FAQ says ICs do not get "Bounding Lope" but does not stop the Wulfen from using it, but must maintain unit coherency.
So when you charge does this mean you would have to daisy chain the wulfen to not break coherency from the IC or can the Wulfen just leave the IC where he is standing and only have to keep coherency while Moving, Running?
You always have to maintain unit coherency, and ICs can only detach in the movement phase. So you would have to daisy chain your Wulfen. Is Bounding Lope the run+charge rule? If it is, you can run just the Wulfen and not the IC, and then charge with everyone. If you run the IC as well, he cannot charge, and I believe that means the entire unit cannot charge as well. Same reason you couldn't charge just a few of the guys in a tactical squad after firing a plasma cannon or something.
People do it with the Iron Priest.
Priest on Thunderwolf with four Cyberwolves joins Wulfen, gets Bestial swiftness and daisy chains the cyberwolves back to the Wulfen to lock them into combat on the first turn even though the Wulfen themselves can't actually reach combat on the first turn.
Dakka Wolf wrote: People do it with the Iron Priest.
Priest on Thunderwolf with four Cyberwolves joins Wulfen, gets Bestial swiftness and daisy chains the cyberwolves back to the Wulfen to lock them into combat on the first turn even though the Wulfen themselves can't actually reach combat on the first turn.
That's what I thought, sounds sketch and likely one of those scenarios where you would become TFG real quick if you pulled this..
Depends who you're up against.
I've been told running TWC makes me TFG.
I've been told running Wulfen makes me TFG.
I've been called TFG for bombarding infantry on my first turn.
I've been called TFG buy a guy running three Wraithknights in an 1850 point match.
I've been told it's impossible for a pure Space Wolves player to be a TFG.
I also recently got told to stop obsessing over what makes a TFG.
Dakka Wolf wrote: People do it with the Iron Priest.
Priest on Thunderwolf with four Cyberwolves joins Wulfen, gets Bestial swiftness and daisy chains the cyberwolves back to the Wulfen to lock them into combat on the first turn even though the Wulfen themselves can't actually reach combat on the first turn.
Which still isn't allowed by the rules as outlined above.
The ironpriest is not allowed to assault, which is not the same as it cannot move during the assault. This prevents the rest of the unit from declaring an assault as well.
WulfenClaw wrote: You would have to Move the unit, run the Wulfen while also maintaining unit coherency with the IC..then make your charge.
The attached IC would also count as running still, even if you move it 0". Which is why it does not work. Said IC cannot run and assault, if it is attached the unit cannot assault still.
I'll just drop these here. They aren't exactly clear on how they're supposed to work, but they make it pretty clear that attaching an IC doesn't prevent either Bounding Lope or For Glory, For Russ from allowing the unit to charge. Hopefully when the final draft is out, they will give specifics on whether or not the IC is allowed to run.
WulfenClaw wrote: You would have to Move the unit, run the Wulfen while also maintaining unit coherency with the IC..then make your charge.
The attached IC would also count as running still, even if you move it 0". Which is why it does not work. Said IC cannot run and assault, if it is attached the unit cannot assault still.
I get what you're saying, it's just that the FAQ trumps what you are saying, and the FAQ isn't exactly crystal clear..which is why we can't have nice things.
WulfenClaw wrote: You would have to Move the unit, run the Wulfen while also maintaining unit coherency with the IC..then make your charge.
The attached IC would also count as running still, even if you move it 0". Which is why it does not work. Said IC cannot run and assault, if it is attached the unit cannot assault still.
I get what you're saying, it's just that the FAQ trumps what you are saying, and the FAQ isn't exactly crystal clear..which is why we can't have nice things.
The faq does not say otherwise. It is not clear in what it says. It says the wulcen may still use the rule but the IC may not benefit. This doesn't say the unit can assault despite the IC not being allowed to. It could easily mean the wulfen can benefit when allowed, which would mean if went to assault and the unit was allowed to, recall the faq states the IC does not benefit so the unit is not allowed to declare assault if it runs, then the superb could reroll their assault move but must maintain coherency with the IC.
This would be in line with the other faq answers that allow multiple modes of movement in an unit when all the models are allowed to move.
The faq does not grant permission for part of an unit to assault when the rest is not allowed to, that just isn't written in the faq.
WulfenClaw wrote: You would have to Move the unit, run the Wulfen while also maintaining unit coherency with the IC..then make your charge.
The attached IC would also count as running still, even if you move it 0". Which is why it does not work. Said IC cannot run and assault, if it is attached the unit cannot assault still.
I get what you're saying, it's just that the FAQ trumps what you are saying, and the FAQ isn't exactly crystal clear..which is why we can't have nice things.
The faq does not say otherwise. It is not clear in what it says. It says the wulcen may still use the rule but the IC may not benefit. This doesn't say the unit can assault despite the IC not being allowed to. It could easily mean the wulfen can benefit when allowed, which would mean if went to assault and the unit was allowed to, recall the faq states the IC does not benefit so the unit is not allowed to declare assault if it runs, then the superb could reroll their assault move but must maintain coherency with the IC.
This would be in line with the other faq answers that allow multiple modes of movement in an unit when all the models are allowed to move.
The faq does not grant permission for part of an unit to assault when the rest is not allowed to, that just isn't written in the faq.
The FAQ says that the wulfen can still use bounding lope if an IC is attached to the unit. Bounding Lope says that the wulfen can run and still charge. How does the FAQ not grant permission for the unit to assault when the FAQ clearly says that they can still use a rule that allows them to assault?
This doesn't say the unit can assault despite the IC not being allowed to.
- that's actually exactly what the FAQ says.
It could easily mean the wulfen can benefit when allowed, which would mean if went to assault and the unit was allowed to, recall the faq states the IC does not benefit so the unit is not allowed to declare assault if it runs, then the superb could reroll their assault move but must maintain coherency with the IC.
- I'm sorry, what? I think you're saying that they can use the rule but not if an IC is attached but that's the opposite of what the FAQ *actually* says.
The faq does not grant permission for part of an unit to assault when the rest is not allowed to, that just isn't written in the faq.
- actually, that's almost exactly what the FAQ says you can do. It says that the Wulfen can still run and charge even thought the IC does not benefit from the rule. So the only thing we do know for sure is that the wulfen can charge and are not stopped from running and charging just because you attached an IC. The only question is whether or not the IC can run too, so as long as the IC does not move during the run, I would say it's very clear that the FAQ is telling you that the unit can still charge.
The faq says "do the wulfen still get to use bounding lope"
answer: "yes but the IC does not benefit, and all the models in the unit must maintain coherency"
bounding lope provides two different benefits.
1- the unit can run and assault (unit of wulfen, not attached ICs)
2- The unit can reroll their charge distance.
The faq says the wulfen can still use their rule, and that the IC does not benefit.
So yes the Wulfen can still use bounding lope, but the IC cannot. If the IC is attached to the unit and the unit runs, the IC ran and the unit cannot assault. This doesn't mean the Wulfen didn't get to use their rule, they did but they are stuck in an unit that cannot.
You cannot assault with part of an unit, and not the rest. Just like you cannot go to ground with part of an unit or not the rest, or run with part of an unit but not the rest. And this faq answer does not clarify that there is an exception here.
If the unit assaults after not running, the wulfen have permission to re-roll their charge range, which the IC cannot do. The wulfen can move the different distance but must maintain coherency. That is what the faq answer RAW allows.
The part where it states the IC does not benefit is what prevents the unit from declaring an assault. The IC is part of the unit and cannot declare an assault if it runs. You cannot declare an assault with part of an unit, just as you cannot declare to run with part of an unit, or declare to go to ground with only part of an unit. So yes the unit still get to use bounding lope, they just cannot run and assault because the FAQ specifically states the IC does not get to benefit. Rerolling the charge distance on an allowed assault is still using bounding lope.
In no words does the faq say the unit can still run and charge.
blaktoof wrote: Ok let me put it simply. The faq says the IC cannot run and declare an assault because it states the IC does not benefit from the rule in plain words.
If the IC declares an assault you have allowed the IC to run and assault which the FAQ says you cannot do.
As you cannot declare an assault with part of an unit, you cannot declare an assault after running.
Except that these FAQ have given us multiple examples of units moving models in the unit individually - there is even an example given for a unit of mixed bike, infantry, and jump infantry all using their different moves in the shooting phase to run, turboboost, etc.
So if the IC runs, I agree with you that the unit would "probably" not be able to charge (since the IC is not allowed to use Bounding Lope), but if the IC does not run and the Wulfen do run, then the Wulfen would not be prevented from using Bounding Lope as long as they maintain coherency with the IC (again, this is my interpretation and I understand that it differs from yours so I am not trying to convince you - just explain my thinking).
blaktoof wrote: Ok let me put it simply. The faq says the IC cannot run and declare an assault because it states the IC does not benefit from the rule in plain words.
If the IC declares an assault you have allowed the IC to run and assault which the FAQ says you cannot do.
As you cannot declare an assault with part of an unit, you cannot declare an assault after running.
Except that these FAQ have given us multiple examples of units moving models in the unit individually - there is even an example given for a unit of mixed bike, infantry, and jump infantry all using their different moves in the shooting phase to run, turboboost, etc.
So if the IC runs, I agree with you that the unit would "probably" not be able to charge (since the IC is not allowed to use Bounding Lope), but if the IC does not run and the Wulfen do run, then the Wulfen would not be prevented from using Bounding Lope as long as they maintain coherency with the IC (again, this is my interpretation and I understand that it differs from yours so I am not trying to convince you - just explain my thinking).
He doesn't understand that the entire unit doesn't have to do the same thing, or just doesn't want to believe it.
NightHowler wrote: Except that these FAQ have given us multiple examples of units moving models in the unit individually - there is even an example given for a unit of mixed bike, infantry, and jump infantry all using their different moves in the shooting phase to run, turboboost, etc.
So if the IC runs, I agree with you that the unit would "probably" not be able to charge (since the IC is not allowed to use Bounding Lope), but if the IC does not run and the Wulfen do run, then the Wulfen would not be prevented from using Bounding Lope as long as they maintain coherency with the IC (again, this is my interpretation and I understand that it differs from yours so I am not trying to convince you - just explain my thinking).
The biggest problem is that the unit Runs, not the models. If the unit Runs, and the IC doesn't move, then the unit has still Run, and the IC is still considered to have Run.
But hey, those drunken monkeys will allow the weirdest stuff and disallow the weirdest stuff all the while ignoring what has been written, so who cares?
nosferatu1001 wrote: Except a unit doesn't run anymore, because a mixes bike and infantry unit can still "run", despite bikes jot being able to do so.
Drunken monkeys is about right!
Show the errata that replaces "In their Shooting phase, units may choose to Run instead of firing.", and "The unit Ran in the Shooting phase." condition for declaring a Charge before making that claim.
Q: How does a unit consisting of a mix of Cavalry, Bike, Jump Pack and Infantry models move, Run,
Turbo-boost and charge? Do they all use their respective rules while maintaining squad coherency?
A: Yes. Models move individually, so in the Movement phase each model in this improbable unit can
move up to their maximum movement allowance so long as the unit is in unit coherency at the end of
the move. If the unit elects to Run, no models in the unit may shoot. The unit doesn’t benefit from the
Cavalry model’s Fleet rule, as that only applies if every model in the unit has the Fleet rule. If the unit
Runs, the Bike may Turbo-boost, but must finish its move in unit coherency. When charging, the
Jump model may use its jump pack (if it did not do so in the Movement phase) to re-roll the charge
distance for the unit.
The Draft FAQ has answered that the models in a mixed unit all use their respective rules for moving, Running, Turbo-boosting, and charging while maintaining squad coherency.
col_impact wrote: The Draft FAQ has answered that the models in a mixed unit all use their respective rules for moving, Running, Turbo-boosting, and charging while maintaining squad coherency.
1) Not an errata, just a House Rule.
2) It only addresses what the models can do and doesn't change what the UNIT is doing.
The unit still operates under the concepts which are applied, i.e. the Run (never mind what is the fine details are, apparently). The unit Runs, cancelling any normal Shooting action, then the models move. If the unit Runs, the unit cannot normally declare a Charge.
Admittedly, the rule we are talking about is about a unit specifically granted the ability to Charge after Running. For some reason, the IC is part of the unit while Running, but not part of the unit's benefit when it goes to try and Charge...
If the Draft FAQ is considered to be in effect (depends on the play environment) then the answer is that the models of the mixed unit move individually whether moving, running, or charging. They only need to stay in coherence.
1) just an official rules update (by definition) just not an alteration to the written rule in the book 2) If a jump pack, singular, can count for the reroll, it is clear the unit vs model distinction you are making can no longer apply. Yes, I always made that distinciton myslef in the past - however drunken monkeys it is!
Bikes can't run, they are given permitssiin to turboboost when the unit declares run because that is their movement mode if they move during the shooting phase. Bikes are not given permission to not move and count as firing at full ballistic skill.
Further in this case an ironpriest on a twolf has access to run just as wulfen do, so will run if the unit declares run even if you opt to move 0.
The faq answers regards models moving as their movement modes allow when they are moved, the whole unit is still moving and no model is stated as being able to count as not moving , even if it has a different movement modes.
Further it states if the unit runs, note it's still saying the unit runs, then no models in the unit can shoot.
This faq still shows RAW an ironpriest on twolf, bike, foot, whatever count as running if attached to wulfen that run.
nosferatu1001 wrote: So the rule they can explicitly still use, they can't use? Illogic at its best.
You are making the assumption that the faq allows them to benefit from all parts of bounding pope, when such is not stated.
It specifies the Eileen can still use bounding lope but the attached IC cannot benefit.
If the unit runs, the IC also runs as per the draft faq and brb states for movement. If the IC is running it cannot declare assault as per the brb and the we faq which explicitly states the ic does not benefit. Therefore the only part of bounding pope which the wulfen can benefit from with an attached IC is the reroll assault movement when the whole unit can assault.
The faq answer is poorly written, because it does not addresses the unit running and then assaulting directly, and the indirect addressing clearly states the IC does not benefit. You cannot declare a charge with part of an unit so the unit may not charge. Illogical or not that is the current RAW per the faq and brb.
This is a good example of the FAQs being a draft. This one made things very confusing.
It seems to imply that a single model that prevents a unit from charging wont actually prevent the unit from charging, which would go against the core rules of the game. We all know how sketchy things get when we base games off of implied rules.
It is however, clearly stated that the IC does not get the rule allowing run+charge, which should be enough to work with until the next bundle of FAQs come out.
The only way it could work, is if the run phase was to work like the move phase. Where in the move phase, I can say "my heavy weapon is not moving, but the rest of the unit is, and they maintain coherency." This allows the heavy weapon to shoot at normal BS, even though the unit moved. That might be what GW is implying with the FAQ ,but it isn't very clear, and the BRB is still pretty straightforward that running is a unit by unit, instead of model by model.
It is a poorly written FAQ, I believe the best course of action would be to message the GW facebook and show them how many people are confused by the wording, so they can correct it.
nosferatu1001 wrote: Blaktoof- so the unit cannot actually benefit. As you are denying them the on,y point at which the FAQ question arises.
The faq never says the unit can benefit from bounding lope. It says the wulfeb in the unit can. It then clearly states the IC cannot benefit. Nothing grants permission to assault with part of an unit I the brb or the faq, so The unit cannot declare an assault if it runs. Which the faq does not address.
The faq question does not address running, however if the unit runs the whole unit count as running as per the brb and the rulebook faq draft. The faq clearly states the ic cannot benefit from this. Therefore the unit cannot declare an assault move because doing so is letting the ic benefit from that part of the rule of the unit runs.
The wulfen when assaulting with an attached ic would get to reroll their assault distance and move the reroll while the ic would move the original value as per this faq answer they must maintain coherency.
The problem is the faq specifies the IC does not benefit, and that the wulfen- not the unit and attached IC get to do something. The faq question does not address running in anyway so we are stuck with units run. And unless they have rules allowing to assault they cannot declare an assault. The attached does not benefit from bounding lope and may not declare an assault. Therefore the unit may not declare an assault.
@ Blaktoof: specifically, I would like you to explain to me why Bounding Lope should be different than For Glory, For Russ!
This is from the FAQ which I posted (I posted the picture for this one specifically because it is exactly like Bounding Lope)
Q: If an independent character joins a unit from a space wolves deathpack formation, can they still benefit from For Glory, For Russ! Special rule (for example, Run and then still be able to charge in the same turn)?
A: The attached character does not benefit, but nor does he prevent the unit he is attached to from doing so, provided that all models in the unit (including the independent character) maintain unit coherency at all times.
The drunken monkeys have ignored the relationships their own game rules provide.
An IC that joins a unit becomes part of that unit for all rules purposes.
Special Rules do not confer between the models of the unit, unless they specifically state so ala Stubborn.
Stubborn, however, does not confer any special rule at all, but grants a benefit to the entity which passes its requirements.
An IC that joins a Wulfen unit or a Deathpack Formation unit is as much a part of that unit when they use For Russ or For Glory or that Wulfen special rule as it would be if Stubborn is being considered.
For some reason, GW has taken to writing a House Rule stating that the IC is NOT part of the unit for Detachment rules when it is part of the unit for everything else. This is what I mean by drunken monkeys.
Not contradict ing the faq. You are inserting words into the question and answer tgatvarw not there.
The wulfen may benefit from the rule but the unit cannot declare an assault of there is an attached IC if it runs due to how the rules for the game work. Some people brought up the different movement modes and incompletely quoted them ignoring that it still states the entire unit counts as running in that faq answer.
The SWfaq clearly states the IC cannot benefit, so it doesn't matter if the wulfen do becausebrhe UNiT cannot declare an assault at that point- you can't assault with part of an unit and not the rest.
The faq still allows for a benefit for the wulfen+IC in regards to an assault reroll.
If you think the faq allows the IC to run and assault with the wulfen, or allows for units to have only part of the models assault please quote where or back it up with some rules.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Charistoph wrote: The drunken monkeys have ignored the relationships their own game rules provide.
An IC that joins a unit becomes part of that unit for all rules purposes.
Special Rules do not confer between the models of the unit, unless they specifically state so ala Stubborn.
Stubborn, however, does not confer any special rule at all, but grants a benefit to the entity which passes its requirements.
An IC that joins a Wulfen unit or a Deathpack Formation unit is as much a part of that unit when they use For Russ or For Glory or that Wulfen special rule as it would be if Stubborn is being considered.
For some reason, GW has taken to writing a House Rule stating that the IC is NOT part of the unit for Detachment rules when it is part of the unit for everything else. This is what I mean by drunken monkeys.
I agree, it's really inconsistent. Hopefully in 8th they come up with some other terminology for some of the rules to differentiate things better.
Charistoph wrote: The drunken monkeys have ignored the relationships their own game rules provide.
An IC that joins a unit becomes part of that unit for all rules purposes.
Special Rules do not confer between the models of the unit, unless they specifically state so ala Stubborn.
Stubborn, however, does not confer any special rule at all, but grants a benefit to the entity which passes its requirements.
An IC that joins a Wulfen unit or a Deathpack Formation unit is as much a part of that unit when they use For Russ or For Glory or that Wulfen special rule as it would be if Stubborn is being considered.
For some reason, GW has taken to writing a House Rule stating that the IC is NOT part of the unit for Detachment rules when it is part of the unit for everything else. This is what I mean by drunken monkeys.
NightHowler wrote: Blaktoof, you still haven't addressed For Glory, For Russ!
Why can a unit with attached IC still charge with For Glory, For Russ! but not with Bounding Lope?
Both units have an attached IC, both rules allow a run and charge, and both FAQs say the unit benefits but the IC does not.
The For glory for Russ is cut and paste the same answer. I can't give you a logical explanation. There isn't one.
Just like an IC attached to skyhammer or other units that can run and charge prevents them, it makes no sense to allow it here. However the allowance for one is not an allowance for another. This for example doesn't mean you can attach an IC to skyhammer and charge with the unit. That answer is currently only valid for that question.
Ie one bad answer doesn't change the others, that's just currently the only inconsistent faq allowance.
NightHowler wrote: Blaktoof, you still haven't addressed For Glory, For Russ!
Why can a unit with attached IC still charge with For Glory, For Russ! but not with Bounding Lope?
Both units have an attached IC, both rules allow a run and charge, and both FAQs say the unit benefits but the IC does not.
The For glory for Russ is cut and paste the same answer. I can't give you a logical explanation. There isn't one.
Just like an IC attached to skyhammer or other units that can run and charge prevents them, it makes no sense to allow it here. However the allowance for one is not an allowance for another. This for example doesn't mean you can attach an IC to skyhammer and charge with the unit. That answer is currently only valid for that question.
Ie one bad answer doesn't change the others, that's just currently the only inconsistent faq allowance.
The Bounding Lope rule gives the permission to charge after running.
Spoiler:
Bounding Lope: This unit can Run and charge in the same turn, and can re-roll failed charge rolls.
The Draft FAQ clarifies that the models comprising the Wulfen unit can run and charge in the same turn while the models comprising any attached ICs cannot. The models move individually and only need to retain coherence per the FAQ.
blaktoof wrote: The faq does not clarify that the unit can run and assault. Which is why you did not and are unable to quote this supposed clarification from the faq.
You are having trouble reading the FAQ. Allow me to re-point you to it.
Spoiler:
Bounding Lope: This unit can Run and charge in the same turn, and can re-roll failed charge rolls.
Spoiler:
Q: If an Independent Character joins a unit of Wulfen, do the Wulfen models still get to use the Bounding Lope rule?
A: Yes, but the Independent Character does not benefit, and all the models in the unit must maintain unit coherency
The FAQ unequivocally states that the Wulfen models still get to use the Bounding Lope rule which serves no other purpose than to allow them to charge after they run. The Wulfen models are only required to maintain unit coherency.
Your argument that the Wulfen models do not get to use the Bounding Lope rule when an IC is attached directly contradicts the FAQ which states the Wulfen models still get to use the Bounding Lope rule when an IC is attached.
Therefore your argument is invalid and there really isn't anymore to say except read the FAQ. The FAQ provides an unequivocal answer.
Many of the words you choose to use don't mean what you are using them for.
For example you say Bounding Lope is only used for running then charging, yet you quote the rule and clearly there is another benefit of the rule.
The faq does not specify the unit running and then assaulting in question or answer. You are inferring that both parts of bounding lope are addressed when no such statements are made in the faq.
blaktoof wrote: The faq does not clarify that the unit can run and assault. Which is why you did not and are unable to quote this supposed clarification from the faq.
Blaktoof, I'm afraid we're just going to have to disagree. The FAQ never tells you that there are any limitations on using bounding lope except that the unit must maintain coherency, and like you said, it is basically copy/pasted from the answer to for glory, for Russ! which explicitly gives permission.
I know I'll never convince you. We'll just have to agree to disagree.
blaktoof wrote: Many of the words you choose to use don't mean what you are using them for.
For example you say Bounding Lope is only used for running then charging, yet you quote the rule and clearly there is another benefit of the rule.
The faq does not specify the unit running and then assaulting in question or answer. You are inferring that both parts of bounding lope are addressed when no such statements are made in the faq.
The FAQ states that the Wulfen models still get to charge after they run and they can re-roll that charge roll. They are only required to maintain coherence with the IC who does not charge.
You are saying that the Wulfen models do not get to use the Bounding Lope rule if they have an IC attached and have run.
You are directly contradicting the FAQ and your argument can be ignored as willfully obtuse.
blaktoof wrote: The faq does not clarify that the unit can run and assault. Which is why you did not and are unable to quote this supposed clarification from the faq.
Blaktoof, I'm afraid we're just going to have to disagree. The FAQ never tells you that there are any limitations on using bounding lope except that the unit must maintain coherency, and like you said, it is basically copy/pasted from the answer to for glory, for Russ! which explicitly gives permission.
I know I'll never convince you. We'll just have to agree to disagree.
Blaktoof is clearly in the wrong here. There is no other way of interpeting the FAQ than that it clarifies that the Wulfen models can charge after running and re-roll their charge distance so long as they maintain coherence with the attached IC.
Moreover, Blaktoof is clearly confusing assault with charge. Assault is a phase. Charging is something that is allowed or disallowed. The FAQ clarifies that the Wulfen models can run and still charge.
blaktoof wrote: The faq does not clarify that the unit can run and assault. Which is why you did not and are unable to quote this supposed clarification from the faq.
Blaktoof, I'm afraid we're just going to have to disagree. The FAQ never tells you that there are any limitations on using bounding lope except that the unit must maintain coherency, and like you said, it is basically copy/pasted from the answer to for glory, for Russ! which explicitly gives permission.
I know I'll never convince you. We'll just have to agree to disagree.
I posted on their facebook page for the SWfaq asking for clarity if the unit can run then charge with an attached IC.
blaktoof wrote: The faq does not clarify that the unit can run and assault. Which is why you did not and are unable to quote this supposed clarification from the faq.
Blaktoof, I'm afraid we're just going to have to disagree. The FAQ never tells you that there are any limitations on using bounding lope except that the unit must maintain coherency, and like you said, it is basically copy/pasted from the answer to for glory, for Russ! which explicitly gives permission.
I know I'll never convince you. We'll just have to agree to disagree.
I posted on their facebook page for the SWfaq asking for clarity if the unit can run then charge with an attached IC.
I think an answer from them will, unfortunately, be the only way to get a real answer. Thanks for asking.
Please state where the faq clearly states a wulfen unit with attached IC may run and then assault .
You are confused. There is no rule which prevents a unit from running and then assaulting in the same turn.
There is a rule which prevents a unit from running and charging in the same turn.
The Bounding Lope gives the Wulfen unit the ability to run and charge in the same turn.
The FAQ clarifies that if there is an IC attached to the Wulfen unit that the Wulfen models may still use Bounding Lope and run and charge in the same turn so long as the models maintain coherency with the attached IC.
In other words, you are confusing assault (which is a phase) with charging (which is the actual mechanic that is affected by whether or not a unit has run that turn).
Considering this is the fourth time now you have failed to quote where it "clarifies the unit can run and charge I the same turn" I think it's best to stop replying to you about this issue.
blaktoof wrote: Considering this is the fourth time now you have failed to quote where it "clarifies the unit can run and charge I the same turn" I think it's best to stop replying to you about this issue.
You are the one being willfully obtuse.
The FAQ makes it clear that the Wulfen models can still use the Bounding Lope rule which allows them to Run and charge in the same turn and re-roll failed charges as long as they maintain coherency with the attached IC.
Spoiler:
Bounding Lope: This unit can Run and charge in the same turn, and can re-roll failed charge rolls.
Spoiler:
Q: If an Independent Character joins a unit of Wulfen, do the Wulfen models still get to use the Bounding Lope rule?
A: Yes, but the Independent Character does not benefit, and all the models in the unit must maintain unit coherency
If the Wulfen models get to use the Bounding Lope rule then they get to Run and charge in the same turn.
If the Wulfen models do not get to use the Bounding Lope rule then they do not get to Run and charge in the same turn.
The FAQ makes it clear that the Wulfen models do indeed get to Run and charge in the same turn.
blaktoof wrote: Considering this is the fourth time now you have failed to quote where it "clarifies the unit can run and charge I the same turn" I think it's best to stop replying to you about this issue.
The FAQ states the Wulfen may stil use the Bounding Leap rule
The Bounding Leap rule allows the unit to run and charge in the same turn.
As stated above
The issue here is that GW made an FAQ that does not match the already written rules in the 7th edition rulebook, and this is because they didnt playtest it enough. So according to the rulebook the unit runs as a Whole and not each model separately (which can happen in the movement phase where you can move some models and not move others, but with running even if you not move you count as having run).
I say GW got lost in the details and you cant charge if you ran with wulfen and IC attached, unless they release an errata that changes how run works in the first place. They surely thought that run works like the movement in movement phase thats why they gave that answer. They didnt do their homework
PS : Those words come from a guy that plays only pure wolves and nothing else
blaktoof wrote: Considering this is the fourth time now you have failed to quote where it "clarifies the unit can run and charge I the same turn" I think it's best to stop replying to you about this issue.
You are the one being willfully obtuse.
The FAQ makes it clear that the Wulfen models can still use the Bounding Lope rule which allows them to Run and charge in the same turn and re-roll failed charges as long as they maintain coherency with the attached IC.
Spoiler:
Bounding Lope: This unit can Run and charge in the same turn, and can re-roll failed charge rolls.
Spoiler:
Q: If an Independent Character joins a unit of Wulfen, do the Wulfen models still get to use the Bounding Lope rule?
A: Yes, but the Independent Character does not benefit, and all the models in the unit must maintain unit coherency
If the Wulfen models get to use the Bounding Lope rule then they get to Run and charge in the same turn.
If the Wulfen models do not get to use the Bounding Lope rule then they do not get to Run and charge in the same turn.
The FAQ makes it clear that the Wulfen models do indeed get to Run and charge in the same turn.
and if you declare an assault with the unit that has an IC attached that does not having bounding lope, the faq specifically states the IC does not benefit. If you declare a charge with the unit, you are also declaring a charge with the attached IC which the faq specifies you cannot.
Until they state if the unit can run and charge or that parts of units can declare a charge or run instead of the whole unit, which they have not despite what you have said, the unit may not charge after running due to the attached IC.
The answer toi the faq does not bring clarity to the question.
Wulfen can still use boudning lope. Is not the same as saying the unit can still run and then charge.
Units run, as shown by the BRB and the faq answer on different movement modes.
Units charge.
There are no rules for running with only part of an unit, or charging with only part of an unit.
The faq explicity states the IC does not benefit, so the IC cannot run and charge.
The faq does not explicitly state the unit can run then charge with only the wulfen, that is something people are inferring. it may be true- but it goes against the rules of the game in the BRB, and is inconsistent with all the other faq rules on ICs attached to units that have an ability that lets some of the models run and charge. Without specifically stating they can run and charge it is a fools errand to assume they can. The assumption that they can violates the faq answer itself in resolution with units run, and units charge in that the IC cannot benefit and is part of the unit running and then charging.
