrote:Actually I've just thought of something which goes against the "can be joined to more than one unit" theory.
The rule states that the IC must "choose" which it is joining. Te word "choose" implies a choice between one or more units. If he cannot choose the unit he is already joined to, then there is no choice of units, therefore you cannot "choose". This means the interpretation must be false.

Choosing to join unit B does not detach the IC from unit A as it is written. The only way to do that would be to move more than 2" away from unit A. Barring that action, the IC continues to be part of unit A when it decides to join unit B.

No, my point is, if it must choose one of the units, and according to you unit A is not a valid choice (it can't join again), then there is no "choice". This means your interpretation invalidates part of the RAW, and so must be incorrect.

I never said the IC cannot join the unit it is already with.... It would be pointless now that you bring it up but it is clearly allowed to join it again though it would be pointless as it is already a member.

wargamer1985 wrote:It CLEARLY states an ic becomes a member of the unit it CHOOSES to join and acts like a character while a member oc said unit. It also states CLEARLY that you must choose which unit an IC is attached to at the end of the IC's movement phase.
Lets see some citation of actual rules that allows you to do what ypu claim and not just your opinion as as at least 2 of us have now pointed the rule in its correct use and people who want to do it are giving the opinion they can with no rule back up

No, it distinctly tells you to declare which unit it is joining, not which one it's attached to. This means the rule only cares about how many units the IC is joining and not how many it is attached to.

Edit: Oh and this

 Abandon wrote:

"In order to join a unit, an Independent Character simply has to move so that he is within the 2" unit coherency distance of a friendly unit at the end of their Movement phase. If the Independent Character is within 2" of more than one unit at the end of its Movement phase, the player must declare which unit it is joining." -Page 39 BRB

Please read the thread before posting.

Let's assume for the moment that you can join an IC to multiple units.

Then you run into problems - what happens when the units try to move? Can you nominate a unit that has a model that already had a Move (whether or not said model actually moved)?
What about shooting? You nominate Unit A to shoot. You resolve the units shooting. You nominate Unit B to shoot Does the IC get to shoot with his unit? If not, dos Unit B have to shoot at the same target as the IC did? Can the IC even shoot, as he is part of Unit B and Unit B cannot shoot until you resolve Unit A's shooting, and then you are nominating a model in Unit A for shooting when you try to shoot with Unit B.
What about charging? Unit A attempts to charge except they have a model that cannot move as it would have to leave Unit B (which is not allowed except in the Movement phase.

 Happyjew wrote:
Let's assume for the moment that you can join an IC to multiple units.

Then you run into problems - what happens when the units try to move? Can you nominate a unit that has a model that already had a Move (whether or not said model actually moved)?
What about shooting? You nominate Unit A to shoot. You resolve the units shooting. You nominate Unit B to shoot Does the IC get to shoot with his unit? If not, dos Unit B have to shoot at the same target as the IC did? Can the IC even shoot, as he is part of Unit B and Unit B cannot shoot until you resolve Unit A's shooting, and then you are nominating a model in Unit A for shooting when you try to shoot with Unit B.
What about charging? Unit A attempts to charge except they have a model that cannot move as it would have to leave Unit B (which is not allowed except in the Movement phase.

And what happens when unit B falls back?... to many uncovered areas and creates to many broken situations. Clearly not RAI and why it should not be played that way. Just come up with an unwritten rule stating that ICs can only be attached to one unit at a time or something like that. You could call it a house rule but I'm sure it's more of a world rule.

Nos: what context are you reading because as I read at the ic leaves a unit in its movement EVERY turn which is why he must declarevwhich unit key word UNIT btw he is joining. And like you pointed out (i may be thinkin someone else) its a permissive rule set .

Does the rules give you permission yo join multiple units specifically by saying you can NO thefor it is not permitted

Well, I'm definitely adding this to the page of rules problems I pull out when someone starts being a super RaW-git.

I was under the impression that your ICs leave every unit at beginning of your movement phase and aren't part of a unit until the end of your movement phase.

The FAQ also reads as if you are 2" (or less) from a unit, you don't have a choice to join a unit or not. You are automatically part of it. Meaning, an IC can't loiter 1" from another unit and not be in it.

Wargamer - find the rule where it states the IC leaves a unit every movement phase.

No such rule exists in my rulebook.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
There is no such implication. You certainly cannot state it is RAW.

Buy choosing one you are not choosing the other to join. there is implication.

You must choose to join A or B.
If you choose to join A you chose not to join B.
If you chose not to join B how could you possibly claim to be joined to B?

I think this is the first time I've ever seen deathreaper and rigeld2 agree on something.

Just a curiosity. To the people claiming an IC can be part of more than one unit.

Turn 1: IC joins "Unit A" with stealth
Turn 2: IC joins "Unit B"
Unit B now has stealth, as one of it's members (the IC) has stealth, which it got conferred upon it from the Unit A.
Turn 5: INVISIBLE ARMY!

RAW, this is legal, according to the argument that ICs can join multiple units.

 deviantduck wrote:
I think this is the first time I've ever seen deathreaper and rigeld2 agree on something.

Nah, not the first and not the last.

rigeld2 wrote:
You must choose to join A or B.
If you choose to join A you chose not to join B.
If you chose not to join B how could you possibly claim to be joined to B?

Because I never stopped being joined to B.

Find a rule stating I was no longer joined to B, at the end of the movement phase, such that i had to make that choice.

DR - again, read the context. That context is an unjoined IC ending close to two units. NOt this situation at all. There cannot therefore be an implication.

I don't think anyone disputes that an IC joining two units creates a rules singularity and the game breaks quickly.

However, I still haven't seen anyone point to where it says an IC can't join more than one unit.

P39, i believe, states, an IC can join units (it does use the plural).

And the joining rules stipulate that you must designate which unit you are joining (NOT which unit you are joined to). And that you can only join one unit per movement phase.

I don't see how it can be argued, strictly RAW, that an IC can't become joined to more than one unit - or at least, I haven't been shown or found a reason why this is not the case.

It is definitely a pick-up-your-models-and-play-someone-else ruling, but still RAW.

By virtue of joining, and choosing one unit over the other makes you only able to join one unit at a time.

rigeld2 wrote:
If you choose to join A you chose not to join B.

This is what happens when you end your movement phase within 2 inches of two units.

Tactical_Genius wrote:
Te[Sic] word "choose" implies a choice between one or more units. If he cannot choose the unit he is already joined to, then there is no choice of units, therefore you cannot "choose". This means the interpretation must be false.

As far as I can tell, the problem with this thread is that discussing isolated, out of context rules sentences, as been mistaken for a rules discussion. A three letter acronym doesn't change that fact.

Independent characters can join units.

is the same sort of English which states

Men can marry women.

Plural subject, plural object, don't go making assumptions about the allowance for bigamy, or multiple unit membership.

