I recently had a game where my friend wanted to join Ovesa and Farsight, I told him he couldn't because you can't join a MC to an IC. He said he was having Ovesa join Farsight so he wasn't technically breaking that rule, I told him I didn't think that that is how it works because since they are both IC if Ovesa joins farsight the farsight is also joining Ovesa and that is against the rules. He persisted in his previous argument and in the interests of getting the game started I just let him do it.

tl;dr Can Ovesa and Farsight combine into a single unit?

It's a really good question, and it has no good answer.

It's obvious that RAI he cannot.

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.
One simple question: If a Model has not moved, can it trigger a clause that requires movement?

Honestly I do not know what the Authors intended with O'vesa, they could of intended it to be one of the very few Monstrous Creatures that is easily able to join another Unit or maybe have forgotten that these existed. I do know that they had many chances to Errata away the Independent Special Rule from this Model and have not done so, which means that the Rule as Written grants it access to the ability to Join. As the Restriction in question is forbidding something from joining the Monstrous Creature, and not forbidding it from joining them, there is nothing to prevent O'vesa from exploiting what might or might not be a 'loophole.'

However, even without dissecting the words used in the Rule, there is an issue with your interpretation:
... he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes ...

If Model A and Model B are joining each others Unit simultaneously, they will now belong to each other's Unit for all Rule purposes and belonging to two separate Units at the same time is messy.

The joining each other at the same time thing only really applies to two ICs joining each other and is based off of the IC joining IC rules in the IC special rule section. It says (or said, they could have changed the wording as I can't look in the 7th BRB at the moment) something like 'multiple IC can join each other to form one super unit of ICs' or something like that.

An MC IC CAN join a unit, as long as it is not an IC joining a unit containing a MC. So no Ovesa+Riptide, but Ovesa joining farsights unit is possible

Joining is a one sided action. If it were not, then no IC could join a non-IC unit, as a non-IC unit has no permission (usually) to join another unit.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
An MC IC CAN join a unit, as long as it is not an IC joining a unit containing a MC. So no Ovesa+Riptide, but Ovesa joining farsights unit is possible

Joining is a one sided action. If it were not, then no IC could join a non-IC unit, as a non-IC unit has no permission (usually) to join another unit.

My view on this as well. O'Vesa would need to be the last one joining the unit, and if you detach someone... can't put him back until O'Vesa leaves and re-joins as well, kek

On another note, not letting O'Vesa join with any other of the Eight breaks the fluff and one of the central ideas in Farsight Enclaves; it'd require a FAQ for exception

Agreed. O'Vesa can join any unit other than a unit containing another MC.

Also, no other IC may join a unit containing O'Vesa.

The important distinction here is that O'Vesa is joining Farsight's unit. Farsight is not joining O'Vesa's. Joining is an active action and only one IC is doing it at a time.

NL_Cirrus,
The Rule I quoted is how an Independent Character can go about joining another Unit, if I misquoted it then please quote the actual Rule which supports the concept of joining without moving the Independent Character.

Also, take extra note of the word 'their Movement Phase' in the Rule, this terminology is used repetitively throughout the book when discussing an individual Unit's action within the controlling player's Movement Phase. The very first encounter of this terminology is in Regrouping, where it uses the 'their movement phase' terminology while telling us to do something right before moving the Unit. The only curiosity within the Independent Character Special Rule is the inclusion of the words 'end of' right before the words 'their movement phase,' but that does not grant us grounds to ignore the rest of the Rule itself. The action which triggers this Rule is still that of moving the Independent Character into a specific position, without that movement this Rule can not trigger.

Also take note of the Restriction preventing the unit being joined from moving afterwards... little strange for that Restriction to even exist if the joining occurred at the end of the Movement Phase itself.

What more can I put forth to show that Joining is a one-way action?
If you want I can dissect your interpretation to see how it survives interaction with other Rules, Sequencing alone will cause problems as we can not resolving the two Independent Character Special Rules simultaneously.
Once it comes to resolving the second Independent Character Special Rule, is there even the Unit for it to join at that point or is it trying to join up with Models already in it's Unit?

By the interpretation that some have put forth:

I come up to a table on turn 3 and look at the unit that consists of 3 Crisis Suits + Farsight + O'vesa.

Is it illegal or not? Don't you think there is something wrong with arguing that one way it is and one it isn't?

Also, Farsight will "re"join the unit in every Movement phase because, unless he isn't within 2" of the unit at the end of the movement phase, he will satisfy the conditions for joining the unit. This isn't optional if the IC is within 2" of a legal unit at the end of a movement phase. Since O'Vesa will be within 2" of the unit at the end of the movement phase (these aren't sequential effects subject to timing), Farsight will be prohibited from joining the unit.

Angelic wrote:
By the interpretation that some have put forth:

I come up to a table on turn 3 and look at the unit that consists of 3 Crisis Suits + Farsight + O'vesa.

Is it illegal or not? Don't you think there is something wrong with arguing that one way it is and one it isn't?

Also, Farsight will "re"join the unit in every Movement phase because, unless he isn't within 2" of the unit at the end of the movement phase, he will satisfy the conditions for joining the unit. This isn't optional if the IC is within 2" of a legal unit at the end of a movement phase. Since O'Vesa will be within 2" of the unit at the end of the movement phase (these aren't sequential effects subject to timing), Farsight will be prohibited from joining the unit.

Which is why its illegal. Had a guy try and use this against me. I didn't let him. Then proceeded to beat his face in that game. Never wanted to play me again which I'm fine with

Angelic,
Simply walking into a on-going game and claiming something you witnessed illegal is not enough to conclude that it is actually illegal. That can only be done by highlighting what Restriction or instruction within a Rule was broken. In this situation, the two players involved would easily informed you that the Rules where followed to the letter. They may even point out in the book exactly how it allows this to be done without violating any Rule. Would you still consider X illegal after that occurred, ignoring for now the situation at hand and just assuming a hypothetical X?

Sequencing also causes a problem with what you are claiming will occur, as it requires us to resolve one Independent Character Rule then the other in a specific order. Therefore, even in situations where the conditions are met to trigger a 're-joining' to one of the Units, the order in which the Models are joining the Unit can still allow O'vesa to join last. As it is the action of an Independent Character joining a Unit which already contains a Monstrous Creature which is illegal, the act of joining O'vesa in that order fails to meet the Restriction in question.

I would also like to bring to your attention the requirement to treat the Independent Character as a member of the Unit for all Rule purposes while it is joined. The timing involved in your interpretation means the Independent Character is still joined during the rest of the Movement Phase, as we only have permission to check to see if it moved out of coherency at the end under your interpretation. If the Independent Character did does not meet the Requirements within the Rule to leave said Unit, it must still be joined to the Unit. At that point I would simply ask why you are treating the Independent Character as a separate Unit, when we are specific informed to treat it as a member of the joined Unit for all Rule purposes?

Disagree with the Written Rule all you like, but it is not illegal unless those Rules state it is.

When they wrote the rules preventing ICs from joing units containing MCs, they probably didn't consider that an MC IC might want to join a unit containing, amongst other things, a non MC IC.

I believe the intention is that ICs and MCs can't be in the same unit. The actual rules as written don't accomplish this. As we can't ever know the intention (short of an FAQ entry), we are limited to rules as written.

As silly as it sounds, the current rules do allow O'Vesa to join a unit composed of Farsight and some Crisis Suits. The only restriction is that an IC can't join a unit containing an MC. O'Vesa isn't joining a unit containing an MC, so the join is legal. They do not allow Farsight to join a unit composed of O'Vesa and some Crisis Suits. Farsight would be joining a unit containing an MC, so the join would be illegal.

And to whoever wrote saying that ICs have to rejoin their squads every turn... that's silly. You can choose to join and you can choose to leave, but so long as you are a member of the unit, you move with them and stay in coherency just like any other model in the unit. Unless you state that you're leaving the unit, you are not.

Kriswall,
I do have a concern with the 'Authors Intent' argument, even though it is true we can not know either way.

This is due to the fact Errata for the Farsight Enclaves was released to bring it in-line with 7th Edition. Given that the unique characters within where the 'meat and bones' of this supplement, it stands to reason that their Army List Entries would have also been reviewed to see if they complied with the new Rules. This leads me to conclude that the Authors had a chance to remove the Independent Character Special Rule, or add a clause that O'Vesa can not join other Units which a few Models with the Independent Character Special Rule have, and they chose instead to leave everything as it currently was. Of course, without the Authors outright saying either way I can't conclude for sure what happened but it is undeniable that they had a chance to make changes and did not actually do so.

Jinx,

I totally agree. I hesitated to even mention by thoughts about intent, because they aren't even remotely relevant to a rules as written discussion.

We have the Main Rulebook, the Codex, the Supplement and the Errata/FAQs. Nothing within any of these sources prevents O'Vesa, as a Monstrous Creature who happens to have the Independent Character special rule, from joining any unit in the Tau Empire stable of units, excepting the various Riptide variants(XV-104, XV-107 and the upcoming new Forgeworld XV-10? variant) and including those containing other Independent Characters.

JinxDragon wrote:
Angelic,
Simply walking into a on-going game and claiming something you witnessed illegal is not enough to conclude that it is actually illegal.

I didn't do any such thing. I simply asked about a hypothetical situation to illustrate a point. Why should one way be illegal and the other not? Isn't the rule there to prohibit a result, not a method by which the rule is easily circumvented and thus becomes completely meaningless? What exactly is the purpose of the rule as it has been interpreted by some?

 Kriswall wrote:

And to whoever wrote saying that ICs have to rejoin their squads every turn... that's silly. You can choose to join and you can choose to leave, but so long as you are a member of the unit, you move with them and stay in coherency just like any other model in the unit. Unless you state that you're leaving the unit, you are not.

You misinterpreted what I said. Whether the IC intends to or not, whether the IC has already joined the unit or not, it "joins" a unit if it is within 2" of it at the end movement phase. "Stating" joining/leaving has no bearing on it. If an IC is with 2" of the unit at the end of the movement phase, it has joined the unit. The rule doesn't ask if the IC had previously joined the unit. It only asks that if attempting to leave the unit, which can only be accomplished by being more than 2" away.

