According to the BRBFAQ and the Fracture of Biel-Tan FAQ, this would seem to be yes.
What I mean is that IC's still count as a Kill Point if sniped out of their unit for mission rules, and if an IC dies while in a unit, it can generate a Soulburst action.
So does this mean that rules that call for a unit to be within X" of another unit can be satisfied by an IC joining them?
For example, one of the Reborn Host command Benefits say that units do no take Moral check for losing 25% is they are within 7" of another Reborn Host unit
So does a Farseer joined to a unit of Bike mean that the unit is immune to Moral? I don't see why not. After all, if the Farseer leaves the unit and stays between 3-7" the rule would apply, so why not when he joins the unit.
The previously mentioned FAQ's seem to support his as well.
Another example I can think of if the bonus for the Khorne Murder Horde formation from the Incursion detachment.
Units within range on another unit gain +1 atk. So join the Herald to a Hound unit and both "units" gain +1atk.
I cannot find anything in the BRB that says once an IC is part of a unit, it no longer counts as its own unit, yet everywhere that calls for you to count the number of units says IC's are still separately counted.
They're not still their own unit at all times. For example, you're still not allowed to pick out an IC that's joined to a unit and target only him when shooting at the unit. Things like soulburst seem to be the exceptions which would have to be named, not a precedent for everything.
I'd say that the IC would still fall under the 'count as part of the unit for all rules purposes' statement in the IC rules, and the unit that has him in it would need to be within x" of another unit (with your example, they'd need another unit within 7Z" to not take a Morale check for losing 25%).
This is a concept I have brought up a few times in discussion, and that no one wants to address. Let's think of the ramifications on this for a bit.
IF an IC is still considered its own unit while joined to another: * An IC can be targeted by Shooting and not allowed to Look Out Sir (as you are not targeting the larger unit).
* Any Charge against a unit with an IC joined to it automatically qualifies as a Multiple Charge and becomes Disordered.
And so on.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
doctortom wrote: They're not still their own unit at all times. For example, you're still not allowed to pick out an IC that's joined to a unit and target only him when shooting at the unit.
And, to Galef's point, what tells us that?
doctortom wrote: Things like soulburst seem to be the exceptions which would have to be named, not a precedent for everything.
And, to Galef's point, what tells us that?
doctortom wrote: I'd say that the IC would still fall under the 'count as part of the unit for all rules purposes' statement in the IC rules, and the unit that has him in it would need to be within x" of another unit (with your example, they'd need another unit within 7Z" to not take a Morale check for losing 25%).
What tells us the exception exists and when it doesn't? That is the whole point of the problems with the FAQ in association with a lot of the IC rules. Stubborn is a crappy standard since it doesn't say, nor do the IC rules specify in Stubborn what it is.
I still don't see how being part of a unit stops and IC from being its own.
You cannot target it separately because the IC rules say so. Same for Disordered charge, you haven't declare a charge against 2 units, just the 1 unit that IC was part of.
Either way, I'd wait until an FAQ flat out said you can claim bonuses in this manner, but still. RAW seems to point that way.
Fragile wrote: They are their own unit for some things, and not for others.
Why? Where are the written rules for us to know this without having to be a mind reader?
Galef wrote: You cannot target it separately because the IC rules say so.
Where? I have never seen it stated that you cannot target the IC's unit when it is joined to another unit any more than stop identifying it as its own unit while joined to the other. Your question in your original post is connected for that exact reason. Where it stops being identified as a separate unit is where it stops being able to be targeted separately.
Galef wrote: Same for Disordered charge, you haven't declare a charge against 2 units, just the 1 unit that IC was part of.
But you will be likely engaging a second unit when you do so, the IC's unit. That is the condition for making a Multiple Charge, if you think you can engage a second unit at the same time you Charge your primary target. If you can't engage the IC by your Charge, then it wouldn't engage Multiple Charge, but that can be hard in all but the largest units.
I cannot find anything in the BRB that says once an IC is part of a unit, it no longer counts as its own unit,
The rules for ICs joining units tell us that an IC joined to a unit counts as a part of that unit for all rules purposes.
If you're counting him as a unit in his own right for some rules purposes, he's not counting as a part of the unit he joined for all rules purposes.
Having said that, ICs have always counted separately when they die, although the rules have gone through varying levels of clarity on that issue over the various editions. So yes, ICs joined to a unit still count separately for victory conditions and the like... but for all in-game purposes they are a part of the unit to which they are joined.
insaniak wrote: The rules for ICs joining units tell us that an IC joined to a unit counts as a part of that unit for all rules purposes.
If you're counting him as a unit in his own right for some rules purposes, he's not counting as a part of the unit he joined for all rules purposes.
Having said that, ICs have always counted separately when they die, although the rules have gone through varying levels of clarity on that issue over the various editions. So yes, ICs joined to a unit still count separately for victory conditions and the like... but for all in-game purposes they are a part of the unit to which they are joined.
The issue is that ICs are not mentioned as counting as a separate unit for the purposes of Soulburst (so far as anyone has mentioned). As for the case of counting Kill Points, those are at the end of the game when an IC would have been separated from the unit.
The problem is that there are situations where there are several FAQs are stating to treat the IC as its own unit, even though the rules they are answering never mention Independent Characters at all, much less to be considered as their own unit.
ICs are never stated as returning to being their own unit when they are removed as a casualty. The only time that would even qualify is that the IC is no longer in Unit Coherence, but that is not in consideration till after the owning player's next Movement Phase or the end of the game.
Then, when GW has a chance to make actual adjustments to the rules and change the wording in the rulebook so everyone can follow along, they present weird House Rule answers which defy the wording in the book as if they have never read them (which may be possible for the FAQ staff, I don't know), instead.
The fact that they still haven't fixed IC psykers joining other units is more than enough proof that whoever is currently in charge of the rules has no idea how ICs actually work.
Within that framework, the FAQ answers are confusing, but not surprising.
insaniak wrote: The rules for ICs joining units tell us that an IC joined to a unit counts as a part of that unit for all rules purposes.
If you're counting him as a unit in his own right for some rules purposes, he's not counting as a part of the unit he joined for all rules purposes.
Having said that, ICs have always counted separately when they die, although the rules have gone through varying levels of clarity on that issue over the various editions. So yes, ICs joined to a unit still count separately for victory conditions and the like... but for all in-game purposes they are a part of the unit to which they are joined.
The issue is that ICs are not mentioned as counting as a separate unit for the purposes of Soulburst (so far as anyone has mentioned). As for the case of counting Kill Points, those are at the end of the game when an IC would have been separated from the unit.
The problem is that there are situations where there are several FAQs are stating to treat the IC as its own unit, even though the rules they are answering never mention Independent Characters at all, much less to be considered as their own unit.
ICs are never stated as returning to being their own unit when they are removed as a casualty. The only time that would even qualify is that the IC is no longer in Unit Coherence, but that is not in consideration till after the owning player's next Movement Phase or the end of the game.
Then, when GW has a chance to make actual adjustments to the rules and change the wording in the rulebook so everyone can follow along, they present weird House Rule answers which defy the wording in the book as if they have never read them (which may be possible for the FAQ staff, I don't know), instead.
The Yannari FAQ states that an IC killed within a unit triggers Soul Burst.
doctortom wrote: They're not still their own unit at all times. For example, you're still not allowed to pick out an IC that's joined to a unit and target only him when shooting at the unit.
And, to Galef's point, what tells us that?
doctortom wrote: Things like soulburst seem to be the exceptions which would have to be named, not a precedent for everything.
And, to Galef's point, what tells us that?.
The answer to both - "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." is the rule in the Independent character section. Barring any other specific rules overriding that, that would be the operative rule. We know now that soulburst is an exception as it has been FAQ'd that way. We know special rules transfer between the IC and the rest of the unit don't work the way they do with a normal unit because of what it says about special rules in the IC section - a listed exception. But, to turn your last question around, what would tell us the Soulburst FAQ is a precedent to be used for all circumstances? (i.e., how does the Soulburst FAQ justify being able to pick out an attached IC when shooting at a unit?)
doctortom wrote: I'd say that the IC would still fall under the 'count as part of the unit for all rules purposes' statement in the IC rules, and the unit that has him in it would need to be within x" of another unit (with your example, they'd need another unit within 7Z" to not take a Morale check for losing 25%).
What tells us the exception exists and when it doesn't? That is the whole point of the problems with the FAQ in association with a lot of the IC rules. Stubborn is a crappy standard since it doesn't say, nor do the IC rules specify in Stubborn what it is.
What tells us when the exception exists is when there is a written rule or a FAQ answer that has you treat the IC differently. Obviously. Otherwise, you're not allowed to assume that he gets treated differently. I do agree with you though that they have done a piss poor job with the FAQs in relation to the IC rules (some of which is a carryover from problems with the original IC rules, but others being a blatant reversal of what they had originally said). If other things need to change in how to handle different situations in regards to IC's, they need to FAQ those situations since they've made a hash of being able to predict how they might handle the ICs in a FAQ.
I am not saying that the following is any kind of proof for my point, however:
Where does it say that being part of another unit causes a model to stop being it's own unit? You can be considered as part of a unit for all rules purposes and still be a separate entity (which is clearly the intent for Psykers).
I agree that being part of a unit prevents being singled out as targeting the IC that is part of a unit means you have to also target his unit, which would then fall unit the rules for allocating to the closest model, LoS, etc.
And Disordered charge occurs if you A) declare a charge against multiple units or B) charge a unit with defensive grenades. Being in combat with 2 units does not inherently cause a Disordered charge.
Galef wrote: I am not saying that the following is any kind of proof for my point, however:
Where does it say that being part of another unit causes a model to stop being it's own unit? You can be considered as part of a unit for all rules purposes and still be a separate entity (which is clearly the intent for Psykers).
I agree that being part of a unit prevents being singled out as targeting the IC that is part of a unit means you have to also target his unit, which would then fall unit the rules for allocating to the closest model, LoS, etc.
And Disordered charge occurs if you A) declare a charge against multiple units or B) charge a unit with defensive grenades. Being in combat with 2 units does not inherently cause a Disordered charge.
-
No, if you're part of a unit for all rules purposes, then you're not still a separate entity for those rules purposes unless a specific rule specifiies it - the prevention of being singled out for targeting is the gold standard for showing this. Yes, there are exceptions. Victory/Kill Points had been an exception for quite a while. The "psychic units" section (especially in relation to ICs) looks to have been written by a drunken monkey on an ether binge and desperately needs rewriting to make it clear how to handle psykers (another exception - sometimes - for ICs). Soulburst seems to be a decision they pulled out of their butts which contradicts the rules; we can't predict what else they might handle that contradicts the rule, though, so we can't assume that it's contradicted unless we have some kind of proof that the specific rule contradicts it.
doctortom wrote:The answer to both - "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." is the rule in the Independent character section. Barring any other specific rules overriding that, that would be the operative rule. We know now that soulburst is an exception as it has been FAQ'd that way. We know special rules transfer between the IC and the rest of the unit don't work the way they do with a normal unit because of what it says about special rules in the IC section - a listed exception. But, to turn your last question around, what would tell us the Soulburst FAQ is a precedent to be used for all circumstances? (i.e., how does the Soulburst FAQ justify being able to pick out an attached IC when shooting at a unit?)
The FAQs are the problem. They are providing exceptions which are not part of the individual rules without actually changing the written rules. It would be like being pulled over for going 25 mph past an elementary school at 2am on a Saturday. (for reference, most US states have laws limiting speed to 15 mph around elementary schools during school hours).
As for what would justify it? The IC is being considered a separate unit before it has had a chance to be considered removed under its own rules. This is a consideration not having been referenced in the Soulburst rule (or anywhere else), so it must be justified by the lack of specific direction to ignore the IC's unit status when it is joined to a unit.
To go further to the point, does this mean that ICs do not count against the models removed from a unit for Morale Checks?
Note: While I don't consider this a valid consideration, I also think the FAQ answers are crap and deliberately making up things on a whim rather than taking the effort to actually amend the rule in a proper form. These FAQ answers just open up crazy holes in the game's logic without any basis.
doctortom wrote:What tells us when the exception exists is when there is a written rule or a FAQ answer that has you treat the IC differently. Obviously. Otherwise, you're not allowed to assume that he gets treated differently. I do agree with you though that they have done a piss poor job with the FAQs in relation to the IC rules (some of which is a carryover from problems with the original IC rules, but others being a blatant reversal of what they had originally said). If other things need to change in how to handle different situations in regards to IC's, they need to FAQ those situations since they've made a hash of being able to predict how they might handle the ICs in a FAQ.
Where is the written rule to base the FAQ answer on, though? That is my point and question. Soulburst does not provide it, so when a similar rule comes along, but is sufficiently different, how are we to know?
It really is a sad state of affairs and FAQs like this caused me to sell my Necron Decurion.
Galef wrote:I agree that being part of a unit prevents being singled out as targeting the IC that is part of a unit means you have to also target his unit, which would then fall unit the rules for allocating to the closest model, LoS, etc.
HIS unit is only one model, though. The IC is considered part of the unit he joins, the unit is not considered part of the IC's unit. If I can recognize and consider the IC as a unit at any time, I can target the Chaplain unit in the Crusader Squad and there will be no other models within that unit for him to Look Out Sir to.
doctortom wrote:And Disordered charge occurs if you A) declare a charge against multiple units or B) charge a unit with defensive grenades. Being in combat with 2 units does not inherently cause a Disordered charge.
Which is what I stated. If you Charge a unit with an IC that is still recognized as his own unit. Remember the conditions for making a Multiple Charge:
Secondary targets are other targets of opportunity that you think the charging unit can engage at the same time as the primary assault.
Do you think you can engage the IC's unit when Charging the unit it is in?
Consider from there, while doing Charges, you cannot go in to base contact with a unit you are not Charging and must stay at least 1" away from them. If we are recognizing the IC as its own unit while joined to another, you would not be able to move in to base contact with the IC without Charging. If you are going to Charge the IC at the same time as you Charge the unit it is joined to, then it becomes a Multiple Charge, and so Disordered.
There are just too many problems with considering the IC as its own unit while joined to another. There are too many problems that arise from GW's lack of rule planning. There are too many problems that arise from GW's FAQ team making up rules out of thin air without changing the written rules. To be fair, I think that GW will AoS Independent Characters in the next edition rather than deal with all the problems that arise from it, or at least one can hope they simplify it enough so they can run that way.
Fragile wrote: They are their own unit for some things, and not for others.
Why? Where are the written rules for us to know this without having to be a mind reader?
This discussion is rehashed numerous times, usually when talking about Psychic Powers. The quote " they count as the unit for all rules purposes" is contradicted by numerous examples in the rules where they dont. Psychic Powers, Formation benefits, First blood are just easily examples of where they are "dont count as part of the unit for all rules purposes."
So, sometimes they are, sometimes they are not. It all depends on the context of what you are talking about.
So, sometimes they are, sometimes they are not. It all depends on the context of what you are talking about.
Which brings me back around to the reason I posted the question.
Why do units get a "proximity" bonus if an IC is 3" away from them, but not if that IC is 2" (and thus joined). It makes no sense. I bought 2 units and the detachment benefit says when 2 or more units are X" from another, I get X bonus. It should be that simple.
The IC is within 2" of a unit. Both units gain the bonus AND the IC is part of the unit.
If you're resolving a rule as if the IC is a separate unit, then you're not treating him as a part of the unit for all rules purposes.
This is what I disagree with. An IC is both his own unit AND part of another. He doesn't have to be "separate" to be considered within range of his own unit. All rules can consider him part of the unit without meaning that he is no longer his own entity.
I guess this is probably why I have never had any issues with the way the Psychic phase is written. And why every FAQ relating to said phase just seemed so obvious to me. But by sheer virtue of this issue being so ..."contested", you'll find comfort in the fact I have no plans to pull this in any of my games
If you're resolving a rule as if the IC is a separate unit, then you're not treating him as a part of the unit for all rules purposes.
This is what I disagree with. An IC is both his own unit AND part of another. He doesn't have to be "separate" to be considered within range of his own unit.