You may infer that the unit can run and charge because part of bounding lope rule is running and charging, but the faq answer specifically calls out the IC cannot run and charge. The faq answer does not give any special allowance to run with part of an unit or charge with part of an unit so resolution of this answer with the BRB and the movement section of the rulebook Faq draft results in the unit still not being able to charge if it runs and there is an IC attached.
The unit can run and charge, as per the bounding leap,rule. Which specifies the unit may run and charge. So the unit, minus the IC, may run and charge.
nosferatu1001 wrote: The unit can run and charge, as per the bounding leap,rule. Which specifies the unit may run and charge. So the unit, minus the IC, may run and charge.
And that has a problem. You cannot declare a charge with part of an unit. You also cannot declare run with part of an unit. Nothing in the BRB allows it or the FAQs, in fact it is specifically stated the whole unit counts as running if you declare to run with the unit under the whole bikes/jumppacks/infantry movement question of the faq. This faq additionally doesn't explicitly state that it can be done now, or that this specific unit can do it.
So no, the unit cannot run and charge and the answer on Wulfen+IC in the faq even specifies the IC cannot benefit(run and charge) so saying the unit can do something when not all of the models are allowed to is not true.
If an unit with 2 heavy weapons fires their heavy weapons, can the other models declare charge? nope.
If I run with part of an unit, then charge with the rest to limit how many models are in B2B, or a certain distance to enemy models before my pile in, is that allowed? Nope because you cannot run with parts of units, and you cannot charge with parts of units.
This faq answer does not address that or grant an allowance, it further does not explicitly state the Wulfen+IC can run and charge. It actually does not address the question directly at all.
nosferatu1001 wrote: The unit can run and charge, as per the bounding leap,rule. Which specifies the unit may run and charge. So the unit, minus the IC, may run and charge.
And that has a problem. You cannot declare a charge with part of an unit. You also cannot declare run with part of an unit. Nothing in the BRB allows it or the FAQs, in fact it is specifically stated the whole unit counts as running if you declare to run with the unit under the whole bikes/jumppacks/infantry movement question of the faq. This faq additionally doesn't explicitly state that it can be done now, or that this specific unit can do it.
Incorrect. The Space Wolves FAQ has made it abundantly clear that you can indeed run and declare a charge with the unit minus the attached ICs.
Spoiler:
Q: If an Independent Character joins a unit from a Space Wolves Deathpack Formation, can they still benefit from the For Glory, For Russ! special rule (for example, Run and then still be able to charge the same turn)?
A: The attached character does not benefit, but nor does he prevent the unit he is attached to from doing so, provided that all models in the unit (including the Independent Character) maintain unit coherency at all times.
Obviously this answer to a specific other rule means skyhammer can declare charges with attached ICs.
This rules answer for a different question still has the rules problem that it is not explicitly addressing units run or charge. Not models from until, and again they call out the IC cannot benefit so the whole unit is not comprised of models that can run and charge.
blaktoof wrote: Obviously this answer to a specific other rule means skyhammer can declare charges with attached ICs.
This rules answer for a different question still has the rules problem that it is not explicitly addressing units run or charge. Not models from until, and again they call out the IC cannot benefit so the whole unit is not comprised of models that can run and charge.
Skyhammer is a different case involving Deep Strike and first turn deployment from Deep Strike reserves so its only loosely comparable to the rules situation being presently discussed.
The FAQ answer to For Glory, For Russ! is a direct answer to whether or not the unit minus the IC will be able to run and charge. The question is directly answered. Whether or not you accept it logically, the FAQ asserts that a unit minus the ICs can run and charge.
You are simply being willfully obtuse and refusing to do what the FAQ directs you to do.
I actually read it (present tense) the same as Blaktoof. But they probably meant it the way others are saying. It's just weird that they're giving permission for a model that Runs to Charge without actually having an ability that allows it to do so.
But could we maybe chill on calling each other "willfully obtuse" when both sides are logical readings? Outside the context of "For Russ, For Glory" there is another part to the Wulfen rule that the wulfen can benefit from without being restricted by the IC being present. Within the context of "For Russ, For Glory," both rulings are just weird, though consistent with each other.
Maybe we need to be thinking in terms of Disordered Charge, meaning the IC prevents the Wulfen from benefiting from the +1 attack, Rage or any potential Hammer of Wrath that might be present...it's a stretch I admit but it could be what the FAQ is failing show.
Feel free to keep trying to push your old failed lines of reasoning, but the writings on the wall here . . .
No, my point is there is no reasoning behind their FAQ. There is no logic. I disproved your points then, and I can disprove them now. You are stuck on a phrase that is a condition of possession being miraculously translated to being one of granting. The only thing that is granted in Stubborn is an effect, not a rule. You could not bring anything to support your position then that wasn't addressed, though you ignored it and then presented a case based on false premises based on ignoring what was presented, if you did not outright lie about what they were saying. Considering the illusion that you think you "shown" me these things is ridiculous when you demonstrated nothing that was not disproven. Bringing this up now in such a manner could also be seen as attacking the poster.
col_impact wrote:Incorrect. The Space Wolves FAQ has made it abundantly clear that you can indeed run and declare a charge with the unit minus the attached ICs.
Spoiler:
Q: If an Independent Character joins a unit from a Space Wolves Deathpack Formation, can they still benefit from the For Glory, For Russ! special rule (for example, Run and then still be able to charge the same turn)?
A: The attached character does not benefit, but nor does he prevent the unit he is attached to from doing so, provided that all models in the unit (including the Independent Character) maintain unit coherency at all times.
Then care to explain how to do this based on the rules in the rulebook while still following these rules?
Spoiler:
• If possible, a charging model must move into base contact with an enemy model within reach that is not already in base contact with another charging model. If there are no such enemy models in reach, the model must move into base contact with an enemy model that is already in base contact with a charging model.
• If a charging model cannot reach any enemy models, it must try to move within 2" horizontally or 6" vertically of one of its own unit’s models that is already in base contact with an enemy. If this is impossible, it must simply stay in unit coherency.
Remember the conditions that the models must stay in coherency AND move as close to base contact as possible by both the rulebook and the FAQ. Outside of the 2" Charge where the IC is also very close and not strung out in the back, how is this supposed to actually work?
People, make sure when you are posting your arguments that you are doing it without the added "you're just being wilfully obtuse" garbage. It doesn't make your point any stronger to insult others, and is in direct violation of rule 1. So stop it.
Funny thing is if the answer had been 'no' it would have been clear cut and rather blunt,
The answer we have been given so far is 'yes' with a 'but' which is why I'm more and more leaning towards a disordered charge type scenario where the Wulfen can charge they just lose all the charging bonuses because the IC can't charge with them.
I know what you're saying and I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm trying to figure out where some of the other guys are at, especially some of the ones who disagree, they see the 'yes' but they're still trying to make a 'no'.
While we wait for clarification, I'll present to my opponent the FAQ and my interpretation of it, and if he disagrees I'll be happy to roll for it. It is a game after all.
NightHowler wrote: While we wait for clarification, I'll present to my opponent the FAQ and my interpretation of it, and if he disagrees I'll be happy to roll for it. It is a game after all.
I don't think we need a clarification.
The problems people have stem from a misquoting or misremembering of a rule by truncating the latter half of it . . .
Spoiler:
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.
The Draft FAQ has reminded us that the portion in red cannot be dropped off. The rules for Characters include a section on movement that allows the Characters to move individually and is an exception to the 'counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes'.
Spoiler:
CHARACTER AND MOVING
Characters follow the movement rules for models of their type, whether Infantry, Jump Infantry, Bikes, etc. However, remember that they must maintain unit coherency with any unit they are in.
Consider all these FAQ answers in light of the Character rule that people have forgotten . . .
Spoiler:
Q: Can a Jet Pack unit that has joined a different unit (e.g. a Necron Destroyer Lord joining Canoptek Wraiths) still use its jet pack move in the Assault phase?
A: Yes, but the model cannot leave its unit and must stay in unit coherency.
Spoiler:
Q: When it states that all models in the unit must use the same movement type, does that restrict Independent Characters with the Bike unit type joining Jump or Jetbike units, for example?
A: Sometimes a unit will contain models that move at different speeds. When this is the case, each model can move up to its maximum movement allowance so long as it remains in unit coherency.
Spoiler:
Q: How does a unit consisting of a mix of Cavalry, Bike, Jump Pack and Infantry models move, Run, Turbo-boost and charge? Do they all use their respective rules while maintaining squad coherency?
A: Yes. Models move individually, so in the Movement phase each model in this improbable unit can move up to their maximum movement allowance so long as the unit is in unit coherency at the end of the move. If the unit elects to Run, no models in the unit may shoot. The unit doesn’t benefit from the Cavalry model’s Fleet rule, as that only applies if every model in the unit has the Fleet rule. If the unit Runs, the Bike may Turbo-boost, but must finish its move in unit coherency. When charging, the Jump model may use its jump pack (if it did not do so in the Movement phase) to re-roll the charge distance for the unit.
The problems people have stem from a misquoting or misremembering of a rule by truncating the latter half of it . . .
Spoiler:
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.
The Draft FAQ has reminded us that the portion in red cannot be dropped off. The rules for Characters include a section on movement that allows the Characters to move individually and is an exception to the 'counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes'.
Spoiler:
CHARACTER AND MOVING
Characters follow the movement rules for models of their type, whether Infantry, Jump Infantry, Bikes, etc. However, remember that they must maintain unit coherency with any unit they are in.
Consider all these FAQ answers in light of the Character rule that people have forgotten . . .
Spoiler:
Q: Can a Jet Pack unit that has joined a different unit (e.g. a Necron Destroyer Lord joining Canoptek Wraiths) still use its jet pack move in the Assault phase?
A: Yes, but the model cannot leave its unit and must stay in unit coherency.
Spoiler:
Q: When it states that all models in the unit must use the same movement type, does that restrict Independent Characters with the Bike unit type joining Jump or Jetbike units, for example?
A: Sometimes a unit will contain models that move at different speeds. When this is the case, each model can move up to its maximum movement allowance so long as it remains in unit coherency.
Spoiler:
Q: How does a unit consisting of a mix of Cavalry, Bike, Jump Pack and Infantry models move, Run, Turbo-boost and charge? Do they all use their respective rules while maintaining squad coherency?
A: Yes. Models move individually, so in the Movement phase each model in this improbable unit can move up to their maximum movement allowance so long as the unit is in unit coherency at the end of the move. If the unit elects to Run, no models in the unit may shoot. The unit doesn’t benefit from the Cavalry model’s Fleet rule, as that only applies if every model in the unit has the Fleet rule. If the unit Runs, the Bike may Turbo-boost, but must finish its move in unit coherency. When charging, the Jump model may use its jump pack (if it did not do so in the Movement phase) to re-roll the charge distance for the unit.
No, we are not "misquoting or misremembering of a rule" or a Draft FAQ. We are remembering ALL the rules and their interactions, not just cherry-picking what we want to remember. Do not blur the definition between model and units as that comes some very dangerous territory.
Most movement actions are applied on a unit level, while the actual movement distance is based at the model level.
Keep in mind several things which the Draft FAQ does not errata, but House Rules, and that is:
Running is a Unit level action.
Turbo-boosting is a Model level action.
Jumping is a Unit level action prevented if all models in the unit cannot do so.
Charging is a Unit level action.
Thrusting is a Unit level action.
What they need to do is errata these sections to meet with what these FAQs seem to indicate as RAI. That when a unit Runs, the models can Turbo-boost, etcs, and that Jumping indicates all Jump models in the unit and all the models in the unit, and Thrusting is a Model level action. All this needs to be properly addressed, not just hand-waved away.
No, we are not "misquoting or misremembering of a rule" or a Draft FAQ. We are remembering ALL the rules and their interactions, not just cherry-picking what we want to remember. Do not blur the definition between model and units as that comes some very dangerous territory.
Most movement actions are applied on a unit level, while the actual movement distance is based at the model level.
Keep in mind several things which the Draft FAQ does not errata, but House Rules, and that is:
Running is a Unit level action.
Turbo-boosting is a Model level action.
Jumping is a Unit level action prevented if all models in the unit cannot do so.
Charging is a Unit level action.
Thrusting is a Unit level action.
What they need to do is errata these sections to meet with what these FAQs seem to indicate as RAI. That when a unit Runs, the models can Turbo-boost, etcs, and that Jumping indicates all Jump models in the unit and all the models in the unit, and Thrusting is a Model level action. All this needs to be properly addressed, not just hand-waved away.
No. The Character rules for movement mean that IC are not a part of the unit for the purposes of movement.
Do not confuse these two rule statements . . .
Spoiler:
While an Independent Character is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes,
Spoiler:
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.
The latter statement is why a unit of Wulfen with an IC attached can still benefit from the Bounding Lope rule. The Wulfen unit Runs and charges per its units special rules and the attached IC is bound by the rules of movement for its unit type.
col_impact wrote: No. The Character rules for movement mean that IC are not a part of the unit for the purposes of movement.
Do not confuse these two rule statements . . .
Spoiler:
While an Independent Character is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes,
Spoiler:
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.
The latter statement is why a unit of Wulfen with an IC attached can still benefit from the Bounding Lope rule. The Wulfen unit Runs and charges per its units special rules and the attached IC is bound by the rules of movement for its unit type.
Simple stuff.
You missed a rules quote there to support your first statement. Where does it state that Characters are not part of the unit for rules purposes?
Movement rules are determined by the other unit types associated with the model, not with being a Character. Remember that a significant number of Character models cannot be disassociated from the unit as they come with the unit either as default (Marine and AM Sergeants) or as an upgrade (Eldar Exarchs and Orc Nobs). So, separating the Character from the unit for movement makes zero sense.
Here, let me show you what it says for Characters and Movement:
Characters follow the movement rules for models of their type, whether Infantry, Jump Infantry, Bikes, etc. However, remember that they must maintain unit coherency with any unit they are in.
Nothing in this quote allows you to separate the Character from the unit for movement. Indeed, the underlined portion indicates otherwise. If they are not part of the unit for movement, they would not need to stay in coherency, but yet, this statement clearly indicates that they are.
Also, they must still follow the rules of their Type, which means they do not get a free pass just because they are a Character, much less an Independent Character.
What GW is telling us with these Draft FAQs is these rules for Movement are allowed to be translated for the purposes of mixed units to allow all of the unit to do their special moves, be it Jumping, Thrusting, or even Running, just so long as they do not separate while doing so. From a functionality aspect, I do not have a problem with this, but from considering it from a language aspect, they need to properly make the erratas to fit this adjustment.
What does this have to do with IC and Wulfen? Well, the Unit runs and then the Unit can Charge in the same turn, right? This is not limited to the models in the unit, though. But the Drunken Monkeys would have you believe that it is. The rules for Charging only restrict the UNIT from the Charge if the UNIT Runs, not the Models. The IC is also part of the unit, having to stay in Coherency with the unit at all times except when intending to leave during Movement or the rest of the unit is destroyed (a bit obvious on that last one), so is under those same considerations that every other model in the unit is under consideration for when the UNIT does something or receives a benefit.
If the IC were part of the unit for all rules purposes, the IC would not retain its individual Unit Type - an IC on a Bike attached to a Jump unit would acquire the Jump unit type and lose the Bike unit type. All rules purposes means all rules purposes, right?
However, importantly we do not truncate the last part of the rule . . .
Spoiler:
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.
The latter part of the rule means the IC can move individually as if he were an individual unit per his unit type while the unit he is joined to is free to move according to its unit type. The only restriction is that the IC retain coherency with the unit he is attached to during any phases that are not the movement phase.
If in the movement phase the IC unit uses its individual movement to move out of coherency with the host unit then the IC unit detaches from the host unit. The coherency restriction is not in effect during the movement phase according to the IC rules.
When attached to a unit, the IC is a 'unit in a unit'. If he were not a 'unit in a unit' then he could not move according to his own unit type or move out of coherency in the movement phase.
col_impact wrote: If the IC were part of the unit for all rules purposes, the IC would not retain its individual Unit Type - an IC on a Bike attached to a Jump unit would acquire the Jump unit type and lose the Bike unit type. All rules purposes means all rules purposes, right?
No. Nothing says he takes on the unit type of the unit. Just that he is part of the unit. With the cases where Sergeants, Nobs, and Exarchs are concerned, they already have two unit types listed in every unit. So, the unit type of the model does not get to change when it joins a unit since we are not told or even implied to do so.
When the unit gets shot, the IC is part of the unit for when Wounds are Allocated. When a unit Runs, the IC is part of the unit and can make that move. When determining if a unit can use Fleet, the IC is considered part of the unit and can prevent its use. When a unit looks to use Stubborn, the IC is considered part of the unit and can not have its Leadership reduced in certain circumstances.
col_impact wrote: However, importantly we do not truncate the last part of the rule . . .
Spoiler:
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.
The latter part of the rule means the IC can move individually as if he were an individual unit per his unit type while the unit he is joined to is free to move according to its unit type. The only restriction is that the IC retain coherency with the unit he is attached to during any phases that are not the movement phase.
If in the movement phase the IC unit uses its individual movement to move out of coherency with the host unit then the IC unit detaches from the host unit. The coherency restriction is not in effect during the movement phase according to the IC rules.
When attached to a unit, the IC is a 'unit in a unit'. If he were not a 'unit in a unit' then he could not move according to his own unit type or move out of coherency in the movement phase.
No, it does not state or imply this. I have already pointed out that the Character rules change absolutely nothing in regards to movement, and still consider Characters as part of the unit for all considerations.
Units make the move action, models do the actual movement. From the Movement Phase section:
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.
MOVEMENT DISTANCE Models move up to 6" in the Movement phase. This represents most creatures moving at a reasonable pace but stopping several times to scan the surrounding landscape for enemies, communicate with their commanders, identify the best lines of advance and so on.
This applies to Charging, too.
DECLARE CHARGE Choose a unit in your army that is declaring a charge and nominate the enemy unit(s) it is attempting to charge. A unit can never declare a charge against a unit that it cannot reach, nor can it declare a charge against a unit that it cannot see, though it is allowed to charge an enemy unit it is impossible for it to harm. This means that a charge can usually only be declared on a unit up to 12" away (the maximum charge range for most models, as we’ll discover later).
Moving Charging Models Charging units must attempt to move into base contact with as many opposing models in the enemy unit as possible with as many of their models as possible – no holding back or trying to avoid terrain! All of the models in a charging unit make their charge move – up to the 2D6 distance you rolled earlier – following the same rules as in the Movement phase, with the exception that they can be moved within 1" of enemy models. Charging models still cannot move through friendly or enemy models, and cannot move into base contact with enemy models from a unit they are not charging (a unit can charge more than one enemy unit by declaring a multiple charge – this is described in the Multiple Combats section).
So, here we see that while the Units initiate the action, it is the models actually performing those actions. So, that allows the IC and the models inside to do their range.
The problem is when we get in to Unit Types, they either give special names to actions separating them out from the standard (turbo-boost), require the whole unit to do so (Jump), or require the unit to be identified as that type (Jet Pack). But even then, NOTHING is stated that ICs out as being separate from the unit in these actions.
The Drunken Monkeys forget how they have written their rules and then just try to wave it away instead of addressing it properly.
You actually have to point to a rule in the BRB that takes away the unit status of an IC that joins a unit. Even though he becomes part of a unit, the IC still retains separable unit status because no rule exists that takes the unit status away. The IC is simply a unit that is part of another unit.
The IC never stops being a unit. The ICs have their own ALE. They have their own unit type. The Character Movement rules allow them to follow the movement rules found on their ALE.
When they join a unit they do not lose their ALE or the unit type on their ALE which they would if they were part of the unit for all rules purposes.
When they join a unit they do not lose the ability to move independently of the unit. They can move freely out of coherency with the unit during the movement phase. If they were part of the unit for all rules purposes they would not be able to move out of coherency.
ICs are a unit in a unit. An ALE coexisting with a host ALE. A unit in a unit that can move independently and break off at any movement phase.
So a Jet Pack IC unit that is attached to an infantry unit still has access to the Thrust move since the Jet Pack IC is a unit in its own right and can move independently and only has to maintain coherency since its not the normal movement phase.
Spoiler:
Q: Can a Jet Pack unit that has joined a different unit (e.g. a Necron Destroyer Lord joining Canoptek Wraiths) still use its jet pack move in the Assault phase?
A: Yes, but the model cannot leave its unit and must stay in unit coherency.
Spoiler:
THRUST MOVE
A Jet Pack unit that is not locked in combat or charging can move up to 2D6" in the Assault phase, even if they have shot or Run in the preceding Shooting phase or arrived by Deep Strike that turn. When Jet Pack units move in the Assault phase and do not charge, they move just as they would when using their jet packs in the Movement phase.
In the scenario where a Destroyer Lord is attached to a unit of Wraiths, Jet Pack unit refers to the Destroyer Lord. The Destroyer Lord never discarded his unit status.
col_impact wrote: You actually have to point to a rule in the BRB that takes away the unit status of an IC that joins a unit. Even though he becomes part of a unit, the IC still retains separable unit status because no rule exists that takes the unit status away. The IC is simply a unit that is part of another unit.
The IC never stops being a unit. The ICs have their own ALE. They have their own unit type. The Character Movement rules allow them to follow the movement rules found on their ALE.
When they join a unit they do not lose their ALE or the unit type on their ALE which they would if they were part of the unit for all rules purposes.
When they join a unit they do not lose the ability to move independently of the unit. They can move freely out of coherency with the unit during the movement phase. If they were part of the unit for all rules purposes they would not be able to move out of coherency.
ICs are a unit in a unit. An ALE coexisting with a host ALE. A unit in a unit that can move independently and break off at any movement phase.
So a Jet Pack IC unit that is attached to an infantry unit still has access to the Thrust move since the Jet Pack IC is a unit in its own right and can move independently and only has to maintain coherency since its not the normal movement phase.
Spoiler:
Q: Can a Jet Pack unit that has joined a different unit (e.g. a Necron Destroyer Lord joining Canoptek Wraiths) still use its jet pack move in the Assault phase?
A: Yes, but the model cannot leave its unit and must stay in unit coherency.
Spoiler:
THRUST MOVE
A Jet Pack unit that is not locked in combat or charging can move up to 2D6" in the Assault phase, even if they have shot or Run in the preceding Shooting phase or arrived by Deep Strike that turn. When Jet Pack units move in the Assault phase and do not charge, they move just as they would when using their jet packs in the Movement phase.
In the scenario where a Destroyer Lord is attached to a unit of Wraiths, Jet Pack unit refers to the Destroyer Lord. The Destroyer Lord never discarded his unit status.
We have been over this in other threads.
1) There are zero rules for units operating or being recognized inside another unit. None. Zip. Zero. Nadda.
2) The IC counts as being part of the joined unit for all rules purposes for the duration of the joining, not just what you pick and choose to recognize. That is the part in the BRB which provides the link which you ignore.
3) The final tally with that is when an IC is joined to a unit, you are disallowed from recognizing that IC's individual unit status for the duration of the joining.
If you think an IC can be treated as a separate unit while inside another unit, let me ask you this:
"Can I shoot at a Warboss inside a Green Tide unit of Boyz without them being able to have Wounds Allocated to them? Why?"
If I can select out a Destroyer Lord unit in a unit of Wraiths to do a Thrust move, my opponent can just as easily choose to shoot at that Destroyer Lord unit. If he does so, those Wounds accumulated will not be able to be Allocated to anything but the Destroyer Lord. This leads to also not being able to use Look Out Sir! those Wound Allocations (Wraiths are not part of the Destroyer Lord unit).
So, to keep sanity in gameplay, I cannot separate out the IC for its own unit actions unless I am intending to separate it from the unit itself. The Drunken Monkeys state otherwise, and it is your choice to listen to them.
1) There are zero rules for units operating or being recognized inside another unit. None. Zip. Zero. Nadda.
2) The IC counts as being part of the joined unit for all rules purposes for the duration of the joining, not just what you pick and choose to recognize. That is the part in the BRB which provides the link which you ignore.
3) The final tally with that is when an IC is joined to a unit, you are disallowed from recognizing that IC's individual unit status for the duration of the joining.
If you think an IC can be treated as a separate unit while inside another unit, let me ask you this:
"Can I shoot at a Warboss inside a Green Tide unit of Boyz without them being able to have Wounds Allocated to them? Why?"
If I can select out a Destroyer Lord unit in a unit of Wraiths to do a Thrust move, my opponent can just as easily choose to shoot at that Destroyer Lord unit. If he does so, those Wounds accumulated will not be able to be Allocated to anything but the Destroyer Lord. This leads to also not being able to use Look Out Sir! those Wound Allocations (Wraiths are not part of the Destroyer Lord unit).
So, to keep sanity in gameplay, I cannot separate out the IC for its own unit actions unless I am intending to separate it from the unit itself. The Drunken Monkeys state otherwise, and it is your choice to listen to them.
Again, you are conflating these two statements . . .
Spoiler:
While an Independent Character is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes.
Spoiler:
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.
The difference between these two statements is why an Independent Character can move independently of the unit. The Character and Movement rules provide the exception to the "counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes".
If there were Character and Shooting rules that allowed the Character to shoot independently of the host unit or to be shot at independently of the host unit then those would also provide exception to the "counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes". But there isn't any to that effect.
That's why a Destroyer Lord attached to a unit of Wraiths doing a Thrust move doesn't open up the Pandora's Box you are worried about. Nice try.
Moreover, it is up to you to show a rule that takes away the unit status of the Destroyer Lord when he joins the unit of Wraiths. You are assuming that he loses his unit status. But no rule says this.
The FAQ writers are being very logical and consistent here. You have read into the rule in the past and have failed to notice the exceptions to the "counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes".
Rather than adjust your argument you are stubbornly holding onto your old lines of thinking and accusing the FAQ writers of being Drunken Monkeys when in fact you are the one being a Stubborn Monkey.
You are both reading waaaAAAAAaaaay too much into this. We have seen enough GW rules, rules contradictions, FAQs, and FAQ contradictions to know beyond any shadow of a doubt that the GW rules writers do not think this deeply about the rules they write. So for us to think this deeply about it becomes a little ludicrous at a certain point.
The unit with attached IC can run and charge because the FAQ says they can.
col_impact wrote:Again, you are conflating these two statements . . .
Spoiler:
While an Independent Character is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes.
Spoiler:
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.
I do not think "conflate" means what you think it means. Look it up and you will realize that it does not mean how you are attempting to use it.
I do recognize that the IC still follows the rules for Characters, the point is that they really do nothing for this discussion.
col_impact wrote:The difference between these two statements is why an Independent Character can move independently of the unit. The Character and Movement rules provide the exception to the "counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes".
If there were Character and Shooting rules that allowed the Character to shoot independently of the host unit or to be shot at independently of the host unit then those would also provide exception to the "counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes". But there isn't any to that effect.
That's why a Destroyer Lord attached to a unit of Wraiths doing a Thrust move doesn't open up the Pandora's Box you are worried about. Nice try.
Moreover, it is up to you to show a rule that takes away the unit status of the Destroyer Lord when he joins the unit of Wraiths. You are assuming that he loses his unit status. But no rule says this.
I have already demonstrated to you on how being a Character makes zero difference in this case and you refused to address or acknowledge it.
Characters and Movement does absolutely nothing to allow for independent movement for a Character since there are numerous Characters that cannot be separated from a unit. Only the Independent Character special rule allows for any capacity of that. And even then, the Characters and Movement section still refers you back to the rules in the Unit Types and makes zero exceptions to that. What makes it possible for a Biker IC to Turbo-boost when the unit Runs is that the Biker model is allowed to do it instead of Running. Actual movement is based on what the model can do, as I have shown. However, the Jump and Jet Pack special action rules are not listed as being performed by individual models alone, but being done by the unit or all the models in the unit.
So, going by that, I sort of repeat, where does it allow you to treat the IC joined to a unit as a separate unit for movement, but not for being shot at? Specific rules quotes only please.
col_impact wrote:The FAQ writers are being very logical and consistent here. You have read into the rule in the past and have failed to notice the exceptions to the "counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes".
Rather than adjust your argument you are stubbornly holding onto your old lines of thinking and accusing the FAQ writers of being Drunken Monkeys when in fact you are the one being a Stubborn Monkey.
No, there is no logic when they ignore the relationship they established in the game with an IC and a unit they joined. Just because you don't want it to work, doesn't mean your points carry any weight. Either an IC is part of the unit he is in or he is not. If he is, why can he not benefit from Bounding Lope? If he is not part of the unit, then when did this disassociation occur? Why is the IC part of the unit when receiving the benefits of Stubborn, but not when Bounding Lope hands out its benefits?
These questions have been asked in one form or another on this very question, and no one has given a satisfactory answer that attends to any logical basis or from anything in the rulebook. It only applies to "I don't want it to work since it could be too powerful, make it stop!" or the use of Drunken Monkeys flinging darts at a dart board.
NightHowler wrote:You are both reading waaaAAAAAaaaay too much into this. We have seen enough GW rules, rules contradictions, FAQs, and FAQ contradictions to know beyond any shadow of a doubt that the GW rules writers do not think this deeply about the rules they write. So for us to think this deeply about it becomes a little ludicrous at a certain point.
The unit with attached IC can run and charge because the FAQ says they can.
Not because it makes any kind of sense.
It needs to make sense in order for future rules to be properly parsed and used. Or should the Space Wolves wait another 2 years to get an FAQ on their next codex?
Another question this brings up is, what happens to the IC? Are they stuck in place while the Wulfen charge ahead? If they didn't move during the Run, can they also move when Moving the Chargers?
col_impact wrote:Again, you are conflating these two statements . . .
Spoiler:
While an Independent Character is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes.
Spoiler:
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.
I do not think "conflate" means what you think it means. Look it up and you will realize that it does not mean how you are attempting to use it.
Conflation is when you treat two distinct statements as if they were the same statement, i.e. you are not attending to the meaningful differences in the statements I have posted.