Your hypothetical situation involved arriving mid-game, then asking if an action was illegal. My reply is a direct answer to you: We can not determine legality without looking at the Rules that where involved in the scenario. This is because the Rules exist to tell us how to play the game, not how to conclude if something is illegal by simply glancing at the Result. They exist to grant us permission to do X or Y, or remove said permission if it has already been granted, and nothing more. By default, the Result of following any Written Rules is always going to be legal because no Rule was violated to get to that outcome.

JinxDragon wrote:
Rules exist to tell us how to play the game, they do not restrict the games outcome

False. The Kansas City Chiefs could not have beaten the New England Patriots by a score of banana to zebra, though they may have wished it so.

JinxDragon wrote:
By default, the result of following the written Rules is always going to be legal because no Rule was violated in doing so.

And this is the rub. Because the rules as written can be interpreted differently by different people. There seems to be a mistaken belief that RAW is absolute and certain on its face. It is not and never was.

JinxDragon wrote:

The Rule prevents Independent Characters from joining Monstrous Creatures

"Join" is a two-way street as I see the word.

JinxDragon wrote:
which is not enough to prevent a Monstrous Creature from evoking a Rule within their Army List Entry which grants them permission to join others.

Which "as written" to me means order is meaningless as the rule is there to prevent IC's and MC's from being present in the same unit through the use of the standard IC special rue.

Only because the Rules do not give the Patriots permission to score a Banana or the Chiefs to score a Zebra.
Unless, in this hypothetical situation, the Rules actually do then it becomes entirely possible for the Patriots to beat the Chiefs with a score of Banana to Zebra.

While this side thought has been completely unproductive to proving your point, it has been fun in proving my own. The only reason the end result of 'Banana to Zebra' would be illegal is because nothing grants permission for those two values to be included in something known as a 'score.' Instead there would be a list of Rules telling which actions generate a score, and a numeral value of points which are then added to that score. Given that the only way for a value to be added to the score would be through one of these Rules granting permission to do so, there is no possible outcome where Banana and Zebra will ever be scores. Very different to having a situation where all Rules can be obeyed to create an outcome that is only legal if the actions are taken in a very specific order....

Also, Rule as Interpenetrate and Rules as Written are very different things.
Unless you are going to tell me that instructions to move the model into coherency can reasonably be interpenetrated as something other then moving the model into coherency?

Angelic wrote:
I didn't do any such thing. I simply asked about a hypothetical situation to illustrate a point. Why should one way be illegal and the other not? Isn't the rule there to prohibit a result, not a method by which the rule is easily circumvented and thus becomes completely meaningless? What exactly is the purpose of the rule as it has been interpreted by some?

You walk up to a game and see a single space marine with a LasCannon. This is an illegal unit configuration and therefore illegal.
Or... it is the result of a legal purchase, and gameplay has made it appear illegal. Exactly like the MC IC situation.

rigeld2 wrote:

Angelic wrote:
I didn't do any such thing. I simply asked about a hypothetical situation to illustrate a point. Why should one way be illegal and the other not? Isn't the rule there to prohibit a result, not a method by which the rule is easily circumvented and thus becomes completely meaningless? What exactly is the purpose of the rule as it has been interpreted by some?

You walk up to a game and see a single space marine with a LasCannon. This is an illegal unit configuration and therefore illegal.
Or... it is the result of a legal purchase, and gameplay has made it appear illegal. Exactly like the MC IC situation.

False analogy. I also did not make an assumption, but posed a question. The point of which was that a question even existed. The normal response to a single marine on the table would not be that somebody made an illegal list that somehow got to the middle of the game without being noticed.

Also, it's not illegal because they're playing Kill Team. But, please, bring up more like this. They really contribute to the discussion.

Angelic wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Angelic wrote:
I didn't do any such thing. I simply asked about a hypothetical situation to illustrate a point. Why should one way be illegal and the other not? Isn't the rule there to prohibit a result, not a method by which the rule is easily circumvented and thus becomes completely meaningless? What exactly is the purpose of the rule as it has been interpreted by some?

You walk up to a game and see a single space marine with a LasCannon. This is an illegal unit configuration and therefore illegal.
Or... it is the result of a legal purchase, and gameplay has made it appear illegal. Exactly like the MC IC situation.

False analogy. I also did not make an assumption, but posed a question. The point of which was that a question even existed. The normal response to a single marine on the table would not be that somebody made an illegal list that somehow got to the middle of the game without being noticed.

Also, it's not illegal because they're playing Kill Team. But, please, bring up more like this. They really contribute to the discussion.

You did make an assumption. You assumed that it's illegal just because you didn't have all the information when you walked up.
The normal response to O'Vesa being joined to a unit should not be that it's illegal - that's your perception at fault.

And I am contributing to the discussion. You said

Is it illegal or not? Don't you think there is something wrong with arguing that one way it is and one it isn't?

Is it illegal to have a single marine with a LasCannon outside of Kill Team? I don't see anything wrong with arguing that it's illegal to have that in your list, but perfectly legal if all his buddies were shot by that mean Necron Warrior squad. The issue with your hypothetical situation is that you're making the assumption that it's wrong in the first place.

rigeld2 wrote:

Angelic wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

The normal response to O'Vesa being joined to a unit should not be that it's illegal - that's your perception at fault.

Therein lies your misinterpretation of my statement considering you even quoted it:

rigeld2 wrote:

Angelic wrote:


And I am contributing to the discussion. You said

Is it illegal or not?...

If you perceive that as an assumption of illegality, that is your perception at fault.

JinxDragon wrote:
Only because the Rules do not give the Patriots permission to score a Banana or the Chiefs to score a Zebra.
Unless, in this hypothetical situation, the Rules actually do then it becomes entirely possible for the Patriots to beat the Chiefs with a score of Banana to Zebra.

While this side thought has been completely unproductive to proving your point, it has been fun in proving my own. The only reason the end result of 'Banana to Zebra' would be illegal is because nothing grants permission for those two values to be included in something known as a 'score.' Instead there would be a list of Rules telling which actions generate a score, and a numeral value of points which are then added to that score. Given that the only way for a value to be added to the score would be through one of these Rules granting permission to do so, there is no possible outcome where Banana and Zebra will ever be scores. Very different to having a situation where all Rules can be obeyed to create an outcome that is only legal if the actions are taken in a very specific order....

Also, Rule as Interpenetrate and Rules as Written are very different things.
Unless you are going to tell me that instructions to move the model into coherency can reasonably be interpenetrated as something other then moving the model into coherency?

I'm not sure what you mean by that second to last sentence, because everything written must be interpreted. Every writing has multiple interpretations. Many jobs depend on that fact.

And restricting possible scores IS restricting outcomes. Your point was disproven.

Why does this issue keep coming up? Codex trumps BRB in this case and it clearly states: that when you take a farsight enclave you have access to a special unit called farsights command team. The key word there is unit and it goes on to say that the "unit" (with farsight) is an hq unit that does not take up a force org slot

 wilsmire wrote:
Why does this issue keep coming up? Codex trumps BRB in this case and it clearly states: that when you take a farsight enclave you have access to a special unit called farsights command team. The key word there is unit and it goes on to say that the "unit" (with farsight) is an hq unit that does not take up a force org slot

Because it doesn't say that. It makes no mention of them being a unit. It calls them an "HQ choice".

Angelic wrote:

 wilsmire wrote:
Why does this issue keep coming up? Codex trumps BRB in this case and it clearly states: that when you take a farsight enclave you have access to a special unit called farsights command team. The key word there is unit and it goes on to say that the "unit" (with farsight) is an hq unit that does not take up a force org slot

Because it doesn't say that. It makes no mention of them being a unit. It calls them an "HQ choice".

I know I can read https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1494120047507952&id=100007299128315&set=pcb.1494120467507910&source=48 look under farsights command team

Angelic,
There is a great difference between a Rule how it is being interpenetrated and a Rule how it is written, and this is a very good example of that. It is your interpretation that this particular Rule is designed to prevent a Monstrous Creature and an Independent Character from existing in the same Unit. However, the Written Rule is exactly as it has been posted here and it specifies movement of the Model as part of the instructions for how we go about joining other Units. How can any interpretation which doesn't involve the movement of the Independent Character trying to join be "more correct" then what is actually printed on the page?

Any interpenetration which does not include the movement of said Independent Character is clearly not following the Written Rules....

I also disagree with the whole 'your point is disproved,' but at this point it is obvious that no one here is going to be able to convince you as to why you are wrong. If you firmly believe that the Rules exist to restrict certain outcomes on a fundamental level, then you are trying an argument that has nothing to do with the Written Rules of the Game itself. Such an argument is all about how you personally believe this Games Rule system works, it is not a new argument and is one that continues to be proven wrong. The only thing we can point to is the existence of two types of systems, permission-based and restriction-based, and highlight that your view falls under the concept of a Restriction-based system where the Rules are designed to prevent actions from being taken or prevent outcomes those actions lead to. Given that the Rule book is written in a format to grant us permission to carry out actions, it is clearly not following the restriction-based system of Rule writing. Of course though, this will not sway you any more then anything else I have posted, so I will simply ask:

How can an action which breaks no Written Rules be illegal?

Jinx, I think he believes that when O'Vesa joins a unit, the unit is also somehow joining O'Vesa. This isn't the case. Joining isn't a two way street. It's an act that an Independent Character performs. A unit of Crisis Suits that happens to also contain Farsight has absolutely no ability to join any other unit. How can it possibly be a two way street if only one side of the equation has the ability to join?

 Kriswall wrote:
Jinx, I think he believes that when O'Vesa joins a unit, the unit is also somehow joining O'Vesa. This isn't the case. Joining isn't a two way street. It's an act that an Independent Character performs. A unit of Crisis Suits that happens to also contain Farsight has absolutely no ability to join any other unit. How can it possibly be a two way street if only one side of the equation has the ability to join?

However, since Farsight is part of the group, Ovesa is joining an IC as well.

If Farsight does not move, can he meet the Requirements found within the instructions on how a Model joins a Unit?