Consider this sentence:

If an Independent Character does not intend to (or cannot) join a unit, it must (where possible) remain more than 2" away from it at the end of the Movement phase. This is to make clear whether they have joined a unit or not

Combine that with the preceding sentence:

If the independent Character is within 2" of more than one unit at the end of its Movement phase, the player must declare which unit it is joining.

Singular.

If you have an Independent Character within 2" of two different units, you are likely to be in violation of this statement:

f an Independent Character does not intend to (or cannot) join a unit, it must (where possible) remain more than 2" away from it at the end of the Movement phase.

but the rule makes the allowance that you will be permitted to remain in position if you make it clear which one of the two units the Independent Character is joined to.

The independent character is allowed to join one unit, and is required to remain outside of coherency with the units it is not joining, where possible.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
DR - stating "I am joining Steam" (Unit B) does not mean I have to have left Origin.

I am joined to A. I declare I am joining B. Nothing in that statement states I am also leaving A.

Where you are failing is that you have not proven that the rules state you can only be joined to a single unit at a time. If you can prove this, then by default joining B requires leaving A. However this is *not* something you have proved.

And no, this is NOT a "it doesnt say I cant" argument. I have unlimited permission to join units, and no restriciton on how many I join. If you think otherwise, prove it.

But you cannot join Origin to Steam. This is where the Two Units, One Character breaks down. The first unit, of which the IC is currently a member, for all rules and purposes, has no rule permitting it to join with another unit.

DeathReaper wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
There is no such implication. You certainly cannot state it is RAW.

Buy choosing one you are not choosing the other to join. there is implication.

"In order to join a unit, an Independent Character simply has to move so that he is within the 2" unit coherency distance of a friendly unit at the end of their Movement phase. If the Independent Character is within 2" of more than one unit at the end of its Movement phase, the player must declare which unit it is joining."

Not seeing any implication backing up your claim. Please explain how declaring which unit you are joining means you are leaving the unit you are with. I don't see it here.

rigeld2 wrote:You must choose to join A or B.
If you choose to join A you chose not to join B.
If you chose not to join B how could you possibly claim to be joined to B?

If you were already joined to unit B when you joined A and did not move 2 inches away from unit B how can you claim to have left B? Attachments to units are not stated to being exclusive.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
You must choose to join A or B.
If you choose to join A you chose not to join B.
If you chose not to join B how could you possibly claim to be joined to B?

Because I never stopped being joined to B.

Find a rule stating I was no longer joined to B, at the end of the movement phase, such that i had to make that choice.

I didn't say you had to make that choice. But since you volunteered to make the choice and you chose !B, then B cannot be true.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Abandon wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:You must choose to join A or B.
If you choose to join A you chose not to join B.
If you chose not to join B how could you possibly claim to be joined to B?

If you were already joined to unit B when you joined A and did not move 2 inches away from unit B how can you claim to have left B? Attachments to units are not stated to being exclusive.

They are exclusive by virtue of that choice.
Out of 2 options you chose to join A. This means that you chose not to join B. Do you dispute those two statements?
If you chose not to join B, you cannot have joined B (joined being the past tense of join). Do you dispute that statement?
If you have not joined B, you're not with that unit.

There is no support for that exclusion in the rules, though - you're injecting it.

There's no place where it says that ICs can join only one unit, there's no place where the rules say you must leave a unit to join another, and there's no place that says that you must choose which unit you are joined to.

This - a rules discussion - is totally different from the colloquial statement that men can marry women. That is a comparison between a colloquial statement and what is essentially a set of laws - which in many (all?) states in the US specifically preclude a man from marrying many women. What we're discussing here are the rules for 40k.

DeathReaper wrote:By virtue of joining, and choosing one unit over the other makes you only able to join one unit at a time.

rigeld2 wrote:
If you choose to join A you chose not to join B.

This is what happens when you end your movement phase within 2 inches of two units.

Tactical_Genius wrote:
Te[Sic] word "choose" implies a choice between one or more units. If he cannot choose the unit he is already joined to, then there is no choice of units, therefore you cannot "choose". This means the interpretation must be false.

You can only join one unit at a time. That point has never been contested and why has already been explained in depth.

Not sure what you're getting at but I might point out that it never tells you to choose. It says "you must declare which unit..." (emphasis mine) A declaration is not the same as a choice.

solkan wrote:As far as I can tell, the problem with this thread is that discussing isolated, out of context rules sentences, as been mistaken for a rules discussion. A three letter acronym doesn't change that fact.

Independent characters can join units.

is the same sort of English which states

Men can marry women.

Plural subject, plural object, don't go making assumptions about the allowance for bigamy, or multiple unit membership.

Consider this sentence:

If an Independent Character does not intend to (or cannot) join a unit, it must (where possible) remain more than 2" away from it at the end of the Movement phase. This is to make clear whether they have joined a unit or not

Combine that with the preceding sentence:

If the independent Character is within 2" of more than one unit at the end of its Movement phase, the player must declare which unit it is joining.

Singular.

If you have an Independent Character within 2" of two different units, you are likely to be in violation of this statement:

f an Independent Character does not intend to (or cannot) join a unit, it must (where possible) remain more than 2" away from it at the end of the Movement phase.

but the rule makes the allowance that you will be permitted to remain in position if you make it clear which one of the two units the Independent Character is joined to.

The independent character is allowed to join one unit, and is required to remain outside of coherency with the units it is not joining, where possible.

Until the IC leaves a unit it is required to stay in unit coherency. The (where possible) part of that statement makes it possible for the IC to move with a unit without having to leave and rejoin it every movement phase. The unit rules require the IC to end its move within 2 inches. It is not possible to not stay in coherency unless you choose to have the IC leave the unit. It can therefore do so without intending to join the unit it is already with.

Psienesis wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
DR - stating "I am joining Steam" (Unit B) does not mean I have to have left Origin.

I am joined to A. I declare I am joining B. Nothing in that statement states I am also leaving A.

Where you are failing is that you have not proven that the rules state you can only be joined to a single unit at a time. If you can prove this, then by default joining B requires leaving A. However this is *not* something you have proved.

And no, this is NOT a "it doesnt say I cant" argument. I have unlimited permission to join units, and no restriciton on how many I join. If you think otherwise, prove it.

But you cannot join Origin to Steam. This is where the Two Units, One Character breaks down. The first unit, of which the IC is currently a member, for all rules and purposes, has no rule permitting it to join with another unit.

and we did not claim the two units were joined, only that the IC is a member of both. They remain separate units with one shared member.

Gwyidion wrote:
There's no place where it says that ICs can join only one unit, there's no place where the rules say you must leave a unit to join another, and there's no place that says that you must choose which unit you are joined to.