I do recognize that the IC still follows the rules for Characters, the point is that they really do nothing for this discussion.
col_impact wrote:The difference between these two statements is why an Independent Character can move independently of the unit. The Character and Movement rules provide the exception to the "counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes".
If there were Character and Shooting rules that allowed the Character to shoot independently of the host unit or to be shot at independently of the host unit then those would also provide exception to the "counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes". But there isn't any to that effect.
That's why a Destroyer Lord attached to a unit of Wraiths doing a Thrust move doesn't open up the Pandora's Box you are worried about. Nice try.
Moreover, it is up to you to show a rule that takes away the unit status of the Destroyer Lord when he joins the unit of Wraiths. You are assuming that he loses his unit status. But no rule says this.
I have already demonstrated to you on how being a Character makes zero difference in this case and you refused to address or acknowledge it.
Characters and Movement does absolutely nothing to allow for independent movement for a Character since there are numerous Characters that cannot be separated from a unit. Only the Independent Character special rule allows for any capacity of that. And even then, the Characters and Movement section still refers you back to the rules in the Unit Types and makes zero exceptions to that. What makes it possible for a Biker IC to Turbo-boost when the unit Runs is that the Biker model is allowed to do it instead of Running. Actual movement is based on what the model can do, as I have shown. However, the Jump and Jet Pack special action rules are not listed as being performed by individual models alone, but being done by the unit or all the models in the unit.
So, going by that, I sort of repeat, where does it allow you to treat the IC joined to a unit as a separate unit for movement, but not for being shot at? Specific rules quotes only please.
Spoiler:
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.
The rules for characters are provided as an exception to the clause 'counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes'. Remember, the unit status of the IC is never discarded, unless you can provide a rule for that (specific rules quote only please). So when it comes to movement time the IC has exception to the 'counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes' and can move as a unit onto himself.
col_impact wrote:The FAQ writers are being very logical and consistent here. You have read into the rule in the past and have failed to notice the exceptions to the "counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes".
Rather than adjust your argument you are stubbornly holding onto your old lines of thinking and accusing the FAQ writers of being Drunken Monkeys when in fact you are the one being a Stubborn Monkey.
No, there is no logic when they ignore the relationship they established in the game with an IC and a unit they joined. Just because you don't want it to work, doesn't mean your points carry any weight. Either an IC is part of the unit he is in or he is not. If he is, why can he not benefit from Bounding Lope? If he is not part of the unit, then when did this disassociation occur? Why is the IC part of the unit when receiving the benefits of Stubborn, but not when Bounding Lope hands out its benefits?
These questions have been asked in one form or another on this very question, and no one has given a satisfactory answer that attends to any logical basis or from anything in the rulebook. It only applies to "I don't want it to work since it could be too powerful, make it stop!" or the use of Drunken Monkeys flinging darts at a dart board.
As I have shown, the relationship they have established is that ICs count as part of the unit for all purposes except for the rules for characters which include movement, so an IC can move according to its own unit status (having never fully relinquished it).
Your argument that ignores the IC Special Rules rule, fails to find anything specific in the Stubborn rule that confers the Special Rule, and that tries to re-cast Special Rules as Ongoing Effects is just an ill-conceived argument that was obviously not going to be supported by the FAQ. Your argument had little if any relationship to the rules in the BRB. I find your campaign to discredit the Draft FAQ writes especially amusing in light of the complete untenability of your Stubborn argument.
col_impact wrote: Conflation is when you treat two distinct statements as if they were the same statement, i.e. you are not attending to the meaningful differences in the statements I have posted.
Nope, not true. Conflate means to combine two or more separate things to form a whole.
I am not including a portion of a statement because its relevance has yet to be determined as important. In other words, I am truncating for brevity.
charistoph wrote:So, going by that, I sort of repeat, where does it allow you to treat the IC joined to a unit as a separate unit for movement, but not for being shot at? Specific rules quotes only please.
Spoiler:
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.
The rules for characters are provided as an exception to the clause 'counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes'. Remember, the unit status of the IC is never discarded, unless you can provide a rule for that (specific rules quote only please). So when it comes to movement time the IC has exception to the 'counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes' and can move as a unit onto himself.
Sorry, that says abslutely nothing about allowing you to treat the IC joined to a unit as a separate unit for anything. It references the Characters section of the Unit Types portion of the rulebook. Where in that section does it provide support for your theory that an IC is treated separately while the Wulfen Pack Leader would not?
Please be consistent. Either it applies to both Wulfen Pack Leader and the IC or it does not. If it does not, the reference to following the rules for characters is a red herring.
col_impact wrote: As I have shown, the relationship they have established is that ICs count as part of the unit for all purposes except for the rules for characters which include movement, so an IC can move according to its own unit status (having never fully relinquished it).
Shown where in this thread? You have referenced the Characters section (but failed to quote the relevant passage) as being the key here, but as I have countered twice already, it carries no relevance to the discussion at hand.
Your argument that ignores the IC Special Rules rule, fails to find anything specific in the Stubborn rule that confers the Special Rule, and that tries to re-cast Special Rules as Ongoing Effects is just an ill-conceived argument that was obviously not going to be supported by the FAQ. Your argument had little if any relationship to the rules in the BRB. I find your campaign to discredit the Draft FAQ writes especially amusing in light of the complete untenability of your Stubborn argument.
So if Stubborn doesn't work, then you aren't following rules as they are written. Either make your point properly and in this thread with quote support or do no post. Referencing previouss posts in which I countered your points and you did not listen is hardly a valid tactic. It just comes across as obnoxious.
My argument follows the IC Special Rules rule in its entirety, and I even (briefly) went over those points when I made the argument. We are told to consider how Stubborn works for the exception, but not given any external specifics before using it as a reference. I then explained how Stubborn works. It's not my fault that the Draft FAQ writers do not even read their own rules before answering. They have literally contradicted the actual written rules too many times to be considered final.
col_impact wrote: Conflation is when you treat two distinct statements as if they were the same statement, i.e. you are not attending to the meaningful differences in the statements I have posted.
Nope, not true. Conflate means to combine two or more separate things to form a whole.
I am not including a portion of a statement because its relevance has yet to be determined as important. In other words, I am truncating for brevity.
Allow me to school you on the finer art of google searching and the well-known logical fallacy of conflation . . .
charistoph wrote:So, going by that, I sort of repeat, where does it allow you to treat the IC joined to a unit as a separate unit for movement, but not for being shot at? Specific rules quotes only please.
Spoiler:
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.
The rules for characters are provided as an exception to the clause 'counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes'. Remember, the unit status of the IC is never discarded, unless you can provide a rule for that (specific rules quote only please). So when it comes to movement time the IC has exception to the 'counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes' and can move as a unit onto himself.
Sorry, that says abslutely nothing about allowing you to treat the IC joined to a unit as a separate unit for anything. It references the Characters section of the Unit Types portion of the rulebook. Where in that section does it provide support for your theory that an IC is treated separately while the Wulfen Pack Leader would not?
Please be consistent. Either it applies to both Wulfen Pack Leader and the IC or it does not. If it does not, the reference to following the rules for characters is a red herring.
At no point does the Wulfen Pack Leader have unit status apart from the unit he is in.
The IC, on the other hand, never loses its unit status. Or did you forget that the rules fully support my argument?
col_impact wrote: As I have shown, the relationship they have established is that ICs count as part of the unit for all purposes except for the rules for characters which include movement, so an IC can move according to its own unit status (having never fully relinquished it).
Shown where in this thread? You have referenced the Characters section (but failed to quote the relevant passage) as being the key here, but as I have countered twice already, it carries no relevance to the discussion at hand.
Again, the IC never loses its unit status. The Character rules are exception to 'counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes' which allows the IC to move as an independent unit according to its own unit movement rules and freely able to break unit coherency in the movement phase.
Your argument that ignores the IC Special Rules rule, fails to find anything specific in the Stubborn rule that confers the Special Rule, and that tries to re-cast Special Rules as Ongoing Effects is just an ill-conceived argument that was obviously not going to be supported by the FAQ. Your argument had little if any relationship to the rules in the BRB. I find your campaign to discredit the Draft FAQ writes especially amusing in light of the complete untenability of your Stubborn argument.
So if Stubborn doesn't work, then you aren't following rules as they are written. Either make your point properly and in this thread with quote support or do no post. Referencing previouss posts in which I countered your points and you did not listen is hardly a valid tactic. It just comes across as obnoxious.
My argument follows the IC Special Rules rule in its entirety, and I even (briefly) went over those points when I made the argument. We are told to consider how Stubborn works for the exception, but not given any external specifics before using it as a reference. I then explained how Stubborn works. It's not my fault that the Draft FAQ writers do not even read their own rules before answering. They have literally contradicted the actual written rules too many times to be considered final.
I did not say that Stubborn does not work. I said that your argument about Stubborn doesn't work.
1) You fail to adhere to the BRB provided definition of Special Rules as abilities
2) You fail to account for how Stubborn is conferred (since you miss that Special rules are abilities which can confer no problem)
3) You fail to find anything specific in the Stubborn rule which allows it to confer (the set logic in the rule entirely escapes you)
4) You try to shoe-horn Special Rules as Ongoing Effects (confusing the Blind Special rule with the harmful effect that the Special Rule bestows on its victims) and run completely afoul of the rules in the BRB.
I think the problem you are having with the Draft FAQ writers stems from your personal disconnect from the rules in the BRB in your own thinking.
I have been very happy with the Draft FAQ writers since my arguments adhere closely to the BRB. The Draft FAQ writers have supported 90% of my arguments.
The difference between these two statements is why an Independent Character can move independently of the unit. The Character and Movement rules provide the exception to the "counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes".
Actually, that's not why the Independent Character can move independently. He moves with the unit as part of the unit, but the IC has special rules for joining and leaving a unit. If he's not joining or leaving a unit, he will follow the movement rules for the unit. Since the movement rules break down to models moving, and there's a rule for dealing with models with different movement rates, you follow that. As long as you aren't leaving the unit you aren't moviing independently of the unit.
You're emphasizing the last part, but are actually ignoring the first part of the sentence at the end of Joining and Leaving a Unit - "While an Independent Character is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit.... Note it says he counts as part of the unit for rules purposes, not that he counts as a unit by himself while being part of the unit. he retains character rules, but that's for the things like joining and leaving a unit. It doesn't say anything in the IC rules about counting as a separate unit for rules purposes when it is joined to a unit - it is only part of a unit. If for rules purposes it still counted as a separate unit it could be picked out and targeted with ranged weapons. Since this isn't allowed, there's a clue that he's not counting as a separate unit, at least until he uses his Joining and Leaving Units rule to leave the unit during the movement phase. When he's charging, he is part of the unit for movement purposes; he's not an independent unit that can be left behind since he can only leave a unit during the movement phase.
The BRB, and the FAQ both state explicitly the unit runs, if the unit runs.
The FAQ further clarifies if models do not move, or turboboost instead of running, the unit still counts as running and models may not shoot.
If the unit still counts as running, the IC still counts as running, regardless of its movement mode per the BRB and the FAQ.
We can convolute and draw intentions from things all we want, but its ignoring the rules as written that state otherwise. The IC is running even if the IC is on a bike and does not move if the unit runs.
The SWFAQ for wulfen still states the IC may not benefit from bounding lope.
...so yeah the draft of the FAQ says the wulfen can still use bounding lope. It also explicitly states the attached IC cannot benefit at all. The FAQ does not directly answer either way if the unit can run and charge, nor does it directly say that you can assault with part of an unit and not the rest. Which is against the rules in the BRB and other places of the FAQ.
So the FAQ does not really answer the question other then to say the IC cannot benefit at all. If you are letting the IC get into assault after running is it benefiting at all? I would say yes. Does this FAQ answer need some revision before the final draft? Probably.
The difference between these two statements is why an Independent Character can move independently of the unit. The Character and Movement rules provide the exception to the "counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes".
Actually, that's not why the Independent Character can move independently. He moves with the unit as part of the unit, but the IC has special rules for joining and leaving a unit. If he's not joining or leaving a unit, he will follow the movement rules for the unit. Since the movement rules break down to models moving, and there's a rule for dealing with models with different movement rates, you follow that. As long as you aren't leaving the unit you aren't moviing independently of the unit.
You're emphasizing the last part, but are actually ignoring the first part of the sentence at the end of Joining and Leaving a Unit - "While an Independent Character is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit.... Note it says he counts as part of the unit for rules purposes, not that he counts as a unit by himself while being part of the unit. he retains character rules, but that's for the things like joining and leaving a unit. It doesn't say anything in the IC rules about counting as a separate unit for rules purposes when it is joined to a unit - it is only part of a unit. If for rules purposes it still counted as a separate unit it could be picked out and targeted with ranged weapons. Since this isn't allowed, there's a clue that he's not counting as a separate unit, at least until he uses his Joining and Leaving Units rule to leave the unit during the movement phase. When he's charging, he is part of the unit for movement purposes; he's not an independent unit that can be left behind since he can only leave a unit during the movement phase.
You have failed to address that the IC never relinquishes his unit status.
The IC is a unit that is part of a unit.
The Character Movement rules are an exception to the 'counts as part of the rules for all purposes' so the IC is free to exercise his unit status in the context of movement.
...so yeah the draft of the FAQ says the wulfen can still use bounding lope. It also explicitly states the attached IC cannot benefit at all. The FAQ does not directly answer either way if the unit can run and charge, nor does it directly say that you can assault with part of an unit and not the rest.
The FAQ answers 'Yes' that the Wulfen can still use Bounding Lope, not 'Yes and no' or 'Yes, but ...' so the FAQ requires you to resolve the situation with the Wulfen being allowed to fully implement the Bounding Lope special rule.
You have failed to address that the IC never relinquishes his unit status.
The rule itself establishes it - it says he's part of a unit. It doesn't say he counts as part of a unit and also a unit by himself. One thing you are overlooking here is that you have to show in the book that you have permission to count both as a unit and as part of a unit Looking at page 9 about units. "In Warhammer 40,000 we represent this by grouping models together into units" He's part of a group of models, so he's part of a unit. I'm sure you'll want to argue the next sentence provides permission: "A unit usually consists of several models that have banded together, but a single, powerful model, such as a lone character, a tank, a war engine or a rampaging monster, is also considered to be a unit." Now, that defines an IC as a unit when he isn't joined to anybody else (the "lone" part of :"lone character"), but when he joins a unit he's not a "lone character" any more, he's a character who is grouped with other characters now. He no longer meets their definition of being a unit by himself.
When he's part of a unit, he's part of a unit. He isn't a unit himself. If he's a unit by himself.
If you don't believe this, then why can't an IC be targeted when he's part of a unit? Not merely because he's part of a unit, but because he doesn't count as a unit by himself any more. If he did, you could still pick him out from the rest of the unit with ranged weapons. Do you allow sniping of ICs joined to units when you play?
The Character Movement rules are an exception to the 'counts as part of the rules for all purposes' so the IC is free to exercise his unit status in the context of movement..
You are conflating things. The Character movement rules state "Characters follow the movement rules for models of their type, whether Infantry, Jump Infantry, Bikdrs, etc. However, remember that they must maintain unit coherency with any unit they are in." (page 100). This is just a further clarification of the "Different Movement Distances Within a Unit" rule on page 18 that says models can move up to their maximum movement allowance as long as they maintain unit coherency; the elaboration being he may use his normal movement type. The Character movement rules say nothing about him maintaining status as a unit; the only thing said about a unit is that you maintain coherency with the unit that you're in. the Character movement rules don't say he has unit status; all it says that he exercises his model type status when he moves. That's a fundamental difference.
EDIT: Now, I'm not saying that the unit can't run and charge. It's just that I find problems with your argument of the IC maintaining his own unit status while being part of another unit, which removes the normal protection from being sniped by ranged fire by being part of a unit.
I can see the other side's argument, but if you didn't move the IC during the run phase (or, you can charge and maintain unit coherency while following the charging rules without moving the IC) you would still seem to be following the FAQ rules.
Allow me to provide the definitions provided by such a search:
Wikipedia:
Conflation happens when the identities of two or more individuals, concepts, or places, sharing some characteristics of one another, seem to be a single identity, and the differences appear to become lost.[1] In logic, it is the practice of treating two distinct concepts as if they were one, which produces errors or misunderstandings as a fusion of distinct subjects tends to obscure analysis of relationships which are emphasized by contrasts.[2] However, if the distinctions between the two concepts appear to be superficial, intentional conflation may be desirable for the sake of conciseness and recall.
Shorten (something) by cutting off the top or the end
As I said, I am not combining anything, which you erroneously attest. I am truncating the sentence due to brevity and lack of relevance. If you bring this up again, I will call you a liar.
col_impact wrote:At no point does the Wulfen Pack Leader have unit status apart from the unit he is in.
The IC, on the other hand, never loses its unit status. Or did you forget that the rules fully support my argument?
Not the point I was making. You said that separating out an IC as a separate unit for moving is that they follow the rules for Characters, which a Wulfen Pack Leader is. Where in the Characters section of the rulebook do we separate out the Character as a unit while it is in a unit? Where in the Independent Character rules do we allow for the separation of the IC as a unit while it is in a unit?
Remember, consistency and proper quoting to support your argument is the key. If you can separate it out for movement, I can separate it out while you are shooting. Your argument has no consistency since the very rules you claim to apply to this situation do not allow for the Wulfen Pack Leader to follow the same standards.
col_impact wrote:Again, the IC never loses its unit status. The Character rules are exception to 'counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes' which allows the IC to move as an independent unit according to its own unit movement rules and freely able to break unit coherency in the movement phase.
Where in does following "the rules for characters" (not independent characters, mind) provide an exception to "counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes"? The Character rules apply to the Wulfen Pack Leader as much as any attached IC, and they say absolutely nothing about doing so. If you can provide an actual quote from the Characters rules, then do so. I have only asked this many times now.
Either they count as part of the unit, or they do not. According to you, they only count as part of the unit in basic things and not at any other point, which is false due to the actual phrase "all rules purposes".
col_impact wrote:I did not say that Stubborn does not work. I said that your argument about Stubborn doesn't work.
It only doesn't work if you use Drunken Monkey logic or do things like ignore the relationships between units and models.
col_impact wrote:1) You fail to adhere to the BRB provided definition of Special Rules as abilities
I recognize that the BRB defines the Special Rules as representing abilities, not the abilities themselves (because the introduction to Special Rules states as such). Matt Salmon is my Congressional District's Representative in Congress, he is not my Congressional District or me, though.
col_impact wrote:2) You fail to account for how Stubborn is conferred (since you miss that Special rules are abilities which can confer no problem)
Double False, and you are a liar in misrepresenting what I have stated. If you hadn't read what I have written so many times, I would consider this a failure of memory. But, since I went over it numerous times with you, and since you went through searching them again, you should be again familiar.
Stubborn is conferred by "they ignor(ing) any negative Leadership modifiers". "They" is referring to the "unit that contains at least one model with this special rule takes Morale checks or Pinning tests". No model (that includes Characters, Independent or otherwise as well as base troopers) is included in this statement other than when "a unit" is referenced. Another model possessing it in the unit does not automatically give it to them without the "they" that comes with the "ignore". Remember the lesson on Counter Assault.
Special Rules are representatives of abilities, but they only confer with a problem. You have demonstrated that you think there are more problems than are written with them conferring, so why would you suddenly announce that they confer with no problem?
First off, the introduction to Special Rules (which defines them as representing abilities) states that "unless stated otherwise, a model does not have a special rule." Stubborn does not give out Stubborn, it allows the unit to ignore negative modifiers during certain Leadership tests. Stubborn does not tell you to put "Stubborn" on all the datasheets associated with the models in the unit. It is for this reason I state, Stubborn does not confer Stubborn, just the effect of its ability.
col_impact wrote:3) You fail to find anything specific in the Stubborn rule which allows it to confer (the set logic in the rule entirely escapes you)
False, you are a liar for misrepresenting my case. I stated the reason above, and did many times before. For the specifics look at what Stubborn actually states it does and what Counter Attack actually states it does, not what qualifies them to work.
Every time you have brought up how Stubborn works, you use a qualification (at least one model with this special rule) for how it confers. A level of possession does not grant abilities to transfer.
col_impact wrote:4) You try to shoe-horn Special Rules as Ongoing Effects (confusing the Blind Special rule with the harmful effect that the Special Rule bestows on its victims) and run completely afoul of the rules in the BRB.
False and incorrect, again you are a liar, twisting what has been said. I have never tried to shoe-horn Special Rules AS Ongoing Effects, but as HAVING Ongoing Effects. I made this distinction several times during those discussions, why you choose to continue to ignore this or misrepresent this, I have no clue. I have a shoe, but am not a shoe. I do not confuse Stubborn with its effect of granting the unit its positive effect of ignoring negative modifiers. I do not confuse Blind as representative of an ability with its effect to reduce WS and BS.
You have failed to address that the IC never relinquishes his unit status.
The rule itself establishes it - it says he's part of a unit. It doesn't say he counts as part of a unit and also a unit by himself. One thing you are overlooking here is that you have to show in the book that you have permission to count both as a unit and as part of a unit Looking at page 9 about units. "In Warhammer 40,000 we represent this by grouping models together into units" He's part of a group of models, so he's part of a unit. I'm sure you'll want to argue the next sentence provides permission: "A unit usually consists of several models that have banded together, but a single, powerful model, such as a lone character, a tank, a war engine or a rampaging monster, is also considered to be a unit." Now, that defines an IC as a unit when he isn't joined to anybody else (the "lone" part of :"lone character"), but when he joins a unit he's not a "lone character" any more, he's a character who is grouped with other characters now. He no longer meets their definition of being a unit by himself.
The burden is on you to show that the IC relinquishes his unit status. The IC has his own Army List Entry which means that the BRB explicitly defines him as a unit. So unless you can find a rule that explicitly takes away his unit status, the IC remains a unit, he just becomes a unit that counts as part of another unit for all rules purposes except for the Character rules and of course the Independent Character rules. If the IC actually 'became' part of the unit, the rule would say 'became [or its equivalent]' and not 'counts as'. The use of the phrasing 'counts as' is incontrovertible proof that the IC retains its units status.
When he's part of a unit, he's part of a unit. He isn't a unit himself. If he's a unit by himself.
If you don't believe this, then why can't an IC be targeted when he's part of a unit? Not merely because he's part of a unit, but because he doesn't count as a unit by himself any more. If he did, you could still pick him out from the rest of the unit with ranged weapons. Do you allow sniping of ICs joined to units when you play?
The 'counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes' is in place to govern most, but not all, rules interactions. The Character rules and the IC rules are exceptions to the 'counts as' clause. If the Character rules or the IC rules allowed for sniping then the IC would be able to be sniped.
The Character Movement rules are an exception to the 'counts as part of the rules for all purposes' so the IC is free to exercise his unit status in the context of movement..
You are conflating things. The Character movement rules state "Characters follow the movement rules for models of their type, whether Infantry, Jump Infantry, Bikdrs, etc. However, remember that they must maintain unit coherency with any unit they are in." (page 100). This is just a further clarification of the "Different Movement Distances Within a Unit" rule on page 18 that says models can move up to their maximum movement allowance as long as they maintain unit coherency; the elaboration being he may use his normal movement type. The Character movement rules say nothing about him maintaining status as a unit; the only thing said about a unit is that you maintain coherency with the unit that you're in. the Character movement rules don't say he has unit status; all it says that he exercises his model type status when he moves. That's a fundamental difference.
The IC can move independently and invoke the unit special rules of movement on its Army List Entry and break unit coherency in the movement phase.
Allow me to provide the definitions provided by such a search:
Wikipedia:
Conflation happens when the identities of two or more individuals, concepts, or places, sharing some characteristics of one another, seem to be a single identity, and the differences appear to become lost.[1] In logic, it is the practice of treating two distinct concepts as if they were one, which produces errors or misunderstandings as a fusion of distinct subjects tends to obscure analysis of relationships which are emphasized by contrasts.[2] However, if the distinctions between the two concepts appear to be superficial, intentional conflation may be desirable for the sake of conciseness and recall.
Shorten (something) by cutting off the top or the end
As I said, I am not combining anything, which you erroneously attest. I am truncating the sentence due to brevity and lack of relevance. If you bring this up again, I will call you a liar.
I am attesting that you are truncating a very relevant part of the rules statement. The rules statement is not long. You should be able to handle dealing with it in its entirety.
The IC after all retains his unit status even when joined to a unit. He only 'counts as' but does not 'become'. The Character rules are exceptions to the 'counts as' clause.
col_impact wrote:At no point does the Wulfen Pack Leader have unit status apart from the unit he is in.
The IC, on the other hand, never loses its unit status. Or did you forget that the rules fully support my argument?
Not the point I was making. You said that separating out an IC as a separate unit for moving is that they follow the rules for Characters, which a Wulfen Pack Leader is. Where in the Characters section of the rulebook do we separate out the Character as a unit while it is in a unit? Where in the Independent Character rules do we allow for the separation of the IC as a unit while it is in a unit?
Remember, consistency and proper quoting to support your argument is the key. If you can separate it out for movement, I can separate it out while you are shooting. Your argument has no consistency since the very rules you claim to apply to this situation do not allow for the Wulfen Pack Leader to follow the same standards.
The Wulfen Pack Leader is always part of the unit he is in.
The IC is always a unit in and of himself. He merely 'counts as' part of the unit he joins, except for the Character rules where the 'counts as' does not apply. The Character movement rules allow the IC's unit status (which he never gave) to poke out from underneath the 'counts as' clause and therewith for the IC to move independently.
col_impact wrote:Again, the IC never loses its unit status. The Character rules are exception to 'counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes' which allows the IC to move as an independent unit according to its own unit movement rules and freely able to break unit coherency in the movement phase.
Where in does following "the rules for characters" (not independent characters, mind) provide an exception to "counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes"? The Character rules apply to the Wulfen Pack Leader as much as any attached IC, and they say absolutely nothing about doing so. If you can provide an actual quote from the Characters rules, then do so. I have only asked this many times now.
Either they count as part of the unit, or they do not. According to you, they only count as part of the unit in basic things and not at any other point, which is false due to the actual phrase "all rules purposes".
I keep pointing out that you fail to attend to the full rules statement. You are committing the logical fallacy of conflation
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.
Don't truncate off the latter half. Remember, the IC never relinquishes his unit status so he gets to implement the Character rules as a unit in and of himself.
col_impact wrote:1) You fail to adhere to the BRB provided definition of Special Rules as abilities
I recognize that the BRB defines the Special Rules as representing abilities, not the abilities themselves (because the introduction to Special Rules states as such). Matt Salmon is my Congressional District's Representative in Congress, he is not my Congressional District or me, though.
Your semantics is really lacking here.
I am pretty sure the BRB does not mean that a Special Rule is a person entitled to speak on your behalf.
I am pretty sure that the BRB uses represent in the sense of 'constitute, amount to, be regarded as' so Special Rules amount to abilities.
Thanks for proving my point that you are not adhering to definitions.
col_impact wrote:2) You fail to account for how Stubborn is conferred (since you miss that Special rules are abilities which can confer no problem)
Double False, and you are a liar in misrepresenting what I have stated. If you hadn't read what I have written so many times, I would consider this a failure of memory. But, since I went over it numerous times with you, and since you went through searching them again, you should be again familiar.
Stubborn is conferred by "they ignor(ing) any negative Leadership modifiers". "They" is referring to the "unit that contains at least one model with this special rule takes Morale checks or Pinning tests". No model (that includes Characters, Independent or otherwise as well as base troopers) is included in this statement other than when "a unit" is referenced. Another model possessing it in the unit does not automatically give it to them without the "they" that comes with the "ignore". Remember the lesson on Counter Assault.
Special Rules are representatives of abilities, but they only confer with a problem. You have demonstrated that you think there are more problems than are written with them conferring, so why would you suddenly announce that they confer with no problem?
First off, the introduction to Special Rules (which defines them as representing abilities) states that "unless stated otherwise, a model does not have a special rule." Stubborn does not give out Stubborn, it allows the unit to ignore negative modifiers during certain Leadership tests. Stubborn does not tell you to put "Stubborn" on all the datasheets associated with the models in the unit. It is for this reason I state, Stubborn does not confer Stubborn, just the effect of its ability.
Special Rules are abilities per the BRB. Nowhere in the BRB are Special Rules defined as effects. So again your adherence to correct semantics is lacking.
By itself the ability of a Special Rule would confer without hitch except that the IC Special Rules rule has mandated that Special Rules do not confer unless there is something specified in the rule itself (as in Stubborn).
So if there is a model that has the Stubborn rule in a unit that Stubborn ability does not necessarily confer unless that unit [specifically] "contains at least one model with [the Stubborn rule]".
Similarly, if there is a model that has the Fleet rule in a unit that Fleet ability does not necessarily confer unless that unit is [specifically] "composed entirely of models with [the Fleet rule]".
col_impact wrote: The burden is on you to show that the IC relinquishes his unit status. The IC has his own Army List Entry which means that the BRB explicitly defines him as a unit. So unless you can find a rule that explicitly takes away his unit status, the IC remains a unit, he just becomes a unit that counts as part of another unit for all rules purposes except for the Character rules and of course the Independent Character rules. If the IC actually 'became' part of the unit, the rule would say 'became [or its equivalent]' and not 'counts as'. The use of the phrasing 'counts as' is incontrovertible proof that the IC retains its units status.
Well, the definitions of units themselves show that he relinquishes his unit status. Is he a "lone character" when he's part of a unit? No, so that doesn't apply any more. Feel free though to show me where the rules state he retains single model unit status when he's part of a unit.
When he's part of a unit, he's part of a unit. He isn't a unit himself. If he's a unit by himself.
If you don't believe this, then why can't an IC be targeted when he's part of a unit? Not merely because he's part of a unit, but because he doesn't count as a unit by himself any more. If he did, you could still pick him out from the rest of the unit with ranged weapons. Do you allow sniping of ICs joined to units when you play?