All rules can consider him part of the unit without meaning that he is no longer his own entity.
I guess this is probably why I have never had any issues with the way the Psychic phase is written. And why every FAQ relating to said phase just seemed so obvious to me.
But by sheer virtue of this issue being so ..."contested", you'll find comfort in the fact I have no plans to pull this in any of my games
-
It doesn't matter if he's the same unit and part of another. Since you're told that for all rules purposes you treat him as part of the unit, then unless there's a specific exception listed you ignore him being his own unit for any rules purposes. That means when it comes time to measure how close the unit is to another unit, you're trying to resolve some game rules and he counts as part of the unit for that purpose. There's nothing in the rules explicitly stating he counts as his own unit when joined with another for purposes of measuring distances to another unit.
Fragile wrote: They are their own unit for some things, and not for others.
Why? Where are the written rules for us to know this without having to be a mind reader?
This discussion is rehashed numerous times, usually when talking about Psychic Powers. The quote " they count as the unit for all rules purposes" is contradicted by numerous examples in the rules where they dont. Psychic Powers, Formation benefits, First blood are just easily examples of where they are "dont count as part of the unit for all rules purposes."
So, sometimes they are, sometimes they are not. It all depends on the context of what you are talking about.
Really? Let's review the list and look at the written rules and the FAQs. You'll find that NOTHING considers them as "their own unit" when joined to another for some things and not for another.
Pyskers:
BRB
For the purposes of all rules, the term ‘Psyker’ and ‘Psyker unit’ refers to any unit with the Psyker, Psychic Pilot or Brotherhood of Psykers/Sorcerers special rules.
...
...Then, select a psychic power known to the selected unit that the unit has not already attempted to manifest in this Psychic phase.
FAQ
Q: If a unit includes multiple Psykers – e,g, Independent Characters, or Brotherhood of Psykers – can they cast the same power (e.g. Psychic Shriek) multiple times, once for each Psyker?
A: No.
The rulebook carries ZERO rules about Formation Benefits in regards to Independent Characters. As far as the rulebook is concerned, Formation Benefits are nothing more than another set of Special Rules. That is a pure FAQ answer that is their preferred way to play it and the answer does not match any written rule. If you can reference it, please provide the BRB source for:
{T}he rules for Detachments and Formations only apply to models/units that are part of the Detachment or Formation. If a Formation or Detachment must appear on a certain turn, that will preclude Independent Characters who do not have the appropriate special rule from joining that unit.
The Formation special rules themselves do not apply to characters that join the Formation (unless specifically stated otherwise), although they may confer other special rules which do apply to characters that have joined units, such as Stealth or Stubborn.
Keep in mind that Stubborn is the standard and guide, and Stubborn can only give to and from the IC when it is part of a unit. The phrase using "have" means nothing as possession is not synonymous with giving. Even the rule that states the Special Rules do not automatically confer say NOTHING about the IC being its own unit.
First Blood is tallied at the end of the game, not during the game.
First Blood The first unit, of any kind, to be completely destroyed during the game is worth 1 Victory Point to the opposing player at the end of the game.
By which point, the casualty IC is not part of the unit because it has been removed from coherency.
So, again, please show me where it explicitly says, "the IC is not considered part of the unit for this rule"?
Galef wrote:All rules can consider him part of the unit without meaning that he is no longer his own entity.
I have already demonstrated why it is not wise to recognize an IC's unit when it is joined to another. Our choices are the IC's unit identity is completely subsumed by the unit it joins or he can be shot independently, all Charges which will engage an IC must be Disordered, and it means we get to ignore, "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."
NO where does it allow you to pick out an IC out of a unit to shoot at it unless specific circumstances are in place. Off the top of my head
1. Precision shot from a sniper
2. Focused Witchfire
using either of these for example from CSM allows you to roll on the boon table, so it is possible to do this under special circumstances. barring other special rules I am not familiar with it would be impossible. Now when it comes to victory points if you wipe out a unit that had and IC in it thats 2 kill points. So yes, it counts as its own unit, You cant deny kill points by matching up ICs with other units. There are in game examples and rules that say they are both their own unit and a part of that unit.
That is the precedent I would use to say the FAQ is correct.
Fragile wrote: Charistoph you really need to learn to use the Search key, you will find all these laid out clearly over many months.
If a Librarian joins a Tac squad, can the Librarian cast Powers? Please cite your rules to support.
Actually the rules get more muddled when you have IC pskyers joining other units with psychic powers. There's been plenty of discussions over the last few months with some of the things being debated repeatedly. One thing that's become apparent is the absolute hash they made of things by using the term "psyker unit" and not suitably differentiating from a normal "unit".
Fragile wrote:Charistoph you really need to learn to use the Search key, you will find all these laid out clearly over many months.
I have seen many of those discussions, and participated in some. People seem to brush things off without properly addressing them no matter how many times I ask. Your response is more of someone who is unwilling to accept the challenge.
Fragile wrote:
If a Librarian joins a Tac squad, can the Librarian cast Powers? Please cite your rules to support.
I quoted it above. Where does it state the Librarian gets to be a separate unit while joined to another unit in the Psychic Powers? At least properly reference them if you do not wish to cite them.
redleger wrote:NO where does it allow you to pick out an IC out of a unit to shoot at it unless specific circumstances are in place. Off the top of my head
Then you completely missed the point of the statement.
IF an IC can be identified as its own unit, then one can choose to shoot at the IC's unit. If this is while the IC is joined to another unit, say, a Chaplain in a Crusader Squad, then I can choose to shoot at the Chaplain unit. The Sword Brother, Neophytes, and Initiaties would not be part of the Chaplain unit, so not available to have Wounds allocated to them. Since the Wounds cannot be allocated to anything else, Look Out Sir would not be available.
Do you understand now?
The only acceptable alternative is that ICs are not recognized as their own unit when joined to another. I have yet to see one single rule that allows the IC to be singled out as a UNIT when joined to another unit. As models, yes, most definitely, but not as units.
Fragile wrote:Charistoph you really need to learn to use the Search key, you will find all these laid out clearly over many months.
I have seen many of those discussions, and participated in some. People seem to brush things off without properly addressing them no matter how many times I ask. Your response is more of someone who is unwilling to accept the challenge.
Fragile wrote:
If a Librarian joins a Tac squad, can the Librarian cast Powers? Please cite your rules to support.
I quoted it above. Where does it state the Librarian gets to be a separate unit while joined to another unit in the Psychic Powers? At least properly reference them if you do not wish to cite them.
That was a simple yes or no question that your avoiding. But I will help you. The answer clearly under the rules is No, but that is not how the game is played.
Fragile wrote: That was a simple yes or no question that your avoiding. But I will help you. The answer clearly under the rules is No, but that is not how the game is played.
I am not avoiding it, You did not ask for a simple yes or no, you asked for citation as well. I cited the rules above. Can you not establish why you think it is No?
It gets more fun with the Librarian joined to a unit that has Brotherhood of Psykers. If the IC uses a power that requires measuring range, do you measure to the Librarian or one of the models with the BoP special rule? If the Librarian gets a Perils of the Warp result, does the Librarian suffer it, or is the Peril randomly allocated to one of the models with BoP? RAW, it's all done through the BoP unit according to the BoP rules. All this indicates is how poor a job they did writing the psyker rules and referring to "pskyer units" without adequate explanation (especially differentiating between psyker units and regular units, and how to handle IC's joining BoP units).. And, even here, he counts as part of the unit for things like not casting the same power twice but counts as separate from other pskyers he's joined to when figuring out warp charges generated. Inconsistent.
doctortom wrote: ...but counts as separate from other pskyers he's joined to when figuring out warp charges generated.
This is not actually a rule.
We're not given any way to determine how many Warp Charges are generated by a psyker IC joined to another unit, other than in the one specific example given in the FAQ without the corresponding explanation that would make it an actual, useful answer.
From the FAQ answer, are the warp charges equal to the charges that the psykers would generate separately? The answer to that is the answer for determining how many Warp Charges are generated by a psyker IC joined to another unit.
doctortom wrote: From the FAQ answer, are the warp charges equal to the charges that the psykers would generate separately? The answer to that is the answer for determining how many Warp Charges are generated by a psyker IC joined to another unit.
No, the answer given in the FAQ is an answer to one specific example. It tells us nothing about how to determine how many Warp Charges are generated by any other combination of psykers.
doctortom wrote: From the FAQ answer, are the warp charges equal to the charges that the psykers would generate separately? The answer to that is the answer for determining how many Warp Charges are generated by a psyker IC joined to another unit.
No, the answer given in the FAQ is an answer to one specific example. It tells us nothing about how to determine how many Warp Charges are generated by any other combination of psykers.
What other combinations of Psykers are you thinking that does not apply to?
What other combinations of Psykers are you thinking that does not apply to?
Any combination that isn't a Level 2 Librarian joined to a Level 1 Grey Knights Strike Squad...?
That seems an overly legalistic interpretation of that FAQ. It did address ICs inside another unit do still count for their own ML despite the poorly written Psychic rules.
Except it didn't. All it did is show that in that specific example, the psyker unit for some reason generates 3 warp charges.
While we can assume from that answer that we're supposed to just add the two MLs together, since GW didn't bother to show their working, it's only an assumption.
What they should have said was that despite what the psychic phase rules appear to say, IC psykers joined to other units still count as a separate psyker unit in their own right. That would have answered the warp charges question and at the same time resolved pretty much all of the other issues with joined psykers in the current rules... The only outlier would have been the 'multiple powers from the same unit' issue, which was answered elsewhere.
Instead, they gave a half-baked 'answer' that shows that they clearly don't understand why people were actually asking that question.
insaniak wrote: Except it didn't. All it did is show that in that specific example, the psyker unit for some reason generates 3 warp charges.
While we can assume from that answer that we're supposed to just add the two MLs together, since GW didn't bother to show their working, it's only an assumption.
Can you come up with some other way of arriving at 3 that isn't a ridiculous answer?
Define 'ridiculous answer' within the context of the current psychic rules? GW quite clearly don't understand their own rules here, so any answer is suspect unless they actually explain their reasoning.
To be clear, I completely agree that we're supposed to just add them together. Or, more precisely, that in that scenario the Librarian generates his 2 and the squad generates their 1 because we're supposed to be still treating them as separate psyker units.
My point was simply that the rules don't actually say that, and we should never be left in a situation where we are relying on assumption to determine how a rule works. Particularly not when it would have been so easily resolved if they had taken the time to determine what the actual problem was that people were asking about.
insaniak wrote: To be clear, I completely agree that we're supposed to just add them together. Or, more precisely, that in that scenario the Librarian generates his 2 and the squad generates their 1 because we're supposed to be still treating them as separate psyker units.
But (and I think you acknowledge this in your posts) GW also seems to be saying we're not supposed to be treating them as separate psyker units, since you may only attempt a specific power once, regardless of how many psyker units are joined together.
The contradictions lend credence to the confusion.
There's no contradiction there. The restriction on casting the same power twice is specifically on the unit, not the psyker unit.
If we're assuming, as the FAQ seems to, that a unit can consist of multiple psyker units, then you get to add up the Mastery levels of each of them for determining warp charges, and they each cast independently... But multiple psykers in the unit can't cast the same power.
Fragile wrote: Well, it is a contradiction because they are indeed treated as separate units while at the same time not being treated as separate units.
You are missing what is causing them to be treated as separate units in your case.
Fragile wrote: There is nothing. "for all rules purposes" is obviously not the case in many situations.
Then why make the assertion that, "it is a contradiction because they are indeed treated as separate units" when there is nothing to support causing them to be treated as separate units?
Fragile wrote: There is nothing. "for all rules purposes" is obviously not the case in many situations.
Then why make the assertion that, "it is a contradiction because they are indeed treated as separate units" when there is nothing to support causing them to be treated as separate units?
He is making a statement that is perfectly descriptive of the state of the rules as they are.
The IC Special Rules rule is one example of a rule that requires the IC to be handled separably from the unit the IC joins.
Fragile wrote: There is nothing. "for all rules purposes" is obviously not the case in many situations.
Then why make the assertion that, "it is a contradiction because they are indeed treated as separate units" when there is nothing to support causing them to be treated as separate units?
I have, A librarian attached to a Tac Squad cannot cast powers by RAW. Clearly the only way to do it is to treat them as separate units for certain situations, which tend to occur often.
Fragile wrote: There is nothing. "for all rules purposes" is obviously not the case in many situations.
Then why make the assertion that, "it is a contradiction because they are indeed treated as separate units" when there is nothing to support causing them to be treated as separate units?
I have, A librarian attached to a Tac Squad cannot cast powers by RAW. Clearly the only way to do it is to treat them as separate units for certain situations, which tend to occur often.
You skipped over the rules that set that up. It's just a baseless assertion without them..
If an IC is it's own unit when joined to another, then a tactical objective that requires 3 units to be in the opponents board half/deployment zone would be achieved if one unit with 2 attached ICs were in the designated zone. I've never seen it played this way personally.
Poly Ranger wrote: If an IC is it's own unit when joined to another, then a tactical objective that requires 3 units to be in the opponents board half/deployment zone would be achieved if one unit with 2 attached ICs were in the designated zone. I've never seen it played this way personally.
Another good point against recognizing the IC's unit when joined to another.
In order to effectively treat them as their own unit, we need instructions to treat them as their own unit, or some crazy stuff happens as we can do it on a whim. The owning player can use it when receiving a Charge or Scoring, while the Attacking Player can use it to single them out while Shooting. It's a lose-lose situation.
Fragile wrote: There is nothing. "for all rules purposes" is obviously not the case in many situations.
Then why make the assertion that, "it is a contradiction because they are indeed treated as separate units" when there is nothing to support causing them to be treated as separate units?
I have, A librarian attached to a Tac Squad cannot cast powers by RAW. Clearly the only way to do it is to treat them as separate units for certain situations, which tend to occur often.
You skipped over the rules that set that up. It's just a baseless assertion without them..
You keep saying this. Perhaps you can explain how a Tac squad casts a Psychic power?
To manifest a psychic power, you will first need to select one of your Psyker units
Note you select a "unit" not a model.
For the purposes of all rules, the term ‘Psyker’ and ‘Psyker unit’ refers to any unit with the Psyker, Psychic Pilot or Brotherhood of Psykers/Sorcerers special rules.
The Librarian "he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes, though he still follows the rules for characters" so he is not his own unit at this point.
Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule), the unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character’s special rules are not conferred upon the unit
So the Psyker rule does not transfer to the unit since the rule does not explicitly say it transfers.
A model with this special rule is a Psyker. This rule is typically presented with a Mastery Level, shown in brackets – if no Mastery Level is shown then that model has a Mastery Level of 1. Rules for generating and manifesting psychic powers can be found in the Psychic phase section.
But clearly you can select the Librarian out of the middle of that unit and use its powers, hence it is still a unit while within another unit. And there are several examples in the rules where this happens unlike your black and white view that clearly fails in RAW aspects all the way around.
But clearly you can select the Librarian out of the middle of that unit and use its powers, hence it is still a unit while within another unit.
It's not, though. You can select the Librarian out of the middle of the unit because in that situation 'psyker unit and 'unit' aren't supposed to be the same thing.
He's a part of the unit, but he's supposed to still be a separate psyker unit.
For the purposes of all rules, the term ‘Psyker’ and ‘Psyker unit’ refers to any unit with the Psyker, Psychic Pilot or Brotherhood of Psykers/Sorcerers special rules.
The Librarian "he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes, though he still follows the rules for characters" so he is not his own unit at this point.
This is the key paragraph which establishes it. The Psyker rule is in the unit when a Librarian is in the Tac Squad.
Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule), the unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character’s special rules are not conferred upon the unit
So the Psyker rule does not transfer to the unit since the rule does not explicitly say it transfers.
Stubborn never says it confers, either, actually, but that's besides the point and way off tangent. The Psyker unit definition you quoted earlier above would satisfy that for the Tac Squad as much as it would for the Librarian standing alone (Psyker special rule states the model has it, not the unit).