It doesnt need to because of this:

 solkan wrote:

If you have an Independent Character within 2" of two different units, you are likely to be in violation of this statement:

f an Independent Character does not intend to (or cannot) join a unit, it must (where possible) remain more than 2" away from it at the end of the Movement phase.

but the rule makes the allowance that you will be permitted to remain in position if you make it clear which one of the two units the Independent Character is joined to.

The independent character is allowed to join one unit, and is required to remain outside of coherency with the units it is not joining, where possible.

But where does the rulebook stipulate that an IC cannot be within 2" of a unit if it is joined to another unit? It doesn't. In fact it explicitly accounts for this possibility and gives you the exact stanza of rules we've been talking about this entire thread.

And, that quote is mis-quoting the rules. You must declare which unit the IC is joining, not "joined to". That makes all the difference.

Again - RAW, not at all HIWPI

 DeathReaper wrote:

Gwyidion wrote:
There's no place where it says that ICs can join only one unit, there's no place where the rules say you must leave a unit to join another, and there's no place that says that you must choose which unit you are joined to.

It doesnt need to because of this:

 solkan wrote:

If you have an Independent Character within 2" of two different units, you are likely to be in violation of this statement:

f an Independent Character does not intend to (or cannot) join a unit, it must (where possible) remain more than 2" away from it at the end of the Movement phase.

but the rule makes the allowance that you will be permitted to remain in position if you make it clear which one of the two units the Independent Character is joined to.

The independent character is allowed to join one unit, and is required to remain outside of coherency with the units it is not joining, where possible.

"(where possible)"... in the scenario we are discussing unit coherency forces the IC to end its move within 2 inches of the unit it is already attached to so that rule does not stop it from doing so even if it does not intend to join the unit again that movement phase. It is already a part of the unit for all rules purposes and therefore has no choice but to end it's move in unit coherency.

Gwyidion wrote:
There is no support for that exclusion in the rules, though - you're injecting it.

I've done no such thing.
By definition if you choose to join one thing you have also chosen not to join another.

rigeld2 wrote:

Gwyidion wrote:
There is no support for that exclusion in the rules, though - you're injecting it.

I've done no such thing.
By definition if you choose to join one thing you have also chosen not to join another.

Choosing not to join and leaving are not the same thing.

So AGAIN I call out every single person to point out page number paragraph and sentece number where it states an IC can join multiple units ver several turns and remain part of all previously joined units. Since we have providex the citation to prove you can not. But you still insist you can even without having provided any citation to back your argument up but ihaving in fact backed up yhe other side

wargamer1985 wrote:
So AGAIN I call out every single person to point out page number paragraph and sentece number where it states an IC can join multiple units ver several turns and remain part of all previously joined units. Since we have providex the citation to prove you can not. But you still insist you can even without having provided any citation to back your argument up but ihaving in fact backed up yhe other side

We did... Several times... An IC is clearly able to join one unit per movement phase. Nothing requires him to leave a unit to do so... there is not a rule, hint or implication anywhere that it must leave a unit to join another nor is there any that makes its membership to a unit exclusive.

 Abandon wrote:

wargamer1985 wrote:
So AGAIN I call out every single person to point out page number paragraph and sentece number where it states an IC can join multiple units ver several turns and remain part of all previously joined units. Since we have providex the citation to prove you can not. But you still insist you can even without having provided any citation to back your argument up but ihaving in fact backed up yhe other side

We did... Several times... An IC is clearly able to join one unit per movement phase. Nothing requires him to leave a unit to do so... there is not a rule, hint or implication anywhere that it must leave a unit to join another nor is there any that makes its membership to a unit exclusive.

There is, but you are ignoring it.

The we did beacause nothing says we can't is not a citation proving you can so get your rules out or admit your wrong

wargamer1985 wrote:
The we did beacause nothing says we can't is not a citation proving you can so get your rules out or admit your you're wrong

Sorry, I just have no idea what this sentence is saying.

I would like to point out at this point:
The rules say you 'may not finish your move within 2" of a unit you do not intend to join'.
Nos/Abandon/whoeverelseisarguing -
If you are part of Unit A, and you move to within 2" of Unit B (with intent to join), then you do not, by your own admittance, intend to join Unit A. Therefore you cannot end your move within 2" of Unit A if you wish to join unit B.
You cannot claim the "where possible" clause prevents you from moving away from Unit A, as it is possible to end more than 2" away, by leaving Unit A.

Tactical_Genius wrote:
If you are part of Unit A, and you move to within 2" of Unit B (with intent to join), then you do not, by your own admittance, intend to join Unit A. Therefore you cannot end your move within 2" of Unit A if you wish to join unit B.

...well, snap. Nicely put - that swings it as far as I'm concerned.

The counter to that is that he is already part of that unit therefor doesn't count that unit as it is not a unit he can join, he has already joined it. As has been pointed out there is not any statement that they leave at the start of any turn nor when they join a unit. RAW.
I doubt that is what they had in mind in the end. As has also been pointed out once the IC joins multiple units he can do very little while being subjected to wounds from both units.

Spirit of the rules vs letter of the rules I guess, no way, check your grammer rules. I'm not trying to be nasty just a friendly observation.

Never in my 5 editions playing has anyone ever made an arrguement about joining 2 squads, untill now. I just read it and the wording does prevent you from joining 2 squads. Many grammer rules have hidden and implied meanings.

Gravmyr wrote:
The counter to that is that he is already part of that unit therefor doesn't count that unit as it is not a unit he can join, he has already joined it.

Exactly. If he cannot join it, he cannot intend to join it either.

 Abandon wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Gwyidion wrote:
There is no support for that exclusion in the rules, though - you're injecting it.

I've done no such thing.
By definition if you choose to join one thing you have also chosen not to join another.

Choosing not to join and leaving are not the same thing.

If you have chosen not to join, how can you claim to be joined?

Please explain.

You're joined to unit A. You don't need to re-join unit A. Clearly units at the start of psyker's movement phases and the psyker - if an IC - are already joined. They dont start each movement phase in some null state - if they were joined to a unit before, they're joined now. So, then they must declare which unit they're joining. Being already joined to A, they declare they're joining unit B and nothing about that action (in the rule text) requires that they leave A.

The rules say they can join units.

The rules say they have to declare which unit they are joining at the end of each movement phase.

the rules do not say joining unit A means leaving B. The rules do not say the maximum number of units an IC can be joined to is 1.

There is no implication of any kind that declaring "IC is joining unit B" has any impact on the status of IC being joined in unit A. Many people in this thread are reading that implication into the rules because thats how everyone in the history of the game has played it. But it isn't there.

Gwyidion wrote:
You're joined to unit A. You don't need to re-join unit A. Clearly units at the start of psyker's movement phases and the psyker - if an IC - are already joined. They dont start each movement phase in some null state - if they were joined to a unit before, they're joined now. So, then they must declare which unit they're joining. Being already joined to A, they declare they're joining unit B and nothing about that action (in the rule text) requires that they leave A.