The 'counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes' is in place to govern most, but not all, rules interactions. The Character rules and the IC rules are exceptions to the 'counts as' clause. If the Character rules or the IC rules allowed for sniping then the IC would be able to be sniped.
That explains exactly nothing. You say the model retains his unit status withough relinquishing it if he joins another unit. The second step of shooting , as pointed out n page 30 is "Choose a Target", with the first line in that section being "Once you have chosen the unit that you want to shoot with, choose a single enemy unit for them to shoot at." (Boldface courtesy of Games Workshop). So, going by what you say about the IC retaining his single unit status as well as counting as part of a unit, I can have my unit that's shooting select the IC as the target. It doesn't matter whether he's also part of another unit. Nothing you stated in that sentence changes the consquences of what I am showing here. There's nothing in the book about counting as a single unit as well as counting as part of a unit. There's nothing in the book about an IC that counts as an IC still counting as a single unit as well as part of a unit, oh, except when he's being shot at, then I don't feell like counting him as a single unit. You insisting that it happens causes a massive rules failure, yet you refuse to acknowledge that there are problems with your interpretation. It's not something that would be addressed in the Character rules or the Independent Character rules, since I already have permission to target units from the Shooting rules. You have to show why those rules would not apply any more if the IC still counts as a single unit was well as part of the unit, as you insist he does.
col_impact wrote: The IC can move independently and invoke the unit special rules of movement on its Army List Entry and break unit coherency in the movement phase.
The IC has special rules for joining or leaving a unit during the movement phase. He does this because of the special rules outlined, not because he is counted as a separate independent unit while he's part of the other unit. That's why I said you are trying to conflate things. If he can truly move independently, then why can't he leave the unit when the unit Runs during the shooting phase, or break off from the unit during the assault phase (say,to assault a different unit, or - more pertinent to this discussion - to stay behind and not count as part of the unit any more when the unit uses its special rules to charge into battle but he stays behind)? It's because he's not actually as independent as you are claiming. He is part of the unit and follows the rules for the unit (with the modifications of joining or leaving during the movement phase, and the note that he gets his normal movement type/rate)
EDIT:
col_impact wrote: The Character movement rules allow the IC's unit status
Prove this - provide the quotation from the character movement rules that allow unit status all the time, even when joined to another unit.
col_impact wrote:3) You fail to find anything specific in the Stubborn rule which allows it to confer (the set logic in the rule entirely escapes you)
False, you are a liar for misrepresenting my case. I stated the reason above, and did many times before. For the specifics look at what Stubborn actually states it does and what Counter Attack actually states it does, not what qualifies them to work.
Every time you have brought up how Stubborn works, you use a qualification (at least one model with this special rule) for how it confers. A level of possession does not grant abilities to transfer.
"Level of possession" is something you are making up. Again, your implementation of proper semantics in your argument is lacking.
Stubborn uses a specific logical clause that is re-used verbatim for 80% of the Special Rules in the BRB.
When a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule . . .
That logical clause is the thing 'specified in the rule itself - as in Stubborn'.
col_impact wrote:4) You try to shoe-horn Special Rules as Ongoing Effects (confusing the Blind Special rule with the harmful effect that the Special Rule bestows on its victims) and run completely afoul of the rules in the BRB.
False and incorrect, again you are a liar, twisting what has been said. I have never tried to shoe-horn Special Rules AS Ongoing Effects, but as HAVING Ongoing Effects. I made this distinction several times during those discussions, why you choose to continue to ignore this or misrepresent this, I have no clue. I have a shoe, but am not a shoe. I do not confuse Stubborn with its effect of granting the unit its positive effect of ignoring negative modifiers. I do not confuse Blind as representative of an ability with its effect to reduce WS and BS.
The BRB defines Special Rules as abilities. Nowhere in the BRB are Special Rules defined as granting Ongoing Effects except for Special Rule like the Blind ability to bestow a harmful effect on another unit.
In fact, your shoe-horning Special Rules as granting Ongoing Effects leads to absurd results like ICs joining one unit after another to accumulate Special Rules. They are ongoing according to you, correct? Absurd.
col_impact wrote: The burden is on you to show that the IC relinquishes his unit status. The IC has his own Army List Entry which means that the BRB explicitly defines him as a unit. So unless you can find a rule that explicitly takes away his unit status, the IC remains a unit, he just becomes a unit that counts as part of another unit for all rules purposes except for the Character rules and of course the Independent Character rules. If the IC actually 'became' part of the unit, the rule would say 'became [or its equivalent]' and not 'counts as'. The use of the phrasing 'counts as' is incontrovertible proof that the IC retains its units status.
Well, the definitions of units themselves show that he relinquishes his unit status. Is he a "lone character" when he's part of a unit? No, so that doesn't apply any more. Feel free though to show me where the rules state he retains single model unit status when he's part of a unit.
So basically you have failed to point to a rule that shows that the IC relinquishes his unit status.
The IC has an Army List Entry which defines him as a unit.
Spoiler:
Each Army List Entry describes a unit of Citadel miniatures and includes everything you will need to know in order to use that unit in a game of Warhammer 40,000.
Further, 'counts as' does not mean 'becomes'. 'Counts as' clearly indicates that the IC is merely functionally considered part of the unit for all rules purposes (except for the Character rules) and that the IC still retains the underlying identity as a unit.
When he's part of a unit, he's part of a unit. He isn't a unit himself. If he's a unit by himself.
If you don't believe this, then why can't an IC be targeted when he's part of a unit? Not merely because he's part of a unit, but because he doesn't count as a unit by himself any more. If he did, you could still pick him out from the rest of the unit with ranged weapons. Do you allow sniping of ICs joined to units when you play?
The 'counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes' is in place to govern most, but not all, rules interactions. The Character rules and the IC rules are exceptions to the 'counts as' clause. If the Character rules or the IC rules allowed for sniping then the IC would be able to be sniped.
That explains exactly nothing. You say the model retains his unit status withough relinquishing it if he joins another unit. The second step of shooting , as pointed out n page 30 is "Choose a Target", with the first line in that section being "Once you have chosen the unit that you want to shoot with, choose a single enemy unit for them to shoot at." (Boldface courtesy of Games Workshop). So, going by what you say about the IC retaining his single unit status as well as counting as part of a unit, I can have my unit that's shooting select the IC as the target. It doesn't matter whether he's also part of another unit. Nothing you stated in that sentence changes the consquences of what I am showing here. There's nothing in the book about counting as a single unit as well as counting as part of a unit. There's nothing in the book about an IC that counts as an IC still counting as a single unit as well as part of a unit, oh, except when he's being shot at, then I don't feell like counting him as a single unit. You insisting that it happens causes a massive rules failure, yet you refuse to acknowledge that there are problems with your interpretation. It's not something that would be addressed in the Character rules or the Independent Character rules, since I already have permission to target units from the Shooting rules. You have to show why those rules would not apply any more if the IC still counts as a single unit was well as part of the unit, as you insist he does.
He is functionally a part of the unit for all rules purposes except for the Character rules which do not provide exceptions in the case of shooting/sniping. However, the IC can move freely as a unit in the movement phase because exceptions are provided in the Character Movement rules.
col_impact wrote: The IC can move independently and invoke the unit special rules of movement on its Army List Entry and break unit coherency in the movement phase.
The IC has special rules for joining or leaving a unit during the movement phase. He does this because of the special rules outlined, not because he is counted as a separate independent unit while he's part of the other unit. That's why I said you are trying to conflate things. If he can truly move independently, then why can't he leave the unit when the unit Runs during the shooting phase, or break off from the unit during the assault phase (say,to assault a different unit, or - more pertinent to this discussion - to stay behind and not count as part of the unit any more when the unit uses its special rules to charge into battle but he stays behind)? It's because he's not actually as independent as you are claiming. He is part of the unit and follows the rules for the unit (with the modifications of joining or leaving during the movement phase, and the note that he gets his normal movement type/rate)
The IC could move truly independently except there are rules which restrict that.
Spoiler:
An Independent Character can leave a unit during the Movement phase by moving out of unit coherency with it. He cannot join or leave during any other phase – once shots are fired or charges are declared, it is too late to join in or duck out!
col_impact wrote:The burden is on you to show that the IC relinquishes his unit status. The IC has his own Army List Entry which means that the BRB explicitly defines him as a unit. So unless you can find a rule that explicitly takes away his unit status, the IC remains a unit, he just becomes a unit that counts as part of another unit for all rules purposes except for the Character rules and of course the Independent Character rules. If the IC actually 'became' part of the unit, the rule would say 'became [or its equivalent]' and not 'counts as'. The use of the phrasing 'counts as' is incontrovertible proof that the IC retains its units status.
Then you should be able to easily provide the quote that covers the question that has been asked without resorting to broken mechanics like the Shooting an IC out of a unit. Been waiting a while now.
col_impact wrote:The IC can move independently and invoke the unit special rules of movement on its Army List Entry and break unit coherency in the movement phase.
Not in argument, really, nor in question. We are talking about a rule that covers movement in the Shooting and Assault Phases where they are to stay in unit coherency unless the unit gets destroyed in the Phase before. Or were you trying to improperly conflate this by bringing unrelated timings in to the discussion?
col_impact wrote:I am attesting that you are truncating a very relevant part of the rules statement. The rules statement is not long. You should be able to handle dealing with it in its entirety.
I am waiting on you to provide pertinence to that phrase. Without that relevance, concern over truncating it is a red herring.
col_impact wrote:The IC after all retains his unit status even when joined to a unit. He only 'counts as' but does not 'become'. The Character rules are exceptions to the 'counts as' clause.
Again, where does it state this in the Character rules?
Keep in mind, I do not doubt he is allowed to keep it his unit status, I question the ability to access it (by anyone) while it is joined to another unit and not intending to separate out. Especially when the rules for an IC having its unit destroyed around it states "he again becomes a unit of one model at the start of the following phase." If he is already a recognized unit within a unit, this phrase is 100% meaningless since he has nothing to become to.
col_impact wrote:The Wulfen Pack Leader is always part of the unit he is in.
The IC is always a unit in and of himself. He merely 'counts as' part of the unit he joins, except for the Character rules where the 'counts as' does not apply. The Character movement rules allow the IC's unit status (which he never gave) to poke out from underneath the 'counts as' clause and therewith for the IC to move independently.
Pay attention. Your claim is that the Character rules state that Characters are separated out from the unit for the purposes of all movement no matter the phase. The Wulfen Pack Leader is a Character as much as any IC that joins the unit. Provide the proper relevant quote to support your position, amend your statement, or drop it.
col_impact wrote:I keep pointing out that you fail to attend to the full rules statement. You are committing the logical fallacy of conflation
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.
Don't truncate off the latter half. Remember, the IC never relinquishes his unit status so he gets to implement the Character rules as a unit in and of himself.
Again, quote the relevance from the Character rules to support your statement. This the third time in this post, and the fourth or fifth post to ask you this question. If you can provide the relevance from the Characters unit type section, then you can start berating me on truncating the statement. I even quoted you the whole section that talks about Characters and Movement AND IT DOES NOT STATE WHAT YOU IMPLY.
col_impact wrote:Your semantics is really lacking here.
And I find yours piss poor, as everytime this comes up you go off in random directions and never provide relevant answers to the questions asked you.
col_impact wrote:I am pretty sure the BRB does not mean that a Special Rule is a person entitled to speak on your behalf.
I am pretty sure that the BRB uses represent in the sense of 'constitute, amount to, be regarded as' so Special Rules amount to abilities.
Thanks for proving my point that you are not adhering to definitions.
I think the actual semantics I am looking at is in Oxford's 1.3:
(usually be represented) Act as a substitute for, especially on an official or ceremonial occasion:
'the president was represented by the secretary of state'
Since these Special Rules are never stated to confer to another in themselves, then "constitute; amount to" is a problematical definition nor does it fit the example used in 2.
Constitute; amount to:
'this figure represents eleven percent of the company’s total sales'
After all, the Introduction actually states "an ability that breaks or bends one of the main game rules, it is represented by a special rule"
You really have a hard time understanding semantics if you cannot follow the process for selecting the right definition.
col_impact wrote:Special Rules are abilities per the BRB. Nowhere in the BRB are Special Rules defined as effects. So again your adherence to correct semantics is lacking.
Really? Since that is not what I actually said, can I assume you are just being argumentative or deliberately obtuse? When did I every say "Special Rules are effects"?
The terms "are" and "as" have very different meanings and semantics than "have" and "of". This is why I stated "Stubborn does not confer Stubborn, just the effect of its ability." You do know the semantical difference in this statement than the one you just misrepresented me as saying, correct?
I said, the Special Rule grants something that it has, not that it grants something that it is. You do know the semantical difference between "ability" and "effect", don't you?
If you do not, please properly research it and come back enlightened.
col_impact wrote:By itself the ability of a Special Rule would confer without hitch except that the IC Special Rules rule has mandated that Special Rules do not confer unless there is something specified in the rule itself (as in Stubborn).
So if there is a model that has the Stubborn rule in a unit that Stubborn ability does not necessarily confer unless that unit [specifically] "contains at least one model with [the Stubborn rule]".
Similarly, if there is a model that has the Fleet rule in a unit that Fleet ability does not necessarily confer unless that unit is [specifically] "composed entirely of models with [the Fleet rule]".
By itself, the ability of a Special Rule would NOT confer without a hitch, as only the models who posses it would have access to it. That is in the Introduction of Special Rules.
The reason for the IC and Special Rules section is so that people do not put the IC model in to the unit's entry list and start granting all of the Special Rules listed there. It is a reminder of the notice in the introduction of Special Rules.
By stating "contains at least one model with the Stubborn rule" all it is stating is the difference between Fleet's "composed entirely of models with this special rule" and Relentless' "model with this special rule" in terms of requirements of possession.
For possession, Relentless can be accessed by a model while not caring what other model in the unit has it.
For possession, Fleet cannot activate for the unit unless all models have it, including the ICs.
For possession, Stubborn only needs one model in the unit to have it, even if it is an IC.
Bounding Lope states this unit gets to use its ability. It is not as limited in scope as in Relentless (model with the rule) or requirement as in Fleet (all models must have the rule). Only this unit possesses this rule, so long as the unit exists, this rule is in effect.
So, then WHY is an IC part of the unit for Stubborn and Fleet, but not for Bounding Lope?
col_impact wrote:"Level of possession" is something you are making up. Again, your implementation of proper semantics in your argument is lacking.
Not at all. I use "level of possession" to indicate one of Stubborn's requirements as to how many models or whom is needed. I would think that this is basic english to parse, which I guess indicates your lack of proper semantics training. And I just went over what I meant by it, as I did in those other threads, too.
col_impact wrote:Stubborn uses a specific logical clause that is re-used verbatim for 80% of the Special Rules in the BRB.
When a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule . . .
That logical clause is the thing 'specified in the rule itself - as in Stubborn'.
That statement confers nothing, though. Which verb is a synonym for "confer"? It is not "contains". It is not "with".
Here are a list of synonyms for confer:
bestow on, present with/to, grant to, award to, decorate with, honour with, give to, give out to, gift with, endow with, vest in, hand out to, extend to, vouchsafe to, accord to
col_impact wrote:The BRB defines Special Rules as abilities. Nowhere in the BRB are Special Rules defined as granting Ongoing Effects except for Special Rule like the Blind ability to bestow a harmful effect on another unit.
In fact, your shoe-horning Special Rules as granting Ongoing Effects leads to absurd results like ICs joining one unit after another to accumulate Special Rules. They are ongoing according to you, correct? Absurd.
You really cannot parse the basic semantics of conversational english, can you? You have demonstrated poorly all through these posts and you keep it up here.
The BRB states the Special Rules represent abilities, not are abilities. The difference is important if you really want to talk semantics.
To start off with, do you know and understand the difference and relationship between an "ability" and an "effect"?
To put this in to semantical context, the Special Rule provides the cause for what happens. The effect is the results of using that Special Rule. Ongoing Effects are the results of Special Rules which last beyond the moment invoked and would continue to be occurring in subsequent Phases (such as Blind).
Ongoing Effects was used (then as well as now), to demonstrate that a unit-affecting Special Rule still affects the IC in it. If it can continue to affect the IC after the IC leaves, then it affected the IC while it was part of the unit. It is a situation of providing a case of precedence, and was explained as such almost every time it was presented.
col_impact wrote:The burden is on you to show that the IC relinquishes his unit status. The IC has his own Army List Entry which means that the BRB explicitly defines him as a unit. So unless you can find a rule that explicitly takes away his unit status, the IC remains a unit, he just becomes a unit that counts as part of another unit for all rules purposes except for the Character rules and of course the Independent Character rules. If the IC actually 'became' part of the unit, the rule would say 'became [or its equivalent]' and not 'counts as'. The use of the phrasing 'counts as' is incontrovertible proof that the IC retains its units status.
Then you should be able to easily provide the quote that covers the question that has been asked without resorting to broken mechanics like the Shooting an IC out of a unit. Been waiting a while now.
The IC retains its unit status. The IC counts as a part of the unit he joins except for the Character rules. The Character movement rules provide exception and enable the IC to move independently subject to only the Independent Character rules.
The exceptions in the Character rules do not introduce any broken mechanics.
col_impact wrote:I am attesting that you are truncating a very relevant part of the rules statement. The rules statement is not long. You should be able to handle dealing with it in its entirety.
I am waiting on you to provide pertinence to that phrase. Without that relevance, concern over truncating it is a red herring.
Per the phrasing, the IC is not subject to the 'counts as' portion of the rule with regards to movement. For movement, the IC references the movement rules of his unit type and follows the Independent Character rules which allow him to break coherency during the movement phase and not participate in the Bounding Lope of a unit he is attached to.
col_impact wrote:The IC after all retains his unit status even when joined to a unit. He only 'counts as' but does not 'become'. The Character rules are exceptions to the 'counts as' clause.
Again, where does it state this in the Character rules?
Keep in mind, I do not doubt he is allowed to keep it his unit status, I question the ability to access it (by anyone) while it is joined to another unit and not intending to separate out. Especially when the rules for an IC having its unit destroyed around it states "he again becomes a unit of one model at the start of the following phase." If he is already a recognized unit within a unit, this phrase is 100% meaningless since he has nothing to become to.
You keep trying to provide the 'counts as' clause to all the rules. The IC rule itself indicates that the Character rules are an exception to the 'counts as' clause.
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.
Pay attention to the text marked in big font. The Character rules are not subject to the 'counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes'.
col_impact wrote:The Wulfen Pack Leader is always part of the unit he is in.
The IC is always a unit in and of himself. He merely 'counts as' part of the unit he joins, except for the Character rules where the 'counts as' does not apply. The Character movement rules allow the IC's unit status (which he never gave) to poke out from underneath the 'counts as' clause and therewith for the IC to move independently.
Pay attention. Your claim is that the Character rules state that Characters are separated out from the unit for the purposes of all movement no matter the phase. The Wulfen Pack Leader is a Character as much as any IC that joins the unit. Provide the proper relevant quote to support your position, amend your statement, or drop it.
Pay attention. The rule itself indicates that the Independent Character is not subject to 'counts as . . .' for the Character rules it must follow.
Spoiler:
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.
Characters by definition is always part of a unit and can never be disassociated from it. A Character uses the character rules always as a part of the unit.
The Independent Character however is by definition a unit and free to act as a unit with regards to the Character rules because those rules are not subject to the 'counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes' portion of the Independent Character rule.
col_impact wrote:Your semantics is really lacking here.
And I find yours piss poor, as everytime this comes up you go off in random directions and never provide relevant answers to the questions asked you.
col_impact wrote:I am pretty sure the BRB does not mean that a Special Rule is a person entitled to speak on your behalf.
I am pretty sure that the BRB uses represent in the sense of 'constitute, amount to, be regarded as' so Special Rules amount to abilities.
Thanks for proving my point that you are not adhering to definitions.
I think the actual semantics I am looking at is in Oxford's 1.3:
(usually be represented) Act as a substitute for, especially on an official or ceremonial occasion:
'the president was represented by the secretary of state'
Since these Special Rules are never stated to confer to another in themselves, then "constitute; amount to" is a problematical definition nor does it fit the example used in 2.
Constitute; amount to:
'this figure represents eleven percent of the company’s total sales'
After all, the Introduction actually states "an ability that breaks or bends one of the main game rules, it is represented by a special rule"
You really have a hard time understanding semantics if you cannot follow the process for selecting the right definition.
col_impact wrote:Special Rules are abilities per the BRB. Nowhere in the BRB are Special Rules defined as effects. So again your adherence to correct semantics is lacking.
Really? Since that is not what I actually said, can I assume you are just being argumentative or deliberately obtuse? When did I every say "Special Rules are effects"?
The terms "are" and "as" have very different meanings and semantics than "have" and "of". This is why I stated "Stubborn does not confer Stubborn, just the effect of its ability." You do know the semantical difference in this statement than the one you just misrepresented me as saying, correct?
I said, the Special Rule grants something that it has, not that it grants something that it is. You do know the semantical difference between "ability" and "effect", don't you?
If you do not, please properly research it and come back enlightened.
col_impact wrote:By itself the ability of a Special Rule would confer without hitch except that the IC Special Rules rule has mandated that Special Rules do not confer unless there is something specified in the rule itself (as in Stubborn).
So if there is a model that has the Stubborn rule in a unit that Stubborn ability does not necessarily confer unless that unit [specifically] "contains at least one model with [the Stubborn rule]".
Similarly, if there is a model that has the Fleet rule in a unit that Fleet ability does not necessarily confer unless that unit is [specifically] "composed entirely of models with [the Fleet rule]".
By itself, the ability of a Special Rule would NOT confer without a hitch, as only the models who posses it would have access to it. That is in the Introduction of Special Rules.
The reason for the IC and Special Rules section is so that people do not put the IC model in to the unit's entry list and start granting all of the Special Rules listed there. It is a reminder of the notice in the introduction of Special Rules.
By stating "contains at least one model with the Stubborn rule" all it is stating is the difference between Fleet's "composed entirely of models with this special rule" and Relentless' "model with this special rule" in terms of requirements of possession.
For possession, Relentless can be accessed by a model while not caring what other model in the unit has it.
For possession, Fleet cannot activate for the unit unless all models have it, including the ICs.
For possession, Stubborn only needs one model in the unit to have it, even if it is an IC.
Bounding Lope states this unit gets to use its ability. It is not as limited in scope as in Relentless (model with the rule) or requirement as in Fleet (all models must have the rule). Only this unit possesses this rule, so long as the unit exists, this rule is in effect.
So, then WHY is an IC part of the unit for Stubborn and Fleet, but not for Bounding Lope?
col_impact wrote:"Level of possession" is something you are making up. Again, your implementation of proper semantics in your argument is lacking.
Not at all. I use "level of possession" to indicate one of Stubborn's requirements as to how many models or whom is needed. I would think that this is basic english to parse, which I guess indicates your lack of proper semantics training. And I just went over what I meant by it, as I did in those other threads, too.
col_impact wrote:Stubborn uses a specific logical clause that is re-used verbatim for 80% of the Special Rules in the BRB.
When a unit that contains at least one model with this special rule . . .
That logical clause is the thing 'specified in the rule itself - as in Stubborn'.
That statement confers nothing, though. Which verb is a synonym for "confer"? It is not "contains". It is not "with".
Here are a list of synonyms for confer:
bestow on, present with/to, grant to, award to, decorate with, honour with, give to, give out to, gift with, endow with, vest in, hand out to, extend to, vouchsafe to, accord to
col_impact wrote:The BRB defines Special Rules as abilities. Nowhere in the BRB are Special Rules defined as granting Ongoing Effects except for Special Rule like the Blind ability to bestow a harmful effect on another unit.
In fact, your shoe-horning Special Rules as granting Ongoing Effects leads to absurd results like ICs joining one unit after another to accumulate Special Rules. They are ongoing according to you, correct? Absurd.
You really cannot parse the basic semantics of conversational english, can you? You have demonstrated poorly all through these posts and you keep it up here.
The BRB states the Special Rules represent abilities, not are abilities. The difference is important if you really want to talk semantics.
To start off with, do you know and understand the difference and relationship between an "ability" and an "effect"?
To put this in to semantical context, the Special Rule provides the cause for what happens. The effect is the results of using that Special Rule. Ongoing Effects are the results of Special Rules which last beyond the moment invoked and would continue to be occurring in subsequent Phases (such as Blind).
Ongoing Effects was used (then as well as now), to demonstrate that a unit-affecting Special Rule still affects the IC in it. If it can continue to affect the IC after the IC leaves, then it affected the IC while it was part of the unit. It is a situation of providing a case of precedence, and was explained as such almost every time it was presented.
All of this Stubborn stuff is way off-topic and these responses are getting too long and disruptive to the purpose of this thread. Feel free to start a new topic in YMDC starting exactly where this conversation is at this point and I will happily engage in a debate that has already been settled in my favor by the Draft FAQ writers.
The faq for different model types moving differently states all MODELS in the unit may not fire if the unit runs. Not the models in the unit running, but the you it runs. Additionally it further explicitly states the no shooting restrictions affects all models in the unit.
The IC is a model in the unit, if the unit runs regardless of how you move that IC during the run, including not moving it, the IC cannot shoot because it is a model in an unit that ran. The ic being part of said unit, also ran.
So basically you have failed to point to a rule that shows that the IC relinquishes his unit status.
No, I showed the definition for units which said a lone character is a unit, but does not list a character as part of a group of models as being a chacter by himself at that point. It only lists the group of models as the unit. Definitions in the book count as rules.
When he's part of a unit, he's part of a unit. He isn't a unit himself. If he's a unit by himself.
If you don't believe this, then why can't an IC be targeted when he's part of a unit? Not merely because he's part of a unit, but because he doesn't count as a unit by himself any more. If he did, you could still pick him out from the rest of the unit with ranged weapons. Do you allow sniping of ICs joined to units when you play?
The 'counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes' is in place to govern most, but not all, rules interactions. The Character rules and the IC rules are exceptions to the 'counts as' clause. If the Character rules or the IC rules allowed for sniping then the IC would be able to be sniped.
That explains exactly nothing. You say the model retains his unit status withough relinquishing it if he joins another unit. The second step of shooting , as pointed out n page 30 is "Choose a Target", with the first line in that section being "Once you have chosen the unit that you want to shoot with, choose a single enemy unit for them to shoot at." (Boldface courtesy of Games Workshop). So, going by what you say about the IC retaining his single unit status as well as counting as part of a unit, I can have my unit that's shooting select the IC as the target. It doesn't matter whether he's also part of another unit. Nothing you stated in that sentence changes the consquences of what I am showing here. There's nothing in the book about counting as a single unit as well as counting as part of a unit. There's nothing in the book about an IC that counts as an IC still counting as a single unit as well as part of a unit, oh, except when he's being shot at, then I don't feell like counting him as a single unit. You insisting that it happens causes a massive rules failure, yet you refuse to acknowledge that there are problems with your interpretation. It's not something that would be addressed in the Character rules or the Independent Character rules, since I already have permission to target units from the Shooting rules. You have to show why those rules would not apply any more if the IC still counts as a single unit was well as part of the unit, as you insist he does.
He is functionally a part of the unit for all rules purposes except for the Character rules which do not provide exceptions in the case of shooting/sniping. However, the IC can move freely as a unit in the movement phase because exceptions are provided in the Character Movement rules.
We'll get into the "move freely" part more after this, but your explanation here is without logic. He is functionally a part of the unit for all rules purposes except for Character rules. You insist that he retains his unit status though, when he's part of a unit. That means, according to the rules, he is a unit for purposes of being picked out as a unit to target. The being a unit on his own is part of the character rules on page 100, also referred to in the IC rules by saying he can join otherunits. So, If you want to cite Character rules for him maintaining his unit status when he joins another unit, then your opponent can cite the rules saying that since it's in the Character rules, those apply for him counting as a unit when I shoot at him, as the rules allow me to target a unit. You don't get one without the other.
col_impact wrote: The IC can move independently and invoke the unit special rules of movement on its Army List Entry and break unit coherency in the movement phase.
The IC has special rules for joining or leaving a unit during the movement phase. He does this because of the special rules outlined, not because he is counted as a separate independent unit while he's part of the other unit. That's why I said you are trying to conflate things. If he can truly move independently, then why can't he leave the unit when the unit Runs during the shooting phase, or break off from the unit during the assault phase (say,to assault a different unit, or - more pertinent to this discussion - to stay behind and not count as part of the unit any more when the unit uses its special rules to charge into battle but he stays behind)? It's because he's not actually as independent as you are claiming. He is part of the unit and follows the rules for the unit (with the modifications of joining or leaving during the movement phase, and the note that he gets his normal movement type/rate)
The IC could move truly independently except there are rules which restrict that.
Spoiler:
An Independent Character can leave a unit during the Movement phase by moving out of unit coherency with it. He cannot join or leave during any other phase – once shots are fired or charges are declared, it is too late to join in or duck out!
That is a completely wrong interpretation of what the rules say. What you have is permission to enter or leave a unit during the Movement phase; that is not a restriction. Hence, the scetion was called "Joining and Leaving a Unit", not "Independent Character Movement". It's complete docswallop to say that he could move truly independently except for rules which restrict that when we're talking about an IC that's joined to a aunit. He can't move freely - he has to move (as per the movement of his model type) as part of the unit. He might have been able to move freely before he was joined, but he certainly doesn't get to move freely as part of the unit.
col_impact wrote:The IC retains its unit status. The IC counts as a part of the unit he joins except for the Character rules. The Character movement rules provide exception and enable the IC to move independently subject to only the Independent Character rules.
The exceptions in the Character rules do not introduce any broken mechanics.
No quotes to support your statements. Nothing relevant added to the discussion. You just repeated the same thing without answering the questions on them.
Where does it state anywhere in the rulebook that the IC can be identified and use its unit status while joined to another unit?
The Character Movement rules do NOT provide an exception to this as I have quoted them and you did not point out where it states this. The actual rules for any movement do more to support the IC moving as its unit type than anything in Character Movement. Indeed, Character Movement points back to the Unit Type rules, which we are going to be following anyways.