Fragile wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
Jinx, I think he believes that when O'Vesa joins a unit, the unit is also somehow joining O'Vesa. This isn't the case. Joining isn't a two way street. It's an act that an Independent Character performs. A unit of Crisis Suits that happens to also contain Farsight has absolutely no ability to join any other unit. How can it possibly be a two way street if only one side of the equation has the ability to join?

However, since Farsight is part of the group, Ovesa is joining an IC as well.

O'Vesa is allowed to join an IC. He's just not allowed to join an MC... which he isn't doing.

Angelic wrote:
If you perceive that as an assumption of illegality, that is your perception at fault.

If you don't perceive it as illegal, then why did you bring it up in the first place? I'm addressing your hypothetical situation.

I'm not sure what you mean by that second to last sentence, because everything written must be interpreted. Every writing has multiple interpretations. Many jobs depend on that fact.

He's stating the fact that RAI and RAW are often very different. Refusal to acknowledge that is ... being unfamiliar with GW.

 wilsmire wrote:

Angelic wrote:

 wilsmire wrote:
Why does this issue keep coming up? Codex trumps BRB in this case and it clearly states: that when you take a farsight enclave you have access to a special unit called farsights command team. The key word there is unit and it goes on to say that the "unit" (with farsight) is an hq unit that does not take up a force org slot

Because it doesn't say that. It makes no mention of them being a unit. It calls them an "HQ choice".

I know I can read https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1494120047507952&id=100007299128315&set=pcb.1494120467507910&source=48 look under farsights command team

Read the Errata:

http://www.blacklibrary.com/Downloads/Product/PDF/Warhammer-40k/7th-faq/Farsight_Enclaves_v1.1_May14.pdf


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

Angelic wrote:
If you perceive that as an assumption of illegality, that is your perception at fault.

If you don't perceive it as illegal, then why did you bring it up in the first place? I'm addressing your hypothetical situation.

Because there is a situation in which everyone agrees an illegality occurs. Ovesa joins a unit of Crisis suits. Farsight then attempts to join the same unit. I believe everyone agrees that is explicitly prohibited. The premise being put forth is that moving Ovesa and not Farsight means it is then legal. I believe that is a silly distinction making the rule irrelevant and that it is not written that way.

@Jinx-- Again you misinterpret me. I understand and agree that the ruleset is permissive. I just happen to read the rule as revoking an already granted permission instead of granting permission to perform an action in the way put forth while prohibiting its (realistically) meaningless opposite. I also agree we aren't going to convince each other. We just see the writing differently, and that's okay. Reasonable people can disagree.

rigeld2 wrote:

Angelic wrote:
If you perceive that as an assumption of illegality, that is your perception at fault.

If you don't perceive it as illegal, then why did you bring it up in the first place? I'm addressing your hypothetical situation.

I'm not sure what you mean by that second to last sentence, because everything written must be interpreted. Every writing has multiple interpretations. Many jobs depend on that fact.

He's stating the fact that RAI and RAW are often very different. Refusal to acknowledge that is ... being unfamiliar with GW.

Wasn't refusing anything. The "I" is usually "intended", not " interpreted". Due the the nature of language, not every word has a singular definition. That's why I asked for clarification. I am familiar that RAW and RAI are too often contradictory terms to GW.

Angelic,
Given that Wilsmire's position appears to be that the Farsight Command Team is the equivalent of a single Army List Entry, and therefore a Single Unit, the Errata has not proven this stance incorrect. It clearly states that this 'Command Team' is selected instead of the usual 'Bodyguard Team,' which does make it look as if it is a specific Unit. It goes on to state that this choice consists of up to seven Suits, very much in the same was as a Unit Composition would inform you what needs to be located within it at the start of the Game. I will review a portion of the Rule book later to confirm, but I believe there are specific mention of older Codex's and Supplements formatting Army List Entries in unusual ways and this piece of Errata can easily have been written to fit within the format of the 6th Edition Supplement it is addressing.

It also states that all Models in this Team have the Independent Character Special Rule.
Once more highlighting that they had many chances to exempt O'Vasa from this Rule in some fashion but clearly did not do so.

As for the section being a removal of a Permissions gained that was addressed to me:
It is a Restriction designed to remove permission, because it specifically removes the Independent Character's ability to join Monstrous Creatures. What you have failed to show is that it also removes the Monstrous Creatures ability to join an Independent Character, probably because the Restriction does not mention it at all. The closest explanation that has been presented is that they are 'joining each other simultaneously,' even though the Written Rules makes it impossible for that to occur, and nothing to prove that concept even is possible.

At this time I simply will ask again: Post the Rules that support your position as I have clearly highlighted and shown my Rule support on this.
The only counter that I have seen put forth is that I am misinterpreting the meaning of words used within the Rule itself, but I can not fathom what the words "an Independent Character simply has to move" mean if it doesn't relate to the Model being moved....

Angelic wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Angelic wrote:
If you perceive that as an assumption of illegality, that is your perception at fault.

If you don't perceive it as illegal, then why did you bring it up in the first place? I'm addressing your hypothetical situation.

Because there is a situation in which everyone agrees an illegality occurs. Ovesa joins a unit of Crisis suits. Farsight then attempts to join the same unit. I believe everyone agrees that is explicitly prohibited. The premise being put forth is that moving Ovesa and not Farsight means it is then legal. I believe that is a silly distinction making the rule irrelevant and that it is not written that way.

So it's irrelevant and not written that way? I'm not sure I understand.
It's also explicitly prohibited to have a single marine chilling with a LasCannon.
My point is that your hypothetical situation is irrelevant - you can't make assumptions about rules by just walking up to a table.
In 6th edition, you walk up to a table and see a Tyranid Prime joined to a Hive Tyrant. Exact same situation as your hypothetical, except it's also perfectly legal - because the unit has lost the two Tyrant Guard that allowed it to happen in the first place.

Order matters. In many places in the rules that's true. I'm not sure why you're so adamant that it's irrelevant here.

JinxDragon wrote:

, and nothing to prove that concept even is possible

"They can join other Independant Characters, though, to form a powerful multi-character unit!"

That sentence does not support the concept that they are joining each other's Unit 'simultaneously.' This is likely because that sentence does not mention anything about how an Independent Character goes about Joining other Independent Characters. Those instructions are found within the next section, titled Joining and Leaving a Unit, which I keep bringing up because your interpenetration is not supported by what is written in this section of the book. Within the actual instructions for Joining other Units are a few which make it entirely possible for O'Vessa to be the Model which is moving into Coherency, meeting all the requirements for her to join another Unit.

Besides, permission to Join other Independent Characters does nothing to address the Restriction in question.

There is simply nothing in what you have just posted which states that a Monstrous Creature with the Independent Character Special Rule can not join other Independent Characters. If anything that posted sentence, when isolated as you have done so, actually supports the opposite conclusion so I can't fathom what you believed it would do in this debate. A Monstrous Creature with the Independent Special Rule would still be a Model with the Independent Character Special Rule, and that sentence states that they can join other Independent Characters. In order to do so it would have to follow the instructions within the next section, titled Joining and Leaving a Unit, which I keep bringing up because your interpenetration is not supported by what is written in this section of the book.

Angelic wrote:

JinxDragon wrote:

, and nothing to prove that concept even is possible

"They can join other Independant Characters, though, to form a powerful multi-character unit!"

Now find the line where it says that an IC joining another IC isnt also a one sided action.

Page and graph

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Angelic wrote:

JinxDragon wrote:

, and nothing to prove that concept even is possible

"They can join other Independant Characters, though, to form a powerful multi-character unit!"

Now find the line where it says that an IC joining another IC isnt also a one sided action.

Page and graph

Two ICs move within 2" of each other, who is the "one side"?

JinxDragon wrote:
That sentence does not support the concept that they are joining each other's Unit 'simultaneously.' This is likely because that sentence does not mention anything about how an Independent Character goes about Joining other Independent Characters. Those instructions are found within the next section, titled Joining and Leaving a Unit, which I keep bringing up because your interpenetration is not supported by what is written in this section of the book. Within the actual instructions for Joining other Units are a few which make it entirely possible for O'Vessa to be the Model which is moving into Coherency, meeting all the requirements for her to join another Unit.

Besides, permission to Join other Independent Characters does nothing to address the Restriction in question.

There is simply nothing in what you have just posted which states that a Monstrous Creature with the Independent Character Special Rule can not join other Independent Characters. If anything that posted sentence, when isolated as you have done so, actually supports the opposite conclusion so I can't fathom what you believed it would do in this debate. A Monstrous Creature with the Independent Special Rule would still be a Model with the Independent Character Special Rule, and that sentence states that they can join other Independent Characters. In order to do so it would have to follow the instructions within the next section, titled Joining and Leaving a Unit, which I keep bringing up because your interpenetration is not supported by what is written in this section of the book.

No idea why you keep saying "interpenetration". In any event, "though" indicates that it is a condition that is possible when the preceding condition (sentence) is prohibited. The preceding sentence regards MCs. It does not override the sentence, but merely compliments it. You said nothing indicates 2 ICs joining each other was possible, I showed that it is.

The one who is declaring joining, the other is the joined.

Again, page and graph stating that ICs joining each other - which is not the case here - is a two sided join, unlike the normal IC join which aboslutely is (and must be) ONE sided.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
The one who is declaring joining, the other is the joined.

Again, page and graph stating that ICs joining each other - which is not the case here - is a two sided join, unlike the normal IC join which aboslutely is (and must be) ONE sided.

You first, page and paragraph that says anything about declarations in this situation. And two ICs are joining each other here, they just happen to be joining a unit as well.

Joining and Leaving a Unit (Independent Characters USR)

"the player must declare which unit it is joining."

 BlackTalos wrote:
Joining and Leaving a Unit (Independent Characters USR)

"the player must declare which unit it is joining."

That is only when an IC is within 2" of two separate units, which is why I said "this situation". Each IC is only attempting to join one unit, the other IC.

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.

I had never heard of this rule before... IC cannot get close to MC, Vehicles and other Units???


Automatically Appended Next Post:

"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.2

Then.

That RaW clearly denotes 1 IC, and not "the other" (or the Unit)

They can join other Independent Characters, though, to form a powerful multi-character unit!