The rules say they can join units.

The rules say they have to declare which unit they are joining at the end of each movement phase.

the rules do not say joining unit A means leaving B. The rules do not say the maximum number of units an IC can be joined to is 1.

There is no implication of any kind that declaring "IC is joining unit B" has any impact on the status of IC being joined in unit A. Many people in this thread are reading that implication into the rules because thats how everyone in the history of the game has played it. But it isn't there.

Did you read my previous two posts at all?

Because I am already joined. I simply did not choose to leave the unit.

Again: I choose to join A, while already being joined to B. Find the rule, page and paragraph, that states either:

1) All ICs automatically leave their unit during the movement phase, and rejoin at the end (thus they have no "joined" state before they make the choice to join A or B)

2) You must leave a unit before you can join another

You claim that joining B means you have chosen not to join A - which I agree with. However, this is NOT THE SAME as saying that choosing to join B means you LEAVE A

DR - no implication exists. Find it, or concede.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Because I am already joined. I simply did not choose to leave the unit.

Again: I choose to join A, while already being joined to B. Find the rule, page and paragraph, that states either:

1) All ICs automatically leave their unit during the movement phase, and rejoin at the end (thus they have no "joined" state before they make the choice to join A or B)

2) You must leave a unit before you can join another

You claim that joining B means you have chosen not to join A - which I agree with. However, this is NOT THE SAME as saying that choosing to join B means you LEAVE A

DR - no implication exists. Find it, or concede.

You have yet to counter my point.

Your point bears no relation to my argument

Your point is that you cannot join two units at the same time. I havent. I'm ALREADY joined to one unit, and choose to join another.

Find a rule stating this is not possible. Page and paragraph

nosferatu1001 wrote:
You claim that joining B means you have chosen not to join A - which I agree with. However, this is NOT THE SAME as saying that choosing to join B means you LEAVE A

Actually, it does.
If you choose to join B you chose not to join A. By definition.
If you've chosen not to join A, how can you possibly claim to be joined to A?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Your point bears no relation to my argument

Your point is that you cannot join two units at the same time. I havent. I'm ALREADY joined to one unit, and choose to join another.

Find a rule stating this is not possible. Page and paragraph

*sigh*

TG wrote:
If you are part of Unit A, and you move to within 2" of Unit B (with intent to join), then you do not, by your own admittance, intend to join Unit A. Therefore you cannot end your move within 2" of Unit A if you wish to join unit B.

rigeld2 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
You claim that joining B means you have chosen not to join A - which I agree with. However, this is NOT THE SAME as saying that choosing to join B means you LEAVE A

Actually, it does.
If you choose to join B you chose not to join A. By definition.
If you've chosen not to join A, how can you possibly claim to be joined to A?

I was already joined to A. Show when I stopped being joined. Page and Para.

Tactical_Genius wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Your point bears no relation to my argument

Your point is that you cannot join two units at the same time. I havent. I'm ALREADY joined to one unit, and choose to join another.

Find a rule stating this is not possible. Page and paragraph

*sigh*

TG wrote:
If you are part of Unit A, and you move to within 2" of Unit B (with intent to join), then you do not, by your own admittance, intend to join Unit A. Therefore you cannot end your move within 2" of Unit A if you wish to join unit B.

*sigh* back. Your argument still bears no relation to mine.

I intend to join B, so can move to within 2" of it. I, by my own admittance, do not intend to leave unit A, but nothing in the rules requires me to do so.

Again: find an actual rule. No more "sighing", given you cannot manage to provide a relevant argument.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
You claim that joining B means you have chosen not to join A - which I agree with. However, this is NOT THE SAME as saying that choosing to join B means you LEAVE A

Actually, it does.
If you choose to join B you chose not to join A. By definition.
If you've chosen not to join A, how can you possibly claim to be joined to A?

I was already joined to A. Show when I stopped being joined. Page and Para.

You stopped being joined when you chose not the join A.
Because, as I said,

If you've chosen not to join A, how can you possibly claim to be joined to A?

nosferatu1001 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
You claim that joining B means you have chosen not to join A - which I agree with. However, this is NOT THE SAME as saying that choosing to join B means you LEAVE A

Actually, it does.
If you choose to join B you chose not to join A. By definition.
If you've chosen not to join A, how can you possibly claim to be joined to A?

I was already joined to A. Show when I stopped being joined. Page and Para.

Tactical_Genius wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Your point bears no relation to my argument

Your point is that you cannot join two units at the same time. I havent. I'm ALREADY joined to one unit, and choose to join another.

Find a rule stating this is not possible. Page and paragraph

*sigh*

TG wrote:
If you are part of Unit A, and you move to within 2" of Unit B (with intent to join), then you do not, by your own admittance, intend to join Unit A. Therefore you cannot end your move within 2" of Unit A if you wish to join unit B.

*sigh* back. Your argument still bears no relation to mine.

I intend to join B, so can move to within 2" of it. I, by my own admittance, do not intend to leave unit A, but nothing in the rules requires me to do so.

Again: find an actual rule. No more "sighing", given you cannot manage to provide a relevant argument.

Answer me this
- Do you intend to JOIN unit A? (The unit you are already attached to)

I'm going to get to the bottom of this, because this is the silliest argument i've seen on here in awhile. I'll have to check my rulebook when i get home for some direct pages.

"the player must declare which unit it is joining"

So the "it" in that sentence is referring to the IC. in the description of the IC it says that it is a member of the unit for all rules purposes. Which means if the IC was joined to two units, then the two units would be effectively one. So if you can find anywhere in the book that allows two units to join, then you go right ahead.

TG - NO, I intend to *stay joined to* unit A I *intend* to *join* unit B.

Two different tenses.

Find me a rule talking about already being joined to a unit. Read page 39, note the context is a solo IC being near two units, NOT an IC already joined.

Rigeld.- you seem to struggle with tenses, here. If I am already joined to a unit, I cannot choose to join it unless I first leave it.

Find where I leave it. Page and Para.

So a couple things here.

I think the "must declare if within 2" of multiple units" part of the rules (while poorly worded) is pretty clear that you can only be part of one unit at a time.

Furthermore there are no rules supporting the joining of 2 non independent character units.

I would argue as well that since the IC is part of the unit for all rules pruposes and that memebers of one unit are not allowed to join another he would nto be able to do so.

Do those units become 1? or are they still 2 units?

IF they are 2 units, how does that effect the IC can he shoot at 2 different targets?, or does he choose which one? IF one unit charges and the other does not what happens?

Just in case it wasnt clear - I really do not believe an IC *should* be able to join 2 units at once, however the rules do not convey any such restriction.

Mainly because being joined, and electing to join, are two entirely different concepts that both TG and Rigeld are conflating.