Fragile wrote: But clearly you can select the Librarian out of the middle of that unit and use its powers, hence it is still a unit while within another unit. And there are several examples in the rules where this happens unlike your black and white view that clearly fails in RAW aspects all the way around.
But you haven't quoted where we can single out the Librarian as a unit in order for them to cast Psyker powers. You are making assumptions based on what you want to do, not where it actually states to do so.
Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule), the unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the Independent Character’s special rules are not conferred upon the unit
So the Psyker rule does not transfer to the unit since the rule does not explicitly say it transfers.
Stubborn never says it confers, either, actually,
Incorrect. Stubborn specifically confers the ability of Stubborn from a model with the Stubborn special rule on its datasheet to the unit that contains the model.
All of this is very relevant. The IC Special Rules rule is one example of a rule that requires the IC to be handled as NOT part of the unit for rules purposes.
But clearly you can select the Librarian out of the middle of that unit and use its powers, hence it is still a unit while within another unit.
It's not, though. You can select the Librarian out of the middle of the unit because in that situation 'psyker unit and 'unit' aren't supposed to be the same thing.
He's a part of the unit, but he's supposed to still be a separate psyker unit.
You just made a grand assertion of RAI, which I agree with. But RAW you are completely incorrect. Psyker unit is clearly defined. Transferring rules is clearly defined. Neither of which apply here.
The assertion of RAI was yours - the assumption that the psyker in the squad is supposed to be able to still cast powers. My response was in that context.
This is a pretty silly argument. If Ahriman (ML4) joins a unit of Rubric Marines with an Aspiring Sorcerer(ML1) then that unit generates 5 WC. This is so clear I am not sure why there is an argument. Who even think that ICs and the unit they are attached to seem to interact in any weird way. In my 3 years this has never been an issue. The only time it becomes weird, which was cleared up, is formation rules. And even the GKFAQ muddied that up, but it is written clear regardless.
redleger wrote: This is a pretty silly argument. If Ahriman (ML4) joins a unit of Rubric Marines with an Aspiring Sorcerer(ML1) then that unit generates 5 WC. This is so clear I am not sure why there is an argument. Who even think that ICs and the unit they are attached to seem to interact in any weird way. In my 3 years this has never been an issue. The only time it becomes weird, which was cleared up, is formation rules. And even the GKFAQ muddied that up, but it is written clear regardless.
That's not the only time it becomes weird. Join a Librarian to a unit with the Brotherhood of Psykers rule. According to the BoP special rule, "this unit"t would manifest range and line of sight from any model with the rule, and "if this unit suffers Perils of the Warp, or is hit by a an attack that specifically targets psykers, the hits are Randomly Allocated amonst models with the Bortherhood of Psykers/Sorcerers special rule." A Librarian joined to that unit is part of the unit, so going by the RAW of that statement, any powers cast by the Librarian would have range and line of sight measured from any model in the unit, and if he rolls Perils it will be one of the other members of the unit with BoP instead of him suffering the results of the Perils. Ablative Perils wounds for the Librarian by RAW!
redleger wrote: This is a pretty silly argument. If Ahriman (ML4) joins a unit of Rubric Marines with an Aspiring Sorcerer(ML1) then that unit generates 5 WC. This is so clear I am not sure why there is an argument. .
To show why there is argument: explain why the unit in your example generates 5 Warp Charges.
Now if im reading this thread correctly, your asking if the IC is still considered their own unit when joined to a squad.
The short answer is yes with exceptions
The long answer is...... complicated
First off, independant characters that join other units count as part of that squad for rules purposes, but this comes with it's own exceptions.
Mostly it is to do with kill points and abilities that involve killing a unit. In this regards an IC counts as a separate unit, even if he has joined a squad (Much like how transports are their own unit)
this is even clarified in the "purge the alien" mission which even states that IC's count as a separate unit, and in the Unit part of the BRB.
This is also why deathstars give out soo many victory points if the scenario is counting those.
Second, about psykers
This one is a tricky thing to comprehend so it can have it's own subsectors of clarification because of how it's worded, but the gist is this.
an IC psyker that has joined a squad that is BoP/BoS still counts his own warp charges to the total warp charge cause of being a separate "unit" cause of the rules, but you could also argue about the IC rules in this instance aswell.
Since the example shown in the generate warp charge states all the units separately, even if they were in the same unit they would count separately for the ruling cause example is giving context of how it should work.
(Also as clarification of this, independant characters are not conferred the special rules of the squad, and vice versa unless the rule in question specifies (like stubborn))
Now, in terms of generating powers, the rule underneath is very specific. no unit can attempt to manifest the same psychic power more than once per psychic phase.
I hope this clears that up
(also.... this is from FAQ)
Q: How many dice does a Mastery Level 2 Librarian joined
with a Mastery Level 1 Grey Knights Strike Squad generate for
their Warp Charge pool?
A: Three.
an IC psyker that has joined a squad that is BoP/BoS still counts his own warp charges to the total warp charge cause of being a separate "unit" cause of the rules,
This is an assumption. Nowhere in the rules are we told that IC psykers should be treated as a separate unit for psychic phase resolution. The FAQ just gives us a number, without telling us how to arrive at that answer.
So we don't know if the answer is '3' because the IC is treated as a separate psyker unit, if the IC and squad count as a single psyker unit but we add their Mastery Levels together for determining Warp Charges, or if the actual mechanism at play is something else entirely. There are rules required for resolving the situation that simply don't exist.
mchammadad wrote: First off, independant characters that join other units count as part of that squad for rules purposes, but this comes with it's own exceptions.
Mostly it is to do with kill points and abilities that involve killing a unit. In this regards an IC counts as a separate unit, even if he has joined a squad (Much like how transports are their own unit)
this is even clarified in the "purge the alien" mission which even states that IC's count as a separate unit, and in the Unit part of the BRB.
Actually, they are never listed as being their own unit within a unit in these cases, because the IC has been removed from the unit by the time you are counting up Kill Points.
If you can demonstrate this during Tactical Objectives, please reference the point where it states this.
This one is a tricky thing to comprehend so it can have it's own subsectors of clarification because of how it's worded, but the gist is this.
an IC psyker that has joined a squad that is BoP/BoS still counts his own warp charges to the total warp charge cause of being a separate "unit" cause of the rules, but you could also argue about the IC rules in this instance aswell.
Since the example shown in the generate warp charge states all the units separately, even if they were in the same unit they would count separately for the ruling cause example is giving context of how it should work.
(Also as clarification of this, independant characters are not conferred the special rules of the squad, and vice versa unless the rule in question specifies (like stubborn))
Now, in terms of generating powers, the rule underneath is very specific. no unit can attempt to manifest the same psychic power more than once per psychic phase.
Actually with the Warp Charges make sense if you consider that there are multiple Mastery Levels within the unit, so adding them up makes sense.
BUT, that doesn't mean they are considered their own unit. You have provided nothing which allows them to be treated as a separate unit. You are operating under the premise that it has to be recognized as its own unit in order for things to work your way.
Please provide explicate statements which state that we get to recognize the IC as his own unit, or NOT recognize the IC as his own unit.
mchammadad wrote: First off, independant characters that join other units count as part of that squad for rules purposes, but this comes with it's own exceptions.
Mostly it is to do with kill points and abilities that involve killing a unit. In this regards an IC counts as a separate unit, even if he has joined a squad (Much like how transports are their own unit)
this is even clarified in the "purge the alien" mission which even states that IC's count as a separate unit, and in the Unit part of the BRB.
Actually, they are never listed as being their own unit within a unit in these cases, because the IC has been removed from the unit by the time you are counting up Kill Points.
If you can demonstrate this during Tactical Objectives, please reference the point where it states this.
Units
Warriors tend to band together to fight in squads, teams, sections or similarly named
groups – individuals do not normally go wandering off on their own on the battlefields of
the 41st Millennium for obvious reasons! In Warhammer 40,000, we represent this by
grouping models together into units. 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 in its own right.
CHARACTER TYPES
Most characters are fielded in units from the start of the game, and represent squad
leaders, such as a Space Marine Veteran Sergeant. They have their own profile, but do not
have a separate entry. They are effectively just another trooper in their unit, with
enhanced characteristics and perhaps a wider selection of weapons and wargear choices.
Other characters, such as Mephiston of the Blood Angels, fight as units on their own. They are either mighty enough, or feared enough by their own kind, that they don’t take
to the battlefield with other warriors. Regardless of their potency, all follow the rules for
characters.
INDEPENDENT CHARACTER
Mighty heroes go where they are needed, charging at the forefront of the most vital
charges and leading their troops to victory.
Independent Characters can join other units. They cannot, however, join units that
contain vehicles or Monstrous Creatures. They can join other Independent Characters,
though, to form a powerful multi-character unit!
Joining and Leaving a Unit
An Independent Character can begin the game already with a unit, either by being
deployed in unit coherency with it or, if the unit is in Reserve, by you informing your
opponent of which unit it has joined.
In order to join a unit, an Independent Character simply has to move so that he is within
the 2" unit coherency distance of a friendly unit at the end of their Movement phase. If
the Independent Character is within 2" of more than one unit at the end of its Movement
phase, the player must declare which unit it is joining. If an Independent Character does
not intend to (or cannot) join a unit, it must (where possible) remain more than 2" away
from it at the end of the Movement phase. This is to make clear whether they have joined
a unit or not. Note that, after an Independent Character joins a unit, that unit can move
no further that Movement phase.
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!
An Independent Character cannot leave a unit while either he or the unit is in Reserves,
locked in combat, Falling Back or has Gone to Ground. He cannot join a unit that is in
Reserves, locked in combat or Falling Back. 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.
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.
Special Rules
When an Independent Character joins a unit, it might have different special rules from
those of the unit. Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule), the
unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the
Independent Character’s special rules are not conferred upon the unit. Special rules that
are conferred to the unit only apply for as long as the Independent Character is with
them.
Independent Characters and Ongoing Effects
Sometimes, a unit that an Independent Character has joined will be the target of a
beneficial or harmful effect, such as those bestowed by the Blind special rule, for
example. If the character leaves the unit, both he and the unit continue to be affected by
the effect, so you’ll need to mark the character accordingly.
For example, Farseer Mehiledrin and his unit of Eldar Guardians are set ablaze by a
weapon with the Soul Blaze special rule. If Mehiledrin leaves the unit, both he and the
Guardians will still be ablaze and the ongoing effects of the Soul Blaze rule must be
resolved separately.
Conversely, if an Independent Character joins a unit after that unit has been the target of
an ongoing effect (or joins a unit after himself having been the target of an ongoing
effect) benefits and penalties from that effect are not shared.
I bolded the parts that are relevant to this. Characters that are single model units (a.k.a Independant characters) are still considered units of their own, the IC rule still states that they still follow the character rules, and in the character rules still state single model units
Also i found this in the FAQ
Q: Can killing an Independent Character joined to another
unit, without wiping out the leftover unit, result in First Blood?
A: Yes.
First blood is the following rule:
First Blood
The first unit, of any kind, to be completely destroyed during the game is worth 1 Victory
Point to the opposing player at the end of the game.
If two or more units from opposing forces are destroyed simultaneously (for example, at
the same Initiative step in an Assault phase) then both players get 1 Victory Point (in
addition to any Victory Points from the mission).
This would mean that the IC is in fact still a unit in itself, because of the character rules
This one is a tricky thing to comprehend so it can have it's own subsectors of clarification because of how it's worded, but the gist is this.
an IC psyker that has joined a squad that is BoP/BoS still counts his own warp charges to the total warp charge cause of being a separate "unit" cause of the rules, but you could also argue about the IC rules in this instance aswell.
Since the example shown in the generate warp charge states all the units separately, even if they were in the same unit they would count separately for the ruling cause example is giving context of how it should work.
(Also as clarification of this, independant characters are not conferred the special rules of the squad, and vice versa unless the rule in question specifies (like stubborn))
Now, in terms of generating powers, the rule underneath is very specific. no unit can attempt to manifest the same psychic power more than once per psychic phase.
Actually with the Warp Charges make sense if you consider that there are multiple Mastery Levels within the unit, so adding them up makes sense.
BUT, that doesn't mean they are considered their own unit. You have provided nothing which allows them to be treated as a separate unit. You are operating under the premise that it has to be recognized as its own unit in order for things to work your way.
Please provide explicate statements which state that we get to recognize the IC as his own unit, or NOT recognize the IC as his own unit.
In the top example, it shows they are their own unit because of the character rules and because of the FAQ stating they give a victory point in terms of the objective, this objective clearly states a unit. Hence you would have a single character 'unit'
I bolded the parts that are relevant to this. Characters that are single model units (a.k.a Independant characters) are still considered units of their own, the IC rule still states that they still follow the character rules, and in the character rules still state single model units
Yes, characters that are single model units are considered units of their own.
When that character joins another unit, he is no longer a single-model unit.
You can't have an IC still count as a separate unit as well as a member of the unit he has joined. The rules break down in horrible ways. Not least because any time you try to take an action with the unit containing the character, you're suddenly trying to activate two units at the same time. You just made it impossible to ever move the unit, shoot with it, or charge into combat with it.
IC count as a part of the unit they have joined for all rules purposes. The only exceptions to this are the things (like victory conditions) that are specifically called out as exceptions.
Charistoph wrote: Actually, they are never listed as being their own unit within a unit in these cases, because the IC has been removed from the unit by the time you are counting up Kill Points.
If you can demonstrate this during Tactical Objectives, please reference the point where it states this.
As Insaniak pointed out, nothing you posted allowed it to operate or be recognized as a unit wtihin a unit. Nor did you reference one single point during Tactical Objectives.
Warriors tend to band together to fight in squads, teams, sections or similarly named
groups – individuals do not normally go wandering off on their own on the battlefields of
the 41st Millennium for obvious reasons! In Warhammer 40,000, we represent this by
grouping models together into units. 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 in its own right.
You seemed to miss the fact that it is talking about "single, powerful models" in this context. We're talking about a model being recognized as its own group while also being considered in another group of more models. Being part of another group of models usually loses the "single" aspect of the statement.
mchammadad wrote: CHARACTER TYPES
Most characters are fielded in units from the start of the game, and represent squad
leaders, such as a Space Marine Veteran Sergeant. They have their own profile, but do not
have a separate entry. They are effectively just another trooper in their unit, with
enhanced characteristics and perhaps a wider selection of weapons and wargear choices.
Other characters, such as Mephiston of the Blood Angels, fight as units on their own. They are either mighty enough, or feared enough by their own kind, that they don’t take
to the battlefield with other warriors. Regardless of their potency, all follow the rules for
characters.
Fighting on their own is not fighting as part of a group. This is not support for recognizing a unit while in another unit.
mchammadad wrote: INDEPENDENT CHARACTER
Mighty heroes go where they are needed, charging at the forefront of the most vital
charges and leading their troops to victory.
Independent Characters can join other units. They cannot, however, join units that
contain vehicles or Monstrous Creatures. They can join other Independent Characters,
though, to form a powerful multi-character unit!
Joining and Leaving a Unit
An Independent Character can begin the game already with a unit, either by being
deployed in unit coherency with it or, if the unit is in Reserve, by you informing your
opponent of which unit it has joined.
In order to join a unit, an Independent Character simply has to move so that he is within
the 2" unit coherency distance of a friendly unit at the end of their Movement phase. If
the Independent Character is within 2" of more than one unit at the end of its Movement
phase, the player must declare which unit it is joining. If an Independent Character does
not intend to (or cannot) join a unit, it must (where possible) remain more than 2" away
from it at the end of the Movement phase. This is to make clear whether they have joined
a unit or not. Note that, after an Independent Character joins a unit, that unit can move
no further that Movement phase.
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!
An Independent Character cannot leave a unit while either he or the unit is in Reserves,
locked in combat, Falling Back or has Gone to Ground. He cannot join a unit that is in
Reserves, locked in combat or Falling Back. 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.
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.