Also denote an action by one IC upon the other

 BlackTalos 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.

I had never heard of this rule before... IC cannot get close to MC, Vehicles and other Units???


Automatically Appended Next Post:

"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.2

Then.

That RaW clearly denotes 1 IC, and not "the other" (or the Unit)

However, based on what you quoted, both ICs must intend to join the other. If one does not, then it must remain more than 2" away, thus rendering the "join" impossible. At least in the context of 2 ICs only.

Isn't this easily answered in that you're not actually moving both ICs at the same time? You move the first into position (or leave him where he is) and then move the second into coherency at which point the second chooses to join the first. The first can't choose to join the second because his portion of the movement phase has completed and you moved on to moving another unit (the second IC).

Therefore, you can't say that two ICs move into coherency with each other because you're never moving two units simultaneously. You pick one, move it and then pick the next.

Angelic wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
The one who is declaring joining, the other is the joined.

Again, page and graph stating that ICs joining each other - which is not the case here - is a two sided join, unlike the normal IC join which aboslutely is (and must be) ONE sided.

You first, page and paragraph that says anything about declarations in this situation. And two ICs are joining each other here, they just happen to be joining a unit as well.

ONly one IC has moved so that it is within 2" of the other, that is the one joining.

Again, two sided join rule please. Page and graph. Furhter ducking will mean everyone will assume you have no such rule.

Angelic wrote:

 BlackTalos 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.

I had never heard of this rule before... IC cannot get close to MC, Vehicles and other Units???


Automatically Appended Next Post:

"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.2

Then.

That RaW clearly denotes 1 IC, and not "the other" (or the Unit)

However, based on what you quoted, both ICs must intend to join the other. If one does not, then it must remain more than 2" away, thus rendering the "join" impossible. At least in the context of 2 ICs only.

No, because it is "at the end of the Movement phase".

That clause is only in effect if that is the End result. If that IC is joined, they form 1 Unit and the rule is no longer evoked.

(Same as moving IC 0.5" from a MC and ending his move there. The MC can still move away before the end of the phase.)

This is how I see it based on the presented rules.

We'll assume Farsight is alone and O'Vesa is alone.

Scenario 1:
Farsight moves first. He ends his movement more than 2" away from O'Vesa. O'Vesa moves second. He ends his movement within 2" of Farsight. O'Vesa has complied with the requirement to "move so that he is within 2" unit coherency of a friendly unit". Farsight didn't fulfill this requirement. O'Vesa was the one doing the joining. This is a legal join.

Scenario 2:
O'Vesa moves first. He ends his movement more than 2" away from Farsight. Farsight now moves, but cannot end his movement within 2" coherency as he cannot join a MC and must stay at least 2" away from any unit he cannot join. No join occurs.

Strictly speaking, once joined, the unit moves as one. You don't have to worry about ending Farsight's movement within 2" of the existing O'Vesa containing unit because Farsight is already a part of the unit.

At this point we have shown clearly how we are obeying the Written Rules themselves, so how can the result be illegal?
In this digital age, please post the actual Rule that was broken getting to this conclusion instead of simply stating the conclusion is illegal.

Exacly.
As long O'vesa is the one making the final step before joining-its legal.

If you want to add yet another IC to the team later though, You'll have to brake the team apart (by moving everyone EXCEPT o'vesa), join the new IC and then bring back O'vesa. failure to follow this process will make it illegal (unless your opponent is willing to streamline the identical end result ofc)


Talos what you miseed is that the not "end of THE movement phase" its "end of THEIR movement phase", two very different sentences.


Eihnlazer is to most funny "It's obvious that RAI he cannot." obvious that RAI farsight cannot be joined by one of his bodyguards?

What I find humorous is the concept that the Authors intended for all Units containing both a Monstrous Creature and an Independent Character to be illegal by default.
Under that mentality O'Vesa could never be fielded, being a Unit of One would not prevent it from still being a Unit with both a Monstrous Creature and an Independent Character within....

JinxDragon wrote:
At this point we have shown clearly how we are obeying the Written Rules themselves, so how can the result be illegal?
In this digital age, please post the actual Rule that was broken getting to this conclusion instead of simply stating the conclusion is illegal.

It is illegal for Farsight to join a unit containing a MC.
O'vesa is a MC.
A unit containing O'vesa contains a MC.
Farsight cannot join a unit containing O'vesa.

By rule, Farsight must remain more than 2" from any such unit at the end of his movement phase, which means he has either left a unit or failed to join one. If Farsight hasn't remained more than 2" from any unit containing O'vesa at the end of the movement phase, a rule has been broken.

Angelic wrote:

JinxDragon wrote:
At this point we have shown clearly how we are obeying the Written Rules themselves, so how can the result be illegal?
In this digital age, please post the actual Rule that was broken getting to this conclusion instead of simply stating the conclusion is illegal.

It is illegal for Farsight to join a unit containing a MC.
O'vesa is a MC.
A unit containing O'vesa contains a MC.
Farsight cannot join a unit containing O'vesa.

By rule, Farsight must remain more than 2" from any such unit at the end of his movement phase, which means he has either left a unit or failed to join one. If Farsight hasn't remained more than 2" from any unit containing O'vesa at the end of the movement phase, a rule has been broken.

I underlined where you used two very different phrases to mean the same thing.

They don't. And only one of them is the actual rule.

rigeld2 wrote:

Angelic wrote:

JinxDragon wrote:
At this point we have shown clearly how we are obeying the Written Rules themselves, so how can the result be illegal?
In this digital age, please post the actual Rule that was broken getting to this conclusion instead of simply stating the conclusion is illegal.

It is illegal for Farsight to join a unit containing a MC.
O'vesa is a MC.
A unit containing O'vesa contains a MC.
Farsight cannot join a unit containing O'vesa.

By rule, Farsight must remain more than 2" from any such unit at the end of his movement phase, which means he has either left a unit or failed to join one. If Farsight hasn't remained more than 2" from any unit containing O'vesa at the end of the movement phase, a rule has been broken.

I underlined where you used two very different phrases to mean the same thing.

They don't. And only one of them is the actual rule.

I stand corrected, it is "the" movement phase.

Angelic wrote:

JinxDragon wrote:
At this point we have shown clearly how we are obeying the Written Rules themselves, so how can the result be illegal?
In this digital age, please post the actual Rule that was broken getting to this conclusion instead of simply stating the conclusion is illegal.

It is illegal for Farsight to join a unit containing a MC.
O'vesa is a MC.
A unit containing O'vesa contains a MC.
Farsight cannot join a unit containing O'vesa.

By rule, Farsight must remain more than 2" from any such unit at the end of his movement phase, which means he has either left a unit or failed to join one. If Farsight hasn't remained more than 2" from any unit containing O'vesa at the end of the movement phase, a rule has been broken.

Only if he wishes to join. If he has already joined, there is no issue

Any two sided joining rule found yet? Or are you ducking yet again?

I am still trying to figure out where Angelic is getting permission to Resolve two Independent Character Special Rules simultaneously.
Once we Resolve O'Vesa there is no longer a Unit within 2 inches of Farsight, so how are we in violating his Independent Character Special Rule when it comes time to check it's conditions?

I dont know, and am assuming they have no real argument, as their core argument - that IC joining is the only 2 sided join - has absolutely no basis.

The rest seems to be waffle right now.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Angelic wrote:

JinxDragon wrote:
At this point we have shown clearly how we are obeying the Written Rules themselves, so how can the result be illegal?
In this digital age, please post the actual Rule that was broken getting to this conclusion instead of simply stating the conclusion is illegal.

It is illegal for Farsight to join a unit containing a MC.
O'vesa is a MC.
A unit containing O'vesa contains a MC.
Farsight cannot join a unit containing O'vesa.

By rule, Farsight must remain more than 2" from any such unit at the end of his movement phase, which means he has either left a unit or failed to join one. If Farsight hasn't remained more than 2" from any unit containing O'vesa at the end of the movement phase, a rule has been broken.

Only if he wishes to join. If he has already joined, there is no issue

Any two sided joining rule found yet? Or are you ducking yet again?

Not ducking anything. I've already quoted the rule. You just don't accept it, despite the fact that 2 IC's actually have to intend to join each other or stay away from each other. And the rule requiring them to stay away says if it "cannot" join. Doesn't matter if he has joined a unit already.

Angelic wrote:
Doesn't matter if he has joined a unit already.

Please explain that thought.

Angelic, I move Farsight 6" towards O'Vesa. He ends his move 3" apart from O'Vesa. Did I break a rule?

 Happyjew wrote:
Angelic, I move Farsight 6" towards O'Vesa. He ends his move 3" apart from O'Vesa. Did I break a rule?

Is Farsight within 2" of O'vesa's unit?

Angelic wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
Angelic, I move Farsight 6" towards O'Vesa. He ends his move 3" apart from O'Vesa. Did I break a rule?

Is Farsight within 2" of O'vesa's unit?

You are not answering my question.

rigeld2 wrote:

Angelic wrote:
Doesn't matter if he has joined a unit already.

Please explain that thought.

The rule says if an IC cannot join a unit, it must remain more than 2" away. It does not include any statements such as "unless already joined" or any other phrases indicating whether or not already being part of a unit has any bearing on the matter.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Happyjew wrote:

Angelic wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
Angelic, I move Farsight 6" towards O'Vesa. He ends his move 3" apart from O'Vesa. Did I break a rule?

Is Farsight within 2" of O'vesa's unit?

You are not answering my question.

Because you haven't supplied enough information to provide an answer.

 BoomWolf wrote:
Talos what you miseed is that the not "end of THE movement phase" its "end of THEIR movement phase", two very different sentences.

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.

Quote from the rulebook above. I am quite sure i was correct.

You cannot invoke this rule unless the Movement Phase ends with an IC not in a Unit.
If O'Vesa joins Farsight, "he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes, though he still follows the rules for characters."

As long as the joining is possible, the 2" bubble is ignored. We have enough rules support that O'Vesa can join Farsight.

 BlackTalos wrote:

You cannot invoke this rule unless the Movement Phase ends with an IC not in a Unit.

Not a condition of the rule, but I can see this is pointless to continue.