(Choosing to not join A, when I am already joined to A, has no effect on my state )

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Rigeld.- you seem to struggle with tenses, here. If I am already joined to a unit, I cannot choose to join it unless I first leave it.

Find where I leave it. Page and Para.

I'm not struggling with tenses at all.

An IC is joined to A. A and the IC move near B, with the IC inside 2".
You must choose to join A or B. (page 39 "If the Independent Character is within 2" of more than one unit at the end of its Movement phase, the player must declare which unit it is joining.")
If you choose to join A, you also chose not to join B. By definition.
You are attempting to claimed you are joined to B even though you chose not to join B. This is literally impossible.

No, it isnt

You are claiming choosing not to join B affects the fact you are ALREADY joined to B. It does not.

I choose not to join Steam, yet am already a member of Steam. Do I stop being a member of Steam?

Note: you are claiming an inaction causes an action.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
No, it isnt

You are claiming choosing not to join B affects the fact you are ALREADY joined to B. It does not.

You are told to declare which unit you are joining - indicating a singular choice.
If you choose not to join B, and yet still claim to be joined to B then you can not have chosen to not join B.

I choose not to join Steam, yet am already a member of Steam. Do I stop being a member of Steam?

Not a comparable situation, ignoring for irrelevancy.

Note: you are claiming an inaction causes an action.

No. Choosing not to join B is an action.

No, they action I am asked to perform is to choose which unit to join. That is the action.

Not (choosing) is not (an action)

The situation is entirely comparable. Dont ignore it.

Clearly there are two interpretations of common English language happening here.

Both are correct when reading the single rule on its own.

Only one is correct when taking all other rules in conjunction with that single rule.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
TG - NO, I intend to *stay joined to* unit A I *intend* to *join* unit B.

Two different tenses.

Find me a rule talking about already being joined to a unit. Read page 39, note the context is a solo IC being near two units, NOT an IC already joined.

You are *completely* missing my point.

If you do not intend to join unit A, then:

BRB p.39 wrote:
If an Independent Character does not intend to (or cannot) join a unit, it must (where possible) remain more than 2" away from it at the end of the Movement phase

(emphasis mine)
If you had taken the care to read my argument correctly, you would have noticed this is what happens:

-IC is attached to A.
-IC wants to join B
-Since it is already joined to A, it does not intend to join A, as you have stated.
-It does not intend to join to A, so "must remain more than 2" away from it at the end of the movement phase".

Is it possible to stay more then 2" away from a unit you are part of? Movement rules say no making it impossible to stay 2" away from unit A while joining unit B. The units still wouldn't be joined but would include one model with the benefits and drawbacks of both.

Edit: if they hadn't of said (where possible) you would be right it would prevent it but to compensate for games with area restrictions like zone of mortalis games they included it.....

the page 39 stuff about staying 2" away from units only apply if the IC is not already attached to a unit.

If the IC is attached to a unit then it counts as member of the unit for all rules purposes.

If the IC wants to leave the unit and again become it's own independent unit then it can do so. At the point it can move within 2" of two units, it must then decide WHICH to join. which implies one, OR the other.

If an IC is part of a unit, it cannot combine two units, because two units cannot be joined.

Since this games is rules permissive, it tells you what you can do, it does not say an independent character can be joined to two units at the same time, therefore, it cannot.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
No, they action I am asked to perform is to choose which unit to join. That is the action.

Not (choosing) is not (an action)

Correct - not choosing is not an action.
But by choosing to join one you are also choosing not to join the other. Two actions for the price of one, so to speak.

The situation is entirely comparable. Dont ignore it.

It's not. It's not an either/or situation. It's not a "declare which service you are joining" with which being an implied singular.
It's not comparable. It's ignored.

Gravmyr wrote:
Is it possible to stay more then 2" away from a unit you are part of? Movement rules say no making it impossible to stay 2" away from unit A while joining unit B. The units still wouldn't be joined but would include one model with the benefits and drawbacks of both.

Except ICs are given explicit permission to move out of coherency. Therefore it is entirely "possible" to move out of the bubble.

Tactical_Genius wrote:
If you do not intend to join unit A, then:
BRB p.39 wrote:
If an Independent Character does not intend to (or cannot) join a unit, it must (where possible) remain more than 2" away from it at the end of the Movement phase

(emphasis mine)
If you had taken the care to read my argument correctly, you would have noticed this is what happens:

-IC is attached to A.
-IC wants to join B
-Since it is already joined to A, it does not intend to join A, as you have stated.
-It does not intend to join to A, so "must remain more than 2" away from it at the end of the movement phase".

100% this.

Indisputable proof that you can not join or be joined to more than one unit at a time.

If you had taken the care to explain it more carefully, like you did there, it would have made sense.

Accepted, point conceded. Good argument

nosferatu1001 wrote:
If you had taken the care to explain it more carefully, like you did there, it would have made sense.

Accepted, point conceded. Good argument

Apologies for the lack of clarity.

You too

Tactical_Genius wrote:

Gravmyr wrote:
The counter to that is that he is already part of that unit therefor doesn't count that unit as it is not a unit he can join, he has already joined it.

Exactly. If he cannot join it, he cannot intend to join it either.

Tactical_Genius wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
TG - NO, I intend to *stay joined to* unit A I *intend* to *join* unit B.

Two different tenses.

Find me a rule talking about already being joined to a unit. Read page 39, note the context is a solo IC being near two units, NOT an IC already joined.

You are *completely* missing my point.

If you do not intend to join unit A, then:

BRB p.39 wrote:
If an Independent Character does not intend to (or cannot) join a unit, it must (where possible) remain more than 2" away from it at the end of the Movement phase

(emphasis mine)
If you had taken the care to read my argument correctly, you would have noticed this is what happens:

-IC is attached to A.
-IC wants to join B
-Since it is already joined to A, it does not intend to join A, as you have stated.
-It does not intend to join to A, so "must remain more than 2" away from it at the end of the movement phase".

The IC by itself is it's own unit. It is necessarily permitted to end it's movement within 2 inches of it's own unit and unit A. It does so and joins unit A. Now it is for all rules purposes with unit A. The next turn comes around. The same allowance for its own unit applies now when it ends it's move 2 inches from unit B.

Point is, I don't see that the IC is within 2 inches of more units than it was in the initial joining to unit A. Obviously it's own unit is disregarded towards the number of units it can end near or it would never be able to join a unit mid game.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Abandon wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Gwyidion wrote:
There is no support for that exclusion in the rules, though - you're injecting it.

I've done no such thing.
By definition if you choose to join one thing you have also chosen not to join another.

Choosing not to join and leaving are not the same thing.

If you have chosen not to join, how can you claim to be joined?

Please explain.

Because you were are already a member of the unit. If you haven't noticed, specific action is required to leave the unit and the IC per RAW is a member until it preforms said action. The non-action of not joining is not stated to cause it to become detached. It is therefore still a member of the unit regardless of which unit the IC chooses to join in future movement phases.