Actual quotes please, not references nor inferences.
col_impact wrote:Per the phrasing, the IC is not subject to the 'counts as' portion of the rule with regards to movement. For movement, the IC references the movement rules of his unit type and follows the Independent Character rules which allow him to break coherency during the movement phase and not participate in the Bounding Lope of a unit he is attached to.
No quotes to support your statements. I asked for evidence, you give me declarations.
Again, quote the section of the Characters section where it states this. Also include where it does not affect the Wulfen Pack Leader but does affect the joined IC.
col_impact wrote:You keep trying to provide the 'counts as' clause to all the rules. The IC rule itself indicates that the Character rules are an exception to the 'counts as' clause.
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.
Pay attention to the text marked in big font. The Character rules are not subject to the 'counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes'.
So, you do not quote the Characters section, you quote the Special Rules section. You cannot follow basic and simple instructions. All you do is repeat the same thing over without providing supporting evidence.
If the text marked in big font is relevant, what lines in the Character rules section support your assertion?
Pay attention to the text marked in the big font. This question has been asked of you many times now, but all you have done is repeat the same thing over and over again which prompted the question. If you do this again without any other relevant supporting quotes from the pertinent section in question, I will report you for spamming.
col_impact wrote:Pay attention. The rule itself indicates that the Independent Character is not subject to 'counts as . . .' for the Character rules it must follow.
Spoiler:
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.
Characters by definition is always part of a unit and can never be disassociated from it. A Character uses the character rules always as a part of the unit.
The Independent Character however is by definition a unit and free to act as a unit with regards to the Character rules because those rules are not subject to the 'counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes' portion of the Independent Character rule.
Pay attention. If the statement itself is sufficient, then it should be sufficient. The phrase you keep bringing up keep referring to something else, though, so it is not sufficient. Where is that something else?
It is not referring to the Independent Character rules, but the Character rules. Independent Character rules and Charcter rules are two different things. Characters is a WHOLE subsection in Unit Types after Vehicles. Independent Characters are a few paragraphs of the Special Rules section. And while all Independent Characters tend to be Characters (and should be), not all Characters are Independent Characters.
col_impact wrote:All of this Stubborn stuff is way off-topic and these responses are getting too long and disruptive to the purpose of this thread. Feel free to start a new topic in YMDC starting exactly where this conversation is at this point and I will happily engage in a debate that has already been settled in my favor by the Draft FAQ writers.
It is not way off-topic, and if you think they are getting too disruptive, you should not have tried to post in with them in the first place. Remember, YOU linked the old threads on that subject.
But here, let me quote myself as to why it is not off-topic, since you seem to have difficulty reading things that disagree with you unless they are repeated ad nauseum:
Charistoph wrote: For possession, Fleet requires all models in the unit to have it, including any joined ICs.
For possession, Stubborn only needs one model in the unit to have it, even if it is a joined IC.
Bounding Lope states this unit gets to use its ability. It is not as limited in scope as in Relentless (model with the rule) or requirement as in Fleet (all models must have the rule). Only this unit possesses this rule, so long as the unit exists, this rule is in effect.
So, then WHY is an IC part of the unit for Stubborn and Fleet, but not for Bounding Lope?
Can you properly answer this question using rules from the rulebook? Quotes that reference other rules without following up on those references do not count.
col_impact wrote:All of this Stubborn stuff is way off-topic and these responses are getting too long and disruptive to the purpose of this thread. Feel free to start a new topic in YMDC starting exactly where this conversation is at this point and I will happily engage in a debate that has already been settled in my favor by the Draft FAQ writers.
It is not way off-topic, and if you think they are getting too disruptive, you should not have tried to post in with them in the first place. Remember, YOU linked the old threads on that subject.
But here, let me quote myself as to why it is not off-topic, since you seem to have difficulty reading things that disagree with you unless they are repeated ad nauseum:
Charistoph wrote: For possession, Fleet requires all models in the unit to have it, including any joined ICs.
For possession, Stubborn only needs one model in the unit to have it, even if it is a joined IC.
Bounding Lope states this unit gets to use its ability. It is not as limited in scope as in Relentless (model with the rule) or requirement as in Fleet (all models must have the rule). Only this unit possesses this rule, so long as the unit exists, this rule is in effect.
So, then WHY is an IC part of the unit for Stubborn and Fleet, but not for Bounding Lope?
Can you properly answer this question using rules from the rulebook? Quotes that reference other rules without following up on those references do not count.
This Stubborn stuff is off-topic for this thread which is asking about what happens with Bounding Lope in the context of the Draft FAQ.
Whether or not an IC gets Bounding Lope is answered (in my favor) in the context of the FAQ.
Spoiler:
Q: Do rules applying to ‘the unit’, such as those from Formation command benefits (e.g. the Skyhammer Annihilation Force), or unit-wide special rules such as Dunestrider from Codex: Skitarii apply to any attached Independent Characters?
A: No.
So, again, if you want to discuss all this Stubborn business, start a new thread, where-in we discuss Stubborn pre-Draft FAQ.
col_impact wrote:The IC retains its unit status. The IC counts as a part of the unit he joins except for the Character rules. The Character movement rules provide exception and enable the IC to move independently subject to only the Independent Character rules.
The exceptions in the Character rules do not introduce any broken mechanics.
No quotes to support your statements. Nothing relevant added to the discussion. You just repeated the same thing without answering the questions on them.
Where does it state anywhere in the rulebook that the IC can be identified and use its unit status while joined to another unit?
The Character Movement rules do NOT provide an exception to this as I have quoted them and you did not point out where it states this. The actual rules for any movement do more to support the IC moving as its unit type than anything in Character Movement. Indeed, Character Movement points back to the Unit Type rules, which we are going to be following anyways.
Actual quotes please, not references nor inferences.
col_impact wrote:Per the phrasing, the IC is not subject to the 'counts as' portion of the rule with regards to movement. For movement, the IC references the movement rules of his unit type and follows the Independent Character rules which allow him to break coherency during the movement phase and not participate in the Bounding Lope of a unit he is attached to.
No quotes to support your statements. I asked for evidence, you give me declarations.
Again, quote the section of the Characters section where it states this. Also include where it does not affect the Wulfen Pack Leader but does affect the joined IC.
col_impact wrote:You keep trying to provide the 'counts as' clause to all the rules. The IC rule itself indicates that the Character rules are an exception to the 'counts as' clause.
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.
Pay attention to the text marked in big font. The Character rules are not subject to the 'counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes'.
So, you do not quote the Characters section, you quote the Special Rules section. You cannot follow basic and simple instructions. All you do is repeat the same thing over without providing supporting evidence.
If the text marked in big font is relevant, what lines in the Character rules section support your assertion?
Pay attention to the text marked in the big font. This question has been asked of you many times now, but all you have done is repeat the same thing over and over again which prompted the question. If you do this again without any other relevant supporting quotes from the pertinent section in question, I will report you for spamming.
col_impact wrote:Pay attention. The rule itself indicates that the Independent Character is not subject to 'counts as . . .' for the Character rules it must follow.
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.
Characters by definition is always part of a unit and can never be disassociated from it. A Character uses the character rules always as a part of the unit.
The Independent Character however is by definition a unit and free to act as a unit with regards to the Character rules because those rules are not subject to the 'counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes' portion of the Independent Character rule.
Pay attention. If the statement itself is sufficient, then it should be sufficient. The phrase you keep bringing up keep referring to something else, though, so it is not sufficient. Where is that something else?
It is not referring to the Independent Character rules, but the Character rules. Independent Character rules and Charcter rules are two different things. Characters is a WHOLE subsection in Unit Types after Vehicles. Independent Characters are a few paragraphs of the Special Rules section. And while all Independent Characters tend to be Characters (and should be), not all Characters are Independent Characters.
There is no rule that causes the IC to relinquish his unit status.
The Independent Character rule establishes that the IC is a unit that counts a part of a unit (so he counts as 'a model in a unit') for all rules purposes except for the Character rules and the Independent Character rules.
Spoiler:
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.
So the Character rules are not under the umbrella of 'counts as part of the unit for all purposes' in the IC rule.
There is no rule in the Character movement section that says that Characters count as part of the unit they are in for all rule purposes. Characters have their own rules for movement so with regards to movement the 'counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes ' is not in effect and the IC is 'a unit joined to a unit' (and no longer a 'model in a unit') while moving. The IC is subject to the IC rules which govern that he can break coherency in the movement phase but not during any other phases.
Since during movement the IC is 'a unit joined to a unit' then he can invoke a Thrust move while joined to a non-jet pack unit.
Spoiler:
Q: Can a Jet Pack unit that has joined a different unit (e.g. a Necron Destroyer Lord joining Canoptek Wraiths) still use its jet pack move in the Assault phase?
A: Yes, but the model cannot leave its unit and must stay in unit coherency.
The IC will also not prevent the Wulfen unit from benefiting from the Bounding Lope rule since while moving the IC acts as its own unit (and subject to the IC rules which say he can only break coherency in the movement phase).
Spoiler:
Q: If an Independent Character joins a unit of Wulfen, do the Wulfen models still get to use the Bounding Lope rule?
A: Yes, but the Independent Character does not benefit, and all models in the unit must maintain unit coherency.
col_impact wrote:This Stubborn stuff is off-topic for this thread which is asking about what happens with Bounding Lope in the context of the Draft FAQ.
Not really if one wants to show the illogic and lack of rulebook support of it.
But I think it is more that you just can't answer the question properly and so now want to drop it, especially since you are the only one who has kept challenging it.
col_impact wrote:There is no rule that causes the IC to relinquish his unit status.
Failure to listen does not help your case. Where does it state that anyone can use his unit status while joined to another unit?
Why does this Special Rule state: "If an Independent Character joins a unit, and all other models in that unit are killed, he again becomes a unit of one model at the start of the following phase."? If all models are killed, he is already a unit of one, why does is is specifically state, "again"?
Proper and relevant quotes please.
col_impact wrote:The Independent Character rule establishes that the IC is a unit that counts a part of a unit (so he counts as 'a model in a unit') for all rules purposes except for the Character rules and the Independent Character rules.
This is actually incorrect. The Independent Character rule does not establish this at all. Its own unit entry establishes its status as a lone model unit (in most cases), and nothing in the Independent Character rule actually states that the IC is to be treated as a separate unit while joined to another unit.
In fact, since the Independent Character rule does not identify the possessor of the Independent Character rule as a unit, it can only be speaking of the model, per the introduction of the Special Rules section and every legend for a datasheet and unit entry.
Spoiler:
WHAT SPECIAL RULES DO I HAVE?
It may seem obvious, but unless stated otherwise, a model does not have a special rule. Most special rules are given to a model by the relevant Army List Entry or its unit type. That said, a model’s attacks can gain special rules because of the weapon it is using.
Spoiler:
10. Special Rules: Any special rules that apply to models in the unit are listed here. Special rules that are unique to models in that unit are described in full here, whilst others are detailed either in the Appendix of this book or in the Special Rules section of Warhammer 40,000: The Rules.
Nothing in there stating that these special rules apply to the unit unless the rule itself specifically states as such. And the Independent Character rules goes out of its way not to identify this rule as applying itself to a unit.
col_impact wrote:So the Character rules are not under the umbrella of 'counts as part of the unit for all purposes' in the IC rule.
There is no rule in the Character movement section that says that Characters count as part of the unit they are in for all rule purposes. Characters have their own rules for movement so with regards to movement the 'counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes ' is not in effect and the IC is 'a unit joined to a unit' (and no longer a 'model in a unit') while moving. The IC is subject to the IC rules which govern that he can break coherency in the movement phase but not during any other phases.
There is no rule in the Character Movement section that says that Characters do NOT count as part of the unit they are in for all rules purposes. The standard for them being considered as such is set elsewhere, either in the unit entry list for the Wulfen Pack Leader or for the Independent Character Special Rule for the IC in question.
Since the Character rules do not counter this, I have no reason, expectation, obligation, or desire to not be treating the Character model as part of the unit. Nor do I have any reason to continue referencing this phrase without a relevant reason, and this is not one of them.
I also note that you provided zero quotes from the Characters section again to support your statement and just repeated the same thing again. This has not worked the last dozen times you have done this, it will not work again. You cannot claim to follow the rulebook alone when you disregard what it says so casually. You cannot be considered credible when you cannot properly respond to the simplest request.
col_impact wrote:Since during movement the IC is 'a unit joined to a unit' then he can invoke a Thrust move while joined to a non-jet pack unit.
Spoiler:
Q: Can a Jet Pack unit that has joined a different unit (e.g. a Necron Destroyer Lord joining Canoptek Wraiths) still use its jet pack move in the Assault phase?
A: Yes, but the model cannot leave its unit and must stay in unit coherency.
The IC will also not prevent the Wulfen unit from benefiting from the Bounding Lope rule since while moving the IC acts as its own unit (and subject to the IC rules which say he can only break coherency in the movement phase).
Spoiler:
Q: If an Independent Character joins a unit of Wulfen, do the Wulfen models still get to use the Bounding Lope rule?
A: Yes, but the Independent Character does not benefit, and all models in the unit must maintain unit coherency.
You provide a double standard here. In the first spoiler, the model cannot leave its unit and must stay in unit coherency. Which unit is it talking about, the joined or the unit within a unit?
If the former, then it is addressing the IC as part of the greater unit and not as its own individual unit. To which, this makes your assessment on this interpretation crap.
If the latter, why insist that it cannot leave a unit it can never leave nor get out of unit coherency with?
col_impact wrote:This Stubborn stuff is off-topic for this thread which is asking about what happens with Bounding Lope in the context of the Draft FAQ.
Not really if one wants to show the illogic and lack of rulebook support of it.
But I think it is more that you just can't answer the question properly and so now want to drop it, especially since you are the only one who has kept challenging it.
Not at all. Not only is it completely off-topic in this thread which is looking for FAQ relevant answers, the topic is worthy of its own focused discussion.
Like I said, if you want to debate it further, just open up a new thread and I will happily discuss it further. This thread doesn't need walls of text on Stubborn.
col_impact wrote:There is no rule that causes the IC to relinquish his unit status.
Failure to listen does not help your case. Where does it state that anyone can use his unit status while joined to another unit?
Why does this Special Rule state: "If an Independent Character joins a unit, and all other models in that unit are killed, he again becomes a unit of one model at the start of the following phase."? If all models are killed, he is already a unit of one, why does is is specifically state, "again"?
Proper and relevant quotes please.
At that point in time he will no longer be a unit counting as a model in the unit he joined but instead a unit of one model like he was before he joined.
Remember the rule reads this way . . .
Spoiler:
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.
And not this way . . .
Spoiler:
While an Independent Character is part of a unit he is no longer himself a unit and becomes just another model in the unit he joins.
col_impact wrote:The Independent Character rule establishes that the IC is a unit that counts a part of a unit (so he counts as 'a model in a unit') for all rules purposes except for the Character rules and the Independent Character rules.
This is actually incorrect. The Independent Character rule does not establish this at all. Its own unit entry establishes its status as a lone model unit (in most cases), and nothing in the Independent Character rule actually states that the IC is to be treated as a separate unit while joined to another unit.
In fact, since the Independent Character rule does not identify the possessor of the Independent Character rule as a unit, it can only be speaking of the model, per the introduction of the Special Rules section and every legend for a datasheet and unit entry.
Spoiler:
WHAT SPECIAL RULES DO I HAVE?
It may seem obvious, but unless stated otherwise, a model does not have a special rule. Most special rules are given to a model by the relevant Army List Entry or its unit type. That said, a model’s attacks can gain special rules because of the weapon it is using.
Spoiler:
10. Special Rules: Any special rules that apply to models in the unit are listed here. Special rules that are unique to models in that unit are described in full here, whilst others are detailed either in the Appendix of this book or in the Special Rules section of Warhammer 40,000: The Rules.
Nothing in there stating that these special rules apply to the unit unless the rule itself specifically states as such. And the Independent Character rules goes out of its way not to identify this rule as applying itself to a unit.
Independent Characters have their own Army List Entry which establishes them indisputably as units on their own.
"Counts as" does not take away the Independent Character's unit nature. It changes how the rules treat the Independent Character unit but does not modify the Independent Character's unit status. When the IC joins a unit ,the rules will treat the Independent Character as a model in the joined unit in most, but importantly not all, circumstances.
col_impact wrote:So the Character rules are not under the umbrella of 'counts as part of the unit for all purposes' in the IC rule.
There is no rule in the Character movement section that says that Characters count as part of the unit they are in for all rule purposes. Characters have their own rules for movement so with regards to movement the 'counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes ' is not in effect and the IC is 'a unit joined to a unit' (and no longer a 'model in a unit') while moving. The IC is subject to the IC rules which govern that he can break coherency in the movement phase but not during any other phases.
There is no rule in the Character Movement section that says that Characters do NOT count as part of the unit they are in for all rules purposes. The standard for them being considered as such is set elsewhere, either in the unit entry list for the Wulfen Pack Leader or for the Independent Character Special Rule for the IC in question.
Since the Character rules do not counter this, I have no reason, expectation, obligation, or desire to not be treating the Character model as part of the unit. Nor do I have any reason to continue referencing this phrase without a relevant reason, and this is not one of them.
I also note that you provided zero quotes from the Characters section again to support your statement and just repeated the same thing again. This has not worked the last dozen times you have done this, it will not work again. You cannot claim to follow the rulebook alone when you disregard what it says so casually. You cannot be considered credible when you cannot properly respond to the simplest request.
The burden on you is to show how the Character rules for movement are under the umbrella of the "counts as" clause when the IC rule provides exception to the Character rules.
The Character and Moving rules are not under the umbrella of 'counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes'.
Spoiler:
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.
There is nothing in the Character and Moving rule which say that the Character is part of the unit for all movement purposes.
So with regards to movement the IC is a unit joined to a unit and subject to the Character and Independent Character rules for movement.
col_impact wrote:Since during movement the IC is 'a unit joined to a unit' then he can invoke a Thrust move while joined to a non-jet pack unit.
Spoiler:
Q: Can a Jet Pack unit that has joined a different unit (e.g. a Necron Destroyer Lord joining Canoptek Wraiths) still use its jet pack move in the Assault phase?
A: Yes, but the model cannot leave its unit and must stay in unit coherency.
The IC will also not prevent the Wulfen unit from benefiting from the Bounding Lope rule since while moving the IC acts as its own unit (and subject to the IC rules which say he can only break coherency in the movement phase).
Spoiler:
Q: If an Independent Character joins a unit of Wulfen, do the Wulfen models still get to use the Bounding Lope rule?
A: Yes, but the Independent Character does not benefit, and all models in the unit must maintain unit coherency.
You provide a double standard here. In the first spoiler, the model cannot leave its unit and must stay in unit coherency. Which unit is it talking about, the joined or the unit within a unit?
If the former, then it is addressing the IC as part of the greater unit and not as its own individual unit. To which, this makes your assessment on this interpretation crap.
If the latter, why insist that it cannot leave a unit it can never leave nor get out of unit coherency with?
No double standard is being provided by me. The Draft FAQ writers are allowing the Jet Pack unit (in this case a unit of Destroyer Lord) to invoke its Thrust move during the assault phase. That can only be possible if the Draft FAQ writers recognize the separable jet-pack and beast units in the scenario.
col_impact wrote: Not at all. Not only is it completely off-topic in this thread which is looking for FAQ relevant answers, the topic is worthy of its own focused discussion.
Like I said, if you want to debate it further, just open up a new thread and I will happily discuss it further. This thread doesn't need walls of text on Stubborn.
You keep spamming this response after I brought up a question you have never answered in any of those other threads. I gave my reasons. If you honestly do not think they are on topic, quit addressing them or properly answer the question to put them to rest. Remember, you are the one that kept trying to counter it.
Charistoph wrote: Failure to listen does not help your case. Where does it state that anyone can use his unit status while joined to another unit?
Why does this Special Rule state: "If an Independent Character joins a unit, and all other models in that unit are killed, he again becomes a unit of one model at the start of the following phase."? If all models are killed, he is already a unit of one, why does is is specifically state, "again"?
Proper and relevant quotes please.
At that point in time he will no longer be a unit counting as a model in the unit he joined but instead a unit of one model like he was before he joined.
Remember the rule reads this way . . .
Spoiler:
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.
And not this way . . .
Spoiler:
While an Independent Character is part of a unit he is no longer himself a unit and becomes just another model in the unit he joins.
So you cannot properly answer the questions presented. Noted.
You gave no reason as to why it states, "he again becomes a unit of one model". If he is already one such before the recognition provided by that statement, why does it need to be stated "again"?
If "at that point in time he will no longer be a unit counting as a model in the unit he joined" is the reason, then the proper true statement would be, "he no longer counts as being part of the unit he joined".
Semantics tells us that he is not being recognized as a unit of one model before this point, and then returns to it at the time specified. Note also that the timing of that sentence does not place it immediately when that situation occurs, but "at the start of the following phase".
If, as you say, he is always his own unit, and implying that he is always being recognized as such, why wait till the next phase and just make it official at that specific point?
The reason is that the IC is not allowed to be recognized as to be used as his own individual unit until such time as the rules direct, i.e. the start of the following phase.
col_impact wrote: Independent Characters have their own Army List Entry which establishes them indisputably as units on their own.
No need to repeat to me what I have already told you in what you quoted. You asserted that the IC rule itself established its unit identity, and that is a false statement.
col_impact wrote: "Counts as" does not take away the Independent Character's unit nature. It changes how the rules treat the Independent Character unit but does not modify the Independent Character's unit status. When the IC joins a unit ,the rules will treat the Independent Character as a model in the joined unit in most, but importantly not all, circumstances.
But it can (and does) take away from its own individual unit being identified for use, as in the case I presented above with it being recognized as a lone model unit only in a following phase. As in the case where being shot at. As in the case of being Charged. And so on.
col_impact wrote: The burden on you is to show how the Character rules for movement are under the umbrella of the "counts as" clause when the IC rule provides exception to the Character rules.
The Character and Moving rules are not under the umbrella of 'counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes'.
Spoiler:
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.
There is nothing in the Character and Moving rule which say that the Character is part of the unit for all movement purposes.
So with regards to movement the IC is a unit joined to a unit and subject to the Character and Independent Character rules for movement.
You really cannot pay attention, can you? The fact that a Character is part of a unit for all rules purposes, whether actual or counts as, is established elsewhere and nothing in the Character rules says otherwise.
Can you highlight in the following passage where it states that this is no longer the case?
CHARACTER AND MOVING Characters follow the movement rules for models of their type, whether Infantry, Jump Infantry, Bikes, etc. However, remember that they must maintain unit coherency with any unit they are in.
That's the whole passage you keep referring to, so it should be pretty easy to identify it. I see nothing in there that a Character gets to separate its movement from the rest of the unit. Indeed, it must keep unit coherency, which is only needed if the unit in question is a multi-model unit, not a single model unit.
col_impact wrote: No double standard is being provided by me. The Draft FAQ writers are allowing the Jet Pack unit (in this case a unit of Destroyer Lord) to invoke its Thrust move during the assault phase. That can only be possible if the Draft FAQ writers recognize the separable jet-pack and beast units in the scenario.
You didn't answer the question properly. Which unit is it to maintain unit coherency with, the joined or the unit within a unit?
If the former, then it is addressing the IC as part of the greater unit and not as its own individual unit. To which, this makes your assessment on this interpretation crap.
If the latter, why insist that it cannot leave a unit it can never leave nor get out of unit coherency with?
col_impact wrote: Independent Characters have their own Army List Entry which establishes them indisputably as units on their own.
"Counts as" does not take away the Independent Character's unit nature. It changes how the rules treat the Independent Character unit but does not modify the Independent Character's unit status. When the IC joins a unit ,the rules will treat the Independent Character as a model in the joined unit in most, but importantly not all, circumstances.
If he still counts as a unit while joined, then he counts as a unit for anything that involves a unit. When somebody shoots at him, he would have the choice of targeting him singly or as part of the unit. Since you insist Independent Character (a subset of character) is always his own unit even if he gains status as part of another unit, and with the wording with ICs and with characters, the Character rules could be used to say that you may target the IC singly.
Unless, of course, you go by the interpretation that Charistoph points out that the rules say "If an Independent Character joins a unit, and all other models in that unit are killed, he again becomes a unit of one model at the start of the following phase.", meaning he's not a unit of one model while he's part of the unit. That's a pretty strong indication right there that he doesn't count as a single model unit while he's part of another unit.
col_impact wrote: There is nothing in the Character and Moving rule which say that the Character is part of the unit for all movement purposes.
That's because it doesn't need to. The Character rules are for ALL characters, non-independent characters as well as independent characters. The movement rules in general govern movement, so they apply uniless overridden. There would need to be something in the movmeent rules for Independent Characterrs to override this. The only thing there mentioned is how they may join and leave units during the movement phase. It does NOT say he doesn't count as part of the unit when moviing. It only addresses moving out of coherency (in the movement phase only) if he is leaving the unit. The burden of proof is for you to show where the character and independent character rules override the normal rules. For an IC that's remaining joined to the unit, it doesn't override them to say that he's treated independently, it merely says he gets the movement rate of his model typle. Please qive a quotation where in the rules it says otherwise (and the "counts as" statement is NOT something that provides proof in this location, do don't even bother trying to use that one here to justify it).
Despite all the blocks of txt, the issue isn't the IC status or how the IC moves. When joined to the unit, if it runs, the IC counts as running- even if the IC does not move at all and is on a bike. We are told this in the brb, and in the faq you keep quoting that all the models may not fire if the unit runs, even if the models do not run and do something else such as turboboost.
So yes, models move as their type but if an unit does certain things, like run or assault- then all the models in the unit count as doing that. Even if they turboboist on a bike, or move 0". The unit, and all the models in it still ran for the rules of the game as we are told in the BRB and the faq.
The wulfen bounding lope answer does not specify running and assaulting, it however does specify that the IC cannot benefit at all from the rule. So if the unit runs the IC ran and the IC does not get to run and assault. Even if the IC moved 0" it ran if the unit ran.
That is in contention with the rules of the game that The unit, not models from it assault. Much like you can't fire certain weapons then assault with the models in the unit that did not fire said weapons.
blaktoof wrote: Despite all the blocks of txt, the issue isn't the IC status or how the IC moves. When joined to the unit, if it runs, the IC counts as running- even if the IC does not move at all and is on a bike. We are told this in the brb, and in the faq you keep quoting that all the models may not fire if the unit runs, even if the models do not run and do something else such as turboboost.
So yes, models move as their type but if an unit does certain things, like run or assault- then all the models in the unit count as doing that. Even if they turboboist on a bike, or move 0". The unit, and all the models in it still ran for the rules of the game as we are told in the BRB and the faq.
A point I brought up earlier, before Impact kept insisting that Characters aren't part of the unit for movement.
blaktoof wrote: The wulfen bounding pope answer does not specify running and assaulting, it however does specify that the IC cannot benefit at all from the rule. So if the unit runs the IC ran and the IC does not get to run and assault. Even if the IC moved 0" it ran if the unit ran.
That is in contention with the rules of the game that The unit, not models from it assault. Much like you can't fire certain weapons then assault with the models in the unit that did not fire said weapons.
(Bounding Pope, funny)
And yet, where is the restriction that if a model has Run (or similar) it cannot Charge if the unit can?
The limitations against Charging is made on a unit level. Moving a Charging model does not state anything against a model that Ran from moving during a Charge move. Of course, it could be based on the fact that this wouldn't be a consideration since the UNIT is not normally allowed to do it. And if the UNIT cannot Charge, how is the model doing a Charge Move?
col_impact wrote: Not at all. Not only is it completely off-topic in this thread which is looking for FAQ relevant answers, the topic is worthy of its own focused discussion.
Like I said, if you want to debate it further, just open up a new thread and I will happily discuss it further. This thread doesn't need walls of text on Stubborn.
You keep spamming this response after I brought up a question you have never answered in any of those other threads. I gave my reasons. If you honestly do not think they are on topic, quit addressing them or properly answer the question to put them to rest. Remember, you are the one that kept trying to counter it.
Like I said, if you want to debate it further, just open up a new thread and I will happily discuss it further. The discussion simply belongs in its own thread per forum rules.
Charistoph wrote: Failure to listen does not help your case. Where does it state that anyone can use his unit status while joined to another unit?
Why does this Special Rule state: "If an Independent Character joins a unit, and all other models in that unit are killed, he again becomes a unit of one model at the start of the following phase."? If all models are killed, he is already a unit of one, why does is is specifically state, "again"?
Proper and relevant quotes please.
At that point in time he will no longer be a unit counting as a model in the unit he joined but instead a unit of one model like he was before he joined.
Remember the rule reads this way . . .
Spoiler:
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.
And not this way . . .
Spoiler:
While an Independent Character is part of a unit he is no longer himself a unit and becomes just another model in the unit he joins.
So you cannot properly answer the questions presented. Noted.
You gave no reason as to why it states, "he again becomes a unit of one model". If he is already one such before the recognition provided by that statement, why does it need to be stated "again"?
If "at that point in time he will no longer be a unit counting as a model in the unit he joined" is the reason, then the proper true statement would be, "he no longer counts as being part of the unit he joined".
Semantics tells us that he is not being recognized as a unit of one model before this point, and then returns to it at the time specified. Note also that the timing of that sentence does not place it immediately when that situation occurs, but "at the start of the following phase".
If, as you say, he is always his own unit, and implying that he is always being recognized as such, why wait till the next phase and just make it official at that specific point?
The reason is that the IC is not allowed to be recognized as to be used as his own individual unit until such time as the rules direct, i.e. the start of the following phase.
"Again becomes" can only logically undo the "counts as" that preceded it and "counts as" =\= "becomes". Pretty simple.
col_impact wrote: "Counts as" does not take away the Independent Character's unit nature. It changes how the rules treat the Independent Character unit but does not modify the Independent Character's unit status. When the IC joins a unit ,the rules will treat the Independent Character as a model in the joined unit in most, but importantly not all, circumstances.