Special Rules
When an Independent Character joins a unit, it might have different special rules from
those of the unit. Unless specified in the rule itself (as in the Stubborn special rule), the
unit’s special rules are not conferred upon the Independent Character, and the
Independent Character’s special rules are not conferred upon the unit. Special rules that
are conferred to the unit only apply for as long as the Independent Character is with
them.
Independent Characters and Ongoing Effects
Sometimes, a unit that an Independent Character has joined will be the target of a
beneficial or harmful effect, such as those bestowed by the Blind special rule, for
example. If the character leaves the unit, both he and the unit continue to be affected by
the effect, so you’ll need to mark the character accordingly.
For example, Farseer Mehiledrin and his unit of Eldar Guardians are set ablaze by a
weapon with the Soul Blaze special rule. If Mehiledrin leaves the unit, both he and the
Guardians will still be ablaze and the ongoing effects of the Soul Blaze rule must be
resolved separately.
Conversely, if an Independent Character joins a unit after that unit has been the target of
an ongoing effect (or joins a unit after himself having been the target of an ongoing
effect) benefits and penalties from that effect are not shared.
I bolded the parts that are relevant to this. Characters that are single model units (a.k.a Independant characters) are still considered units of their own, the IC rule still states that they still follow the character rules, and in the character rules still state single model units.
The fact that they start as their own unit means little when we are then to consider him part of another unit as soon as they join. They either operate as part of the unit for all rules purposes, or they don't.
Character rules do absolutely nothing to allow a unit to be singled out from the unit, with the exception of Challenges. If they do, you failed to present that information. It's not supported by anything above. All that is noted is that some Characters do start as separate units, which every single one does (from their datasheets which all have a unit composition of 1 model). However, the Independent Character rules alter that function.
Q: Can killing an Independent Character joined to another
unit, without wiping out the leftover unit, result in First Blood?
A: Yes.
First blood is the following rule:
First Blood
The first unit, of any kind, to be completely destroyed during the game is worth 1 Victory
Point to the opposing player at the end of the game.
If two or more units from opposing forces are destroyed simultaneously (for example, at
the same Initiative step in an Assault phase) then both players get 1 Victory Point (in
addition to any Victory Points from the mission).
This would mean that the IC is in fact still a unit in itself, because of the character rules.
I bolded and underlined the key point. This isn't processed until the game ends. By which point, any IC killed for First Blood would be considered would already have been considered left the unit by virtue of being removed from Unit Coherency. This has been pointed out several times.
A bit late on this but Jesus with the rules lawyering. If I recall it is stated that all units in the game, if they have a rule or codex that conflicts with a rule in the BRB, then you use the rules explicit for that unit. If an IC rules allow them to do something that conflicts with BRB they are allowed to do that. If you want to shoot at a conscript squad with an IC in it and single him out you cannot UNLESS you have a rule on your shooter that is super ceding the BRB. If you don't then this is simply a case of you being upset about special units. If you want to kill a specific guy in a squad then bring sniper rifles or a vindicare. Who cares if soul burst counts him as a unit? Soul burst says it does. If you are firing lasguns or bolters, they have precision shots? No they dont. So unless you have something that contradicts base rules you can't use that as an excuse to do so because something else has a circumstance that allows it too.
Ceann wrote: A bit late on this but Jesus with the rules lawyering. If I recall it is stated that all units in the game, if they have a rule or codex that conflicts with a rule in the BRB, then you use the rules explicit for that unit. If an IC rules allow them to do something that conflicts with BRB they are allowed to do that. If you want to shoot at a conscript squad with an IC in it and single him out you cannot UNLESS you have a rule on your shooter that is super ceding the BRB. If you don't then this is simply a case of you being upset about special units. If you want to kill a specific guy in a squad then bring sniper rifles or a vindicare. Who cares if soul burst counts him as a unit? Soul burst says it does. If you are firing lasguns or bolters, they have precision shots? No they dont. So unless you have something that contradicts base rules you can't use that as an excuse to do so because something else has a circumstance that allows it too.
Per the original OP, why can I not identify the IC as his own unit when joined to another? What subsumes that identity so it cannot be tracked?
The line regarding "for all rules purposes" is sufficient for me, but it is not sufficiently literal for a computer processing system.
Well sadly GW doesn't possess the savvy rules structure of say... MTG, where the basics and exceptions are clearly defined and maintained. The issue with the OP is that he is not providing a situational example correctly. He is trying to use basic rules to supercede the IC rules, while a rule precision shots exists that can perform the action he wishes. The shooting rules allow you to shoot at a unit and the wounds allocated to the closest model. The IC rule says that he counts as part of the unit for rules purposes which some try to extrapolate that he is no longer his own unit. However he is a unit on your roster or list with a point value and the consideration for a unit being eliminated seems contingent upon how it is on your list with the exception being things like combat squads that allow you to split a listed unit. So VP to me would be referring to units in that regard.
Ceann wrote: Well sadly GW doesn't possess the savvy rules structure of say... MTG, where the basics and exceptions are clearly defined and maintained. The issue with the OP is that he is not providing a situational example correctly. He is trying to use basic rules to supercede the IC rules, while a rule precision shots exists that can perform the action he wishes. The shooting rules allow you to shoot at a unit and the wounds allocated to the closest model. The IC rule says that he counts as part of the unit for rules purposes which some try to extrapolate that he is no longer his own unit. However he is a unit on your roster or list with a point value and the consideration for a unit being eliminated seems contingent upon how it is on your list with the exception being things like combat squads that allow you to split a listed unit. So VP to me would be referring to units in that regard.
No, the OP's trying to find justification for the IC rules which would require us to no longer recognize the IC's unit while joined to another. This is not a scenario-based situation, it is something needs to be recognized in the first place.
Being part of a unit does not preclude one from being recognized as their own unit. You yourself said this is "extrapolation", meaning we are making a judgement based on surrounding data and how we need to see the game properly progress.
And the game doesn't recognize the difference between a unit on the roster and a unit on the table, at least until we are told otherwise. Where does the IC rules state otherwise?
I don't really see the contention. Give me a scenario and I can state specifics.
If he joins a unit he counts as a part of that unit for rules purposes. He is still an individual unit but for purposes of leadership tests, shooting, assault etc he is just another man in the squad. I would assert he counts as a unit because he has the IC rule, that rule doesn't go away if he dies, he still has it, so any IC is a unit and credits anything requiring a unit to die, you can't shoot him as an individual because is attached to another unit. So he is always his own unit but once he attaches himself you have to treat him as a member of that unit and you can't do whatever you want to a unit. Just like you can't decide you want to shoot the guy with a plasma gun in the back of his squad.
So if you have an example of a contentious situation. Let's look at that.
Ceann wrote: I don't really see the contention. Give me a scenario and I can state specifics.
Considering the language involved, the base language has to be either or and ALL scenarios would fall into them unless a special rule specifically states one or the other (of which, I'm not sure one exists).
Ceann wrote: If he joins a unit he counts as a part of that unit for rules purposes.
Indeed, but do THEY count as part of his unit? There is a follow up question, but it is better addressed next.
Ceann wrote: He is still an individual unit but for purposes of leadership tests, shooting, assault etc he is just another man in the squad.
Why? Or in other words, what prevents me from being able to recognize a Librarian's unit during ANY of those situations? What states that he is just another member of Vanguard Veteran Squad and cannot also be seen as Librarian unit for these specific circumstances?
Furthermore, what language would cause the Librarian model to be recognized as Librarian Unit when joined to another unit at one of those times you didn't mention?
Ceann wrote: I would assert he counts as a unit because he has the IC rule, that rule doesn't go away if he dies, he still has it, so any IC is a unit and credits anything requiring a unit to die, you can't shoot him as an individual because is attached to another unit. So he is always his own unit but once he attaches himself you have to treat him as a member of that unit and you can't do whatever you want to a unit. Just like you can't decide you want to shoot the guy with a plasma gun in the back of his squad.
So if you have an example of a contentious situation. Let's look at that.
The thing is, as has been brought up, is that there are people who want the IC to be recognized as his own unit for a variety of reasons. One of which, as has been pointed out, it makes running Librarians in Marine Squads easier to handle, as we can just recognize his Psychic Unit and go forwards. However, by being able to "just recognize" it during this point, why can't I, as your opponent, "just recognize" the Librarian's own Unit when it comes to Shooting and just gun him down without any means of diverting Wounds?
This one had always bugged me. Counting as part of the joined unit doesn't say to me that he loses his own status as a unit. That seems like it would need to be clearly stated for it to be the case. Since it counts for all rules purposes I would agree you can't do much of anything with it as a separate unit (so no targeting it directly for example), but if you are just checking to see the presence of a unit it seems like it would still have that status.
Fhionnuisce wrote: This one had always bugged me. Counting as part of the joined unit doesn't say to me that he loses his own status as a unit. That seems like it would need to be clearly stated for it to be the case. Since it counts for all rules purposes I would agree you can't do much of anything with it as a separate unit (so no targeting it directly for example), but if you are just checking to see the presence of a unit it seems like it would still have that status.
At which point, if you are recognizing the unit is there when you Shoot, you can directly Shoot the unit. If you are recognizing the unit is there when you Charge, then you are setting up the requirement of a Multiple Charge. And so on. The game doesn't recognize the difference. If you think it does, please provide the quote to support that.
Either the IC's unit is recognized when it is joined to another unit, or it is not until it leaves. The IC rules do not give another option in this regard.
Fhionnuisce wrote: This one had always bugged me. Counting as part of the joined unit doesn't say to me that he loses his own status as a unit. That seems like it would need to be clearly stated for it to be the case. Since it counts for all rules purposes I would agree you can't do much of anything with it as a separate unit (so no targeting it directly for example), but if you are just checking to see the presence of a unit it seems like it would still have that status.
At which point, if you are recognizing the unit is there when you Shoot, you can directly Shoot the unit. If you are recognizing the unit is there when you Charge, then you are setting up the requirement of a Multiple Charge. And so on. The game doesn't recognize the difference. If you think it does, please provide the quote to support that.
Either the IC's unit is recognized when it is joined to another unit, or it is not until it leaves. The IC rules do not give another option in this regard.
Those would be rules purposes for which it clearly states it counts as part of the unit it joined.
When building your army they are organized into units. By virtue of being a line item on the army list an IC is a unit. Counting as X does not mean it stops being Y and no rule removes that status as a unit so even when party of another unit it is one.
By virtue of the"counts as part of the unit" clause if you were to target a unit you can't target the IC separately and when applying unit based effects you can't choose to exclude the IC or only apply to the IC. In practice I see very few situations that it could matter with that clause, but there are rules that make it a unit and no rules that say it is no longer a unit. Off hand I think the only situations I would consider it relevant is counting number of units or checking for existence of said units.
Ceann wrote: I don't really see the contention. Give me a scenario and I can state specifics.
Considering the language involved, the base language has to be either or and ALL scenarios would fall into them unless a special rule specifically states one or the other (of which, I'm not sure one exists).
Why? Or in other words, what prevents me from being able to recognize a Librarian's unit during ANY of those situations? What states that he is just another member of Vanguard Veteran Squad and cannot also be seen as Librarian unit for these specific circumstances?
Furthermore, what language would cause the Librarian model to be recognized as Librarian Unit when joined to another unit at one of those times you didn't mention?
The thing is, as has been brought up, is that there are people who want the IC to be recognized as his own unit for a variety of reasons. One of which, as has been pointed out, it makes running Librarians in Marine Squads easier to handle, as we can just recognize his Psychic Unit and go forwards. However, by being able to "just recognize" it during this point, why can't I, as your opponent, "just recognize" the Librarian's own Unit when it comes to Shooting and just gun him down without any means of diverting Wounds?
Page 166 BRB - While he is a part of the unit for rules purposes HE still follows the rules for characters it doesn't say your opponent gets to decide when he is no longer part of the unit that is determined during the owners movement phase. So if he gets killed by a large blast or something that kills him in the back of a squad and there are rules that say "if a unit dies etc" then those count because HE still follows the rules for characters once a piece is removed that is when it counts as something dying, the rules don't care if he was joined to a unit, died in a flying transport crash or deepstrike mishap off the board.. It is the character rule that counts him as being an individual unit.
Why can't I just pick up my opponents imperial knight and chuck it across the room and remove it play? It doesn't say in the BRB that I can't. We can't start with this premise that if there isnt a rule that says I can't do something then I should be allowed to do it.
There are rules that allow you to select an individual out of a unit, such as precision strikes, or a Psyocculum. You can't just decide your pieces have the rule because you want to shoot an IC. There is not a rule in basic shooting that allows you to "just recognize" an IC who has joined a unit and single him out. When he joins a unit he counts as a member of that unit while still following character specific rules.
It seems you are implying that an IC is somehow breaking certain rules while he is part of a unit and because he is breaking those rules he should always count as a unit and be able to be fired at, at any time. So again, if you have a specific rule you are using as the basis for that argument, then out with it.
Fhionnuisce wrote:Those would be rules purposes for which it clearly states it counts as part of the unit it joined.
Then it counts for ALL rules purposes, not just some. Something that some people seem to forget. That could mean that we do not recognize the IC's unit for a person capable of extrapolation, but it would not for the literal computer. That means it is just an assumption, not RAW.
Fhionnuisce wrote:When building your army they are organized into units. By virtue of being a line item on the army list an IC is a unit. Counting as X does not mean it stops being Y and no rule removes that status as a unit so even when party of another unit it is one.
It is not a question of having it removed, it is a question of recognizing it. There is a significant difference.
It having a datasheet is what makes it a unit. Indeed, for some reason the FAQ team seems to think that if a Codex Techmarine has Servitors, it cannot access its Independent Character rule and leave the Servitors until the Servitors are dead.
Fhionnuisce wrote:By virtue of the"counts as part of the unit" clause if you were to target a unit you can't target the IC separately and when applying unit based effects you can't choose to exclude the IC or only apply to the IC. In practice I see very few situations that it could matter with that clause, but there are rules that make it a unit and no rules that say it is no longer a unit. Off hand I think the only situations I would consider it relevant is counting number of units or checking for existence of said units.
The FAQ group seems to feel differently. They don't think that unit special rules that address "the unit" affect an IC, just the original members of the unit.
It is relevant conversation because we have not been told to ignore the IC's unit. If the IC's unit can be recognized, then I can shoot it just as much as the unit it joins. If it is to be recognized, then I almost certainly MUST Multiple Charge the unit it is in, because I am getting within 1" of an enemy unit.
Ceann wrote:Page 166 BRB - While he is a part of the unit for rules purposes HE still follows the rules for characters it doesn't say your opponent gets to decide when he is no longer part of the unit that is determined during the owners movement phase. So if he gets killed by a large blast or something that kills him in the back of a squad and there are rules that say "if a unit dies etc" then those count because HE still follows the rules for characters once a piece is removed that is when it counts as something dying, the rules don't care if he was joined to a unit, died in a flying transport crash or deepstrike mishap off the board.. It is the character rule that counts him as being an individual unit.
The Character rules do not support such an action. Character is a unit type which applies to models which may or may not be an Independent Character. Indeed, the most common Character you will see on the table are the squad leaders such as Sergeants. These Characters cannot be separated from the unit at any point. The Character rules do not support an IC being recognized (or not) as its own unit when joined to another unit at all. It is only the IC rules which do anything regarding that. Indeed, the IC rules augment the Character rules more than anything.
If you feel differently, please quote the section in the Character rules which provides that information.
Ceann wrote:Why can't I just pick up my opponents imperial knight and chuck it across the room and remove it play? It doesn't say in the BRB that I can't. We can't start with this premise that if there isnt a rule that says I can't do something then I should be allowed to do it.
Which actually supports my questions on this more than counters it. I have asked the question several times in this thread, but no one seems to take it seriously. I know a few people can't seem to grasp that when you already have instructions to do one thing, I can keep doing it until I am told to do otherwise.
I keep asking why I can't recognize the IC's unit. It has been established that they are their own unit. Why do we stop recognizing it? I'm not told to stop recognizing it, so why should I?
If I can still recognize the unit then I can Shoot it. If I Charge the unit the IC is in, I MUST recognize that I will likely be Charging two units at the same time.