Angelic wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

You cannot invoke this rule unless the Movement Phase ends with an IC not in a Unit.

Not a condition of the rule, but I can see this is pointless to continue.

How is "If an Independent Character does not intend to (or cannot) join a unit" not a condition, starting with "IF", ending with a comma?

The condition on "it must (where possible) remain more than 2" away"
is that he does not join the Unit. If the IC can join the Unit (O'Vesa > Farsight) then he simply does.

If you had already moved O'Vesa, and tried to (Farsight > O'Vesa), then Farsight would have to be 2" away by the End of the phase (and not be able to even approach if he was the last Unit you move in your turn)

I do hate the "it must (where possible) remain" clause though. When is possible and when is not???

Angelic wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Angelic wrote:
Doesn't matter if he has joined a unit already.

Please explain that thought.

The rule says if an IC cannot join a unit, it must remain more than 2" away. It does not include any statements such as "unless already joined" or any other phrases indicating whether or not already being part of a unit has any bearing on the matter.

Can an IC join a unit if he's already joined to a unit? Simple question, should be a yes or no answer.

Angelic wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

Angelic wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
Angelic, I move Farsight 6" towards O'Vesa. He ends his move 3" apart from O'Vesa. Did I break a rule?

Is Farsight within 2" of O'vesa's unit?

You are not answering my question.

Because you haven't supplied enough information to provide an answer.

How do you not have enough information?

rigeld2 wrote:

Angelic wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Angelic wrote:
Doesn't matter if he has joined a unit already.

Please explain that thought.

The rule says if an IC cannot join a unit, it must remain more than 2" away. It does not include any statements such as "unless already joined" or any other phrases indicating whether or not already being part of a unit has any bearing on the matter.

Can an IC join a unit if he's already joined to a unit? Simple question, should be a yes or no answer.

Yes, assuming all conditions for joining are met.

rigeld2 wrote:

Angelic wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Angelic wrote:
Doesn't matter if he has joined a unit already.

Please explain that thought.

The rule says if an IC cannot join a unit, it must remain more than 2" away. It does not include any statements such as "unless already joined" or any other phrases indicating whether or not already being part of a unit has any bearing on the matter.

Can an IC join a unit if he's already joined to a unit? Simple question, should be a yes or no answer.

This.

An IC that is part of a unit is not 'joining' that same unit every end of movement phase. Nothing is removing the IC from that unit if you end your movement in coherency.

The rules for IC joining another unit are also clearly one-sided, nothing about the rule states anything about the unit in question being joined aside from the unit to-be-joined containing a MC or not.

Ovesa moving into coherency with Farsight:
Farsight is his own unit.
Farsight moves, ends his movement greater than 2" from O'vesa.
O'vesa moves, ends his movement within 2" of Farsight.
RAW : IC has moved into coherency of another unit. Unit to-be-joined does not contain a MC. Join is legal.

IC MC joining to Unit w/ IC is completely legal.
IC joining to unit w/ MC IC is illegal.

Edit:
NVM

If they were kicked out, that could cause some serious rule problems.

Angelic wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Angelic wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Angelic wrote:
Doesn't matter if he has joined a unit already.

Please explain that thought.

The rule says if an IC cannot join a unit, it must remain more than 2" away. It does not include any statements such as "unless already joined" or any other phrases indicating whether or not already being part of a unit has any bearing on the matter.

Can an IC join a unit if he's already joined to a unit? Simple question, should be a yes or no answer.

Yes, assuming all conditions for joining are met.

So you have an IC that is a member of two units?

rigeld2 wrote:

Angelic wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Angelic wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Angelic wrote:
Doesn't matter if he has joined a unit already.

Please explain that thought.

The rule says if an IC cannot join a unit, it must remain more than 2" away. It does not include any statements such as "unless already joined" or any other phrases indicating whether or not already being part of a unit has any bearing on the matter.

Can an IC join a unit if he's already joined to a unit? Simple question, should be a yes or no answer.

Yes, assuming all conditions for joining are met.

So you have an IC that is a member of two units?

No.

Once again, it is fairly clear the RAW does not prohibit O'vesa from joining anything other than other MC's and vehicles, however it is also fairly clear to me that the RAI is that he cannot in fact join a unit which house's another IC.


Once you take into consideration the reason they changed it so that IC's could not join MC's any longer you will surely understand why.

Angelic wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Angelic wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Angelic wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Angelic wrote:
Doesn't matter if he has joined a unit already.

Please explain that thought.

The rule says if an IC cannot join a unit, it must remain more than 2" away. It does not include any statements such as "unless already joined" or any other phrases indicating whether or not already being part of a unit has any bearing on the matter.

Can an IC join a unit if he's already joined to a unit? Simple question, should be a yes or no answer.

Yes, assuming all conditions for joining are met.

So you have an IC that is a member of two units?

No.

So if he's already joined to a unit and wants to join another unit, he leaves the first one. Correct?
So it does matter if he has joined a unit already - he must leave it.

 Eihnlazer wrote:
Once again, it is fairly clear the RAW does not prohibit O'vesa from joining anything other than other MC's and vehicles, however it is also fairly clear to me that the RAI is that he cannot in fact join a unit which house's another IC.


Once you take into consideration the reason they changed it so that IC's could not join MC's any longer you will surely understand why.

RAI why would one of farsights personal guards not be able to be in a unit with himself?

Hydromancer wrote:

 Eihnlazer wrote:
Once again, it is fairly clear the RAW does not prohibit O'vesa from joining anything other than other MC's and vehicles, however it is also fairly clear to me that the RAI is that he cannot in fact join a unit which house's another IC.


Once you take into consideration the reason they changed it so that IC's could not join MC's any longer you will surely understand why.

RAI why would one of farsights personal guards not be able to be in a unit with himself?

Ridiculous statement since one does not join oneself, so a prohibition on "joining" and MC does not apply to O'vesa when he's the only MC. And this whole idea that they are all intended to run around together instead of splitting off to command separate units is also not set in stone. One of them is in a Broadside suit.

Angelic wrote:
One of them is in a Broadside suit.

... and how is that relevant at all? O.o

rigeld2 wrote:

Angelic wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Angelic wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Angelic wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Angelic wrote:
Doesn't matter if he has joined a unit already.

Please explain that thought.

The rule says if an IC cannot join a unit, it must remain more than 2" away. It does not include any statements such as "unless already joined" or any other phrases indicating whether or not already being part of a unit has any bearing on the matter.

Can an IC join a unit if he's already joined to a unit? Simple question, should be a yes or no answer.

Yes, assuming all conditions for joining are met.

So you have an IC that is a member of two units?

No.

So if he's already joined to a unit and wants to join another unit, he leaves the first one. Correct?
So it does matter if he has joined a unit already - he must leave it.

Not entirely correct. It is not required that he leave a unit to join another. It potentially happens as an incident to joining a unit.

As an example: (for this example we'll assume there's nothing stopping O'vesa from joining the frivolities)

Farsight and Crisis unit running around. O'vesa wants to play and joins in. Farsight has continues to associate with them even though that O'vesa guy stole his Milano cookies last time around. Farsight has now joined a new unit, Ovesa and Crisis, because he chose not to leave. Did he leave his old unit, the Crisis? Not really, but he still joined one that wasn't there before.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

Angelic wrote:
One of them is in a Broadside suit.

... and how is that relevant at all? O.o

Kinda stops DS, slows down all of the Jet Pack movement. Hard to believe that was intended as opposed to having the guy go off and command a Broadside unit. The poster was making a fluff argument.

Angelic you've spent the majority of your posts in this thread either not actually quoting the BRB or the CODEX and making these very strange anecdotes which don't really apply to the situation at hand.

The rules are clear cut here, the only possible argument could be RAI from the BRB: "No units of IC and MC", but even from a RAI perspective "I am farsight, these are my personal guards" trumps BRB as Codex > BRB.

Hydro the problem with that is that the Farsight supplement was written before 7th was released and GW has not felt the need to update their materials to be kosher with the edition update.

 Eihnlazer wrote:
Hydro the problem with that is that the Farsight supplement was written before 7th was released and GW has not felt the need to update their materials to be kosher with the edition update.

FAQ's bring codex's into compliance with the edition they are written for, and if an FAQ is not available then the codex still trumps the BRB.

One of the biggest case in points right now is BA or Crons.

At any rate:

When choosing a Farsight Enclaves Detachment with Commander Farsight as its Warlord, you may take Farsight's Commander Team instead of Farsight's XV8 Crisis Bodyguard Team. The Commander Team is an HQ choice that does not take up a Force Organisation slot and consists of up to seven battlesuits chosen from those listed on pages 38-39.

This is pretty clear. There is not a single (to the best of my knowledge) slotless HQ choice royalcourt/bodyguards/etc/etc that doesn't come as a single unit. By RAW and RAI: If you start the game with a full Commander team, they start as a unit, and are treated as a unit, and if that unit happens to have O'vesa in it, what would prompt the removal of ANY of the models from the unit as nothing in the rules states IC's are un-joined from their units unless they end the movement phase out of coherences?

Or, they felt that oneof farsights bodyguards should, quite sensibly, he able to be a bodyguard for farsight.

Luckily the rules entirely support this.

Hydromancer wrote:
Angelic you've spent the majority of your posts in this thread either not actually quoting the BRB or the CODEX and making these very strange anecdotes which don't really apply to the situation at hand.

The rules are clear cut here, the only possible argument could be RAI from the BRB: "No units of IC and MC", but even from a RAI perspective "I am farsight, these are my personal guards" trumps BRB as Codex > BRB.

They aren't anecdotes because none of these things have actually ever happened. They are examples and questions intended to provoke alternative thought and inquiry. If you don't get that, they aren't intended for you. I have quoted sufficient rules or cited to other posters who have, to support my contentions. Others may not find it sufficient, which is fine, but this is not "he who quotes the most rules wins" forum. I get that people will twist and confuse rules in order to get the ultimate result that they want in this situation, a Tau Buff commander with a Riptide. Have at it. If you think that result is okay, who really cares what order you move your models in.

Also, they aren't Farsight's Bodyguard, because, you know, they replace his Bodyguard.