Icculus wrote:I'm going to get to the bottom of this, because this is the silliest argument i've seen on here in awhile. I'll have to check my rulebook when i get home for some direct pages.

"the player must declare which unit it is joining"

So the "it" in that sentence is referring to the IC. in the description of the IC it says that it is a member of the unit for all rules purposes. Which means if the IC was joined to two units, then the two units would be effectively one. So if you can find anywhere in the book that allows two units to join, then you go right ahead.

Never claimed RAI or HYWPI. This is a pure RAW absurdity debate that is effectively meaningless as far as how the game will (should) be played and should only be taken as a lessen in how ridiculous pure RAW can be.

To be clear, the claim is that the two units would still be separate with one shared member... It still hurts my head.

 Abandon wrote:
The IC by itself is it's own unit. It is necessarily permitted to end it's movement within 2 inches of it's own unit and unit A. It does so and joins unit A. Now it is for all rules purposes with unit A. The next turn comes around. The same allowance for its own unit applies now when it ends it's move 2 inches from unit B.

Point is, I don't see that the IC is within 2 inches of more units than it was in the initial joining to unit A. Obviously it's own unit is disregarded towards the number of units it can end near or it would never be able to join a unit mid game.

Pure RAW is what Tactical posted.

Nothing more or less.

The rules about ending within 2 inches are written to give the IC a choice between two units that he is close to. Its own unit(The unit is is joined to) is not disregarded, unless you have a rules citation, but I know you are not going to find one.

It can join a unit mid game, because the IC, when moving into coherency with a unit to join it, is not within 2 inches of a different unit. The fact that he is a unit does not matter because the IC rule allows him to join other units, but does not allow him to join other units when already attached to a unit.

You can not be a member of 2 units because the rules do not allow such.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Abandon wrote:
The IC by itself is it's own unit. It is necessarily permitted to end it's movement within 2 inches of it's own unit and unit A. It does so and joins unit A. Now it is for all rules purposes with unit A. The next turn comes around. The same allowance for its own unit applies now when it ends it's move 2 inches from unit B.

Point is, I don't see that the IC is within 2 inches of more units than it was in the initial joining to unit A. Obviously it's own unit is disregarded towards the number of units it can end near or it would never be able to join a unit mid game.

Pure RAW is what Tactical posted.

Nothing more or less.

The rules about ending within 2 inches are written to give the IC a choice between two units that he is close to. Its own unit(The unit is is joined to) is not disregarded, unless you have a rules citation, but I know you are not going to find one.

It can join a unit mid game, because the IC, when moving into coherency with a unit to join it, is not within 2 inches of a different unit. The fact that he is a unit does not matter because the IC rule allows him to join other units, but does not allow him to join other units when already attached to a unit.

You can not be a member of 2 units because the rules do not allow such.

Except that the IC itself is it own when unattached. Necessarily it must end its move within 2 inches of its own unit as well as another unit in order to join a unit at all. Your interpretation denies this.

Also of note. If several ICs are joined to a unit, per your interpretation they'd still have to stay 2 " away from each other, which would make those multi-IC units very difficult to keep together.

Let me fix your argument for you:

The rules about ending within 2 inches are written to give the IC a choice between two units that he is close to. Its own unit(itself) is not disregarded, unless you have a rules citation, but I know you are not going to find one.

It can't join a unit mid game, because the IC, when moving into coherency with a unit to join it, is within 2 inches of a different unit(its own unit). The fact that he is a unit does matter because while the IC rule allows him to join other units, it does not aloow him within 2 inches of his own unit and another unit at the same time.

This would be the correct conclusion of your interpretation of "If an Independent Character does not intend to (or cannot) join a unit, it must (where possible) remain more than 2" away from it at the end of the Movement phase"

It seems to me however, quite obvious the ICs own unit is disregarded for this purpose.

 Abandon wrote:
Except that the IC itself is it own when unattached. Necessarily it must end its move within 2 inches of its own unit as well as another unit in order to join a unit at all. Your interpretation denies this.

Not at all.

The IC is its own, but it may never be within coherency of a squadmate so it does not matter that he is his own unit. He has rules that allow him to join a unit...

Also of note. If several ICs are joined to a unit, per your interpretation they'd still have to stay 2 " away from each other, which would make those multi-IC units very difficult to keep together.

Again the IC's become a normal member of the unit, no issues.

Let me fix your argument for you:

The rules about ending within 2 inches are written to give the IC a choice between two units that he is close to. Its own unit(itself) is not disregarded, unless you have a rules citation, but I know you are not going to find one.

It can't join a unit mid game, because the IC, when moving into coherency with a unit to join it, is within 2 inches of a different unit(its own unit). The fact that he is a unit does matter because while the IC rule allows him to join other units, it does not aloow him within 2 inches of his own unit and another unit at the same time.

This would be the correct conclusion of your interpretation of "If an Independent Character does not intend to (or cannot) join a unit, it must (where possible) remain more than 2" away from it at the end of the Movement phase"

It seems to me however, quite obvious the ICs own unit is disregarded for this purpose.

The Context of the IC rules are talking about any units other than himself (Because he may never join his unit, as he starts as his own unit and may never leave his own unit because he can never move out of coherency with himself). Clearly you must have gotten that from the IC rules right?

Well, looks like the no-joining multiple units argument has it!

Rats, and I wanted my 4 Jugger Heralds to be able to join 60 Flesh Hounds and multi-charge every thing in the opponent's army at once!

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Abandon wrote:
Except that the IC itself is it own when unattached. Necessarily it must end its move within 2 inches of its own unit as well as another unit in order to join a unit at all. Your interpretation denies this.

Not at all.

The IC is its own, but it may never be within coherency of a squadmate so it does not matter that he is his own unit. He has rules that allow him to join a unit...

Why can't he be in coherency with a squad-mate? Not exactly sure wht you trying to say here but it sounds like you arbitrarily trying to draw a distinction between when the IC is a member of unit IC(itself) and when it is a member of unit A. The rule makes no distinction between when the ICs unit is unit IC and when the ICs unit is unit A. As no difference is mentioned in the rules why would you think the rules would treat them differently? You must find permission to do so.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Also of note. If several ICs are joined to a unit, per your interpretation they'd still have to stay 2 " away from each other, which would make those multi-IC units very difficult to keep together.

Again the IC's become a normal member of the unit, no issues.

According to you an ICs squad-mates count as a unit for the 'can't end within 2 inches of more than one unit' rule.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Let me fix your argument for you:

The rules about ending within 2 inches are written to give the IC a choice between two units that he is close to. Its own unit(itself) is not disregarded, unless you have a rules citation, but I know you are not going to find one.