Ceann wrote:There are rules that allow you to select an individual out of a unit, such as precision strikes, or a Psyocculum. You can't just decide your pieces have the rule because you want to shoot an IC. There is not a rule in basic shooting that allows you to "just recognize" an IC who has joined a unit and single him out. When he joins a unit he counts as a member of that unit while still following character specific rules.
That is not quite accurate. There are rules which bypass Wound Allocation or change how it operates. This is not the same as selecting an individual model out of the unit. Assuming you can ignore the IC's unit, the only known way to separate an IC from a unit it has joined is to physically separate them. This is most commonly done by Movement, but can be done by casualties (either the IC or the rest of the unit).
But that is assuming we have instructions to ignore the IC's unit (which have yet to be found and provided for). If we can recognize the IC's unit on the table, then it can be Shot. Those are the rules. If I am Shooting at a Librarian unit, there are no other models in that unit, so it means that LOS will not work.
Ceann wrote:It seems you are implying that an IC is somehow breaking certain rules while he is part of a unit and because he is breaking those rules he should always count as a unit and be able to be fired at, at any time. So again, if you have a specific rule you are using as the basis for that argument, then out with it.
An IC IS breaking rules. If they weren't, there would be no need to have their rules. Indeed, the whole point of Special Rules is to break the basic rules. From the introduction to Special Rules:
Whenever a creature or weapon has an ability that breaks or bends one of the main game rules, it is represented by a special rule.
And yes, to bring it back to your statement, "if there isnt a rule that says I can't do something then I should be allowed to do it.".
The IC rules state he is a part of the unit for all rules purposes. Show me the rule that allows you to separate him. He is following special rules that allow him to break basic rules, is says HE follows character rules, not YOU. So you don't get to decide when he is or is not a unit. So show me the rule that allows you to do what you are saying.
The game is only the game while you are following the rules once you decide to start taking actions not in the rules you are no longer playing the game. You are at that point where you are playing with plastic dolls and using our imaginations.
Ceann wrote: The IC rules state he is a part of the unit for all rules purposes. Show me the rule that allows you to separate him. He is following special rules that allow him to break basic rules, is says HE follows character rules, not YOU. So you don't get to decide when he is or is not a unit. So show me the rule that allows you to do what you are saying.
Already established. The IC starts as a unit of one. Wherein do I being ignoring that unit? Just because he is part of another unit? Does a cop stop being a cop because he is sitting in the congregation of a church? By your assertion, he does.
Character rules do absolutely NOTHING that subordinate a Character to the unit. Everything that makes a Character unique can be processed by the IC while it is an independent model (with the exception of Look Out Sir), so that means nothing in regards to the IC's original unit, recognizing it or not. If you feel otherwise, please reference and quote the passage in the Character rules which does this. I just asked this, and you ignored it. It's been asked before, and it has been ignored or presented with information which means nothing.
Ceann wrote: The game is only the game while you are following the rules once you decide to start taking actions not in the rules you are no longer playing the game. You are at that point where you are playing with plastic dolls and using our imaginations.
But I am taking actions which are in the rules. I have explained them. You have presented zero evidence, but an assertion based on an assumption.
The actions I am taking are this:
* The IC starts as its own unit.
* It joins a unit and becomes part of that unit.
* We are NOT told to ignore the IC's original unit, therefore the unit exists on the table.
* Because the unit exists on the table, I can Shoot it. Correct? The base rule is my units can Shoot any unit they have in Range and can see.
* - Because the unit doesn't count as part of the IC's unit, Wounds allocated to the IC's unit can only be processed against the IC model.
* Because the unit exists on the table, I MUST recognize it when I go to Charge, which makes it almost required to make it a Multiple Charge due to where ICs are usually positioned in a unit. The base rule is that Multiple Charges are to be declared if I think I will engage another unit during the Primary Assault. If my unit Charges the unit the IC is in, what is the likelihood of engaging the IC? Also keep in mind, that my units can only Charge against units they declare a Charge against. If I do not declare a Charge against the IC's unit, I cannot get within 1" of the IC because there is another unit there.
Now, if you feel that we are not supposed to recognize the IC's unit, where are the instructions to do so? It has been the question from the OP and myself from the beginning, but no one has answered it but with one line that needs to be taken in abstraction in order for it to work.
He becomes a part of that unit for rules purposes. There is no rule that allows a unit to be a unit within a unit which is why once he joins the unit he is allowed to break coherence rules and be within the minimum distance of the rest of the unit.
If he is a part of that unit then you don't have a base rule to single him out. You could even say I want to shoot at your librarian. Cool. You can shoot him at say you are shooting at him. However because he is a part of that unit the wound allocation roles still prevent you from directly applying wounds to him because the player being shot at gets to allocate wounds in the unit towards the direction of fire and remove intervening models first. So even if he possess a dual nature your opponent can simply follow the rules of the unit he joined and circumvent you decision even if it were allowed because there is nothing that says they can't choose to apply wounds that way. So at best all you could propose is that your opponent has the option to let you shoot his IC and tank wounds from anywhere within a unit at their discretion.
Ceann wrote: He becomes a part of that unit for rules purposes. There is no rule that allows a unit to be a unit within a unit which is why once he joins the unit he is allowed to break coherence rules and be within the minimum distance of the rest of the unit.
There is no rule for ignoring the unit within a unit, either. Without that, I MUST treat it the same as any other unit.
The IC can only break Coherency rule by returning to being his own unit or joining another unit. An IC can only join units it can get within 1" of without Charging. Those are the written IC rules.
Ceann wrote: If he is a part of that unit then you don't have a base rule to single him out. You could even say I want to shoot at your librarian. Cool. You can shoot him at say you are shooting at him. However because he is a part of that unit the wound allocation roles still prevent you from directly applying wounds to him because the player being shot at gets to allocate wounds in the unit towards the direction of fire and remove intervening models first. So even if he possess a dual nature your opponent can simply follow the rules of the unit he joined and circumvent you decision even if it were allowed because there is nothing that says they can't choose to apply wounds that way. So at best all you could propose is that your opponent has the option to let you shoot his IC and tank wounds from anywhere within a unit at their discretion.
Do not bother answering this again until you can demonstrably prove that I must ignore the IC's unit. Without that, everything you have stated is meaningless since it requires operating under an assumption.
For example, I never said I was singling out a model in a unit, I was identifying the unit that was already there and attacking that. The Librarian model is a part of the Tactical Squad, but the Marines are NOT part of the LIbrarian Unit. The rules for Wound Allocation (which Look Out Sir) only allow for Allocating Wounds against the models in the unit that was attacked. How many models are in a Librarian unit at that point?
He counts as a part of that unit for rules purposes. Meaning the owner of the unit must assign wounds to intervening models. How are you overriding that he counts as a member of that unit as they obviously now count as a part of his unit as well, you assume it is a one way relationship. The tac marines or conscripts or whatever are now a librarian also.
The rule says he counts as part of the unit since he counts as part of the unit wound allocation rules must still be followed. You can't choose to have him not count as part of the unit, his rule says he counts. His special rule supercedes the basic shooting rule so even if you can declare him as your shooting target his rule let's him allocate to the unit and you can't prevent that.
Ceann wrote: He counts as a part of that unit for rules purposes. Meaning the owner of the unit must assign wounds to intervening models. How are you overriding that he counts as a member of that unit as they obviously now count as a part of his unit as well, you assume it is a one way relationship. The tac marines or conscripts or whatever are now a librarian also.
Try listening. I've repeated it almost every single time.
He counts as member of that unit, but that unit does not count as a member of HIS. I do not assume this is a one way relationship, the rules specifically state it is a one way relationship. You have repeated the statement several times, but apparently do not read it or understand it as it has been written.
By treating the Marines and Conscripts as part of the Librarian unit, you are doing the very exact thing you have preached against, doing something without permission. The Tac Squad or Conscripts are not part of a Librarian unit. ZERO permission is made for this interaction as you are suggesting. The Tac Squad stays a Tac Squad. The Conscript Squad stays a Conscript Squad. There is no permission to do anything else in this manner.
Ceann wrote: The rule says he counts as part of the unit since he counts as part of the unit wound allocation rules must still be followed. You can't choose to have him not count as part of the unit, his rule says he counts. His special rule supercedes the basic shooting rule so even if you can declare him as your shooting target his rule let's him allocate to the unit and you can't prevent that.
Actually, it doesn't matter if the model counts as part of another unit, if I am shooting a different unit. That is something you do not seem to understand, and it is based in the simple question:
"What tells me or requires me to no longer recognize the IC unit when it joins another?"
The only way for "it counts as a member of the unit for all rules purposes" to work in this manner is if we assume that the Librarian unit counts as gone, as all of its models are now part of another unit. This unit is not removed from the table, but put in standby until the Librarian model is all alone again, be it by Death or Movement. But it still requires the term "assume" to be used, which makes it RAI/HIWPI, not RAW.
"It COUNTS as a member of the unit for all rules purposes"
count - take into account; include.
include - comprise or contain as PART of a WHOLE.
whole - all of something, all of; entire, in an unbroken or undamaged state; in one piece.
"if we assume that the Librarian unit counts as gone, as all of its models are now part of another unit."
No, by the definition of the word count, he is a part of the other unit.
By include he is part of a whole and by whole it is ONE entity.
For ALL rules purposes, so for the purpose of picking a unit to shoot he is the unit he joined.
He is a librarian IN a unit, part of the whole, just like a tac with a plasma gun is a member of the unit.
If you want to have a semantical discussion with Merriam-webster or the Oxford dictionary guys feel free.
So he is still a unit, but you cannot shoot him because he counts as a member of the unit he joined and you cannot choose to shoot at an individual who is part of a unit you can choose to shoot at the unit. Him joining prevents you from shooting at him directly as an individual.
Ceann wrote: "It COUNTS as a member of the unit for all rules purposes"
count - take into account; include.
include - comprise or contain as PART of a WHOLE.
whole - all of something, all of; entire, in an unbroken or undamaged state; in one piece.
"if we assume that the Librarian unit counts as gone, as all of its models are now part of another unit."
No, by the definition of the word count, he is a part of the other unit.
By include he is part of a whole and by whole it is ONE entity.
For ALL rules purposes, so for the purpose of picking a unit to shoot he is the unit he joined.
He is a librarian IN a unit, part of the whole, just like a tac with a plasma gun is a member of the unit.
If you want to have a semantical discussion with Merriam-webster or the Oxford dictionary guys feel free.
So he is still a unit, but you cannot shoot him because he counts as a member of the unit he joined and you cannot choose to shoot at an individual who is part of a unit you can choose to shoot at the unit. Him joining prevents you from shooting at him directly as an individual.
Now, we also need to look at how GW uses "counts as". It is a very common phrase in 40K rules. It uses it in every case where a change is temporary and may not be permanent. Does it also mean we get to ignore what it was before? In most cases it does.
Let's take Pistols for example, which "count as a close combat Weapon in the Assault Phase". Does a pistol change? Yes. Is it permanent? No. Can we use the Shooting Profile for it while it is doing so? If you say, "yes", then the Librarian unit can still be seen and shot at specifically as I have been saying all along. If you say, "no", then it cannot be used for Overwatch. See the logical conundrum.
I should point out that Librarians can reference two things, a model and a unit. They are not always the same thing. The key point you seem to be missing is the need to be ignoring the Librarian unit. It is only if we consider "counts as" to be replacing its membership from the Librarian unit to membership in the Tactical Squad unit on a temporary basis, that this phrase can work.
Unfortunately, all this still requires some leaps in logic and semantics in order to work. Nothing is clearly written to ignore that Librarian unit. I'm really just pointing that out, and it seems a concept that a few are unwilling to accept just how bad it is.
I should point out that Librarians can reference two things, a model and a unit. They are not always the same thing. The key point you seem to be missing is the need to be ignoring the Librarian unit. It is only if we consider "counts as" to be replacing its membership from the Librarian unit to membership in the Tactical Squad unit on a temporary basis, that this phrase can work.
Incorrect. The Librarian never loses his unit status. That status is merely being overridden by the unit status of the Tactical Squad and not replaced. No where do the rules say that the Librarian's unit status is replaced by unit membership in the tactical squad. This is key because any rule that circumvents the 'counts as part of the unit' clause can access the Librarian's unit status which he never lost.
There is no logical conundrum. His special rule for counting as part of a unit supersedes your desire to shoot him as a unit.
Your shooting is a rule.
The rules say you can shoot at a unit.
The Librarian is always a unit.
So you want to shoot him.
Simple right?
When you try to shoot him, it kindly directs you to fire at his unit that he has currently attached himself too because he counts as that unit for all rules purposes.
I want to shoot the librarian, the librarian counts as the tactical squad, I shoot at the tactical squad.
I should point out that Librarians can reference two things, a model and a unit. They are not always the same thing. The key point you seem to be missing is the need to be ignoring the Librarian unit. It is only if we consider "counts as" to be replacing its membership from the Librarian unit to membership in the Tactical Squad unit on a temporary basis, that this phrase can work.
Incorrect. The Librarian never loses his unit status. That status is merely being overridden by the unit status of the Tactical Squad and not replaced. No where do the rules say that the Librarian's unit status is replaced by unit membership in the tactical squad. This is key because any rule that circumvents the 'counts as part of the unit' clause can access the Librarian's unit status which he never lost.
I don't see how you differentiate between being overridden and being replaced. If it's overridden it would be replaced for the duration of its being overridden, at least for rules purposes. And it doesn't matter if he retains his unit status outside of rules purposes.
Ceann wrote: There is no logical conundrum. His special rule for counting as part of a unit supersedes your desire to shoot him as a unit.
Your shooting is a rule.
The rules say you can shoot at a unit.
The Librarian is always a unit.
So you want to shoot him.
Simple right?
When you try to shoot him, it kindly directs you to fire at his unit that he has currently attached himself too because he counts as that unit for all rules purposes.
I want to shoot the librarian, the librarian counts as the tactical squad, I shoot at the tactical squad.
Actually nothing you have presented states that at all. It suggests it, and I have acknowledged that at several points during this thread, but only if we take certain rules in doing things outside of normal parlance, such as "counts as" disallowing a Pistol to fire in Overwatch.
Let's consider it from a literal instruction set. You have two arrays known as Librarian.unit with Librarian.unit(LibrarianModel) and TacticalSquad.unit with TacticalSquad.unit(Sergeant), and nine instances of TacticalSquad.unit(MarineModel). I have rules that say I can Shoot any unit I can see, so I can Shoot Librarian.unit or TacticalSquad.unit.
Then, per the current instruction set, Librarian.unit moves to within 2" of TacticalSquad.unit. A procedure called JoinUnit is brought in to play. JoinUnit then puts a reference to Librarian.Unit(LibrarianModel) in to TacticalSquad.unit, BUT no instructions are made to remove Librarian.Unit(LibrarianModel) from Librarian.Unit, and so Librarian.Unit still carries the exact same Librarian.Unit(LibrarianModel) that existed before. The instances of TacticalSquad.unit(Sergeant) and TacticalSquad.unit(MarineModel) are not added to the Librarian.Unit. Futhermore, JoinUnit, does not drop Librarian.Unit from the available target list.
It is this lack of instruction within the Joining and Leaving a Unit that I am pointing out.
My unit goes to Shoot and still sees Librarian.Unit and TacticalSquad.Unit. I can then instruct the unit to Shoot the Librarian.Unit since it still exists. Since Librarian.Unit only carries one model, Librarian.Unit(LibrarianModel), Wounds directed at that unit cannot be reallocated to any other model.
Shooting is a basic rule. Not a special rule.
When you decide to shoot librarian.unit you are redirected to tactical squad.unit because he counts as tactical squad.unit for all rules purposes. His join unit function is causing this to happen and the effect ceases when he leaves. If anything this is something as simple as you using an url for a page that then redirects you a different named page because that is what it actually resolves too. You are shooting at the librarian but a replacement effect is occurring, it is a valid url to type it has always existed as a url and still does but using his join function is redirecting you. Does the librarian.unit still exist? Yes, you just cant get to it anymore. Your attempt to apply the shooting rule to him is superseded by him counting as tacticalsquad.unit your basic rule is trumped by a special rule.