Angelic wrote:
Not entirely correct. It is not required that he leave a unit to join another. It potentially happens as an incident to joining a unit.

As an example: (for this example we'll assume there's nothing stopping O'vesa from joining the frivolities)

Farsight and Crisis unit running around. O'vesa wants to play and joins in. Farsight has continues to associate with them even though that O'vesa guy stole his Milano cookies last time around. Farsight has now joined a new unit, Ovesa and Crisis, because he chose not to leave. Did he leave his old unit, the Crisis? Not really, but he still joined one that wasn't there before.

I'd love to see a rules citation that covers this. Nothing I've read even implies that you leave a unit and join the unit again when another IC joins - which is what you just said.

rigeld2 wrote:

Angelic wrote:
One of them is in a Broadside suit.

... and how is that relevant at all? O.o

Kinda stops DS, slows down all of the Jet Pack movement. Hard to believe that was intended as opposed to having the guy go off and command a Broadside unit. The poster was making a fluff argument.

And fluffwise it's supported...

Angelic - it is however a "relevant rules " forum.

You have yet to cite a single one that supports your stance.

Angelic wrote:

Hydromancer wrote:
Angelic you've spent the majority of your posts in this thread either not actually quoting the BRB or the CODEX and making these very strange anecdotes which don't really apply to the situation at hand.

The rules are clear cut here, the only possible argument could be RAI from the BRB: "No units of IC and MC", but even from a RAI perspective "I am farsight, these are my personal guards" trumps BRB as Codex > BRB.

They aren't anecdotes because none of these things have actually ever happened. They are examples and questions intended to provoke alternative thought and inquiry. If you don't get that, they aren't intended for you. I have quoted sufficient rules or cited to other posters who have, to support my contentions. Others may not find it sufficient, which is fine, but this is not "he who quotes the most rules wins" forum. I get that people will twist and confuse rules in order to get the ultimate result that they want in this situation, a Tau Buff commander with a Riptide. Have at it. If you think that result is okay, who really cares what order you move your models in.

Also, they aren't Farsight's Bodyguard, because, you know, they replace his Bodyguard.

Well I've got the wrong word, but my intention is still there. You're arguing that a rule doesn't mean what it's actually written as. If we're going to do that why not just toss all the rules we don't like out the window?

Also, they aren't Farsight's Bodyguard, because, you know, they replace his Bodyguard.

So.. you're saying the replacement item isn't actually replacing the item in question.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Angelic - it is however a "relevant rules " forum.

You have yet to cite a single one that supports your stance.

I've cited a several, which you disagree with. Doesn't mean I haven't cited any.

rigeld2 wrote:

Angelic wrote:
Not entirely correct. It is not required that he leave a unit to join another. It potentially happens as an incident to joining a unit.

As an example: (for this example we'll assume there's nothing stopping O'vesa from joining the frivolities)

Farsight and Crisis unit running around. O'vesa wants to play and joins in. Farsight has continues to associate with them even though that O'vesa guy stole his Milano cookies last time around. Farsight has now joined a new unit, Ovesa and Crisis, because he chose not to leave. Did he leave his old unit, the Crisis? Not really, but he still joined one that wasn't there before.

I'd love to see a rules citation that covers this. Nothing I've read even implies that you leave a unit and join the unit again when another IC joins - which is what you just said.

I'll try this one more time. The rules for an IC joining a unit do not place a condition upon the IC that it is alone prior to joining a unit, only that it be within 2" "at the end of their movement phase". As soon as that condition is met, it has joined the unit (barring multiple eligible units), regardless of it's prior status. If it does not intend or cannot join the unit, it has to remain more than 2" away. An actual displacement of the model is not required because in the rule "so that" follows "move". This indicates that if the latter portion of the rule is met, the prior is not required. Again, the unit doesn't leave a unit and then join the new one. It has joined a new one in the movement phase because the rules say it has by virtue of being with 2" at the end of their movement phase. Did they "leave" the prior unit? Not necessarily. If the old unit is a subset of the new one, they haven't really left it.

rigeld2 wrote:

And fluffwise it's supported...

Stupid to argue about such a thing, so I won't anymore.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Hydromancer wrote:

So.. you're saying the replacement item isn't actually replacing the item in question.

Replacing Bodyguard with Commanders. Replacing Secret Service with Generals. Doesn't mean the Generals are his bodyguard. If he wants Bodyguard, maybe he should actually keep the Bodyguard and not the Generals.

Angelic can you think of any slotless-HQ choices that cannot be automatically joined to thier relevant HQ choice and do not come as a single unit but rather a 'group of units'?

By RAW and RAI a full squad of commanders can join the table as a unit attached to Farsight. That alone should speak volumes as to the ability for a MCIC to stay in a unit with another IC.

Hydromancer wrote:
Angelic can you think of any slotless-HQ choices that cannot be automatically joined to thier relevant HQ choice and do not come as a single unit but rather a 'group of units'?

By RAW and RAI a full squad of commanders can join the table as a unit attached to Farsight. That alone should speak volumes as to the ability for a MCIC to stay in a unit with another IC.

The whole disagreement is that I believe RAW and RAI say O'vesa is a breed apart. And it doesn't speak volumes for the simple fact that when released, the "Eight" were a "unit" in which an IC could join a non-solo MC and now they are a "Commander Team" in which an IC can't join a MC.

My point being is the entire group could (MUST unless there's a rule stating specifically otherwise that I missed) be deployed as a singular unit at the start of the game per RAW / RAI.

They are the same as any royal court / bodyguard unit / etc

EDIT: And if they cannot start the game attached to Farsight (as far against the grain as that goes when stood side by side with every closest possible match to units like it), the entire team can start the game as a single unit, that can't be changed. There is no instance anywhere in the entire book where any choice made from the codex is multiple units, the closest example you get are bloodangels being able to cleave their units into 2 separate units before deployment.

It would be the same as fielding 5 vehicles as a squadron (IE: 1 force org slot) but claiming they are not actually in a squadron and deploying them as 5 separate units. Being slotless doesn't change that.

Hydromancer wrote:
My point being is the entire group could (MUST unless there's a rule stating specifically otherwise that I missed) be deployed as a singular unit at the start of the game per RAW / RAI.

They are the same as any royal court / bodyguard unit / etc

EDIT: And if they cannot start the game attached to Farsight (as far against the grain as that goes when stood side by side with every closest possible match to units like it), the entire team can start the game as a single unit, that can't be changed. There is no instance anywhere in the entire book where any choice made from the codex is multiple units, the closest example you get are bloodangels being able to cleave their units into 2 separate units before deployment.

It would be the same as fielding 5 vehicles as a squadron (IE: 1 force org slot) but claiming they are not actually in a squadron and deploying them as 5 separate units. Being slotless doesn't change that.

They aren't a unit or a squadron. There is no requirement that they be placed together. There are no requirements that 2 or more Commanders be placed together.

Angelic wrote:

Hydromancer wrote:
My point being is the entire group could (MUST unless there's a rule stating specifically otherwise that I missed) be deployed as a singular unit at the start of the game per RAW / RAI.

They are the same as any royal court / bodyguard unit / etc

EDIT: And if they cannot start the game attached to Farsight (as far against the grain as that goes when stood side by side with every closest possible match to units like it), the entire team can start the game as a single unit, that can't be changed. There is no instance anywhere in the entire book where any choice made from the codex is multiple units, the closest example you get are bloodangels being able to cleave their units into 2 separate units before deployment.

It would be the same as fielding 5 vehicles as a squadron (IE: 1 force org slot) but claiming they are not actually in a squadron and deploying them as 5 separate units. Being slotless doesn't change that.

They aren't a unit or a squadron. There is no requirement that they be placed together. In fact, as they are merely base "individual" models purchased with specific items from Codex: Tau, they are not a unit.

When choosing a Farsight Enclaves Detachment with Commander Farsight as its Warlord, you may take Farsight's Commander Team instead of Farsight's XV8 Crisis Bodyguard Team. The Commander Team is an HQ choice that does not take up a Force Organisation slot and consists of up to seven battlesuits chosen from those listed on pages 38-39.

They are a unit.

Find me a rule or prior example saying you can split a force org slot of any type into more than a singular unit.

Hydromancer wrote:

Angelic wrote:

Hydromancer wrote:
My point being is the entire group could (MUST unless there's a rule stating specifically otherwise that I missed) be deployed as a singular unit at the start of the game per RAW / RAI.

They are the same as any royal court / bodyguard unit / etc

EDIT: And if they cannot start the game attached to Farsight (as far against the grain as that goes when stood side by side with every closest possible match to units like it), the entire team can start the game as a single unit, that can't be changed. There is no instance anywhere in the entire book where any choice made from the codex is multiple units, the closest example you get are bloodangels being able to cleave their units into 2 separate units before deployment.

It would be the same as fielding 5 vehicles as a squadron (IE: 1 force org slot) but claiming they are not actually in a squadron and deploying them as 5 separate units. Being slotless doesn't change that.

They aren't a unit or a squadron. There is no requirement that they be placed together. In fact, as they are merely base "individual" models purchased with specific items from Codex: Tau, they are not a unit.

When choosing a Farsight Enclaves Detachment with Commander Farsight as its Warlord, you may take Farsight's Commander Team instead of Farsight's XV8 Crisis Bodyguard Team. The Commander Team is an HQ choice that does not take up a Force Organisation slot and consists of up to seven battlesuits chosen from those listed on pages 38-39.

They are a unit.

Each individual is. There is nothing in the rule that says together they make a single unit as opposed to a loose affiliation ( a team) that occasionally one or more of its members may make a unit out of.

Angelic wrote:

Hydromancer wrote:

Angelic wrote:

Hydromancer wrote:
My point being is the entire group could (MUST unless there's a rule stating specifically otherwise that I missed) be deployed as a singular unit at the start of the game per RAW / RAI.

They are the same as any royal court / bodyguard unit / etc

EDIT: And if they cannot start the game attached to Farsight (as far against the grain as that goes when stood side by side with every closest possible match to units like it), the entire team can start the game as a single unit, that can't be changed. There is no instance anywhere in the entire book where any choice made from the codex is multiple units, the closest example you get are bloodangels being able to cleave their units into 2 separate units before deployment.