But it can (and does) take away from its own individual unit being identified for use, as in the case I presented above with it being recognized as a lone model unit only in a following phase. As in the case where being shot at. As in the case of being Charged. And so on.
But not all cases, and importantly, the "counts as " clause is not in effect for the Character rules.
col_impact wrote: The burden on you is to show how the Character rules for movement are under the umbrella of the "counts as" clause when the IC rule provides exception to the Character rules.
The Character and Moving rules are not under the umbrella of 'counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes'.
Spoiler:
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.
There is nothing in the Character and Moving rule which say that the Character is part of the unit for all movement purposes.
So with regards to movement the IC is a unit joined to a unit and subject to the Character and Independent Character rules for movement.
You really cannot pay attention, can you? The fact that a Character is part of a unit for all rules purposes, whether actual or counts as, is established elsewhere and nothing in the Character rules says otherwise.
Can you highlight in the following passage where it states that this is no longer the case?
CHARACTER AND MOVING Characters follow the movement rules for models of their type, whether Infantry, Jump Infantry, Bikes, etc. However, remember that they must maintain unit coherency with any unit they are in.
That's the whole passage you keep referring to, so it should be pretty easy to identify it. I see nothing in there that a Character gets to separate its movement from the rest of the unit. Indeed, it must keep unit coherency, which is only needed if the unit in question is a multi-model unit, not a single model unit.
You don't get it. The "counts as" clause is not in effect for the Character rules so with regards to movement the IC is a unit joined to a unit or a unit in a unit and does not "count as part of the unit for all rules purposes".
Spoiler:
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.
The part marked in yellow does not apply to the part marked in red.
col_impact wrote: No double standard is being provided by me. The Draft FAQ writers are allowing the Jet Pack unit (in this case a unit of Destroyer Lord) to invoke its Thrust move during the assault phase. That can only be possible if the Draft FAQ writers recognize the separable jet-pack and beast units in the scenario.
You didn't answer the question properly. Which unit is it to maintain unit coherency with, the joined or the unit within a unit?
If the former, then it is addressing the IC as part of the greater unit and not as its own individual unit. To which, this makes your assessment on this interpretation crap.
If the latter, why insist that it cannot leave a unit it can never leave nor get out of unit coherency with?
You are asking me to read the Draft FAQ writers minds.
They made an allowance that can only be possible if they recognize the Destroyer Lord as a jet pack unit in a beast unit. When something is a unit in a unit, 'its unit' can refer both to the IC unit and the unit the IC is in, so their referencing is confusing but still correct.
"Again becomes" can only logically undo the "counts as" that preceded it and "counts as" =\= "becomes". Pretty simple.
"Again becomes" can only logically mean that just before that it wasn't treated the same way as it will when it becomes. As it becomes a single model unit, it wasn't treated as a single model unit before it "again becomes" a single model unit. Pretty simple.
"Again becomes" can only logically undo the "counts as" that preceded it and "counts as" =\= "becomes". Pretty simple.
"Again becomes" can only logically mean that just before that it wasn't treated the same way as it will when it becomes. As it becomes a single model unit, it wasn't treated as a single model unit before it "again becomes" a single model unit. Pretty simple.
"Counts as" =/= "becomes".
The IC merely counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes except for the Character rules and Independent Character rules.
"Again becomes" can only logically undo the "counts as" that preceded it and "counts as" =\= "becomes". Pretty simple.
"Again becomes" can only logically mean that just before that it wasn't treated the same way as it will when it becomes. As it becomes a single model unit, it wasn't treated as a single model unit before it "again becomes" a single model unit. Pretty simple.
"Counts as" =/= "becomes".
The IC merely counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes except for the Character rules and Independent Character rules.
"Becomes" means "was different just before becomes". "he again becomes a unit of one" means he wasn't a unit of onet just before he becomes one again. That's something perfectly evident in the statement. That statement tells you right there that he isn't treated as "unit of one". which is what you are insisting he retains when he's joined to the other unit. Claiming he's still a unit of one at a time when the rules say he's not is just ignoring the rules.
"Again becomes" can only logically undo the "counts as" that preceded it and "counts as" =\= "becomes". Pretty simple.
"Again becomes" can only logically mean that just before that it wasn't treated the same way as it will when it becomes. As it becomes a single model unit, it wasn't treated as a single model unit before it "again becomes" a single model unit. Pretty simple.
"Counts as" =/= "becomes".
The IC merely counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes except for the Character rules and Independent Character rules.
"Becomes" means "was different just before becomes". "he again becomes a unit of one" means he wasn't a unit of onet just before he becomes one again. That's something perfectly evident in the statement. That statement tells you right there that he isn't treated as "unit of one". which is what you are insisting he retains when he's joined to the other unit. Claiming he's still a unit of one at a time when the rules say he's not is just ignoring the rules.
I am claiming that the IC is a unit that counts as a model in a unit for all rules purposes except for the Character rules and the Independent Character rules. That is literally what the rules say.
You are claming more than the rules say. You claim that he flat out becomes a model in a unit and loses his unit status. But that is not what the rules say. No where does it say he loses his unit status so it's always present - just not too many rules get around the "counts as" clause.
"Again becomes" is merely an undoing of the 'counts as' clause. You cannot undo more than what had transpired because of the IC joining rule. This is all real basic logic.
col_impact wrote: Like I said, if you want to debate it further, just open up a new thread and I will happily discuss it further. The discussion simply belongs in its own thread per forum rules.
For someone who wants to drop it, you keep poking it.
col_impact wrote: "Again becomes" can only logically undo the "counts as" that preceded it and "counts as" =\= "becomes". Pretty simple.
But you ignore everything else in the statement by doing so. "Again becomes" indicates that rights before that happened, he was not a lone unit model, or at least considered to be as such.
Does it remove the "counts as"? Yes. It also is indicating the removal of "counts only as a member of this unit".
Your statement still does not provide anything to prove with certainty that the IC is operating and considered as their own lone unit during the time that it is joined.
col_impact wrote: But not all cases, and importantly, the "counts as " clause is not in effect for the Character rules.
Again, relevance?
What do the Character rules cover? They allow a model with this unit type to engage in Challenges, Look Out Sir!, and be first candidates to be Warlord. Everything else in there says, "yeah, they are otherwise normal models and follow their normal rules".
And during several different parts of this section it reminds you that "a character that has joined a unit follows all the normal rules for being part of a unit."
That's a pretty lousy way of creating exceptions which go back and say, "not so much of an exception, really".
col_impact wrote: You don't get it. The "counts as" clause is not in effect for the Character rules so with regards to movement the IC is a unit joined to a unit or a unit in a unit and does not "count as part of the unit for all rules purposes".
Spoiler:
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.
The part marked in yellow does not apply to the part marked in red.
No, YOU do not get it. It has been explained and I gave you more than enough opportunity to provide where it states an exceptions to this status. I have demonstrated that Character rules do not provide an exception to this statement. I have also quote a line above from the Characters section which reminds you of this status. That they still follow the rules for Characters does not absolve them from being counted as part of the unit. Otherwise, Look Out Sir! would not work for an Independent Character (their is no other model in their lone model unit to reallocate Wounds to), nor could they accept Challenges made to the unit they Joined with. Movement has absolutely nothing to do with it.
So, your insistence on the relevance of this phrase without anything from the section it just indicates you are arguing for the sake of arguing, much like your very first answer to the first thing you quoted, or you really are quite incompetent at debate and semantics.
This the second time you have quoted that line without anything further from the section it references to support your claim since I warned you.
col_impact wrote: You are asking me to read the Draft FAQ writers minds.
They made an allowance that can only be possible if they recognize the Destroyer Lord as a jet pack unit in a beast unit. When something is a unit in a unit, 'its unit' can refer both to the IC unit and the unit the IC is in, so their referencing is confusing but still correct.
Why not? You have been doing that all along. You have made several statements regarding balance which cannot be supported in the Draft quotes you provided. If they are for balance, how do you know that?
No, in actuality I am asking you to demonstrate in the rules, in your opinion, has any merit to justify this ruling. I have no interest in asking someone to read the mind of a Drunken Monkey.
More realistically, they are not recognizing the unit status of the Destroyer Lord, they are just not taking the term "unit" in the Jump and Jet Pack unit type rules to actually mean "unit, but as "model" as in Cavalry, Bike, etc, unit type rules. That is the only logical explanation that doesn't open the can of worms which allows me to easily gun down your Warlord even if he is in a unit of 120 Boyz without recourse to Look Out Sir! But logic doesn't always match a monkey or a drunken person's mind (hence title of Drunken Monkey).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
col_impact wrote: I am claiming that the IC is a unit that counts as a model in a unit for all rules purposes except for the Character rules and the Independent Character rules. That is literally what the rules say.
You are claming more than the rules say. You claim that he flat out becomes a model in a unit and loses his unit status. But that is not what the rules say. No where does it say he loses his unit status so it's always present - just not too many rules get around the "counts as" clause.
"Again becomes" is merely an undoing of the 'counts as' clause. You cannot undo more than what had transpired because of the IC joining rule. This is all real basic logic.
Only this claim of yours has zero merit to being applied and you have not properly supported your statements from the pertinent and relevant sections.
In every case where it is referring to a Character joined to a unit, it NEVER acknowledges their individual unit status and places constant reminders that it is operating as part of that unit.
CHARACTER AS LEADERS Remember that a unit’s Leadership tests are taken using the highest Leadership value in the unit. As characters normally have better Leadership than other warriors, this means that they make very good leaders for units in your army.
CHARACTER AND MOVING Characters follow the movement rules for models of their type, whether Infantry, Jump Infantry, Bikes, etc. However, remember that they must maintain unit coherency with any unit they are in.
CHARACTER AND ASSAULTS Remember, a character that has joined a unit follows all the normal rules for being part of a unit. If a character is in a unit that charges into close combat, the character charges too, as it is part of the unit. If the character’s unit is locked in close combat, he fights as part of the unit.
All from the Characters section of the Unit Type list.
Character rules do not allow for any Character, Independent or otherwise, to be treated as an identifiable and independent unit when joined to another unit.
col_impact wrote: Like I said, if you want to debate it further, just open up a new thread and I will happily discuss it further. The discussion simply belongs in its own thread per forum rules.
For someone who wants to drop it, you keep poking it.
That's just it. I don't want to drop it. The discussion just belongs in its own thread, or are you conceding the debate?
Spoiler:
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.
The part marked in yellow does not apply to the part marked in red
Spoiler:
CHARACTER AND MOVING
Characters follow the movement rules for models of their type, whether Infantry, Jump Infantry, Bikes, etc. However, remember that they must maintain unit coherency with any unit they are in.
No portion of that rule says "he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes" and the coherency bit is overwritten by the IC rule that allows the IC to break coherency during the movement phase.
So the IC is free to move as a unit joined to a unit and can break coherency if its the movement phase.
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.
The part marked in yellow does not apply to the part marked in red
It does not say that. It does not say, "he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes, except for the rules for characters." Using the terms used, it is more properly translated as, "he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes, and doesn't lose the rules for characters so still follows them." The word "though" is not always a synonym of "but" or "except for". In fact, if you properly googled the use of it, you would know this.
If the IC does not count as part of the unit for Character rules, why is an IC allowed to take a Look Out Sir! roll at a better result than the Sergeant that came with the unit? Look Out Sir! rolls are part of the Character rules, and by your interpretation, the IC will not be part of the unit he joined when taking Look Out Sir! rolls since the do not count the IC as part of the unit when you make them, nor do the IC rules regarding Look Out Sir!
Now, if the rules for Characters actually separated them to be treated as not part of the unit as you attest, you would have a point. But they do not, at least so far as you can properly demonstrate.
CHARACTER AND MOVING
Characters follow the movement rules for models of their type, whether Infantry, Jump Infantry, Bikes, etc. However, remember that they must maintain unit coherency with any unit they are in.
No portion of that rule says "he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes" and the coherency bit is overwritten by the IC rule that allows the IC to break coherency during the movement phase.
So the IC is free to move as a unit joined to a unit and can break coherency if its the movement phase.
Again, it doesn't need to since it is already established elsewhere and it does not counter it here. The phrase you have globbed on to refers to this, and you have yet to show where it actually counters the statement that an IC joined to a unit still operates as his own unit while joined to another.
You still did not quote a portion of the Character rules to support your statement, but rather to dismiss it. It does not meet the standards of my warning.
So, where does following the rules for Characters remove the Character from being part of the unit?
col_impact wrote: That's just it. I don't want to drop it. The discussion just belongs in its own thread, or are you conceding the debate?
You are the one that keeps responding to it as if it was pertinent to the topic.
I will take your refusal of my invitation to open a thread on the Stubborn discussion a concession on your part. I have invited you several times and I guess unless it serves you as a disruption tactic in this thread you don't want to debate it.
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.
The part marked in yellow does not apply to the part marked in red
It does not say that. It does not say, "he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes, except for the rules for characters." Using the terms used, it is more properly translated as, "he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes, and doesn't lose the rules for characters so still follows them." The word "though" is not always a synonym of "but" or "except for". In fact, if you properly googled the use of it, you would know this.
If the IC does not count as part of the unit for Character rules, why is an IC allowed to take a Look Out Sir! roll at a better result than the Sergeant that came with the unit? Look Out Sir! rolls are part of the Character rules, and by your interpretation, the IC will not be part of the unit he joined when taking Look Out Sir! rolls since the do not count the IC as part of the unit when you make them, nor do the IC rules regarding Look Out Sir!
Now, if the rules for Characters actually separated them to be treated as not part of the unit as you attest, you would have a point. But they do not, at least so far as you can properly demonstrate.
No the rule does not read this way . . .
Spoiler:
While an Independent Character is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes, and he still follows the rules for characters.
It reads this way . . .
Spoiler:
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.
"Though" does not mean "and". Though means "however" or "except". I think you are being deliberately obtuse on this matter. I am assuming you can read.
CHARACTER AND MOVING
Characters follow the movement rules for models of their type, whether Infantry, Jump Infantry, Bikes, etc. However, remember that they must maintain unit coherency with any unit they are in.
No portion of that rule says "he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes" and the coherency bit is overwritten by the IC rule that allows the IC to break coherency during the movement phase.
So the IC is free to move as a unit joined to a unit and can break coherency if its the movement phase.
Again, it doesn't need to since it is already established elsewhere and it does not counter it here. The phrase you have globbed on to refers to this, and you have yet to show where it actually counters the statement that an IC joined to a unit still operates as his own unit while joined to another.
You still did not quote a portion of the Character rules to support your statement, but rather to dismiss it. It does not meet the standards of my warning.
So, where does following the rules for Characters remove the Character from being part of the unit?
The burden is on you to show how "counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes" applies to the Character rules and in particular the Character Moving rules. "Though" indicates exception and you are ignoring the consequences of that.
If your argument is "though" means "and", it's pretty clear your argument can simply be discarded as puerile..
col_impact wrote: I will take your refusal of my invitation to open a thread on the Stubborn discussion a concession on your part. I have invited you several times and I guess unless it serves you as a disruption tactic in this thread you don't want to debate it.
You want a new thread? You open it. Your continuing to harp on this is causing more disruption than anything I have posted regarding the relationship of ICs and units and Stubborn. At least that was on topic (even if you cannot recognize it), this is just whining.
While an Independent Character is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes, and he still follows the rules for characters.
It reads this way . . .
Spoiler:
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.
"Though" does not mean "and". Though means "however" or "except". I think you are being deliberately obtuse on this matter. I am assuming you can read.
I am not being obtuse. The term "though" does mean "however", but not always "except". The statement is not completely absolving the previous statement of any force, but putting limits on it where they are stated. As I stated earlier, if the Characters rules actually stated anything that would present itself as an exception, they would take precedence. That is how "though" works. It does not immediately exclude everything before from everything after.
So when we look at Character rules, they do not provide exceptions and place reminders to that statement numerous times. If we are to completely ignore it, why do they keep reminding us of it?
If we are to continue on how you propose, then ICs being in a unit is a completely useless gesture. They would not access Look Out Sir! since they do not count as being part of their own unit while joined to another unit. I could shoot them individually aside from the unit they joined. All of the their movement would allow them to be free agents at all times. They would be allowed to Split Fire without anyone having the rule. If they do not count as part of the unit for Movement, they would not be able to be a "model in this unit with this special rule" if they have it or be a part of "a unit with a model with this special rule" if they do not.
Since this puts to lie numerous other rules in the rulebook and makes them non-functional, it means your interpretation is trash and you do not seek to progress this discussion in to anything but a round where you repeat the same thing without properly addressing the questions asked or to put the game in to a useless mess.
col_impact wrote: The burden is on you to show how "counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes" applies to the Character rules and in particular the Character Moving rules. "Though" indicates exception and you are ignoring the consequences of that.
If your argument is "though" means "and", it's pretty clear your argument can simply be discarded as puerile..
I have. Your inability to properly parse terms (conflate versus truncate), use semantics, or recognize other language tying it together, does not mean I have not done as you assert.
And I am not just stating it as just "and" , but "and still" as in "not excluding". They count as part of the unit, but do not lose anything that they gain from being Characters, nor would they gain anything that would violate those Character rules.
The Character rules do not separate a Character from a unit at any point, but keep reminding one that the Character is part of the unit all throughout them. By trying to separate the IC from the unit at any point other than where explicitly stated as part of the rest of the paragraphs before "count as part of the unit" or Challenges, would be violating both Character rules and Independent Character rules.
CHARACTER AND MOVING
Characters follow the movement rules for models of their type, whether Infantry, Jump Infantry, Bikes, etc. However, remember that they must maintain unit coherency with any unit they are in.
No portion of that rule says "he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes" and the coherency bit is overwritten by the IC rule that allows the IC to break coherency during the movement phase.
No, it doesn't overwrite the IC being allowed bo break coherency during movement phase, as that is something that is allowed for in the "joining and leaving units" section. That means, however, the breaking coherency rules are overwritten only when leaving the uniit. It is not a blanket overwriting of all the movmement rules.
So the IC is free to move as a unit joined to a unit and can break coherency if its the movement phase.
No, it doesn't mean he is free to move as a unit joined to a unit. He's a character within a unit that is allowoed bo break coherency if he wishes to leave the unit. If he isn't leaving the unit he is following all the other movement rules, getting to move as per his model type. Absolutely none of that means he is treated as a unit within the unit, as you state. In fact, that quote says he's IN the unit, but never says he IS a unit while he's joined.
CHARACTER AND MOVING
Characters follow the movement rules for models of their type, whether Infantry, Jump Infantry, Bikes, etc. However, remember that they must maintain unit coherency with any unit they are in.
No portion of that rule says "he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes" and the coherency bit is overwritten by the IC rule that allows the IC to break coherency during the movement phase.
No, it doesn't overwrite the IC being allowed bo break coherency during movement phase, as that is something that is allowed for in the "joining and leaving units" section. That means, however, the breaking coherency rules are overwritten only when leaving the uniit. It is not a blanket overwriting of all the movmement rules.
So the IC is free to move as a unit joined to a unit and can break coherency if its the movement phase.
No, it doesn't mean he is free to move as a unit joined to a unit. He's a character within a unit that is allowoed bo break coherency if he wishes to leave the unit. If he isn't leaving the unit he is following all the other movement rules, getting to move as per his model type. Absolutely none of that means he is treated as a unit within the unit, as you state. In fact, that quote says he's IN the unit, but never says he IS a unit while he's joined.
Horn and I have given plenty of quotes shooting down what you've said, showing that they treat the model as part of the unit and not a unit by himself, while the quotes you have provided haven't really matched up with your arguments.
I think we have hit the religious level of debate here peoples.
The IC cannot benefit from bounding pope, per the faq. If the unit assaults something the IC has also assaulted with the unit, unless we want to get into some bizarre argument that the IC in the you it is not locked in assault somehow.
This of course is in conflict with allowing the wulfen to assault after running, but as they are in the same unit and we are told the IC may not benefit that conflict is there and the faq answer does not directly or explicitly answer the question "can an unit of wulfen with IC still run and charge even though the UC is not allowed to do so, and if so how does that work".
The faq answer grants permission for the wulfen to still use bounding lope but it doesn't allow the IC to benefit and does not address wtf happens in su h a case, the brb doesn't actually have permission to assault with models from an unit, but not all of the unit.
This thread seems to be using assault and charge as interchangeable terms which really doesn't work. There are rules prohibiting run and charge but to the best of my knowledge not rules banning running then being dragged into assault. Thus it is not a big stretch to say the FAQ clarifies that bounding lope gives wulfen permission to run and charge when the attached IC can't, overriding BRB norm. The IC doesn't get charge bonus but still gets dragged into assault following normal pile in rules.
Granted it is not as clear as it should be, but that seems the most logical interpretation of wulfen can but IC doesn't benefit. Particularly since nearly every other interpretation concludes wulfen can't use the rule at all with an attached IC, which directly contradicts the FAQ answer.
Fhionnuisce wrote: This thread seems to be using assault and charge as interchangeable terms which really doesn't work. There are rules prohibiting run and charge but to the best of my knowledge not rules banning running then being dragged into assault. Thus it is not a big stretch to say the FAQ clarifies that bounding lope gives wulfen permission to run and charge when the attached IC can't, overriding BRB norm. The IC doesn't get charge bonus but still gets dragged into assault following normal pile in rules.
Granted it is not as clear as it should be, but that seems the most logical interpretation of wulfen can but IC doesn't benefit. Particularly since nearly every other interpretation concludes wulfen can't use the rule at all with an attached IC, which directly contradicts the FAQ answer.
How many grenades did a squad of 5 tac marines with krak grenades throw before the faq in your meta? What seems as intent to some is very different to others. Sometimes the others are the people who did not write the rules.
Fhionnuisce wrote: This thread seems to be using assault and charge as interchangeable terms which really doesn't work. There are rules prohibiting run and charge but to the best of my knowledge not rules banning running then being dragged into assault. Thus it is not a big stretch to say the FAQ clarifies that bounding lope gives wulfen permission to run and charge when the attached IC can't, overriding BRB norm. The IC doesn't get charge bonus but still gets dragged into assault following normal pile in rules.
Granted it is not as clear as it should be, but that seems the most logical interpretation of wulfen can but IC doesn't benefit. Particularly since nearly every other interpretation concludes wulfen can't use the rule at all with an attached IC, which directly contradicts the FAQ answer.
How many grenades did a squad of 5 tac marines with krak grenades throw before the faq in your meta? What seems as intent to some is very different to others. Sometimes the others are the people who did not write the rules.
Except that this exact same FAQ for this exact same faction gives the exact same answer to almost the exact same question for "For glory, For Russ!" Which allows a unit with an attached IC to run and charge. So I imagine that the IC in the Wulfen unit does exactly what the IC in the Thunderwolf unit does - which unfortunately is anyone's guess - but what isn't a guess is that we are told that the IC doesn't prevent the unit from using the special rule. No if's, and's, or but's are given, and in "For Glory, For Russ!" We are told specifically that the unit can charge - so any claims that Wulfen are different stand on very loose footing.
Fhionnuisce wrote: This thread seems to be using assault and charge as interchangeable terms which really doesn't work. There are rules prohibiting run and charge but to the best of my knowledge not rules banning running then being dragged into assault. Thus it is not a big stretch to say the FAQ clarifies that bounding lope gives wulfen permission to run and charge when the attached IC can't, overriding BRB norm. The IC doesn't get charge bonus but still gets dragged into assault following normal pile in rules.
Granted it is not as clear as it should be, but that seems the most logical interpretation of wulfen can but IC doesn't benefit. Particularly since nearly every other interpretation concludes wulfen can't use the rule at all with an attached IC, which directly contradicts the FAQ answer.
This is a solution that obeys the directive of the FAQ and does not violate the BRB.
Fhionnuisce wrote: This thread seems to be using assault and charge as interchangeable terms which really doesn't work. There are rules prohibiting run and charge but to the best of my knowledge not rules banning running then being dragged into assault. Thus it is not a big stretch to say the FAQ clarifies that bounding lope gives wulfen permission to run and charge when the attached IC can't, overriding BRB norm. The IC doesn't get charge bonus but still gets dragged into assault following normal pile in rules.
Granted it is not as clear as it should be, but that seems the most logical interpretation of wulfen can but IC doesn't benefit. Particularly since nearly every other interpretation concludes wulfen can't use the rule at all with an attached IC, which directly contradicts the FAQ answer.
This seems right. Most likely the unit ends up not in coherency at the end of the charge (unless the charge is less than 2" distance), as the IC won't charge (since he counts as having run since the unit ran), but he'll still be part of the unit since it's not the movement phase. It's legal for him to not be in coherency as the charging rules only talk about being in coherency with models that have already charged; it doesn't say anything about maintaining coherency with models that haven't charged. As you note, he just catches up with a pile-in (without the charge bonus) during the fight subphase.
Fhionnuisce wrote: This thread seems to be using assault and charge as interchangeable terms which really doesn't work. There are rules prohibiting run and charge but to the best of my knowledge not rules banning running then being dragged into assault. Thus it is not a big stretch to say the FAQ clarifies that bounding lope gives wulfen permission to run and charge when the attached IC can't, overriding BRB norm. The IC doesn't get charge bonus but still gets dragged into assault following normal pile in rules.
Granted it is not as clear as it should be, but that seems the most logical interpretation of wulfen can but IC doesn't benefit. Particularly since nearly every other interpretation concludes wulfen can't use the rule at all with an attached IC, which directly contradicts the FAQ answer.
This seems right. Most likely the unit ends up not in coherency at the end of the charge (unless the charge is less than 2" distance), as the IC won't charge (since he counts as having run since the unit ran), but he'll still be part of the unit since it's not the movement phase. It's legal for him to not be in coherency as the charging rules only talk about being in coherency with models that have already charged; it doesn't say anything about maintaining coherency with models that haven't charged. As you note, he just catches up with a pile-in (without the charge bonus) during the fight subphase.
The FAQ indicates coherency must be maintained.
Spoiler:
Q: If an Independent Character joins a unit of Wulfen, do the Wulfen models still get to use the Bounding Lope rule?
A: Yes, but the Independent Character does not benefit, and all models in the unit must maintain unit coherency.
While an Independent Character is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes, and he still follows the rules for characters.
It reads this way . . .
Spoiler:
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.
"Though" does not mean "and". Though means "however" or "except". I think you are being deliberately obtuse on this matter. I am assuming you can read.
I am not being obtuse. The term "though" does mean "however", but not always "except". The statement is not completely absolving the previous statement of any force, but putting limits on it where they are stated. As I stated earlier, if the Characters rules actually stated anything that would present itself as an exception, they would take precedence. That is how "though" works. It does not immediately exclude everything before from everything after.
So when we look at Character rules, they do not provide exceptions and place reminders to that statement numerous times. If we are to completely ignore it, why do they keep reminding us of it?
If we are to continue on how you propose, then ICs being in a unit is a completely useless gesture. They would not access Look Out Sir! since they do not count as being part of their own unit while joined to another unit. I could shoot them individually aside from the unit they joined. All of the their movement would allow them to be free agents at all times. They would be allowed to Split Fire without anyone having the rule. If they do not count as part of the unit for Movement, they would not be able to be a "model in this unit with this special rule" if they have it or be a part of "a unit with a model with this special rule" if they do not.
Since this puts to lie numerous other rules in the rulebook and makes them non-functional, it means your interpretation is trash and you do not seek to progress this discussion in to anything but a round where you repeat the same thing without properly addressing the questions asked or to put the game in to a useless mess.
"Though" is not acting as an adverb in the sentence. "Though" is acting as a subordinating conjunction for the subordinate clause ('he still follows the rules for characters') to indicate contrast and exception to the main clause.
So the Character rules are indeed exceptions to the 'counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes'.
Also, your slippery slope argument is a fallacious one. You need to actually find Character rules that actively open up issues since exception to the "counts as" clause is only provided for Character rules. Outside of the Character rules and the Independent Character rules the IC counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes (ie a model in the unit). In the absence of Character rules or Independent Character rules the 'counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes' applies. So no slippery slope. Nice try.
Fhionnuisce wrote: This thread seems to be using assault and charge as interchangeable terms which really doesn't work. There are rules prohibiting run and charge but to the best of my knowledge not rules banning running then being dragged into assault. Thus it is not a big stretch to say the FAQ clarifies that bounding lope gives wulfen permission to run and charge when the attached IC can't, overriding BRB norm. The IC doesn't get charge bonus but still gets dragged into assault following normal pile in rules.
Granted it is not as clear as it should be, but that seems the most logical interpretation of wulfen can but IC doesn't benefit. Particularly since nearly every other interpretation concludes wulfen can't use the rule at all with an attached IC, which directly contradicts the FAQ answer.
How many grenades did a squad of 5 tac marines with krak grenades throw before the faq in your meta? What seems as intent to some is very different to others. Sometimes the others are the people who did not write the rules.
Except that this exact same FAQ for this exact same faction gives the exact same answer to almost the exact same question for "For glory, For Russ!" Which allows a unit with an attached IC to run and charge. So I imagine that the IC in the Wulfen unit does exactly what the IC in the Thunderwolf unit does - which unfortunately is anyone's guess - but what isn't a guess is that we are told that the IC doesn't prevent the unit from using the special rule. No if's, and's, or but's are given, and in "For Glory, For Russ!" We are told specifically that the unit can charge - so any claims that Wulfen are different stand on very loose footing.
Which changes the rules for assaulting in the BRB, there is no permission to assault with part of an unit. In fact we are specifically told instances of when models are not allowed to assault, the unit may not assault. I.e. if a model fires heavy weapons, the unit may not assault. It does not read the model may not assault.
using for glory for russ is a faq rule for a different question, one could easily say "skyhammer faq" and now the unit cannot charge with the attached IC.
Fhionnuisce wrote: This thread seems to be using assault and charge as interchangeable terms which really doesn't work. There are rules prohibiting run and charge but to the best of my knowledge not rules banning running then being dragged into assault. Thus it is not a big stretch to say the FAQ clarifies that bounding lope gives wulfen permission to run and charge when the attached IC can't, overriding BRB norm. The IC doesn't get charge bonus but still gets dragged into assault following normal pile in rules.