In the case of pistols it is the same except it directs you count it as a melee weapon but only in the assault phase.
Ceann wrote: He counts as a part of that unit for rules purposes. Meaning the owner of the unit must assign wounds to intervening models. How are you overriding that he counts as a member of that unit as they obviously now count as a part of his unit as well, you assume it is a one way relationship. The tac marines or conscripts or whatever are now a librarian also.
Try listening. I've repeated it almost every single time.
He counts as member of that unit, but that unit does not count as a member of HIS. I do not assume this is a one way relationship, the rules specifically state it is a one way relationship. You have repeated the statement several times, but apparently do not read it or understand it as it has been written.
By treating the Marines and Conscripts as part of the Librarian unit, you are doing the very exact thing you have preached against, doing something without permission. The Tac Squad or Conscripts are not part of a Librarian unit. ZERO permission is made for this interaction as you are suggesting. The Tac Squad stays a Tac Squad. The Conscript Squad stays a Conscript Squad. There is no permission to do anything else in this manner.
Ceann wrote: The rule says he counts as part of the unit since he counts as part of the unit wound allocation rules must still be followed. You can't choose to have him not count as part of the unit, his rule says he counts. His special rule supercedes the basic shooting rule so even if you can declare him as your shooting target his rule let's him allocate to the unit and you can't prevent that.
Actually, it doesn't matter if the model counts as part of another unit, if I am shooting a different unit. That is something you do not seem to understand, and it is based in the simple question:
"What tells me or requires me to no longer recognize the IC unit when it joins another?"
The only way for "it counts as a member of the unit for all rules purposes" to work in this manner is if we assume that the Librarian unit counts as gone, as all of its models are now part of another unit. This unit is not removed from the table, but put in standby until the Librarian model is all alone again, be it by Death or Movement. But it still requires the term "assume" to be used, which makes it RAI/HIWPI, not RAW.
He loses the independant part of his rules while attached to a unit and is only considered a character with a few additional bonuses (such as LoS on 2+ rather than 4+). Specific codex rules also come into effect such as the triggering of soulburst.
You have already stated that you can´t pick out the Sgt of a unit even though he is a character. The same is now to be considered for the librarian.
Ceann wrote: Shooting is a basic rule. Not a special rule.
Irrelevant to what you have been misquoting. This counts as part of the unit for ALL rules, not just basic ones. You will not find any support that this only applies to basic rules.
Nor does this change the simple fact that I need a special rule to start ignoring the Librarian's unit, something you don't seem to grasp.
Ceann wrote: When you decide to shoot librarian.unit you are redirected to tactical squad.unit because he counts as tactical squad.unit for all rules purposes. His join unit function is causing this to happen and the effect ceases when he leaves. If anything this is something as simple as you using an url for a page that then redirects you a different named page because that is what it actually resolves too. You are shooting at the librarian but a replacement effect is occurring, it is a valid url to type it has always existed as a url and still does but using his join function is redirecting you. Does the librarian.unit still exist? Yes, you just cant get to it anymore. Your attempt to apply the shooting rule to him is superseded by him counting as tacticalsquad.unit your basic rule is trumped by a special rule.
Assertions without quotations or references. The problem is: It never actually states that. If you see the term "redirect" ANYWHERE in the IC rules, please quote and highlight the relevant section.
If I can see the Librarian unit, I can shoot it, that is the basic rule of the game. That the same model also happens to be part of another unit is irrelevant, since I am only shooting the one unit. Remember, you Shoot UNITS, not models. Being part of a unit means you are affected by what happens to that group. And remember, that group is not instructed to be part of the Librarian's unit, so the Marines would not be affected by anything that happens to the Librarian unit.
So, again, what makes me stop being able to see the Librarian unit? Specific phrases about the IC's unit are required.
Ceann wrote: In the case of pistols it is the same except it directs you count it as a melee weapon but only in the assault phase.
So you agree that a Pistol cannot be used in Overwatch?
rawne2510 wrote: He loses the independant part of his rules while attached to a unit and is only considered a character with a few additional bonuses (such as LoS on 2+ rather than 4+). Specific codex rules also come into effect such as the triggering of soulburst.
You have already stated that you can´t pick out the Sgt of a unit even though he is a character. The same is now to be considered for the librarian.
Why does he lose the independent part of his rules? Where does it specifically state that? And what does that have to do with no longer recognizing the Librarian unit? Indeed, if he loses his IC rule, he can't leave a unit he joins.
And by referencing the Sergeant you have missed the point of the exercise. A Sergeant was never a lone model unit in the first place, while the Librarian is. What stops the Librarian unit from being recognized/seen/reached/affected when its model joins another?
I should point out that Librarians can reference two things, a model and a unit. They are not always the same thing. The key point you seem to be missing is the need to be ignoring the Librarian unit. It is only if we consider "counts as" to be replacing its membership from the Librarian unit to membership in the Tactical Squad unit on a temporary basis, that this phrase can work.
Incorrect. The Librarian never loses his unit status. That status is merely being overridden by the unit status of the Tactical Squad and not replaced. No where do the rules say that the Librarian's unit status is replaced by unit membership in the tactical squad. This is key because any rule that circumvents the 'counts as part of the unit' clause can access the Librarian's unit status which he never lost.
I don't see how you differentiate between being overridden and being replaced. If it's overridden it would be replaced for the duration of its being overridden, at least for rules purposes. And it doesn't matter if he retains his unit status outside of rules purposes.
Overridden does not involve any replacing. The unit status of the Tac Marines is being applied over the unit status of the Librarian when the Librarian joins the unit of Tacticals. The Librarian never loses his own unit status - that status is always there, underneath, and is recoverable by rules.
This is key because instead of being a model that is pulled out of his unit to be put into the unit of Tacticals, the IC is a unit that becomes encapsulated into a unit of Tacticals.
Soulburst, Kill Point, Psyker Rules, the IC Special Rules rule all recognize and access the underlying unit status of the IC.
I went over the literal definitions of the words.
He counts as, is a part of, as a whole, the unit he has joined.
What part of that is unclear?
Nothing tells you he is no longer a librarian unit, he is always a librarian unit. Just like the plasma gun can fire in overwatch, just because it counts as does not prevent it from being what it is. But since he counts as and is included, which is synonymous to counts, we already determined by the English language that he is a part of a whole and is included means that they are all part of the same unit being part of a whole is not a one way relationship, your entire argument consists on this point that the relationship is one way and the definitions of the words do not reflect your assertion.
You are now shooting at the unit that contains the librarian, you follow the wound rolls for that entire unit.
Nothing tells you to ignore him, nothing has too. Because he counts as, the special rule supercedes you counting him as a single standalone unit.
Wounds then get allocated to the nearest model. I am totally fine with you saying you can shoot at him directly because the counts as stipulation causes the wounds to be allocated to whatever he joined.
Whenever a creature or weapon has an ability that breaks or bends on of the main game rules, it is represented by a special rule.
While an IC is part of a unit, he counts as a part of the unit for all rules purposes, though he still follows the rules for characters.
The librarian is a unit. True.
You can shoot a unit. True.
You want to shoot the librarian, True.
You roll and get hits. True.
You roll and get wounds. True.
The librarian counts as the unit he joined. True.
This conflicts with the fact that the librarian is a unit. True.
This is a special rule. True - rule broken.
Wound allocation rules specify that the nearest model to the origin of the shooting/blast take wounds first. True
So if there are 3 tactical marines between your shooter and the librarian, the wounds are resolved to those units because he COUNTS AS that unit for rules purposes.
Ceann wrote: I went over the literal definitions of the words.
He counts as, is a part of, as a whole, the unit he has joined.
What part of that is unclear?
For the reading deficient, "the part where he stops being part of his old unit, or stops having his old unit recognized".
Ceann wrote: Nothing tells you he is no longer a librarian unit, he is always a librarian unit.
Ah, see here is part of the problem, you are conflating the model with the unit. When you purchase a Librarian unit, it comes with a Librarian model. As far as the game is concerned, they are not the same thing.
This is more demonstratable with the Captain unit from Codex Marines. The Captain unit comes with a Captain model, but it can be upgraded to the Chapter Master model. If you purchase the upgrade, you know have a Captain unit with a Chapter Master model.
Once you recognize the differences between model and unit, you realize that while the Librarian MODEL may have joined the Tactical Squad, the Librarian UNIT has performed no such measure. Therefore, just because the MODEL becomes part of the other unit, the same cannot be said of the UNIT.
Do you understand this concept?
Ceann wrote: Just like the plasma gun can fire in overwatch, just because it counts as does not prevent it from being what it is.
I have no idea why you are bringing up a Rapid Fire Weapon, I was talking about Pistols.
But if you meant Plasma Pistol, if "counts as something else" means it no longer is recognized as what it was before hand, then, no, you cannot Shoot a Plasma Pistol in Overwatch any more then you could shoot a Chainsword.
Ceann wrote: But since he counts as and is included, which is synonymous to counts, we already determined by the English language that he is a part of a whole and is included means that they are all part of the same unit being part of a whole is not a one way relationship, your entire argument consists on this point that the relationship is one way and the definitions of the words do not reflect your assertion.
Because the actual statement is one way. The IC counts as being part of the unit it joined, not the other way around. By making those Marines and Sergeant part of the Librarian unit, you are basically not following the direction as stated by the game.
COUNTS as, is not BECOMES, it is an addition, counts as, is a permissive not an absolute. Just like your drivers license counts as a form of identification, you don't need it and the identification card, one serves both purposes.
If you shoot at the librarian unit, containing the librarian model, it COUNTS AS a part of the tactical unit. It doesn't need to be any other way because if you aren't trying to shoot him then no one cares, it works the one way it needs too.
No ,you are following the game, because Independent Character is a special rule and as is notated in the BRB - Whenever a creature or weapon has an ability that breaks or bends one of the main game rules, it is represented by a special rule.
You may not like that the wound allocation rules will put the wounds on the unit he counts as which is the tactical squad, but there isn't anyway for you get around it short of precision effects. It says counts as for ALL rule purposes, is being a unit a purpose? Yes. Is shooting a purpose? Yes. Is wound allocation a purpose? Yes.
It may not work the way you like it to work, but it works and the rules support it.
Ceann wrote: What unit/model he is, is irrelevant.
Whether he is a model or a unit is irrelevant.
Oh, it is VERY relevant to this situation. In fact it is very relevant to every single interaction with an Independent Character and its interaction with a unit.
Ceann wrote: COUNTS as, is not BECOMES, it is an addition, counts as, is a permissive not an absolute. Just like your drivers license counts as a form of identification, you don't need it and the identification card, one serves both purposes.
I never said it was an absolute, and you'd be hard pressed to find where I said that. In fact, I said it was temporary a few posts back. You do know the difference between "temporary" and "absolute" is, correct?
For the purposes of rules interactions, "counts as" means to temporarily change to the noted situation. When the Assault Phase starts, all Pistols exchange their Range, Str, AP, and Type to becoming a Close Combat Weapon. When the Assault Phase ends, the Pistol counting as a Close Combat Weapon, then reverts back to being able to use its original Range, Str, AP, and Type that is listed in the Pistol's profile. If they kept their Range, etc, during the Assault Phase, then we would be ADDING to their profile, not counting it as something else.
This concept is the only way in which "counts as" will allow us to take an Independent Character, attach it to another unit, and no longer recognize that IC's unit as being on the table. When the IC model counts as part of the unit it joined, it stops being recognized as a part of his original unit. The IC's unit has no models on the table, so it cannot be recognized until the "counts as" ends. It is the only concept that will work in coherency with the rest of the rulebook.
Ceann wrote: If you shoot at the librarian unit, containing the librarian model, it COUNTS AS a part of the tactical unit. It doesn't need to be any other way because if you aren't trying to shoot him then no one cares, it works the one way it needs too.
Absolutely wrong. No where does it state that the Independent Character unit counts as part of the unit it joins. A rule only operates on a model unless it specifically states it affects the unit. Read the introduction to Special Rules, including the portion called "What Special Rules Do I Have?".
At no point do the Independent Character rules ever refer to the the Independent Character as a unit, therefore, it is only speaking of the model. The MODEL joins the other unit and counts as part of the unit. The IC's UNIT is never stated as doing anything when joined and is only referenced at one single point (when the rest of the models of the joined unit have been removed as casualties).
Ceann wrote: No ,you are following the game, because Independent Character is a special rule and as is notated in the BRB - Whenever a creature or weapon has an ability that breaks or bends one of the main game rules, it is represented by a special rule.
This sentence makes no sense. You are responding to a question that you did not bother to quote or make yourself. And do not bother trying to lecture me on something I said. It is most disingenuous.
Ceann wrote: You may not like that the wound allocation rules will put the wounds on the unit he counts as which is the tactical squad, but there isn't anyway for you get around it short of precision effects. It says counts as for ALL rule purposes, is being a unit a purpose? Yes. Is shooting a purpose? Yes. Is wound allocation a purpose? Yes.
But I am not applying Wounds to the unit he joined. I am applying them to the unit that he is. That unit only has one model. The only way that IC's unit could have another model is if another IC joined HIM, not if he joined another unit.
Ceann wrote: It may not work the way you like it to work, but it works and the rules support it.
Right back at ya. You have conflated the interaction of rules between model and unit, a very important interaction that is carried throughout the rulebook. You have repeatedly introduced instructions which do not exist and tried to pass them off as written rules. You have repeatedly misquoted the rules and misrepresented them. So, the rules do not work the way you think they work. In fact, a good portion of the rules do not work if you take them literally.
If you don´t then this is just a troll post where you are arguing for language which is irrelevant and I just won´t bother listening to anything you ever have to say again.
If you don´t then this is just a troll post where you are arguing for language which is irrelevant and I just won´t bother listening to anything you ever have to say again.
Good day to you sir/troll
This is a rules debate forum . Unless asked or divulged you have no idea how people play , because this is 100% rules discussion and not how would i play it ( HWIPI ) . Your attack of "If you do then you can´t be playing many games. " Is not an argument. If you wish to know how people play things , ask HWIPI , most are forthcoming , but again this has no bearing on what the rules actually say. People here debate the actual written language of the rules.
Applying wounds is a rule and it has a purpose, shooting is a rule and it has a purpose, being a model or a unit is a purpose. If it counts as for ALL purposes then the rule meets all of the circumstances you are proposing.
As for your plasma pistol issue you are 100% correct about what it says.
However there are rules for Overwatch BRBpg 45.
An overwatch attack is resolved like a normal shooting attack and uses all the normal rules for line of sight, cover saves and so on.
So in order for an overwatch attack to take place the pistol still has to access the weapons profile, it just counts as a ccw otherwise. The overwatch rule is providing an exception to the base circumstances.
rawne2510 wrote:Ok do you try to argue this in games??
If you do then you can´t be playing many games.
If you don´t then this is just a troll post where you are arguing for language which is irrelevant and I just won´t bother listening to anything you ever have to say again.
Good day to you sir/troll
Then you haven't read what I have posted. I have stated how I play it several times now. What I am exploring the is the RAW of the rules, and trying to help others see just how crazy and incomplete it is if we took it too literally. In addition, it is a great way to show how the rules interact. Very few rules are ever taken in a vacuum in 40K, especially with Independent Characters.
Since I have stated such, I can only consider this to be a troll post or a deliberate attack against me.
Ceann wrote:Applying wounds is a rule and it has a purpose, shooting is a rule and it has a purpose, being a model or a unit is a purpose. If it counts as for ALL purposes then the rule meets all of the circumstances you are proposing.
A pointless statement as you do not seem to understand how the interactions work. Wound Allocation is performed against the unit which received the attack. Marines cannot be part of the Librarian unit. A Chaplain can, a Captain can, but not Marines or a Sergeant.
Ceann wrote:As for your plasma pistol issue you are 100% correct about what it says.
However there are rules for Overwatch BRBpg 45.