It would be the same as fielding 5 vehicles as a squadron (IE: 1 force org slot) but claiming they are not actually in a squadron and deploying them as 5 separate units. Being slotless doesn't change that.

They aren't a unit or a squadron. There is no requirement that they be placed together. In fact, as they are merely base "individual" models purchased with specific items from Codex: Tau, they are not a unit.

When choosing a Farsight Enclaves Detachment with Commander Farsight as its Warlord, you may take Farsight's Commander Team instead of Farsight's XV8 Crisis Bodyguard Team. The Commander Team is an HQ choice that does not take up a Force Organisation slot and consists of up to seven battlesuits chosen from those listed on pages 38-39.

They are a unit.

Each individual is. There is nothing in the rule that says together they make a single unit as opposed to a loose affiliation ( a team) that occasionally one or more of its members may make a unit out of.

There is nothing saying they are NOT a singular unit.

Every single HQ/Troop/FastAttack/HeavySupport/ETC works this way. They are in no way the exception unless there is a specific rule stating they are. You cannot split force org slots up as that completely defeats the purpose of them.

Hydromancer wrote:

Find me a rule or prior example saying you can split a force org slot of any type into more than a singular unit.

First, they don't take up a slot. Second, Lone Wolfs, Daemon Heralds, Primaris Psykers.

Angelic wrote:

Hydromancer wrote:

Find me a rule or prior example saying you can split a force org slot of any type into more than a singular unit.

First, they don't take up a slot. Second, Lone Wolfs, Daemon Heralds, Primaris Psykers.

And all of those explicitly state so.

Commander team does not.

The fact that they don't take up a slot or not is irrelevant in the face of the fact that any army choice cannot be split unless expressly given permission to do so.

Hydromancer wrote:

Angelic wrote:

Hydromancer wrote:

Find me a rule or prior example saying you can split a force org slot of any type into more than a singular unit.

First, they don't take up a slot. Second, Lone Wolfs, Daemon Heralds, Primaris Psykers.

And all of those explicitly state so.

Commander team does not.

The fact that they don't take up a slot or not is irrelevant in the face of the fact that any army choice cannot be split unless expressly given permission to do so.

Those statements are redundant because there is nothing saying that individual models in those instances even become a single unit in the first place. Particularly in the case of Heralds. C: TE Commander does not include anything in his entry, either in the main book or the entry under the Eight that says he is a unit with any other entity.

Edit: Also Farsight's entry says "Unit composition 1 (Unique). All of the Commanders say "Commander with X" and Commander says "Unit Composition 1 Commander" and so on.

This thread is making me want to go home and paint some more models for my Farsight Enclaves army!

Seriously though. We've established that O'Vesa can move into coherency with Farsight to join Farsight's unit. We've established that Farsight cannot move into coherency with O'Vesa as he is unable to move to within 2" of a unit he can't join (in this case a unit containing a monstrous creature).

My understanding is that for an independent character to leave a unit, he must end his movement phase out of coherency with his previous unit. I don't have the rules quote on this. Maybe someone could provide it. So long as the models are all in coherency once each model has moved, no one left the unit. I don't see any rules dictating that an IC must leave and rejoin each time a move occurs. I do see rules that say once joined an IC is a part of that unit for all rules purposes, including moving without leaving.

Angelic wrote:

Hydromancer wrote:

Angelic wrote:

Hydromancer wrote:

Find me a rule or prior example saying you can split a force org slot of any type into more than a singular unit.

First, they don't take up a slot. Second, Lone Wolfs, Daemon Heralds, Primaris Psykers.

And all of those explicitly state so.

Commander team does not.

The fact that they don't take up a slot or not is irrelevant in the face of the fact that any army choice cannot be split unless expressly given permission to do so.

Those statements are redundant because there is nothing saying that individual models in those instances even become a single unit in the first place. Particularly in the case of Heralds. C: TE Commander does not include anything in his entry, either in the main book or the entry under the Eight that says he is a unit with any other entity.

All choices are taken as a single unit in all instances in every codex. What matters is deployment and how you choose to deploy them, as before deployment they are a single 'unit'. during deployment changes occur to who consists of what unit/where.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kriswall wrote:
This thread is making me want to go home and paint some more models for my Farsight Enclaves army!

Seriously though. We've established that O'Vesa can move into coherency with Farsight to join Farsight's unit. We've established that Farsight cannot move into coherency with O'Vesa as he is unable to move to within 2" of a unit he can't join (in this case a unit containing a monstrous creature).

My understanding is that for an independent character to leave a unit, he must end his movement phase out of coherency with his previous unit. I don't have the rules quote on this. Maybe someone could provide it. So long as the models are all in coherency once each model has moved, no one left the unit. I don't see any rules dictating that an IC must leave and rejoin each time a move occurs. I do see rules that say once joined an IC is a part of that unit for all rules purposes, including moving without leaving.

I wanna get some farsight to begin with! They seem so cool!

And yeah I think I'm pretty much done with the thread. It seems completely asinine that Angelic is essentially arguing you can split any force org choice into any # of units you desire, or that you are denied deploying them in their default state (Pre deployment, barring units composed OF IC's and deploying them out of coherency)

Hydromancer wrote:

Angelic wrote:

Hydromancer wrote:

Angelic wrote:

Hydromancer wrote:

Find me a rule or prior example saying you can split a force org slot of any type into more than a singular unit.

First, they don't take up a slot. Second, Lone Wolfs, Daemon Heralds, Primaris Psykers.

And all of those explicitly state so.

Commander team does not.

The fact that they don't take up a slot or not is irrelevant in the face of the fact that any army choice cannot be split unless expressly given permission to do so.

Those statements are redundant because there is nothing saying that individual models in those instances even become a single unit in the first place. Particularly in the case of Heralds. C: TE Commander does not include anything in his entry, either in the main book or the entry under the Eight that says he is a unit with any other entity.

All choices are taken as a single unit in all instances in every codex. What matters is deployment and how you choose to deploy them, as before deployment they are a single 'unit'. during deployment changes occur to who consists of what unit/where.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kriswall wrote:
This thread is making me want to go home and paint some more models for my Farsight Enclaves army!

Seriously though. We've established that O'Vesa can move into coherency with Farsight to join Farsight's unit. We've established that Farsight cannot move into coherency with O'Vesa as he is unable to move to within 2" of a unit he can't join (in this case a unit containing a monstrous creature).

My understanding is that for an independent character to leave a unit, he must end his movement phase out of coherency with his previous unit. I don't have the rules quote on this. Maybe someone could provide it. So long as the models are all in coherency once each model has moved, no one left the unit. I don't see any rules dictating that an IC must leave and rejoin each time a move occurs. I do see rules that say once joined an IC is a part of that unit for all rules purposes, including moving without leaving.

I wanna get some farsight to begin with! They seem so cool!

And yeah I think I'm pretty much done with the thread. It seems completely asinine that Angelic is essentially arguing you can split any force org choice into any # of units you desire.

This really is pointless. Everyone has made up their minds already. Whether they have posted or just read.

Angelic wrote:
I'll try this one more time. The rules for an IC joining a unit do not place a condition upon the IC that it is alone prior to joining a unit, only that it be within 2" "at the end of their movement phase". As soon as that condition is met, it has joined the unit (barring multiple eligible units), regardless of it's prior status. If it does not intend or cannot join the unit, it has to remain more than 2" away. An actual displacement of the model is not required because in the rule "so that" follows "move". This indicates that if the latter portion of the rule is met, the prior is not required. Again, the unit doesn't leave a unit and then join the new one. It has joined a new one in the movement phase because the rules say it has by virtue of being with 2" at the end of their movement phase. Did they "leave" the prior unit? Not necessarily. If the old unit is a subset of the new one, they haven't really left it.

So an IC has to "rejoin" a unit every turn? There isn't a "new" unit there - it's the same unit of Crisis Suits (or Kroot, or whatever). The members of the unit change but the unit itself stays the same.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Angelic wrote:
This really is pointless. Everyone has made up their minds already. Whether they have posted or just read.

And one side of the discussion has posted rules that support their argument. The other has cited rules but no relevant ones.

No angelic, you posted rules. Just nothing that actually state what you claim

Please mark your posts as hywpi, as the tenets require,as you havent proven your case

nosferatu1001 wrote:
No angelic, you posted rules. Just nothing that actually state what you claim

Please mark your posts as hywpi, as the tenets require,as you havent proven your case

So humorous. To believe that anyone on these forums can actually prove anything based upon an interpretation of something so fluid and malleable as the English language. Particularly as it is used by Games Workshop. The only entity capable of proving whether or not O'vesa is allowed to join a unit containing another IC, by the GW rules is GW. Unfortunately for the 40k community, they stay silent most of the time. All anyone has done is put forth theories. Being a stronger theory does not make it proof. When GW does offer the proof, it's probabaly 50/50 which way they go.

Angelic wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
No angelic, you posted rules. Just nothing that actually state what you claim

Please mark your posts as hywpi, as the tenets require,as you havent proven your case

So humorous. To believe that anyone on these forums can actually prove anything based upon an interpretation of something so fluid and malleable as the English language. Particularly as it is used by Games Workshop. The only entity capable of proving whether or not O'vesa is allowed to join a unit containing another IC, by the GW rules is GW. Unfortunately for the 40k community, they stay silent most of the time. All anyone has done is put forth theories. Being a stronger theory does not make it proof. When GW does offer the proof, it's probabaly 50/50 which way they go.

Angelic... you're seriously in the minority here.

I don't have page numbers to quote, as I'm using the eBook version, but all of these quotes come from the Independent Character section of the main rulebook.

"Independent Characters can join other units. They cannot, however, join units that contain vehicles or Monstrous Creatures. They can join other Independent Characters, though, to form a powerful multi-character unit!"

Ok, so this establishes that Independent Characters can join other units. It establishes that they can join other Independent Characters. It prohibits them from joining units that contain vehicles or Monstrous Creatures. So far, so good.

But how does he actually perform the join?

"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."

So, for an Independent Character to join a unit of Crisis Suits, he must simply move such that he is within the 2" unit coherency distance of the unit of Crisis Suits at the end of the Crisis Suits' movement phase.