It can't join a unit mid game, because the IC, when moving into coherency with a unit to join it, is within 2 inches of a different unit(its own unit). The fact that he is a unit does matter because while the IC rule allows him to join other units, it does not aloow him within 2 inches of his own unit and another unit at the same time.

This would be the correct conclusion of your interpretation of "If an Independent Character does not intend to (or cannot) join a unit, it must (where possible) remain more than 2" away from it at the end of the Movement phase"

It seems to me however, quite obvious the ICs own unit is disregarded for this purpose.

The Context of the IC rules are talking about any units other than himself (Because he may never join his unit, as he starts as his own unit and may never leave his own unit because he can never move out of coherency with himself). Clearly you must have gotten that from the IC rules right?

When an IC is with a unit, that is its unit. When an IC is by itself, that is its unit. Your trying to draw a distinction that is not noted to effect the rules for joining units.

 Abandon wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Abandon wrote:
Except that the IC itself is it own when unattached. Necessarily it must end its move within 2 inches of its own unit as well as another unit in order to join a unit at all. Your interpretation denies this.

Not at all.

The IC is its own, but it may never be within coherency of a squadmate so it does not matter that he is his own unit. He has rules that allow him to join a unit...

Why can't he be in coherency with a squad-mate?

Because he does not have anyone else in his unit so he has no squadmates...

Not exactly sure wht you trying to say here but it sounds like you arbitrarily trying to draw a distinction between when the IC is a member of unit IC(itself) and when it is a member of unit A. The rule makes no distinction between when the ICs unit is unit IC and when the ICs unit is unit A. As no difference is mentioned in the rules why would you think the rules would treat them differently? You must find permission to do so.

The rules draw the distinction, he he joins a unit and becomes a normal member of that unit...

According to you an ICs squad-mates count as a unit for the 'can't end within 2 inches of more than one unit' rule..

The IC rules, in context tell us that if he joins a unit he becomes a normal member of that unit. at the end of the movement phase if he is within 2 inches of a terminator squad, and within 2 inches of the tac squad he is within 2 inches of two different units. One he is joined to, and one he is not. this is, in context, whatt he rules are sayting.

 Abandon wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

The Context of the IC rules are talking about any units other than himself (Because he may never join his unit, as he starts as his own unit and may never leave his own unit because he can never move out of coherency with himself). Clearly you must have gotten that from the IC rules right?

When an IC is with a unit, that is its unit. When an IC is by itself, that is its unit. Your trying to draw a distinction that is not noted to effect the rules for joining units.

No, that is not its unit, that is the unit he is is joined to, he becomes a member of that unit, they do not become a member of the IC's unit...

Please do not ignore the context this time.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Abandon wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Abandon wrote:
Except that the IC itself is it own when unattached. Necessarily it must end its move within 2 inches of its own unit as well as another unit in order to join a unit at all. Your interpretation denies this.

Not at all.

The IC is its own, but it may never be within coherency of a squadmate so it does not matter that he is his own unit. He has rules that allow him to join a unit...

Why can't he be in coherency with a squad-mate?

Because he does not have anyone else in his unit so he has no squadmates...

I think you are confused. When an IC is with a unit, that is indeed its unit, it has no unit of its own any more. So it's either part of its own unit (member of unit IC, albeit the only part) or its part of unit X.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Not exactly sure wht you trying to say here but it sounds like you arbitrarily trying to draw a distinction between when the IC is a member of unit IC(itself) and when it is a member of unit A. The rule makes no distinction between when the ICs unit is unit IC and when the ICs unit is unit A. As no difference is mentioned in the rules why would you think the rules would treat them differently? You must find permission to do so.

The rules draw the distinction, he he joins a unit and becomes a normal member of that unit...

No, it really doesn't. The IC rules for joining unit never draw a distinction between when the IC is its own unit or when it's part of a different unit. Either way, the IC is always a member of a unit.

 DeathReaper wrote:

According to you an ICs squad-mates count as a unit for the 'can't end within 2 inches of more than one unit' rule..

The IC rules, in context tell us that if he joins a unit he becomes a normal member of that unit. at the end of the movement phase if he is within 2 inches of a terminator squad, and within 2 inches of the tac squad he is within 2 inches of two different units. One he is joined to, and one he is not. this is, in context, whatt he rules are sayting.

 Abandon wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

The Context of the IC rules are talking about any units other than himself (Because he may never join his unit, as he starts as his own unit and may never leave his own unit because he can never move out of coherency with himself). Clearly you must have gotten that from the IC rules right?

When an IC is with a unit, that is its unit. When an IC is by itself, that is its unit. Your trying to draw a distinction that is not noted to effect the rules for joining units.

No, that is not its unit, that is the unit he is is joined to, he becomes a member of that unit, they do not become a member of the IC's unit...

Please do not ignore the context this time.

Really? Does it say units other than itself? No, it just says units. Also, he can join his own unit as silly as that sounds and per your interpretation must intend to do so if he moves to within two inches of himself. Hmmm, still looks like you must be incorrect and the ICs unit is discounted concerning how many units it can end its movement within two inches of.

 Abandon wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Abandon wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Abandon wrote:
Except that the IC itself is it own when unattached. Necessarily it must end its move within 2 inches of its own unit as well as another unit in order to join a unit at all. Your interpretation denies this.

Not at all.

The IC is its own, but it may never be within coherency of a squadmate so it does not matter that he is his own unit. He has rules that allow him to join a unit...

Why can't he be in coherency with a squad-mate?

Because he does not have anyone else in his unit so he has no squadmates...

I think you are confused. When an IC is with a unit, that is indeed its unit, it has no unit of its own any more. So it's either part of its own unit (member of unit IC, albeit the only part) or its part of unit X.

Indeed, I thought we were talking about an IC on his own, as I responded to the underlined...

No, it really doesn't. The IC rules for joining unit never draw a distinction between when the IC is its own unit or when it's part of a different unit. Either way, the IC is always a member of a unit.

Not sure I see your point here.

Really? Does it say units other than itself? No, it just says units. Also, he can join his own unit as silly as that sounds and per your interpretation must intend to do so if he moves to within two inches of himself. Hmmm, still looks like you must be incorrect and the ICs unit is discounted concerning how many units it can end its movement within two inches of.

Do not ignore context. If you keep ignoring context there can be no debate.

 DeathReaper wrote:

No, it really doesn't. The IC rules for joining unit never draw a distinction between when the IC is its own unit or when it's part of a different unit. Either way, the IC is always a member of a unit.

Not sure I see your point here.

Point is, An IC is always a member of a unit. When it says the IC 'can't move tow within 2 inches of a unit it doers not intent to join' its own unit is necessarily discounted for it to ba able to join any unit at all.

 DeathReaper wrote:

Really? Does it say units other than itself? No, it just says units. Also, he can join his own unit as silly as that sounds and per your interpretation must intend to do so if he moves to within two inches of himself. Hmmm, still looks like you must be incorrect and the ICs unit is discounted concerning how many units it can end its movement within two inches of.