An overwatch attack is resolved like a normal shooting attack and uses all the normal rules for line of sight, cover saves and so on.
So in order for an overwatch attack to take place the pistol still has to access the weapons profile, it just counts as a ccw otherwise. The overwatch rule is providing an exception to the base circumstances.
No, it counts as a CCW for the Assault PHASE, not the Combat Sub-Phase. Overwatch is in the Assault Phase. We don't switch Phases for Overwatch, we just reference back to the instructions for it.
I should point out that Librarians can reference two things, a model and a unit. They are not always the same thing. The key point you seem to be missing is the need to be ignoring the Librarian unit. It is only if we consider "counts as" to be replacing its membership from the Librarian unit to membership in the Tactical Squad unit on a temporary basis, that this phrase can work.
Incorrect. The Librarian never loses his unit status. That status is merely being overridden by the unit status of the Tactical Squad and not replaced. No where do the rules say that the Librarian's unit status is replaced by unit membership in the tactical squad. This is key because any rule that circumvents the 'counts as part of the unit' clause can access the Librarian's unit status which he never lost.
I don't see how you differentiate between being overridden and being replaced. If it's overridden it would be replaced for the duration of its being overridden, at least for rules purposes. And it doesn't matter if he retains his unit status outside of rules purposes.
Overridden does not involve any replacing. The unit status of the Tac Marines is being applied over the unit status of the Librarian when the Librarian joins the unit of Tacticals. The Librarian never loses his own unit status - that status is always there, underneath, and is recoverable by rules.
Overriding means that, for rules purposes, you ignore the unit status of the IC. Ignoring it is functionally the same as replacing it. There is no functional difference between replacing and overriding in this case. Special rules for the IC cover him becoming his own unit again, whether you treat it as "overridden" or "replaced". You are trying to make a distinction where there is none.
I understand the point he is trying to make but I don't think his assertions have a leg to stand on.
Again you are not saying, as you have literally put, but implying, that counts as, is a becomes, and that by counting as something else it no longer is what it originally was. You are not saying it you are implying it. Since overwatch refers back to the rules for the shooting phase you use the rules from the shooting phase.
My statement is not pointless and I do understand how it works. Special rules bend and break the rules of the game the BRB even notated as such. In this circumstance all of the assertions and statements you are making about a librarian as a model or a unit apply normally. However a special rule is superseding all of the circumstances you are supplying, because it counts as for all rules purposes. So for rules purposes the librarian effectively does not exist, but technically does exist, the application of all purposes prevents you from interacting with him directly.
Overriding means that, for rules purposes, you ignore the unit status of the IC. Ignoring it is functionally the same as replacing it. There is no functional difference between replacing and overriding in this case. Special rules for the IC cover him becoming his own unit again, whether you treat it as "overridden" or "replaced". You are trying to make a distinction where there is none.
Incorrect. Override means that for rules purposes the unit status of the Tac squad takes precedence over the unit status of the IC.
This is key to understand. The unit status of the Librarian is buried under a more specific rule (the IC rule), but the unit status of the Librarian is always there. No rule exists that takes it away or replaces it. A rule is applied on top that takes precedence.
When a Librarian joins a Tactical unit he becomes a unit within a unit and it is the encapsulating unit that takes precedence.
Soulburst, Kill Point, Psyker Rules, the IC Special Rules rule all recognize and access the underlying unit status of the IC.
It is treated as part of the unit for all rules purposes (except for exceptions specifically mentioned in the IC rules). That means, for all rules purposes, his is part of one unit. He is not his own unit, but is part of the unit he has joined. There is no "unit wihtin a unit" if for rules purposes you are part of another unnit.
doctortom wrote: It is treated as part of the unit for all rules purposes (except for exceptions specifically mentioned in the IC rules). That means, for all rules purposes, his is part of one unit. He is not his own unit, but is part of the unit he has joined. There is no "unit wihtin a unit" if for rules purposes you are part of another unnit.
Incorrect. The IC being part of the Tac unit merely takes precedence over the IC being his own unit. The IC never stops being his own unit.
This allows specific exceptions to still be able to work on the IC's buried unit status.
If you have a problem with this you have a problems with the BRB. I am merely presenting how the rules work in this case according to the BRB.
In which case you will be unable to ever carry out any action with that unit that requires you to resolve one unit at a time. Because the moment you try to do something with the IC, you are trying to affect two different units simultaneously.
It simply doesn't work. There is no rules basis for this nested hierarchy that you're suggesting. The IC can not be still considered part of another unit if he is being considered a part of this unit for all rules purposes.
In which case you will be unable to ever carry out any action with that unit that requires you to resolve one unit at a time. Because the moment you try to do something with the IC, you are trying to affect two different units simultaneously.
It simply doesn't work. There is no rules basis for this nested hierarchy that you're suggesting. The IC can not be still considered part of another unit if he is being considered a part of this unit for all rules purposes.
It sounds like you need to review what 'takes precedence over' means.
The two rules statements co-exist and are fully present, yet one rule statements takes precedence over the other.
In fact the logic of precedence requires that the IC's unit status is still there so that the more advanced rule can take precedence over it.
Soulburst, Kill Point, Psyker Rules, the IC Special Rules rule all recognize and access the underlying unit status of the IC.
It started as a unit. Nothing has said it stops being a unit. Ergo it must still be a unit.
However as I said before this can only matter when testing for presence of the unit. As soon as you try to interact with it in any way (targeting, affecting, charging, whatever) you trigger the part of the joined unit clause and that supercedes its status as a unit in its own right. So while the IC is still a unit within a unit, rules that interact with a unit will ignore that and only interact with the joined unit as instructed.
If you have a joined IC and the following turn you wish to move him out of the unit, it would require him to still possess the considering of being an individual unit, otherwise once an IC joined a unit they could then never leave as you would have no way to move him out individually.
Ceann wrote:I understand the point he is trying to make but I don't think his assertions have a leg to stand on.
Which one, me, or Col_Ignored?
If it is me, I have explained my How I Play it at several points up to know, and that it is how I explained how "counts as" works. I do acknowledge it for what it is, but I also recognize the literal rules as they are written.
Ceann wrote:Again you are not saying, as you have literally put, but implying, that counts as, is a becomes, and that by counting as something else it no longer is what it originally was. You are not saying it you are implying it. Since overwatch refers back to the rules for the shooting phase you use the rules from the shooting phase.
"Counts as" means that It is no longer what it was until the time comes to revert back to what it is. That is how the rulebook uses it. And yes, I am saying this, and I have also implied that this is not explicitly written as such.
You go back to the Shooting Phase for the rules, but you do not change back to the Shooting Phase itself, but stay remaining in the Assault Phase. We are not instructed to treat Overwatch as a Shooting Phase in the written rules, "counting as" or otherwise.
And since we are in the Assault Phase, then you don't have a Ranged Weapon, but a Close Combat Weapon, which cannot be fired as a Shooting Weapon.
Ceann wrote:My statement is not pointless and I do understand how it works. Special rules bend and break the rules of the game the BRB even notated as such. In this circumstance all of the assertions and statements you are making about a librarian as a model or a unit apply normally. However a special rule is superseding all of the circumstances you are supplying, because it counts as for all rules purposes. So for rules purposes the librarian effectively does not exist, but technically does exist, the application of all purposes prevents you from interacting with him directly.
Yes, it was pointless because you are making assumptions based on what you want, but not what is written.
Yes, Special Rules DO break the basic game rules, I know because I posted that. BUT the problem with the rest is that I do not have instruction nor permission to transfer Wounds from one unit to another, even if the model is part of both units. Wounds are only allocated to the unit which received the shots, period. The IC rules say nothing on being able to transfer Wounds between units, so it is breaking nothing there.
The IC rules do not literally state that the IC unit is ignored, so by requiring your enemy to ignore it, you are either adding to the rules, or operating based on an assumption.
By being part of a unit for all rules purposes does not necessarily stop what happens with the original unit. By literal statement (without consideration of what other definitions of "counts as" could be), that just means that when the unit does something or has something done to it, the IC is affected at the same time. It does not mean that anything that happens to the IC's unit happens to the unit he joins, since they are two separate entities. A Librarian unit is not a Tactical Squad nor can be included as being part of a Tactical Squad by any instructions in the IC rules.
Fhionnuisce wrote:It started as a unit. Nothing has said it stops being a unit. Ergo it must still be a unit.
A point I brought up many times and no one has provided with a literal answer. It is only by considering "counts as" under as an assumption based on numerous other uses in the rulebook that we are able to consider the temporary "loss" of the IC's unit, or at least not recognizing that it is there "for all rules purposes".
Fhionnuisce wrote:However as I said before this can only matter when testing for presence of the unit. As soon as you try to interact with it in any way (targeting, affecting, charging, whatever) you trigger the part of the joined unit clause and that supercedes its status as a unit in its own right. So while the IC is still a unit within a unit, rules that interact with a unit will ignore that and only interact with the joined unit as instructed.
Except you have as much permission to ignore for targeting as you do when testing for the presence of the unit. It counts for ALL rules purposes, so what is applied for one, is applied for the other.
One should note that Multiple Charge requirements do test for the presence of a unit, as does checking for a unit to Shoot...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ceann wrote: If you have a joined IC and the following turn you wish to move him out of the unit, it would require him to still possess the considering of being an individual unit, otherwise once an IC joined a unit they could then never leave as you would have no way to move him out individually.
That doesn't follow any rule in rulebook.
The Independent Character rule applies only to the model, not the unit. If you want to see a Special Rule that applies to the unit, go read Stubborn. So, requiring him to possess his unit identity, or even requiring it to be recognized, while joined to another unit is not required. The model has permission to leave the unit, period. It does not require a unit identity when it leaves. Fortunately, it is available when he does leave.
There is no conflict with it being both a unit itself and pay off the joined unit when you are counting units. There's only a conflict when we are trying to interact with a unit, at we point we choose what takes priority.
And where have the rules used counts as to mean it loses its prior qualities? You keep claiming the pistol rules, but I haven't seen anything that says they lose the ranged profile, they are simply prevented from using a ranged profile in CC. So they remain a pistol with a ranged profile but also count as a CC weapon with the generic CC profile.
Ceann wrote:Again you are not saying, as you have literally put, but implying, that counts as, is a becomes, and that by counting as something else it no longer is what it originally was. You are not saying it you are implying it. Since overwatch refers back to the rules for the shooting phase you use the rules from the shooting phase.
Charistoph wrote:"Counts as" means that It is no longer what it was until the time comes to revert back to what it is. That is how the rulebook uses it. And yes, I am saying this, and I have also implied that this is not explicitly written as such.
You go back to the Shooting Phase for the rules, but you do not change back to the Shooting Phase itself, but stay remaining in the Assault Phase. We are not instructed to treat Overwatch as a Shooting Phase in the written rules, "counting as" or otherwise.
And since we are in the Assault Phase, then you don't have a Ranged Weapon, but a Close Combat Weapon, which cannot be fired as a Shooting Weapon.
I think that this here properly reflects our divergence. As I see it the count's as is supplementary, not a replacement.
I see it as the plasma pistol gaining the close combat weapon profile, but only for the duration of the assault phase, which allows you to use it as a melee weapon, it does not remove its existing profile.
In the case of the Librarian, it gains the model/unit profile for the Tactical Squad, allowing you to allocate wounds to the squad, it retains its existing profile.
Do you have a more clear example of where the rules clearly show that "count's as" is a replacement of the units current status and supplementing it with another?
Fhionnuisce wrote:There is no conflict with it being both a unit itself and pay off the joined unit when you are counting units. There's only a conflict when we are trying to interact with a unit, at we point we choose what takes priority.
Why is there a conflict? Technically speaking there is no actual conflict. Any conflict is the only type that you choose to bring in to the situation.
Fhionnuisce wrote:And where have the rules used counts as to mean it loses its prior qualities? You keep claiming the pistol rules, but I haven't seen anything that says they lose the ranged profile, they are simply prevented from using a ranged profile in CC. So they remain a pistol with a ranged profile but also count as a CC weapon with the generic CC profile.
First off, there is no note of switch profiles during this interaction, nor is there any note that this is added on to it. It can only be for the entire time that is noted as there is no option mentioned for anything else.
Second, if one can fire a Pistol in Overwatch, then I can shoot the Librarian unit while the model is joined to a Tactical Squad. If the Pistol's profile is completely available during a time when it is counting as something else, then the Librarian unit is completely available with the Librarian model in it when its model is counting as a part of another unit, and that includes for being shot at and being Charged.
Ceann wrote:
Charistoph wrote:
Ceann wrote:Again you are not saying, as you have literally put, but implying, that counts as, is a becomes, and that by counting as something else it no longer is what it originally was. You are not saying it you are implying it. Since overwatch refers back to the rules for the shooting phase you use the rules from the shooting phase.
"Counts as" means that It is no longer what it was until the time comes to revert back to what it is. That is how the rulebook uses it. And yes, I am saying this, and I have also implied that this is not explicitly written as such.
You go back to the Shooting Phase for the rules, but you do not change back to the Shooting Phase itself, but stay remaining in the Assault Phase. We are not instructed to treat Overwatch as a Shooting Phase in the written rules, "counting as" or otherwise.
And since we are in the Assault Phase, then you don't have a Ranged Weapon, but a Close Combat Weapon, which cannot be fired as a Shooting Weapon.
I think that this here properly reflects our divergence. As I see it the count's as is supplementary, not a replacement.
I see it as the plasma pistol gaining the close combat weapon profile, but only for the duration of the assault phase, which allows you to use it as a melee weapon, it does not remove its existing profile.
In the case of the Librarian, it gains the model/unit profile for the Tactical Squad, allowing you to allocate wounds to the squad, it retains its existing profile.
Do you have a more clear example of where the rules clearly show that "count's as" is a replacement of the units current status and supplementing it with another?
If it is supplementary, then the Librarian unit is completely available with its original model, and can be Shot without affecting the rest of the unit the model joined. Being supplementary means the Librarian model is part of both the Librarian unit and Tactical Squad at the same time. It does not mean one is lost or ignored for whim or convenience.
As for similar situations with "counts as", where to start? Try Flying Monstrous Creatures, Flyers Hover Mode, Relentless, and Slow and Purposeful.
Fhionnuisce wrote:And where have the rules used counts as to mean it loses its prior qualities? You keep claiming the pistol rules, but I haven't seen anything that says they lose the ranged profile, they are simply prevented from using a ranged profile in CC. So they remain a pistol with a ranged profile but also count as a CC weapon with the generic CC profile.
First off, there is no note of switch profiles during this interaction, nor is there any note that this is added on to it. It can only be for the entire time that is noted as there is no option mentioned for anything else.
Second, if one can fire a Pistol in Overwatch, then I can shoot the Librarian unit while the model is joined to a Tactical Squad. If the Pistol's profile is completely available during a time when it is counting as something else, then the Librarian unit is completely available with the Librarian model in it when its model is counting as a part of another unit, and that includes for being shot at and being Charged.
I suggest you read the rules.
The rules says this . . .
Spoiler:
Pistols are effectively Assault 1 weapons. A Pistol ALSO counts as a close combat weapon in the Assault phase.
The rules do not say this . . .
Spoiler:
Pistols are effectively Assault 1 weapons. A Pistol counts as a close combat weapon instead of a shooting weapon in the Assault phase.
The rules also make clear that the switch in profiles happens when the pistol is explicitly used as a close combat weapon.
Spoiler:
Pistols as Close Combat Weapons
A pistol can be used as a close combat weapon. If this is done, use the profile given above – the Strength, AP and special rules of the pistol’s shooting profile are ignored.
So there is no problem at all with using a pistol for Overwatch. Since you are not using the pistol as a close combat weapon at that time, the pistol's shooting profile is entirely available.
Charistoph wrote: If it is supplementary, then the Librarian unit is completely available with its original model, and can be Shot without affecting the rest of the unit the model joined. Being supplementary means the Librarian model is part of both the Librarian unit and Tactical Squad at the same time. It does not mean one is lost or ignored for whim or convenience.