Ok, so what happens now that he's joined the unit?

"While an Independent Character is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes, though he still follows the rules for characters."

Sure sounds like he's considered to be a part of the unit. Now, how does he leave the unit?

"An Independent Character can leave a unit during the Movement phase by moving out of unit coherency with it."

This makes sense. If he can just walk up, then he can just walk off. But there has been a serious implication that the simple act of moving causes an Independent Character to leave and rejoin a unit. Well, he's a part of the unit for all rules purposes. Let me check the rules on how a unit moves. The first bit is quoted from the movement section under Which Models are Moving. The second bit is quoted from the movement section under Unit Coherency.

"You may decide that only some of the models in a unit are going to move this turn. If this is the case, declare which models are remaining stationary just before you start moving the other models of that unit. Remember that all models in the unit must still maintain unit coherency (see below)."

"When you are moving a unit, its individual models can each move up to their maximum movement distance. However, units have to stick together, otherwise individual models become scattered and the unit loses its cohesion as a fighting force. So, once a unit has finished moving, the models in it must form an imaginary chain where the distance between one model and the next is no more than 2" horizontally and up to 6" vertically. We call this ‘unit coherency’."

Ok, so I have a unit composed of a Commander and 3 Crisis Suits. I choose to move them. I know that the Commander CAN leave the unit during the movement phase by moving out of unit coherency with the other Suits, but I don't want him to leave quite yet. Let me fall back on the standard unit movement rules for the unit to see how a move works. Looks like I declare that no models are remaining stationary and move each model up to 6", which is the movement range of both the Commander and the Crisis Suits he is hanging out with. Now, when I move the models up to 6", I have to ensure that they remain within 2" unit coherency of each other. Fantastic! I've followed all the rules to the exact letter and I was able to move while remaining joined to a unit insomuch as I did not leave the unit. At no point was the Commander out of unit coherency, which is the requirement for leaving a unit.

Now let's try the exercise with O'Vesa and Farsight/3 Crisis Suits.

During my movement phase, I choose to move Farsight and the Crisis Suits 6" forward. I move them towards O'Vesa, but can only get far enough that I'm just over 4" away. Farsight and crew will take no further action this movement phase. Now it's O'Vesa's turn. O'Vesa moves closer to Farsight and crew such that he is within 1" of a Crisis Suit (or Farsight... makes no difference). He is intending on joining Farsight's unit. O'Vesa can do this because Farsight's unit is not a unit containing a vehicle or a Monstrous Creature. I conclude my movement phase. Since I am now at the end of Farsight and crew's movement phase and am in unit coherency, they are now joined as one unit with O'Vesa.

In my next movement phase, I decide to move the unit forward. I declare that no models are remaining stationary and move each model 6" forward, making sure to keep them within 2" unit coherency of each other. Since Farsight and O'Vesa are both part of the unit for all rules purposes, I've used the standard unit movement rules above. At no point did they break coherency, so at no point did either model leave the unit. They are still joined.

In my next movement phase, I decide to have Farsight go off on his own. I move Farsight 6" due east and I move the rest of the unit, O'Vesa and the Crisis Suits, 6" due west. Once I've completed the movement I notice that Farsight is no longer in coherency and has therefore left the unit. This was intentional.

In my next movement phase, I decide that Farsight is lonely. I attempt to move Farsight back into unit coherency with his Crisis Suit buddies, but he is forced to stop just outside of 2". This is because he is forbidden from joining a unit that contains a Monstrous Creature and the Crisis Suit unit currently contains a Monstrous Creature! Oh, woe is he. Farsight should have just stayed joined the whole time.

...

Now, I've posted rules. I've posted a very specific scenario showing how you can join Farsight and O'Vesa into one unit. And just in case you try to say that they are joining each other... as per the above, joining requires movement. As per this quote from The Movement Phase section, you completely move one unit and then move onto the next unit.

"In your turn, you can move any of your units – all of them if you wish – up to their maximum movement distance. Once a unit has completed all of its movement, you can select another unit and move that one, and so on, until you have moved all of the units you wish to move."

It would be a violation of the rules if they joined each other because it would necessitate that they both be moving at the same time, and it's pretty clear that you move one unit completely before moving onto the next.

Now...

I've had my say. Please explain to me how they are joining each other or how they're leaving and joining each time they move despite never being out of coherency with each other. And when you give this explanation, please do me the courtesy of quoting rules as I did for you.

And that, Kriswall, was very well done.

Been out of it for a few days but I have a question for Angelic:
Why is one 'end of the Movement Phase' clause constantly checked for compliance but the other 'end of the Movement Phase' clause only checked at the end of the Movement Phase?

What is the point in answering any more questions or arguing any further?

You will not convince me that the rules say that Farsight can't join O'vesa, but O'vesa can join Farsight. You will not convince me that the English definition of "join" does not mean there is cooperation between the parties. I can't convince you of the contrary.

Actually, I can easily be convinced and have changed my position on a lot of things in the past thanks to this site. In fact, it was something that I was going to point out when you tried to claim that forums like this will never be able to find the answer to any of the questions put forth to it. The excuse of 'the English language is too complex' is clearly unjustified when so many questions have been answered using the very language your claiming is always ambiguous. Outside a few cases where the Rule actually are ambiguous, easily recognized because those threads constantly reoccur and run dozens of pages with two very vocal sides, this Forum has done a great job on proving the meaning of Rules. That is why we ask you to post Rules and answer questions like this one, because we really do want to see if we over-looked something.

However, if you are not going to give others the curtsy of using this Forum for it's intended purpose then I must serious ask:
Why are you here at all?

Angelic wrote:
What is the point in answering any more questions or arguing any further?

You will not convince me that the rules say that Farsight can't join O'vesa, but O'vesa can join Farsight. You will not convince me that the English definition of "join" does not mean there is cooperation between the parties. I can't convince you of the contrary.

Well, given you cannot provide a single rule that supports your assertions, no. You won't convince anyone

Not to mention you're now contending that an IC joining a unit also means the unit is joining them. Meaning an IC can never join a non IC unit, as only ICs have permission to join other units

Yet another clue that your argument is as watertight as Gruyere.

Angelic wrote:
What is the point in answering any more questions or arguing any further?

You will not convince me that the rules say that Farsight can't join O'vesa, but O'vesa can join Farsight. You will not convince me that the English definition of "join" does not mean there is cooperation between the parties. I can't convince you of the contrary.

I'm not trying to convince you that the English definition of join does not mean there is cooperation between the parties.

I'm trying to convince you that the act of joining, as more specifically defined within the ruleset of Warhammer 40k requires an element of movement and that those same rules prevent two units from moving at the same time. The rules are very clear on this.

Although, I'm inclined to agree that there is no point in debating any further. You aren't interested in debating the rules. You're basing your argument on an external, and frankly irrelevant connotation. I'm basing my argument on the actual procedures as laid out in the rules. You aren't even willing to address specific rules quotes that invalidate your position. It's frankly like arguing with a child.

Enjoy your dogmatic ignorance, and have a nice day!

I would like to point something out:

Whether or not a character is able to join a unit does not restrict where he can move. At no point do any of the rules state that an independent character is restricted from moving within 2" of a unit he is not able to join.

Being the 'friend' the IP refers to, I'd like to explain how I accomplished my task.

O'vesa moved within 2" of Farsight during the movement phase. As Farsight also moved, that means he ended his movement within 2" of O'vesa.

At the end of my movement phase, because an independent character is within 2" of another unit. it attempts to join it. So, Fartsight attempts to join O'vesa. However, he fails, because O'vesa's unit contains a monstrous creature.

At the end of my movement phase, something else happens. Because an independent character is within 2" of another unit, it attempts to join it. So, O'vesa attempts to join Farsight's unit. As Farsight's unit contains nothing that would prohibit O'vesa from joining his unit, O'vesa succeeds, and joins the unit.

Again; No rule, anywhere in the book, prohibits an IC from moving within 2" of a unit it cannot join. If an IC cannot join a unit, then when it attempts to do so, it fails, and remains a separate unit.

And, if anyone would like to argue with me, please directly quote where, in the rule book, it prohibits an IC from moving within 2" of a friendly unit it cannot join.

Necroes, how about this rule:

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.

Happyjew is correct, farsight CANNOT end his movement within 2" of O'vesa

O'vesa however, CAN end his movement within 2" of farsight, so as long O'vesa is the LAST to move, the act of joining is legal, as O'vesa is the one ending his movement and as such the one triggering the join attempt.

The order of operations here is critical, as long as you maintain proper order, you can pull it off. however it also means some things might get screwed on the way (as difficult terrain or any other factor that involves the RNG might cause the plan to have a roadblock along the way)

The 40k rulebook is often using terms that are not 100% loyal to their English dictionary meaning, but as long it has its own definitions (such as in the case, the definition of what is to "join" a unit) than the English dictionary is rendered moot at that point.

How about the rules to not necro dead threads.

Saw a guy who waited until the tau player he was up against moved everyone, and then measured the distance around farsight, who ended up not being within 2" of the unit. So since farsight was by himself he proceeded to kill him :/ gotta make sure that he is within 2" every time. I'm talking farsight was like 2.04" away or something like that.. but rules are rules and he wasn't in coherency

Angelic wrote:
What is the point in answering any more questions or arguing any further?

You will not convince me that the rules say that Farsight can't join O'vesa, but O'vesa can join Farsight. You will not convince me that the English definition of "join" does not mean there is cooperation between the parties. I can't convince you of the contrary.

There is no point in arguing because you do not want to accept that your interpretation of the word join is incorrect.

You mistakenly believe that "to join" is intransitive in this case when clearly it is transitive and therefore implies a direction in the joining of an IC to a unit.

There are cases when "to join" is intransitive, and a "two way" street as you like to call it, but this is not one of them.

Are we still arguing about this? O'Vesa is a special case, being an MC IC. He can join whomever he wants, excluding other MCs and Vehicles as per normal for ICs. Order of operation is important, as with almost every tactical decision in this game.

Joining is an active action and is something the IC is doing. Models without the IC special rule have no permission to join anything, so reading it as a two way street would violate the core rules.