Do not ignore context. If you keep ignoring context there can be no debate.

Its simply a matter of me not seeing any context that indicates the ICs unit, when by itself, does not count for the rule. It seems to me the ICs unit either counts or it does not and I can't find one word in the rule that distinguishes between if it's alone or not.

In the context the IC never counts himself for the purposes of being within 2 inches of two different units, because if it is just 1 unit and 1 IC trying to join that unit, that is not two different units that he is within 2 inches of. In that case he (His unit) is only within 2 inches of a single unit.

BRB p.39 wrote:
If an Independent Character does not intend to (or cannot) join a unit, it must (where possible) remain more than 2" away from it at the end of the Movement phase

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the whole point here that when the IC is already joined to Unit A he does not need to choose unit A to join because he is already in it and instead chooses to join unit B.

If so then the IC has no intention to join unit A (as he is already a part of unit A) and does not need to remain further then 2' away from unit A. And the situation still applies.

Further I can name of the top of my head 1 way in which these units benefit from having a single character attached as they can still shoot. Namely if the attached character is a cadre fireblade with two units of fire warriors, who has succesfully passed his morale test for split fire. As he is now able to fire independently of the unit he joint. Allowing both units of fire warriors to shoot as the independant character may already target a unit other then them. And presumably allowing both units of fire warriors to benefit from the supporting volley rule for an extra shot.

 DeathReaper wrote:
In the context the IC never counts himself for the purposes of being within 2 inches of two different units, because if it is just 1 unit and 1 IC trying to join that unit, that is not two different units that he is within 2 inches of. In that case he (His unit) is only within 2 inches of a single unit.

Yes, that is the context I do not find here.

 Abandon wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
In the context the IC never counts himself for the purposes of being within 2 inches of two different units, because if it is just 1 unit and 1 IC trying to join that unit, that is not two different units that he is within 2 inches of. In that case he (His unit) is only within 2 inches of a single unit.

Yes, that is the context I do not find here.

Then there is nothing else I can help you with as you are missing the context.

I think you, DR, may be missing part of the context. What is the reason for staying 2" away from a unit? Per the IC rules it is to show that he is not a member of that unit. If you make it clear that he is not leaving the first unit and is joining the second you are meeting both the RAW as well as the context for staying 2" away.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
What it boils down to is you do not have permission to move the IC 2" away from unit A unless you are leaving it. As you are not leaving it you do not have permission to move him 2" away, meeting the where possible cause of staying 2" away. You can then have him join unit B. The context of moving him away from the first unit would have to be to show he was not a member of said unit, except that he is. As long as you are making this clear you are meeting what is set fourth in the rules. Is it RAI? I severely doubt it but again it's one of those times that something came up that GW thought it had made clear.

Gravmyr wrote:
As you are not leaving it you do not have permission to move him 2" away, meeting the where possible cause of staying 2" away.

You are looking at this wrong.
"Must" means that he "must" move 2" away. The fact that you don't want him to leave does not meet the "where possible" clause, as it is possible to move away, as you have blanket permission to leave whenever you like in the movement phase.

Please cite permission to move him away without intent of him leaving the unit for him to move 2" away. The IC rules do not give you permission to do so therefor without the intent of him leaving the unit he cannot, per unit coherency rules, move 2" away. You are right I have permission to leave the unit but without the intent to leave I do not have permission therefor it is not in fact possible to do so. Must is included but then follows it up with where possible which modifies the must to when you have the ability to do so. I still have yet to see anyone address the fact that without my intent to leave that I do not have permission and therefor the ability to move more then 2" away from the first unit.

I still think it's silly to do this as you have just basically locked two units in place and subjected the IC to wounds from both units. Not to mention the list of other reasons which has been brought forth as to the limits it then puts on the model. He can't fire or use any ability that would require him to fire, he can't move and there for neither squad can move out of coherency nor charge. There are others of course but the minor gains you would install are far outweighed by the draw backs.

Agreed Gravmyr, at no point are we arguing that we want to play it this way, Nor that the rule intended to let us do it. Its just that as the wording currently stands, we DO have the abillity to do it. Yes this is rules lawyering. That term entirely came about from the similair situation that lawyers look for these kind of loopholes on a daily basis to protect the intrests of their clients. That practice to only exists because the laws as written are binding and when a lawyer presents a judge with such a loophole the judge is often forced to admit this loophole and only afterwards can steps be taken to amend it. You can gloss over the fact that the rules allow this and say that they were not intended to allow it. You can then read the rule as you feel it was intended. However intention is always something that you subjectively read based on your own previous experience. Intentions have no value when the cold hard letter of the law reads otherwise. As pointed out before, YMDC is not solely intended to find a way to make the rules work, its to point out glaring errors so that when we have established something doesn't work as it should we can THEN with the knowledge that the rule as written is in error look for a way to fix it at the game table with our opponents. The point is that if we agree that this problem exists within the rules we then have solid evidence to point out the error when this dicussion actually comes up in play at the table. No one who has argued that the rules indeed allow this action has said that they would play it that way because they have all made it clear they to feel it is a violation of the spirit of the rules. However denying the problem exists infact only prolonges a discussion that could have ended on page one with a firm, yes the rule is in error but playing it this way causes multiple other actions for the unit to grind to a halt. (Movement, assaulting, wound allocation, and in most cases shooting.) And thus provide a clear and concise refrence point to which we can say, look at this discussion, we must house rule this whenever we are actually at the table with an opponent. Denying the way the rules are written to argue the intentions or the way you want to play it is only convulting the point of the thread. Which is to indentify a problem and either resolve it within the rules, or mark the problem as requireing attention when encountered in play. No matter how much we argue we cannot change the rules as they are written, so trying to get people to agree to how it should be played rather then how the rules allow it to be played adds pointless baggage to the thread.

Tactical_Genius wrote:

Gravmyr wrote:
As you are not leaving it you do not have permission to move him 2" away, meeting the where possible cause of staying 2" away.

You are looking at this wrong.
"Must" means that he "must" move 2" away. The fact that you don't want him to leave does not meet the "where possible" clause, as it is possible to move away, as you have blanket permission to leave whenever you like in the movement phase.

As I've pointed out, even if the IC leaves the unit he is with, it is still a member of its own unit. Even though it is the only member the rule draws no distinction between the two scenarios. Per the wording, there is no difference between when the IC is a member of unit(IC) and when the IC is a member of unit(A) for intents and purposes of joining unit B. It's always in a unit. Saying it has to leave the unit it's in to move within 2 inches of another is an impossible requirement. That is why I say the ICs unit, either way, is necessarily discounted for this purpose. If the rule did draw some kind of distinction between when the IC is by itself and when it is with a larger unit, this thread would likely not exist.

@NickOnwezen: Well said.