Granted it is not as clear as it should be, but that seems the most logical interpretation of wulfen can but IC doesn't benefit. Particularly since nearly every other interpretation concludes wulfen can't use the rule at all with an attached IC, which directly contradicts the FAQ answer.
How many grenades did a squad of 5 tac marines with krak grenades throw before the faq in your meta? What seems as intent to some is very different to others. Sometimes the others are the people who did not write the rules.
Except that this exact same FAQ for this exact same faction gives the exact same answer to almost the exact same question for "For glory, For Russ!" Which allows a unit with an attached IC to run and charge. So I imagine that the IC in the Wulfen unit does exactly what the IC in the Thunderwolf unit does - which unfortunately is anyone's guess - but what isn't a guess is that we are told that the IC doesn't prevent the unit from using the special rule. No if's, and's, or but's are given, and in "For Glory, For Russ!" We are told specifically that the unit can charge - so any claims that Wulfen are different stand on very loose footing.
Which changes the rules for assaulting in the BRB, there is no permission to assault with part of an unit. In fact we are specifically told instances of when models are not allowed to assault, the unit may not assault. I.e. if a model fires heavy weapons, the unit may not assault. It does not read the model may not assault.
It may change the rules from the BRB, but irregardless of whether or not it changes anything, that's what it says.
blaktoof wrote: using for glory for russ is a faq rule for a different question, one could easily say "skyhammer faq" and now the unit cannot charge with the attached IC.
I would have to call you out on this one. Skyhammer is addressed in a different FAQ. Both For Glory, For Russ! And Bounding Lope (and the new Counter Charge from the Wolfclaw Strike Force for that matter) give the same answer in THIS FAQ, and the answer in For Glory, For Russ! And Counter Charge in THIS FAQ tell us that we can charge although the IC does not benefit, and are worded almost word for word exactly like Bounding Lope is worded.
I find it fascinating that the other two rules tell you clearly that the unit can charge, but because Bounding Lope has the added bonus of rerolling failed charges you feel you can claim it is somehow different and not allowed to charge.
Q: If an Independent Character joins a unit of Wulfen, do the Wulfen models still get to use the Bounding Lope rule?
A: Yes, but the Independent Character does not benefit, and all models in the unit must maintain unit coherency.
Fair point, but that does change the rules for charging. It means you will most likely hold back one or two models to maintain coherency with the IC. It looks like that coherency will override the bit about if at all possible move into base contact with an enemy model, if you know that you can't maintain unit coherency if you don't. And will probably have some people arguing that you still should be moving them into base contact.
It really sounds like they didn't think the implications of their ruling through.
doctortom wrote: It really sounds like they didn't think the implications of their ruling through.
I think this, honestly is the most likely of all possibilities.
The new Necron FAQ has a direct contradiction withe the Space Wolves FAQ on how to handle helfrost vs reanimation protocol, indicating that many of these FAQ rulings will change before the dust settles.
Nevertheless, this FAQ clearly states that the unit can charge, but unfortunately leaves out what we're supposed to do with the attached IC.
As always, it would be best to discuss with your opponent before beginning the match and if he disagrees just roll off.
blaktoof wrote: using for glory for russ is a faq rule for a different question, one could easily say "skyhammer faq" and now the unit cannot charge with the attached IC.
I would have to call you out on this one. Skyhammer is addressed in a different FAQ. Both For Glory, For Russ! And Bounding Lope (and the new Counter Charge from the Wolfclaw Strike Force for that matter) give the same answer in THIS FAQ, and the answer in For Glory, For Russ! And Counter Charge in THIS FAQ tell us that we can charge although the IC does not benefit, and are worded almost word for word exactly like Bounding Lope is worded.
Skyhammer is dealing with charging after coming in from reserves via Deep Strike so its not the same case by any stretch.
Fhionnuisce wrote:This thread seems to be using assault and charge as interchangeable terms which really doesn't work. There are rules prohibiting run and charge but to the best of my knowledge not rules banning running then being dragged into assault. Thus it is not a big stretch to say the FAQ clarifies that bounding lope gives wulfen permission to run and charge when the attached IC can't, overriding BRB norm. The IC doesn't get charge bonus but still gets dragged into assault following normal pile in rules.
Granted it is not as clear as it should be, but that seems the most logical interpretation of wulfen can but IC doesn't benefit. Particularly since nearly every other interpretation concludes wulfen can't use the rule at all with an attached IC, which directly contradicts the FAQ answer.
Nothing is stated that the IC doesn't get the Charge bonus if there are no other factors in play.
In the rulebook, when it comes to the Charge (and Running), the UNIT Charges, and the MODELS Move. Nothing in this is stated when making a Charge move that if a model was in a Run, it cannot make a Charge Move, nor does it state it makes a Disordered Charge (i.e. lose Charge bonus).
Quite simply put, the rules do not cover this situation at all, no matter how disassociated the thinking of Impact is.
col_impact wrote:"Though" is not acting as an adverb in the sentence. "Though" is acting as a subordinating conjunction for the subordinate clause ('he still follows the rules for characters') to indicate contrast and exception to the main clause.
So the Character rules are indeed exceptions to the 'counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes'.
Yes, it is acting as a conjuction and not as an adverb (OED def 1.2 and not "2"). That doesn't make my interpretation wrong. In order to be an actual exception, they still have to provide what the exceptions are. In this phrase, the exceptions are listed in the Character rules.
If we go by your interpretation, "though" is being used as the verb "excludes", which does not match up with how the rest of the game operates.
Which is why I was saying it as "and still". They continue to use the rules for Characters and being Joined to a Unit changes none of this. Shall we go over what Oxford uses as example sentences and see which fits the situation better, yours or mine?
The Character rules have primacy in this case, but the Character rules still do absolutely nothing to separate the IC from the unit for any of the unit's interactions. Indeed, they repeatedly keep making and identifying that connection all the way through. Where it does separate an IC from the unit is for Challenges, where even a Wulfen Pack Leader gets separated from his unit to a specific degree.
col_impact wrote:Also, your slippery slope argument is a fallacious one. You need to actually find Character rules that actively open up issues since exception to the "counts as" clause is only provided for Character rules. Outside of the Character rules and the Independent Character rules the IC counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes (ie a model in the unit). In the absence of Character rules or Independent Character rules the 'counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes' applies. So no slippery slope. Nice try.
I am using the examples YOU provided to create this slippery slope.
You stated that an IC is still recognized as his own unit for movement because "Character and Movement" doesn't state that the Character counts as part of the unit for movement. It doesn't say that for Look Out Sir!. It doesn't state that for Character and Shooting, so it doesn't state that for when the unit gets shot or when it shoots. It doesn't state that for how Characters interact for Special Rules, either (admittedly, the Character section does not have a section for this). It also doesn't state it for Characters as Leaders, though it is as heavily implied there as it is for Character and Movement. Indeed, the only place it actually states Characters are part of the unit is in Character and Assaults.
So, yeah, have fun with your slippery slope that you think is a flatland.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
col_impact wrote: Skyhammer is dealing with charging after coming in from reserves via Deep Strike so its not the same case by any stretch.
Skyhammer deals with a Unit Charging after having the base restriction against it removed for the unit as one of its four rules.
A unit cannot Charge after it comes from Deep Strike. A unit cannot Charge after it arrives from Reserves. A unit cannot Charge after it Runs. Skyhammer grants Assault Marine Squads in its formation to Charge after Arriving from Deep Strike Reserves. Bounding Lope grants Wulfen the ability to Charge after Running.
col_impact wrote:"Though" is not acting as an adverb in the sentence. "Though" is acting as a subordinating conjunction for the subordinate clause ('he still follows the rules for characters') to indicate contrast and exception to the main clause.
So the Character rules are indeed exceptions to the 'counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes'.
Yes, it is acting as a conjuction and not as an adverb (OED def 1.2 and not "2"). That doesn't make my interpretation wrong. In order to be an actual exception, they still have to provide what the exceptions are. In this phrase, the exceptions are listed in the Character rules.
If we go by your interpretation, "though" is being used as the verb "excludes", which does not match up with how the rest of the game operates.
I have never said that it acts as the verb "excludes". "Though" is a subordinate conjunction that acts like "but", "however" , and "except" and indicates contrast and exception to the main clause. I think you need to start opening up a few books on grammar!
By no stretch of English does "though still" mean "and still". "And still" is not a subordinating conjuction and does not indicate contrast and exception to the main clause. Your parsing here is plain silly.
col_impact wrote:Also, your slippery slope argument is a fallacious one. You need to actually find Character rules that actively open up issues since exception to the "counts as" clause is only provided for Character rules. Outside of the Character rules and the Independent Character rules the IC counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes (ie a model in the unit). In the absence of Character rules or Independent Character rules the 'counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes' applies. So no slippery slope. Nice try.
I am using the examples YOU provided to create this slippery slope.
You stated that an IC is still recognized as his own unit for movement because "Character and Movement" doesn't state that the Character counts as part of the unit for movement. It doesn't say that for Look Out Sir!. It doesn't state that for Character and Shooting, so it doesn't state that for when the unit gets shot or when it shoots. It doesn't state that for how Characters interact for Special Rules, either (admittedly, the Character section does not have a section for this). It also doesn't state it for Characters as Leaders, though it is as heavily implied there as it is for Character and Movement. Indeed, the only place it actually states Characters are part of the unit is in Character and Assaults.
So, yeah, have fun with your slippery slope that you think is a flatland.
There are no slippery slopes in Look Out Sir. The Character is a unit in a unit and can allocate wounds to models in its unit. There are no 'Shooting at a Character' rules so normal rules apply when shooting at a independent character.
col_impact wrote: Skyhammer is dealing with charging after coming in from reserves via Deep Strike so its not the same case by any stretch.
Skyhammer deals with a Unit Charging after having the base restriction against it removed for the unit as one of its four rules.
A unit cannot Charge after it comes from Deep Strike. A unit cannot Charge after it arrives from Reserves. A unit cannot Charge after it Runs. Skyhammer grants Assault Marine Squads in its formation to Charge after Arriving from Deep Strike Reserves. Bounding Lope grants Wulfen the ability to Charge after Running.
Sounds like it is pertinent to me.
Does Bounding Lope have anything at all to do with reserves?
Fhionnuisce wrote:This thread seems to be using assault and charge as interchangeable terms which really doesn't work. There are rules prohibiting run and charge but to the best of my knowledge not rules banning running then being dragged into assault. Thus it is not a big stretch to say the FAQ clarifies that bounding lope gives wulfen permission to run and charge when the attached IC can't, overriding BRB norm. The IC doesn't get charge bonus but still gets dragged into assault following normal pile in rules.
Granted it is not as clear as it should be, but that seems the most logical interpretation of wulfen can but IC doesn't benefit. Particularly since nearly every other interpretation concludes wulfen can't use the rule at all with an attached IC, which directly contradicts the FAQ answer.
Nothing is stated that the IC doesn't get the Charge bonus if there are no other factors in play.
In the rulebook, when it comes to the Charge (and Running), the UNIT Charges, and the MODELS Move. Nothing in this is stated when making a Charge move that if a model was in a Run, it cannot make a Charge Move, nor does it state it makes a Disordered Charge (i.e. lose Charge bonus).
Quite simply put, the rules do not cover this situation at all, no matter how disassociated the thinking of Impact is.
The FAQ covers it and tells you that the Wulfen models benefit and can run and charge (while the IC does not). They just have to maintain coherency. So you are required to follow that directive.
Fhionnuisce wrote:This thread seems to be using assault and charge as interchangeable terms which really doesn't work. There are rules prohibiting run and charge but to the best of my knowledge not rules banning running then being dragged into assault. Thus it is not a big stretch to say the FAQ clarifies that bounding lope gives wulfen permission to run and charge when the attached IC can't, overriding BRB norm. The IC doesn't get charge bonus but still gets dragged into assault following normal pile in rules.
Granted it is not as clear as it should be, but that seems the most logical interpretation of wulfen can but IC doesn't benefit. Particularly since nearly every other interpretation concludes wulfen can't use the rule at all with an attached IC, which directly contradicts the FAQ answer.
Nothing is stated that the IC doesn't get the Charge bonus if there are no other factors in play.
In the rulebook, when it comes to the Charge (and Running), the UNIT Charges, and the MODELS Move. Nothing in this is stated when making a Charge move that if a model was in a Run, it cannot make a Charge Move, nor does it state it makes a Disordered Charge (i.e. lose Charge bonus).
Quite simply put, the rules do not cover this situation at all, no matter how disassociated the thinking of Impact is.
It's murky. "All of the models in a charging unit make their charge move..." (page 48) is the sticking point. He counts as having run (as per page 38) The question is whether the statement that he doesn't benefit from the rule means that the model can't both run and charge. If he does, then it really does raise the question of why they would say he wouldn't benefit from bounding lope if that doesn't change his situation at all compared to if he did have the rule. It might be more appropriate to say that Units declare charges, but models charge. Each of the bullet points on page 46 have the phrase "a charging model", so it might be appropriate to look at charging in relation to the models as well as the unit. That would tend to make it clearer, but it's certainly an interpretation that can be argued with. Arguments could be made either way.
I do agree that it's certainly not clear from the rules which way all the rules would fall; there's too many questions for it to not be addressed further by them.
col_impact wrote: I have never said that it acts as the verb "excludes". "Though" is a subordinate conjunction that acts like "but", "however" , and "except" and indicates contrast and exception to the main clause. I think you need to start opening up a few books on grammar!
By no stretch of English does "though still" mean "and still". "And still" is not a subordinating conjuction and does not indicate contrast and exception to the main clause. Your parsing here is plain silly.
But it is how you are using it. You keep saying that this phrase means that they do not count as part of a unit for Character Rules because of that "though".
And yes, it can be used to mean "and still". In a case where something may prevent something from being recognized, it would allow the following phrase to be recognized.
In other words, the following phrase could provide restrictions if what it referenced actually provided any, but they do not. It is stating we cannot disconnect the "Character" from the "Independent Character" while they re joined to a unit.
While I am no English Major or professor, I do read quite a bit of it in both instructional and in conversational type and can understand it quite easily. I may not be able to put all of what I know in fancy terms like "subordinating conjunction", but that doesn't mean I am wrong.
col_impact wrote: There are no slippery slopes in Look Out Sir. The Character is a unit in a unit and can allocate wounds to models in its unit. There are no 'Shooting at a Character' rules so normal rules apply when shooting at a independent character.
So no slippery slopes.
There are slippery slopes in Look Out Sir if we follow your position.
You stated that the reason an Independent Character can move as its own unit is that Character and Movement do not carry the phrase "counts as a member of the unit".
Guess what, the phrase "counts as a member of the unit" does not appear in Look Out Sir! By continuing to use the standards you provided for disconnecting the IC from the unit for movement, I can do the same for Look Out Sir!
col_impact wrote: Does Bounding Lope have anything at all to do with reserves?
Apple meet orange.
Failure to ignore the counter-argument does not help and demonstrates your own lack of semantical judgement. No one said Bounding Lope has anything to do with Reserves, that is inserted by you.
Both are rules against the restrictions against a unit Charging, and both rules in question allow a unit to bypass are noted by the Draft FAQs as not affecting the IC.
Red Delicious meet Granny Smith. (For those unaware, those are two types of apples used for different things).
col_impact wrote: The FAQ covers it and tells you that the Wulfen models benefit and can run and charge (while the IC does not). They just have to maintain coherency. So you are required to follow that directive.
No, it does not cover it. It says the unit benefits, nothing about the Wulfen models. The only models addressed are the ICs, which do not benefit. The Charge Move rules do not care if a model has Run. If you believe otherwise, actually quote the paragraph.
col_impact wrote: I have never said that it acts as the verb "excludes". "Though" is a subordinate conjunction that acts like "but", "however" , and "except" and indicates contrast and exception to the main clause. I think you need to start opening up a few books on grammar!
By no stretch of English does "though still" mean "and still". "And still" is not a subordinating conjuction and does not indicate contrast and exception to the main clause. Your parsing here is plain silly.
But it is how you are using it. You keep saying that this phrase means that they do not count as part of a unit for Character Rules because of that "though".
And yes, it can be used to mean "and still". In a case where something may prevent something from being recognized, it would allow the following phrase to be recognized.
In other words, the following phrase could provide restrictions if what it referenced actually provided any, but they do not. It is stating we cannot disconnect the "Character" from the "Independent Character" while they re joined to a unit.
While I am no English Major or professor, I do read quite a bit of it in both instructional and in conversational type and can understand it quite easily. I may not be able to put all of what I know in fancy terms like "subordinating conjunction", but that doesn't mean I am wrong.
"And still" is a coordinating conjuction. "Though still" is a subordinating conjunction. So your grammar is flat-out wrong here. Time for you to open up a grammar book.
"And still" merely adds two clauses together. "Though still" indicates contrast and exception in the subordinate clause. Time for you to open up a dictionay.
doctortom wrote: It's murky. "All of the models in a charging unit make their charge move..." (page 48) is the sticking point. He counts as having run (as per page 38) The question is whether the statement that he doesn't benefit from the rule means that the model can't both run and charge. If he does, then it really does raise the question of why they would say he wouldn't benefit from bounding lope if that doesn't change his situation at all compared to if he did have the rule. It might be more appropriate to say that Units declare charges, but models charge. Each of the bullet points on page 46 have the phrase "a charging model", so it might be appropriate to look at charging in relation to the models as well as the unit. That would tend to make it clearer, but it's certainly an interpretation that can be argued with. Arguments could be made either way.
I do agree that it's certainly not clear from the rules which way all the rules would fall; there's too many questions for it to not be addressed further by them.
The actual restrictions against Charging are listed as:
Some units are disallowed from charging. Common reasons a unit is not allowed to
declare a charge include:
• The unit is already locked in close combat.
• The unit Ran in the Shooting phase.
• The unit has Gone to Ground.
• The unit shot Rapid Fire weapons, Salvo weapons, Ordnance weapons or Heavy
weapons in the Shooting phase. This even applies if Snap Shots were made with these
weapons.
• The unit is Falling Back.
• The unit is a Flying Monstrous Creature that changed flight modes during this turn.
In every case, the restriction is against the unit itself, nothing on the model. Further on, the only restrictions in the Charge Move listed is in regards to how far a model can move and to where, not if.
Simply put, the base rules do not conceive of a possibility that a model may be put in a position that in which it would not be able to Charge it it was otherwise alone, even though the rest of the unit can. Bounding Lope does not address this fact, nor does the FAQ.
I believe a previous edition did block a unit from Charging if a single model could not make the move, but that is not in the current rulebook.
Interestingly enough, this restriction on unit coherency is counter to the Errata in the current live Rulebook FAQ which allows a unit to become out of coherency while performing a Charge Move.
col_impact wrote: There are no slippery slopes in Look Out Sir. The Character is a unit in a unit and can allocate wounds to models in its unit. There are no 'Shooting at a Character' rules so normal rules apply when shooting at a independent character.
So no slippery slopes.
There are slippery slopes in Look Out Sir if we follow your position.
You stated that the reason an Independent Character can move as its own unit is that Character and Movement do not carry the phrase "counts as a member of the unit".
Guess what, the phrase "counts as a member of the unit" does not appear in Look Out Sir! By continuing to use the standards you provided for disconnecting the IC from the unit for movement, I can do the same for Look Out Sir!
The IC is a 'unit in a unit' so Look Out, Sir rolls work just fine.
col_impact wrote: Does Bounding Lope have anything at all to do with reserves?
Apple meet orange.
Failure to ignore the counter-argument does not help and demonstrates your own lack of semantical judgement. No one said Bounding Lope has anything to do with Reserves, that is inserted by you.
Both are rules against the restrictions against a unit Charging, and both rules in question allow a unit to bypass are noted by the Draft FAQs as not affecting the IC.
Red Delicious meet Granny Smith. (For those unaware, those are two types of apples used for different things).
It means that there are more variables at work. So you can't make a direct comparison, only a loose comparison.
Bounding Lope and For Glory, For Russ is a direct comparison.
Bounding Lope and Skyhammer is a loose comparison.
col_impact wrote: The IC is a 'unit in a unit' so Look Out, Sir rolls work just fine.
But does not count as part of the other unit, per your own attestation.
He always is a unit in a unit. Whether or not he counts as a model in the unit for all purposes is up for question and qualified by the Character rules.
col_impact wrote: It means that there are more variables at work. So you can't make a direct comparison, only a loose comparison.
Bounding Lope and For Glory, For Russ is a direct comparison.
Bounding Lope and Skyhammer is a loose comparison.
Still apples to apples, man. We may be talking about Red Delicious, Granny Smiths, and Honey Crisps, but they are all still apples for the purposes of this discussion.
For Glory, for Russ as much association to Bounding Lope as the Skyhammer rule, First the Fire, then the Blade. For Glory and First the Fire are both detachment rules. Bounding Lope is a unit rule.
But, all of these rules deal with ignoring restrictions on a unit from Charging, and that interaction with joined ICs is what is being addressed. Can you demonstrate how this is not what this post is supposed to be about?
col_impact wrote: [He always is a unit in a unit. Whether or not he counts as a model in the unit for all purposes is up for question and qualified by the Character rules.
And per your own statements, because Character and Movement does not state that he counts as a model in the unit he has joined, we can also ignore Look Out Sir, because it does not state that he counts as model in the unit he has joined. You cannot even follow the rules for your own semantics.
The end phrase to the sentence which establishes an IC as a temporary member of the unit does and can not exclude this membership without the referenced section specifically detailing it. And it does not in the area you identified without making zero sense everywhere else.
col_impact wrote: It means that there are more variables at work. So you can't make a direct comparison, only a loose comparison.
Bounding Lope and For Glory, For Russ is a direct comparison.
Bounding Lope and Skyhammer is a loose comparison.
Still apples to apples, man. We may be talking about Red Delicious, Granny Smiths, and Honey Crisps, but they are all still apples for the purposes of this discussion.
For Glory, for Russ as much association to Bounding Lope as the Skyhammer rule, First the Fire, then the Blade. For Glory and First the Fire are both detachment rules. Bounding Lope is a unit rule.
But, all of these rules deal with ignoring restrictions on a unit from Charging, and that interaction with joined ICs is what is being addressed. Can you demonstrate how this is not what this post is supposed to be about?
The rules for reserves and Deep Striking are not movement rules. My argument is that ICs in a unit can move independently of the unit following only the restrictions of the Character and Moving rule and the Independent Charcter rules, free of the "counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes" clause.
col_impact wrote: [He always is a unit in a unit. Whether or not he counts as a model in the unit for all purposes is up for question and qualified by the Character rules.
And per your own statements, because Character and Movement does not state that he counts as a model in the unit he has joined, we can also ignore Look Out Sir, because it does not state that he counts as model in the unit he has joined. You cannot even follow the rules for your own semantics.
The end phrase to the sentence which establishes an IC as a temporary member of the unit does and can not exclude this membership without the referenced section specifically detailing it. And it does not in the area you identified without making zero sense everywhere else.
When he joins he is a unit in a unit. Or are you struggling with parsing the verb "join"?
col_impact wrote: The rules for reserves and Deep Striking are not movement rules. My argument is that ICs in a unit can move independently of the unit following only the restrictions of the Character and Moving rule and the Independent Charcter rules, free of the "counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes" clause.
We are not talking about the rules for Reserves (Arriving From Reserves involves Movement, btw) and Deep Striking (counts as moving, btw) any more than we are talking about the rules for Running. We are talking about how they affect on the Assault Phase. Do you understand this?
col_impact wrote: [He always is a unit in a unit. Whether or not he counts as a model in the unit for all purposes is up for question and qualified by the Character rules.
And per your own statements, because Character and Movement does not state that he counts as a model in the unit he has joined, we can also ignore Look Out Sir, because it does not state that he counts as model in the unit he has joined. You cannot even follow the rules for your own semantics.
The end phrase to the sentence which establishes an IC as a temporary member of the unit does and can not exclude this membership without the referenced section specifically detailing it. And it does not in the area you identified without making zero sense everywhere else.
When he joins he is a unit in a unit. Or are you struggling with parsing the verb "join"?
I am not, but you do not seem to be understanding what you are saying, much less myself.
Look Out Sir and Shooting does not use the word "join" or "counts as" anywhere in its paragraphs, so there is nothing in there that would state that Characters count as part of the unit they have joined any more than it is stated in Character and Movement.
Since you assert that an Independent Character does not count as part of the unit they joined for movement because Character and Movement does not include the phrase "counts as part of the unit they have joined", then by association, the Independent Character does not count as part of the unit they joined for Look Out Sir, since that phrase is also missing in Look Out Sir and Shooting.
Oddly enough, it would work for Look Out Sir in Assault, since Character and Assault does include the phrase as a reminder (very first sentence).
So, either you are on a slippery slope without realizing it or your assertion is crap. If you can prove otherwise, please quote the whole paragraph in the sidebar which does state this phrase is in it to consider the Independent Character to count as a member of the unit for the purposes of Look Out Sir and Shooting.
col_impact wrote: The rules for reserves and Deep Striking are not movement rules. My argument is that ICs in a unit can move independently of the unit following only the restrictions of the Character and Moving rule and the Independent Charcter rules, free of the "counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes" clause.
We are not talking about the rules for Reserves (Arriving From Reserves involves Movement, btw) and Deep Striking (counts as moving, btw) any more than we are talking about the rules for Running. We are talking about how they affect on the Assault Phase. Do you understand this?
Characters do not have separate rules for arriving from Reserves or Deep Striking. Do you understand this?
col_impact wrote: [He always is a unit in a unit. Whether or not he counts as a model in the unit for all purposes is up for question and qualified by the Character rules.
And per your own statements, because Character and Movement does not state that he counts as a model in the unit he has joined, we can also ignore Look Out Sir, because it does not state that he counts as model in the unit he has joined. You cannot even follow the rules for your own semantics.
The end phrase to the sentence which establishes an IC as a temporary member of the unit does and can not exclude this membership without the referenced section specifically detailing it. And it does not in the area you identified without making zero sense everywhere else.
When he joins he is a unit in a unit. Or are you struggling with parsing the verb "join"?
I am not, but you do not seem to be understanding what you are saying, much less myself.
Look Out Sir and Shooting does not use the word "join" or "counts as" anywhere in its paragraphs, so there is nothing in there that would state that Characters count as part of the unit they have joined any more than it is stated in Character and Movement.
Since you assert that an Independent Character does not count as part of the unit they joined for movement because Character and Movement does not include the phrase "counts as part of the unit they have joined", then by association, the Independent Character does not count as part of the unit they joined for Look Out Sir, since that phrase is also missing in Look Out Sir and Shooting.
Oddly enough, it would work for Look Out Sir in Assault, since Character and Assault does include the phrase as a reminder (very first sentence).
So, either you are on a slippery slope without realizing it or your assertion is crap. If you can prove otherwise, please quote the whole paragraph in the sidebar which does state this phrase is in it to consider the Independent Character to count as a member of the unit for the purposes of Look Out Sir and Shooting.
The Independent Character rules use the word "join" when the IC joins the unit. Does the Independent Character at any time cease to be an Independent Character joined to the unit while he is joined to the unit?
col_impact wrote: Characters do not have separate rules for arriving from Reserves or Deep Striking. Do you understand this?
Both Moving On From Reserves and Deep Striking involve movement or counting as being moved.
Moving On From Reserve When a Reserves unit arrives, it must move onto the table from the controlling player’s table edge.
In that turn’s Shooting phase, these units can fire (or Run, Turbo-boost or move Flat Out) as normal, and count as having moved in the previous Movement phase. Vehicles, except for Walkers, count as having moved at Combat Speed (even Immobilised vehicles). This can affect the number of weapons they can fire with their full Ballistic Skill.
But irrelevant. Again, this topic is not about Reserves or Deep Striking or Running, but about a rule that cancels their affect for the purposes of Charging in the Assault Phase.
We are talking about movement in the Assault Phase. Is that clear?
col_impact wrote: The Independent Character rules use the word "join" when the IC joins the unit. Does the Independent Character at any time cease to be an Independent Character joined to the unit while he is joined to the unit?
Thank you for stating my case regarding this. That's what you have been ignoring when it comes to Character and Movement.
And let's keep up with your previous assessment. Characters are still considered part of the unit in Assault and nothing on ICs counting as their own unit, it is the very first sentence in Character and Assault, so they cannot be considered as their own lone unit for Thrusting (an Assault Phase move) then any more then they can when a Charge occurs.
Your case is crap no matter which way you look at it.
col_impact wrote: Characters do not have separate rules for arriving from Reserves or Deep Striking. Do you understand this?
Both Moving On From Reserves and Deep Striking involve movement or counting as being moved.
Moving On From Reserve When a Reserves unit arrives, it must move onto the table from the controlling player’s table edge.
In that turn’s Shooting phase, these units can fire (or Run, Turbo-boost or move Flat Out) as normal, and count as having moved in the previous Movement phase. Vehicles, except for Walkers, count as having moved at Combat Speed (even Immobilised vehicles). This can affect the number of weapons they can fire with their full Ballistic Skill.
But irrelevant. Again, this topic is not about Reserves or Deep Striking or Running, but about a rule that cancels their affect for the purposes of Charging in the Assault Phase.
We are talking about movement in the Assault Phase. Is that clear?
Incorrect. We are dealing with units that have not arrived from Reserves that turn and that are moving in the Assault Phase. Is that clear?
col_impact wrote: The Independent Character rules use the word "join" when the IC joins the unit. Does the Independent Character at any time cease to be an Independent Character joined to the unit while he is joined to the unit?
Thank you for stating my case regarding this. That's what you have been ignoring when it comes to Character and Movement.
And let's keep up with your previous assessment. Characters are still considered part of the unit in Assault and nothing on ICs counting as their own unit, it is the very first sentence in Character and Assault, so they cannot be considered as their own lone unit for Thrusting (an Assault Phase move) then any more then they can when a Charge occurs.
Your case is crap no matter which way you look at it.
That's not your case. Try to keep up. You are failing to note critical distinctions being made.
An Independent Character joined to a unit will always be an Independent Character joined to the unit while he is joined to the unit. In fact that is simply a tautology pointing out to you that the verb "join" indicates that the IC can claim the unit he joins as his own. At the barest minimum he is always "a unit in a unit"
So really the one thing that fluctuates is whether or not the Independent Character "counts as part of the the unit for all rules purposes". He does not "count as part of the unit for all rules purposes" for the Character rules, and in particular he does not "count as part of the unit for all rules purposes" for the Character and Moving rules.
So the Destroyer Lord attached to a unit of Wraiths gets to do its Thrust move during the Assault Phase and the Wulfen get to do their Bounding Lope move. Pretty nifty
So my argument is solid and you are too entrenched in your failed ways of thinking to admit it.
col_impact wrote: Incorrect. We are dealing with units that have not arrived from Reserves that turn and that are moving in the Assault Phase. Is that clear?
Then you truly miss all the semantics and reasons why it was posted, and is why you didn't understand why I brought up Stubborn or cannot conceive the slippery slope of your interpretation of the last phrase in IC's counting as part of the unit..
Arriving From Reserves and Arriving by Deep Strike both place a limit against Charging in that Turn's Assault Phase just as much as Running does. Understand so far?
First the Fire, Then the Blade allow the Assault Squad units to Charge the same Turn they arrive from Deep Strike. A situation that Assault Squad units from a CAD cannot normally do.
Bounding Lope and For the Glory allow their units to Charge the same Turn they Ran. A situation that move units cannot normally do.
The key phrases here are "allow their unit to Charge the same Turn they". That is what we are supposed to be focusing on since the OP is asking, "So when you charge...".
col_impact wrote: [That's not your case. Try to keep up. You are failing to note critical distinctions being made.
Well, since you are a liar and have been known to constantly misrepresent what I have stated in the past, why should I trust this now?
I know precisely what my case is.
col_impact wrote: An Independent Character joined to a unit will always be an Independent Character joined to the unit while he is joined to the unit. In fact that is simply a tautology pointing out to you that the verb "join" indicates that the IC can claim the unit he joins as his own. At the barest minimum he is always "a unit in a unit"
But according to you,
col_impact wrote: Again, you are conflating these two statements . . .
Spoiler:
While an Independent Character is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes.
Spoiler:
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.
The difference between these two statements is why an Independent Character can move independently of the unit. The Character and Movement rules provide the exception to the "counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes".
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.
The rules for characters are provided as an exception to the clause 'counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes'. Remember, the unit status of the IC is never discarded, unless you can provide a rule for that (specific rules quote only please). So when it comes to movement time the IC has exception to the 'counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes' and can move as a unit onto himself.
So, his being joined to another unit is ignored (not can be, is) for movement since it is part of the Character rules. Now, Look Out Sir rules are part of the Character rules, otherwise a Wulfen Pack Leader would not be able to make a Look Out Sir roll.
Character and Movement provide no exception to being "joined" any more than Look Out Sir does. All it states is that they move as their type, which is all any of the regular Movement rules state. It does not provide any leeway in allowing the IC to move as its own unit while joined to another unit. Only the IC rules provide that leeway, and that is limited to the "Joining and Leaving a Unit" section.
col_impact wrote: So really the one thing that fluctuates is whether or not the Independent Character "counts as part of the the unit for all rules purposes". He does not "count as part of the unit for all rules purposes" for the Character rules, and in particular he does not "count as part of the unit for all rules purposes" for the Character and Moving rules.
Of which, Look Out Sir is a rule. No other model type can perform a Look Out Sir!, however, the basic movement rules allow for models to move at their own speed more than anything in the Character rules.
col_impact wrote: So the Destroyer Lord attached to a unit of Wraiths gets to do its Thrust move during the Assault Phase and the Wulfen get to do their Bounding Lope move. Pretty nifty
Except the Thrust move is during the Assault Phase and ties the Character to all its movements, not its own type. Pay attention.
col_impact wrote: So my argument is solid and you are too entrenched in your failed ways of thinking to admit it.
Either way you look at it my case is golden.
Your case is golden swiss cheese. Not gold, full of holes, and usually cut at an angle from the wedge.
Your case is that you get to pick and choose when an IC counts as part of the unit and when he doesn't. The rules do not allow for this leeway.
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.
And not this way . . .
Spoiler:
While an Independent Character is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes, and he still follows the rules for characters.
How can I keep up with someone who keeps propelling themselves down a slippery slope I have no intention of riding? That's why I keep sending these dummies down the slope which you say cannot be.
col_impact wrote: When a IC is joined to a unit he is always considered joined to the unit.
He is either a unit in a unit.
Or he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes.
True, and look who who is truncating now?
But (and this is where you keep losing me describing your slope) you stated that this does not apply to the final phrase of the sentence which states, "though he still follows the rules for characters", which means that for any Character rules, this does not apply.
Is Look Out Sir! a Character Rule?
Does it specifically state it accounts for the Character being joined to a larger unit?
No quote, no support. You said earlier that Character and Moving does not matter and does not carry the recognition of the IC as part of the unit. Now all of a sudden it matters? Quote the exact line in Character and Moving where it states that the IC is a unit in a 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.
And not this way . . .
Spoiler:
While an Independent Character is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes, and he still follows the rules for characters.
Which you truncated out earlier in this post as if it didn't matter, but matters now. You also indicated that the "though" is exclusionary to the previous statement. Look Out Sir is part of the rules for Characters and is nowhere else (aside from the adjustment made in IC rules).
When an IC joins a unit he is always joined to the unit. He will be either a 'unit in a unit' or 'counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes'.
Most of the time he "counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes".
That clause though is not in effect for the Character rules.
For the Character rules he is a 'unit in a unit'
So Look Out, Sir works just fine.
The Destroyer Lord attached to a unit of wraiths can Thrust move in the Assault phase.
A unit of Wulfen can Bounding Lope when an IC is attached.
If he is a "unit within a unit" (no quote to support that, yet again), then we still adhere to the same premise as used as you are using for Movement. Nothing in Look Out Sir allows for a Wound to be reallocated to the joined unit, just to another model in THE SAME UNIT, not the JOINED UNIT.
If he counts as "part of the unit" and not a "unit within a unit" for Look Out Sir, he counts as "part of the unit" and not a "unit within a unit" for the purposes of Movement. There is no defining differences stated in either section to indicate otherwise. If you can support it, please provide the quote and highlight the relevant passages from these two sections (quotes from IC are irrelevant and will be considered spam).
Now, to further support your claim, find me one paragraph in the entire rulebook that actually states, "unit within a unit" or with any synonyms of "within" to support your assertion. And remember, "Independent Character" does not translate as "unit" anywhere, as it is a model-only rule.
When an IC joins a unit he is always joined to the unit. He will be either a 'unit in a unit' or 'counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes'.
Most of the time he "counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes".
That clause though is not in effect for the Character rules.
For the Character rules he is a 'unit in a unit'
So Look Out, Sir works just fine.
The Destroyer Lord attached to a unit of wraiths can Thrust move in the Assault phase.
A unit of Wulfen can Bounding Lope when an IC is attached.
If he is a "unit within a unit" (no quote to support that, yet again), then we still adhere to the same premise as used as you are using for Movement. Nothing in Look Out Sir allows for a Wound to be reallocated to the joined unit, just to another model in THE SAME UNIT, not the JOINED UNIT.
If he counts as "part of the unit" and not a "unit within a unit" for Look Out Sir, he counts as "part of the unit" and not a "unit within a unit" for the purposes of Movement. There is no defining differences stated in either section to indicate otherwise. If you can support it, please provide the quote and highlight the relevant passages from these two sections (quotes from IC are irrelevant and will be considered spam).
Now, to further support your claim, find me one paragraph in the entire rulebook that actually states, "unit within a unit" or with any synonyms of "within" to support your assertion. And remember, "Independent Character" does not translate as "unit" anywhere, as it is a model-only rule.
1) The IC is a unit. He has an ALE. This is indisputable.
2) There is no rule that takes away his unit onto himself status. This is indisputable.
3) The Independent Character rules allow the IC to join other units. When the IC joins a unit he becomes a part of the unit. That is what "join" means. So based on the definition of "join" the IC is a unit that becomes part of a unit, ie a 'unit in a unit'. The IC is part of the unit he joined and in the same unit as the unit he joined.
4) There is an Independent Character rule that affects all rules interactions except for the Character rules.
Spoiler:
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.
So for all rules interactions except for the Character and Independent Character rules, the IC is a unit that counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes.
5) To underscore, with regards to the Character rules, the IC is a unit that becomes part of a unit, but not necessarily for all rules purposes. The IC can act as a unit onto himself in the context of the Character rules, and in particularly the Character and Moving rules.
6) Look Out Sir works no problem. The IC is in the same unit as the models he would allocate wounds to. The Destroyer Lord is able to Thrust move while attached to a unit of Wraiths. He is able to move as a unit onto himself and is not subject to the "counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes" with regards to movement.
col_impact wrote: My argument is that ICs in a unit can move independently of the unit following only the restrictions of the Character and Moving rule and the Independent Charcter rules, free of the "counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes" clause.
And yet you haven't proven that he moves independently of a unit or provided the actual quotations that have him moving independently other than being able to leave a unit. The Character rules for moving as his model type are not something that has him moving independently of the unit, and there's nothing else in the character section that does. The only thing in the IC rules is special permission to leave a unit. Unless his move is to leave the unit he is still following the "counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes" clause.
col_impact wrote: Incorrect. We are dealing with units that have not arrived from Reserves that turn and that are moving in the Assault Phase. Is that clear?
Well, it that's what you're talking about, units that haven't arrived from reserves that turn don't get to move in the Assault Phase because they're still in reserve and didn't come in at the beginning of the turn. I think you're confusing yourself here.
2) There is no rule that takes away his unit onto himself status. This is indisputable.
Well, other than the section of the rules defining units indicating that he's not counting when he's part of a collection of models. And the part of the rules in Independent Characters that says that when the rest of the unit is killed he again becomes a unit of one - indicating that he wasn't a unit of one before the rest were killed (and shooting down your assertion). And probably other areas too if we did down further. It's very much disputable.
3) The Independent Character rules allow the IC to join other units. When the IC joins a unit he becomes a part of the unit. That is what "join" means. So based on the definition of "join" the IC is a unit that becomes part of a unit, ie a 'unit in a unit'. The IC is part of the unit he joined and in the same unit as the unit he joined.
Nobody disputes he becomes part of the unit. It doesn't say he retains unit status, only that he joins a unit.
4) There is an Independent Character rule that affects all rules interactions except for the Character rules.
Spoiler:
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.
So for all rules interactions except for the Character and Independent Character rules, the IC is a unit that counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes.
But the rules for Characters and for Independent Characters don't deal with units counting as units when they join another unit - except for that "again become a unit of one" thing. So, according to the IC rules, he DOESN'T count as a unit of one while he's joined to the other unit! That means he's merely a part of the unit, a model that has some other special rules he may access.
col_impact wrote: 5) To underscore, with regards to the Character rules, the IC is a unit that becomes part of a unit, but not necessarily for all rules purposes. The IC can act as a unit onto himself in the context of the Character rules, and in particularly the Character and Moving rules.
He the Character rules do not deal with characters acting as units unto themselves. They can't, as not all characters are independent characters, and never count as an independent unit. You seem to have a problem with that concept. The Character and moving rules specifically talk about moving as models of its type, but never say anything about it being a unit. You seem to have a problem with that concept. Since it's not dealing with units, citing it does nothing to back your assertions.
col_impact wrote: 6) Look Out Sir works no problem. The IC is in the same unit as the models he would allocate wounds to. The Destroyer Lord is able to Thrust move while attached to a unit of Wraiths. He is able to move as a unit onto himself and is not subject to the "counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes" with regards to movement.
They normally work with no problem. With what you have asserted for the IC to move independently as a unit within a unit (because you say there's no mentioning of it counting as part of the unit), taking your same logic to other special rules would mean that Look Out Sir wouldn't apply because it doesn't have that clause either. That means you're being inconsistent with your argument. Since we know that Look Out Sir will work for Independent characters joined to the unit, then the argument you're using about movement not saying that the IC counts as part of the unit is invalidated.
col_impact wrote: My argument is that ICs in a unit can move independently of the unit following only the restrictions of the Character and Moving rule and the Independent Charcter rules, free of the "counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes" clause.
And yet you haven't proven that he moves independently of a unit or provided the actual quotations that have him moving independently other than being able to leave a unit. The Character rules for moving as his model type are not something that has him moving independently of the unit, and there's nothing else in the character section that does. The only thing in the IC rules is special permission to leave a unit. Unless his move is to leave the unit he is still following the "counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes" clause.
I have proven in my argument above (see point 5) that the IC can act as a unit onto himself in the context of the Character rules, and in particularly the Character and Moving rules. He simply executes the unit status which was never taken away and which is no longer subject to the counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes" clause.
col_impact wrote: Incorrect. We are dealing with units that have not arrived from Reserves that turn and that are moving in the Assault Phase. Is that clear?
Well, it that's what you're talking about, units that haven't arrived from reserves that turn don't get to move in the Assault Phase because they're still in reserve and didn't come in at the beginning of the turn. I think you're confusing yourself here.
No confusion on my part. Units that were on the battlefield at the beginning of the turn haven't arrived from reserves that turn.
2) There is no rule that takes away his unit onto himself status. This is indisputable.
Well, other than the section of the rules defining units indicating that he's not counting when he's part of a collection of models. And the part of the rules in Independent Characters that says that when the rest of the unit is killed he again becomes a unit of one - indicating that he wasn't a unit of one before the rest were killed (and shooting down your assertion). And probably other areas too if we did down further. It's very much disputable.
3) The Independent Character rules allow the IC to join other units. When the IC joins a unit he becomes a part of the unit. That is what "join" means. So based on the definition of "join" the IC is a unit that becomes part of a unit, ie a 'unit in a unit'. The IC is part of the unit he joined and in the same unit as the unit he joined.
Nobody disputes he becomes part of the unit. It doesn't say he retains unit status, only that he joins a unit.
You have to provide proof that the IC loses his unit status. So far you have failed to do so. For this reason, you cannot dispute this point in my argument.
I have proven in my argument above (see point 5) that the IC can act as a unit onto himself in the context of the Character rules, and in particularly the Character and Moving rules. He simply executes the unit status which was never taken away and which is no longer subject to the counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes" clause.
No, you haven't proven in your argument, because I've shown where your "proof" was fallacious or nonexistent. And, saying he executes the unit status is complete codswallop. If he has that status and can execute it, then why does he need special rules for joining and leaving a unit that can only occur during the movement phase? Since you say his movement is no longer subject to the "counts as" clause, then he would not be subject at any time. And you just resort to "no longer subject to he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes clause statement" without actually bothering to provide the atatements in the Character rules that actually back your point up. I've pointed out how the Characters and Moving rules don't back you up, as there is no mention of unit status, and the Character rules are written to cover both independent and non-independent characterrs, so without a specific mention of them acting as an independent unit there it doesn't apply as proof of being an independent unit. If you can't provide the actual quote from the character ruless, specifically the Character and Moving rules section that you claim backs you up, then you are showing that you have no argument to rely on.
4) There is an Independent Character rule that affects all rules interactions except for the Character rules.
Spoiler:
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.
So for all rules interactions except for the Character and Independent Character rules, the IC is a unit that counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes.
But the rules for Characters and for Independent Characters don't deal with units counting as units when they join another unit - except for that "again become a unit of one" thing. So, according to the IC rules, he DOESN'T count as a unit of one while he's joined to the other unit! That means he's merely a part of the unit, a model that has some other special rules he may access.
"Again become a unit of one" simply means the undoing of the joining and "counts as" clause. So rather than being a unit that counts as part of a unit for all rules purposes he again becomes a unit of one model.
"Again become a unit of one" simply means the undoing of the joining and "counts as" clause. So rather than being a unit that counts as part of a unit for all rules purposes he again becomes a unit of one model.
How hard is it to understand that "again becomes a unit of one" means he wasn't considered a unit of one just before that happened? It seems pretty hard in your case. It doesn't matter if you want to claim that it's an undoing of the joining and "counts as" clause, because even if that is all it is, it still means the rules are that you aren't treating him as a unit of one while he is joined to the other unit. Your argument, therefore, turns out to be irrelevant.
col_impact wrote: 5) To underscore, with regards to the Character rules, the IC is a unit that becomes part of a unit, but not necessarily for all rules purposes. The IC can act as a unit onto himself in the context of the Character rules, and in particularly the Character and Moving rules.
He the Character rules do not deal with characters acting as units unto themselves. They can't, as not all characters are independent characters, and never count as an independent unit. You seem to have a problem with that concept. The Character and moving rules specifically talk about moving as models of its type, but never say anything about it being a unit. You seem to have a problem with that concept. Since it's not dealing with units, citing it does nothing to back your assertions.
I have proven that the IC never relinquishes his unit status and that he is not subject to the "counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes" with regards to the Character rules. So when the IC moves he can freely move as a unit onto himself and is only restricted by the Character rules and the Independent Character rules. This allows the Destroyer Lord to Thrust in the Assault Phase while attached to a unit of Wraiths or the Wulfen models to benefit from Bounding Lope while the attached IC does not.
"Again become a unit of one" simply means the undoing of the joining and "counts as" clause. So rather than being a unit that counts as part of a unit for all rules purposes he again becomes a unit of one model.
How hard is it to understand that "again becomes a unit of one" means he wasn't considered a unit of one just before that happened? It seems pretty hard in your case. It doesn't matter if you want to claim that it's an undoing of the joining and "counts as" clause, because even if that is all it is, it still means the rules are that you aren't treating him as a unit of one while he is joined to the other unit. Your argument, therefore, turns out to be irrelevant.
He was a unit that was part of a unit before he again becomes a unit of one. My argument introduces no contextual problems.
col_impact wrote: 6) Look Out Sir works no problem. The IC is in the same unit as the models he would allocate wounds to. The Destroyer Lord is able to Thrust move while attached to a unit of Wraiths. He is able to move as a unit onto himself and is not subject to the "counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes" with regards to movement.
They normally work with no problem. With what you have asserted for the IC to move independently as a unit within a unit (because you say there's no mentioning of it counting as part of the unit), taking your same logic to other special rules would mean that Look Out Sir wouldn't apply because it doesn't have that clause either. That means you're being inconsistent with your argument. Since we know that Look Out Sir will work for Independent characters joined to the unit, then the argument you're using about movement not saying that the IC counts as part of the unit is invalidated.
See my point 3
Spoiler:
3) The Independent Character rules allow the IC to join other units. When the IC joins a unit he becomes a part of the unit. That is what "join" means. So based on the definition of "join" the IC is a unit that becomes part of a unit, ie a 'unit in a unit'. The IC is part of the unit he joined and in the same unit as the unit he joined.
So Look Out Sir works no problem. The IC is able to allocate the wound to a model in the same unit.
col_impact wrote: 5) To underscore, with regards to the Character rules, the IC is a unit that becomes part of a unit, but not necessarily for all rules purposes. The IC can act as a unit onto himself in the context of the Character rules, and in particularly the Character and Moving rules.
He the Character rules do not deal with characters acting as units unto themselves. They can't, as not all characters are independent characters, and never count as an independent unit. You seem to have a problem with that concept. The Character and moving rules specifically talk about moving as models of its type, but never say anything about it being a unit. You seem to have a problem with that concept. Since it's not dealing with units, citing it does nothing to back your assertions.
I have proven that the IC never relinquishes his unit status and that he is not subject to the "counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes" with regards to the Character rules. So when the IC moves he can freely move as a unit onto himself and is only restricted by the Character rules and the Independent Character rules. This allows the Destroyer Lord to Thrust in the Assault Phase while attached to a unit of Wraiths or the Wulfen models to benefit from Bounding Lope while the attached IC does not.
This is futile. You haven't proven it, you haven't given any quotes to back you up, and when asked for quotes you just go back to "I have proven" blah blah blah. It's time for you to put up some rules quotes from the relevant sections that you claim back you up. Saying the Character rules, especially the Character and Movement rules haven't shown any proof at all. We've shown that him not relinquishing his unit status is disproved by statements in the Independent Character section. If you're not going to post rules quotes to back your statement, as I had done, then just admit you don't have the rules quotes to back you up.
He was a unit that was part of a unit before he again becomes a unit of one. My argument introduces no contextual problems.
That's just plain wrong; it introduces plenty of contextual problems. Charistoph pointing out the Look Out Sir problems and my pointing out that he could be targeted by shooting are just two things indicating there are contextual problems.
col_impact wrote: 6) Look Out Sir works no problem. The IC is in the same unit as the models he would allocate wounds to. The Destroyer Lord is able to Thrust move while attached to a unit of Wraiths. He is able to move as a unit onto himself and is not subject to the "counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes" with regards to movement.
3) The Independent Character rules allow the IC to join other units. When the IC joins a unit he becomes a part of the unit. That is what "join" means. So based on the definition of "join" the IC is a unit that becomes part of a unit, ie a 'unit in a unit'. The IC is part of the unit he joined and in the same unit as the unit he joined.
So Look Out Sir works no problem. The IC is able to allocate the wound to a model in the same unit.
It doesn't work no problem with your interpretation of him being a single unit as well as joined to a unit, specifically how you insisted that for other cases (notably for movement) there had to be in the special rule "this unit is considered part of the unit for xxxx" (in this case, movement). Well, substitue "Look Out, Sir!" for "movement" and your exact argument would say that Look Out, Sir! doesn't work. So, there's something wrong with the argument about needing to have a statement "an independent character joined to the unit is considered part of the unit for xxx" for special rules. Yes, the IC is able to allocate the wound to a model in the same unit. No, the IC can not move independently of the unit except when using the rule for leaving the unit; in any other case he is considered part of the unit for movement. He's not a special snowflake in that case, and you haven't offered the proof otherwise. P
Once again, please quote from the Characters and Movement rules what rule there makes him an independent unit as you insist, or that he gets free movement at any time. Or just admit it's not there.
This is futile. You haven't proven it, you haven't given any quotes to back you up, and when asked for quotes you just go back to "I have proven" blah blah blah. It's time for you to put up some rules quotes from the relevant sections that you claim back you up. Saying the Character rules, especially the Character and Movement rules haven't shown any proof at all. We've shown that him not relinquishing his unit status is disproved by statements in the Independent Character section. If you're not going to post rules quotes to back your statement, as I had done, then just admit you don't have the rules quotes to back you up.
ICs have Army List Entries.
Spoiler:
Each Army List Entry describes a unit of Citadel miniatures and includes everything you will need to know in order to use that unit in a game of Warhammer 40,000.
Therefore ICs are units.
No rule exists that takes away the unit status of the IC.
So when the IC joins a unit he is a unit that is part of the unit he joined.
"He again becomes a unit of one model" means that he is no longer a unit that is part of the unit he joined.
It doesn't work no problem with your interpretation of him being a single unit as well as joined to a unit, specifically how you insisted that for other cases (notably for movement) there had to be in the special rule "this unit is considered part of the unit for xxxx" (in this case, movement). Well, substitue "Look Out, Sir!" for "movement" and your exact argument would say that Look Out, Sir! doesn't work. So, there's something wrong with the argument about needing to have a statement "an independent character joined to the unit is considered part of the unit for xxx" for special rules. Yes, the IC is able to allocate the wound to a model in the same unit. No, the IC can not move independently of the unit except when using the rule for leaving the unit; in any other case he is considered part of the unit for movement. He's not a special snowflake in that case, and you haven't offered the proof otherwise. P
Once again, please quote from the Characters and Movement rules what rule there makes him an independent unit as you insist, or that he gets free movement at any time. Or just admit it's not there.
3) The Independent Character rules allow the IC to join other units. When the IC joins a unit he becomes a part of the unit. That is what "join" means. So based on the definition of "join" the IC is a unit that becomes part of a unit, ie a 'unit in a unit'. The IC is part of the unit he joined and in the same unit as the unit he joined.
5) To underscore, with regards to the Character rules, the IC is a unit that becomes part of a unit, but not necessarily for all rules purposes. The IC can act as a unit onto himself in the context of the Character rules, and in particularly the Character and Moving rules.
The reason that the unit can run and still charge even with an attached IC has nothing to do with units within units. The reason that the unit can run and charge is because the FAQ states that the unit can run and charge.
The FAQ states that the unit can use Bounding Lope even when an IC is attached.
Just like For Glory, For Russ!
Just like Counter charge.
It's very clear.
The only thing that is not clear is how to implement this ruling as the FAQ does not explain what to do with the IC or what "the IC does not benefit" means.
The scenario that makes the most sense to me is that the whole unit runs, but only the wulfen can charge, leaving the IC standing there. Since the unit must maintain coherence, the way this would have to work is for the IC to be out in front so that after the wulfen have charged, the IC is still within 2" of at least one other wulfen.
The only problem with this interpretation is that we are not told what to do if the unit breaks coherency during the charge. Otherwise, it follows the RAW with FAQ answer.
Hardly nonsense. If you follow the rules you wind up with an IC who is a unit that is part of a unit when he joins a unit. There is no rule that takes away his unit status.
A nonsensical approach would be to pretend there is a rule that takes away his unit status.
The FAQ writers seem to share my RAW read of the rules.
Hardly nonsense. If you follow the rules you wind up with an IC who is a unit that is part of a unit when he joins a unit. There is no rule that takes away his unit status.
Therel are definitions for units indicating he isn't, and rules in the independent character rule section that indicate that he is not a "unit of one" (which would be an indication of IC status) when joined to a unit. What isn't in the rules is any indication that he retains unit status when joining a unit, especially given their indications that he isn't treated as a unit at that point.
Hardly nonsense. If you follow the rules you wind up with an IC who is a unit that is part of a unit when he joins a unit. There is no rule that takes away his unit status.
Therel are definitions for units indicating he isn't, and rules in the independent character rule section that indicate that he is not a "unit of one" (which would be an indication of IC status) when joined to a unit. What isn't in the rules is any indication that he retains unit status when joining a unit, especially given their indications that he isn't treated as a unit at that point.
I have already disproved both of your assertions. There is nothing barring an IC from being a unit that is part of a unit when he joins a unit.
Hardly nonsense. If you follow the rules you wind up with an IC who is a unit that is part of a unit when he joins a unit. There is no rule that takes away his unit status.
Therel are definitions for units indicating he isn't, and rules in the independent character rule section that indicate that he is not a "unit of one" (which would be an indication of IC status) when joined to a unit. What isn't in the rules is any indication that he retains unit status when joining a unit, especially given their indications that he isn't treated as a unit at that point.
I have already disproved both of your assertions. There is nothing barring an IC from being a unit that is part of a unit when he joins a unit.
When Overwatching a unit with an attached IC, can you declare the IC as the unit being overwatched?
When Overwatching a unit with an attached IC, can you declare the IC as the unit being overwatched?
Are there separate rules for Character and Overwatch?
If there are no separate rules for Characters and Overwatch then the 'counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes' is in effect.
Spoiler:
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.
Hardly nonsense. If you follow the rules you wind up with an IC who is a unit that is part of a unit when he joins a unit. There is no rule that takes away his unit status.
A nonsensical approach would be to pretend there is a rule that takes away his unit status.
The FAQ writers seem to share my RAW read of the rules.
It is nonsense in that discussing it it is irrelevant to this discussion. Whether or not he is a "unit within a unit" does not change the fact that the FAQ gives permission for the unit to charge with an IC attached.
Hardly nonsense. If you follow the rules you wind up with an IC who is a unit that is part of a unit when he joins a unit. There is no rule that takes away his unit status.
A nonsensical approach would be to pretend there is a rule that takes away his unit status.
The FAQ writers seem to share my RAW read of the rules.
It is nonsense in that discussing it it is irrelevant to this discussion. Whether or not he is a "unit within a unit" does not change the fact that the FAQ gives permission for the unit to charge with an IC attached.
I think the FAQ is only providing a clarification of the rules here and not adding any permission that didn't already exist.
Hardly nonsense. If you follow the rules you wind up with an IC who is a unit that is part of a unit when he joins a unit. There is no rule that takes away his unit status.
A nonsensical approach would be to pretend there is a rule that takes away his unit status.
The FAQ writers seem to share my RAW read of the rules.
It is nonsense in that discussing it it is irrelevant to this discussion. Whether or not he is a "unit within a unit" does not change the fact that the FAQ gives permission for the unit to charge with an IC attached.
I think the FAQ is only providing a clarification of the rules here and not adding any permission that didn't already exist.
I would say that the FAQ stating that the unit still gets the ability but the IC doesn't benefit from it hardly counts as a "clarificaton", given the questions and discussion that ensued from it.
I would say that the FAQ stating that the unit still gets the ability but the IC doesn't benefit from it hardly counts as a "clarificaton", given the questions and discussion that ensued from it.
That's because you are not adhering to the rules as they are written.
I would say that the FAQ stating that the unit still gets the ability but the IC doesn't benefit from it hardly counts as a "clarificaton", given the questions and discussion that ensued from it.
That's because you are not adhering to the rules as they are written.
You don't have to act like that. I was referring to other people in the thread before I got here, whether the IC got to move or not, and does he get a charge bonus. That's nothing to do with what we were talking about most recently, and you don't need to cop an attitude like you are. The RAW certainly isn't as clear on those as you are trying to portray it as being, hence the "clarification" being better off with some further clarification.
You don't have to act like that. I was referring to other people in the thread before I got here, whether the IC got to move or not, and does he get a charge bonus. That's nothing to do with what we were talking about most recently, and you don't need to cop an attitude like you are. The RAW certainly isn't as clear on those as you are trying to portray it as being, hence the "clarification" being better off with some further clarification.
No attitude intended. Many people simply overlook the latter part of this rule.
Spoiler:
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.