And if he is part of both at the same time, wound allocation rules force you to apply them to the nearest unit to unit contact from the origin of the attack. His "count's as" status permits him to do this regardless of your shooting at him directly.
doctortom wrote: It is treated as part of the unit for all rules purposes (except for exceptions specifically mentioned in the IC rules). That means, for all rules purposes, his is part of one unit. He is not his own unit, but is part of the unit he has joined. There is no "unit wihtin a unit" if for rules purposes you are part of another unnit.
Incorrect. The IC being part of the Tac unit merely takes precedence over the IC being his own unit. The IC never stops being his own unit.
This allows specific exceptions to still be able to work on the IC's buried unit status.
If you have a problem with this you have a problems with the BRB. I am merely presenting how the rules work in this case according to the BRB.
No, you are presenting your theory on how it works. That doesn't mean that it's what the rules say. The fact remains that whether you call it overriding, taking precedent or whatever, "for all rules purposes" (except as specified in the IC rules) he is part of a unit and is treated only as being part of one unit. For rules purposes (except for exceptions specified in the IC ruels) he is not treated as a unit in a unit.
Charistoph wrote: If it is supplementary, then the Librarian unit is completely available with its original model, and can be Shot without affecting the rest of the unit the model joined. Being supplementary means the Librarian model is part of both the Librarian unit and Tactical Squad at the same time. It does not mean one is lost or ignored for whim or convenience.
And if he is part of both at the same time, wound allocation rules force you to apply them to the nearest unit to unit contact from the origin of the attack. His "count's as" status permits him to do this regardless of your shooting at him directly.
Incorrect. Nothing about Wound Allocation or Look Out Sir states this at all.
Remember, you Shoot Units, not Models. Wounds are then allocated to models in the unit shot. Here's the summary. You can check against the actual instructions and see if there is anything else that would change this. Hint: there isn't.
The Shooting Sequence 1. Nominate Unit to Shoot. ...
2. Choose a Target. The unit can shoot at an enemy unit that it can see.
3. Select a Weapon. ...
4. Roll To Hit. ...
5. Roll To Wound. For each shot that hit, roll again to see if it wounds the target. The result needed is determined by comparing the Strength of the firing weapon with the majority Toughness of the target unit. 6. Allocate Wounds & Remove Casualties.Any Wounds caused by the firing unit must now be allocated, one at a time, to the closest model in the target unit. A model with a Wound allocated to it can take a saving throw (if it has one) to avoid being wounded. If a model is reduced to 0 Wounds, it is removed as a casualty. Wounds are then allocated to the next closest model. Continue to allocate Wounds and take saving throws until all Wounds have been resolved.
...
You shoot units, and then Allocate Wounds to the Target Unit. If I shoot a Librarian unit, any Wounds are Allocated only to the Target Unit. Nothing in the IC rules state the unit joined becomes part of the IC's unit, only the IC joining the joined 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.
Not even Look Out Sir makes any changes to this factor of Wound Allocation.
When a Wound is allocated to one of your non-vehicle characters, and there is another model from the same unit within 6", he is allowed a Look Out, Sir attempt. This represents the character ducking back further into the unit, holding a comrade in the line of fire, or being pushed aside by a selfless ally. If no model is in range, then you cannot make a Look Out, Sir attempt.
Wounds reallocated by Look Out Sir are still within the same unit that was Attacked.
Even in a Multiple Combat, you cannot Allocate Wounds to a unit that did not receive the Attacks.
Directing Attacks
In multiple combats, during a model’s Initiative step, the following extra rules apply:
• A model that is in base contact with, or engaged with, just one enemy unit when it comes to strike must attack that unit.
• A model that is in base contact with, or engaged with, more than one enemy unit when it strikes blows, can split its Attacks freely between those units. Declare how each model is splitting its attacks immediately before rolling To Hit. Wounds from Attacks that have been directed against a unit in a multiple combat cannot be transferred to another unit, even if the original target unit is completely destroyed (in this case, any excess Wounds are simply discounted and have no further effect).
So there is zero support for transferring Wounds from one unit to another.
Therefore:
* Any concept that attacks directed at an IC unit can be Allocated to a unit the IC model joined is a fabrication.
* The concept that the unit joins the IC's unit is a fabrication.
* The only way to prevent any such actions is to prevent the IC's unit from being recognized by the enemy unit.
* No such literal instructions exist to remove the IC's unit from recognition. It is only by taking the implications of "counts as" as removing the IC's unit from recognition by virtue of lacking any models whatsoever as its model is now part of another unit, is this even a possibility.
Your interpretation has separated the IC unit entirely from the joined unit and ignored the party if the joined unit instruction. Since it's unit status is simultaneously the IC unit and the unit it joined, when you target the IC unit you have also targeted the joined unit. If you recognized both unit affiliations in the target then wound allocation works as normal.
Automatically Appended Next Post: To elaborate, I'll break down how this works without ignoring the part of the joined unit requirement.
ICs begin the game as their own unit. Nothing in the instructions for joining a unit removes this unit status so the remain their own unit even when joined to another. Based on this you use that as justification to directly target the IC unit with a shooting attack.
You now have your target unit selected, however your target unit is associated with two units, the IC unit and the joined unit. Both are valid and you were given permission to choose the target unit but to not which unit association within that unit the attack resolves against, therefore both must be considered in continuing to resolve the attack. There are two ways to proceed, but both lead to the same result:
1) You have a rules conflict since you are targeting two units with an attack that rules only allow to target one. In this case you go to the counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes clause since it is explicit instruction and resolve the attack against the joined unit.
2) You continue to resolve the attack taking into consideration both units. To wounds will be rolled against majority toughness from both units and allocation will be to closest model, so effectively the same as if resolving against the joined unit.
You are quoting the rules exactly as the are, but disregarding that he COUNTS AS that unit for ALL purposes. It is a special rule and takes precedence over the basic unit rules you are quoting.
The argument you are presenting is tantamount to saying that a scout squad shooting a sniper rifle cannot target a specific model in a unit because the basic shooting rules don't say that they can do it. Snipers have a special rule that allow them to choose the unit.
Just like an IC has a special rule that allows them to COUNT AS the unit they joined, hence the wounds have to go onto the joined unit. Without you interpreting the "count as" rule in a way that gives you the ability to make an argument, your argument has no leg to stand on. In order for you to actually have a point you have to prove that COUNTS AS does not function this way and until you can do that, you cannot make an argument based on what the basic rules state.
Col_impact also demonstrated that you were not properly interperting the plasma pistol correctly as RAW so that is no longer a valid point to use as a "counts as" example that is somehow contradictory.
Fhionnuisce wrote:Your interpretation has separated the IC unit entirely from the joined unit and ignored the party if the joined unit instruction. Since it's unit status is simultaneously the IC unit and the unit it joined, when you target the IC unit you have also targeted the joined unit. If you recognized both unit affiliations in the target then wound allocation works as normal.
My interpretation has only done what is stated. I have done nothing but what is instructed. I have actually addressed this already. Special Rules only affect a unit when they say they affect a unit, otherwise, they only affect the model. Read the Introduction to Special Rules, including WHAT SPECIAL RULES DO I HAVE? for more information.
The references to "independent characters" in the Independent Character USR never reference a unit, and so only reference a model. To put it more explicitly "While an Independent Character (model) is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes, though he still follows the rules for characters." At no point are we to consider it as "While an Independent Character (unit) is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes, though he still follows the rules for characters.".
Fhionnuisce wrote:ICs begin the game as their own unit.
Correction. ICs begin the list building stage in a unit of one model. All Special Rules listed on a Datasheet are applied to the models in the unit per the legends for datasheets and army list entries in ever single codex.
Also, for clarity, ICs can begin the game already joined to a unit, either declared joined and in Reserves, Embarking the Transport another unit is in, or by being deployed in Coherency with another unit on the table.
Fhionnuisce wrote:Nothing in the instructions for joining a unit removes this unit status so the remain their own unit even when joined to another. Based on this you use that as justification to directly target the IC unit with a shooting attack.
Because if the IC's unit is recognized at any point on the table it can be shot, per the instructions for Shooting.
Fhionnuisce wrote:You now have your target unit selected, however your target unit is associated with two units, the IC unit and the joined unit.
Already demonstrated that this is a false assertion. The correct phrase is "You now have your target unit selected, however the target unit has a model associated with two units, the IC unit and the joined unit".
I see this happen a lot. People conflate the concepts of unit and model. They are not conflatable. To put it simply, you Shoot a unit, but the models are Wounded. Units do not have Wounds, models do. Units Run, models are moved.
Fhionnuisce wrote:Both are valid and you were given permission to choose the target unit but to not which unit association within that unit the attack resolves against, therefore both must be considered in continuing to resolve the attack.
I have been "given permission to choose the target group, but not which group association within that group the attack resolves against"? Show me where the term "association" is used in this context within the Shooting or Assault Phase.
To put it simply, units are a group of models. The models are associated together, so a unit is an association of models. An association of units has a different name, though, it is called "a detachment". Look it up. An no point is an association of units ever defined as a unit. If you can prove otherwise, please quote and reference.
Since your premises are flawed from the word go, any other considerations you make using it are equally as flawed, if not more so.
Ceann wrote:You are quoting the rules exactly as the are, but disregarding that he COUNTS AS that unit for ALL purposes. It is a special rule and takes precedence over the basic unit rules you are quoting.
I am disregarding NOTHING. In order to demonstrate that a special rule is breaking a rule, you need to demonstrate the rule that is broken. And to restate, a model counting as a member of another unit does not literally mean that he stops being a member of his own unit, nor does it literally mean the IC's own unit is no longer recognizable. Counting as a member of another unit only means that what affects the unit it joined affects it, too.
To put it another way, all elk are deer, but not all deer are elk. You are saying that because all elk are deer, then all deer are elk.
Ceann wrote:The argument you are presenting is tantamount to saying that a scout squad shooting a sniper rifle cannot target a specific model in a unit because the basic shooting rules don't say that they can do it. Snipers have a special rule that allow them to choose the unit.
Incorrect on several terminologies, and this demonstrates where your premise is wrong.
Every unit with a ranged weapon has basic rules that allow them to shoot any unit they can see. This makes your final statement of, "Snipers have a special rule that allow them to choose the unit", is either misstated or msiconcepted.
What the Sniper and Precision Strikes/Shots state is:
Wounds from Precision Shots are allocated against a model (or models) of your choice in the target unit, as long as it is in range and line of sight of the firer, rather than following the normal rules for Wound allocation.
Nothing in there states that I can shoot any specific model. What it states is that I, as the owner of the Shooting model, can determine where those Wounds are Allocated, which changes the normal Wound Allocation from being the nearest one. Nor does the Precision Strikes rule stop Line of Sight from happening.
Also, I never stated anything about only Shooting a specific model in my statements, except when I was talking about Shooting a unit which only contains one, single model. There is a HUGE difference in connotations and operations between the two statements that you do not seem to comprehend.
Ceann wrote:Just like an IC has a special rule that allows them to COUNT AS the unit they joined, hence the wounds have to go onto the joined unit. Without you interpreting the "count as" rule in a way that gives you the ability to make an argument, your argument has no leg to stand on. In order for you to actually have a point you have to prove that COUNTS AS does not function this way and until you can do that, you cannot make an argument based on what the basic rules state.
Again, you are conflating the IC UNIT with the IC MODEL. The "Independent Character' is never referenced as a unit, so can only be referencing the model. The MODEL counts as being a member of the unit they joined, but nothing is stated about the IC's UNIT in these interactions except for when it states, "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." That's it. And while this tells us it after the fact, nothing tells us what to do before the fact. Any decision on what is done before the fact is based on implications and assumptions, aka HYWPI.
Ceann wrote:Col_impact also demonstrated that you were not properly interperting the plasma pistol correctly as RAW so that is no longer a valid point to use as a "counts as" example that is somehow contradictory.
Col_Ignored also regularly misstates terms and phrases and has lied about what others have said. I have him on Ignore for a very good reason. Using him as a standard is not a sign of endorsement for the consideration, and usually a reason to consider it in the opposite light.
Fhionnuisce wrote:Your interpretation has separated the IC unit entirely from the joined unit and ignored the party if the joined unit instruction. Since it's unit status is simultaneously the IC unit and the unit it joined, when you target the IC unit you have also targeted the joined unit. If you recognized both unit affiliations in the target then wound allocation works as normal.
My interpretation has only done what is stated. I have done nothing but what is instructed. I have actually addressed this already. Special Rules only affect a unit when they say they affect a unit, otherwise, they only affect the model. Read the Introduction to Special Rules, including WHAT SPECIAL RULES DO I HAVE? for more information.
The references to "independent characters" in the Independent Character USR never reference a unit, and so only reference a model. To put it more explicitly "While an Independent Character (model) is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes, though he still follows the rules for characters." At no point are we to consider it as "While an Independent Character (unit) is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes, though he still follows the rules for characters.".
Fhionnuisce wrote:ICs begin the game as their own unit.
Correction. ICs begin the list building stage in a unit of one model. All Special Rules listed on a Datasheet are applied to the models in the unit per the legends for datasheets and army list entries in ever single codex.
Also, for clarity, ICs can begin the game already joined to a unit, either declared joined and in Reserves, Embarking the Transport another unit is in, or by being deployed in Coherency with another unit on the table.
Fhionnuisce wrote:Nothing in the instructions for joining a unit removes this unit status so the remain their own unit even when joined to another. Based on this you use that as justification to directly target the IC unit with a shooting attack.
Because if the IC's unit is recognized at any point on the table it can be shot, per the instructions for Shooting.
Fhionnuisce wrote:You now have your target unit selected, however your target unit is associated with two units, the IC unit and the joined unit.
Already demonstrated that this is a false assertion. The correct phrase is "You now have your target unit selected, however the target unit has a model associated with two units, the IC unit and the joined unit".
I see this happen a lot. People conflate the concepts of unit and model. They are not conflatable. To put it simply, you Shoot a unit, but the models are Wounded. Units do not have Wounds, models do. Units Run, models are moved.
Fhionnuisce wrote:Both are valid and you were given permission to choose the target unit but to not which unit association within that unit the attack resolves against, therefore both must be considered in continuing to resolve the attack.
I have been "given permission to choose the target group, but not which group association within that group the attack resolves against"? Show me where the term "association" is used in this context within the Shooting or Assault Phase.
To put it simply, units are a group of models. The models are associated together, so a unit is an association of models. An association of units has a different name, though, it is called "a detachment". Look it up. An no point is an association of units ever defined as a unit. If you can prove otherwise, please quote and reference.
Since your premises are flawed from the word go, any other considerations you make using it are equally as flawed, if not more so.
Ceann wrote:You are quoting the rules exactly as the are, but disregarding that he COUNTS AS that unit for ALL purposes. It is a special rule and takes precedence over the basic unit rules you are quoting.
I am disregarding NOTHING. In order to demonstrate that a special rule is breaking a rule, you need to demonstrate the rule that is broken. And to restate, a model counting as a member of another unit does not literally mean that he stops being a member of his own unit, nor does it literally mean the IC's own unit is no longer recognizable. Counting as a member of another unit only means that what affects the unit it joined affects it, too.
To put it another way, all elk are deer, but not all deer are elk. You are saying that because all elk are deer, then all deer are elk.
Ceann wrote:The argument you are presenting is tantamount to saying that a scout squad shooting a sniper rifle cannot target a specific model in a unit because the basic shooting rules don't say that they can do it. Snipers have a special rule that allow them to choose the unit.
Incorrect on several terminologies, and this demonstrates where your premise is wrong.
Every unit with a ranged weapon has basic rules that allow them to shoot any unit they can see. This makes your final statement of, "Snipers have a special rule that allow them to choose the unit", is either misstated or msiconcepted.
What the Sniper and Precision Strikes/Shots state is:
Wounds from Precision Shots are allocated against a model (or models) of your choice in the target unit, as long as it is in range and line of sight of the firer, rather than following the normal rules for Wound allocation.
Nothing in there states that I can shoot any specific model. What it states is that I, as the owner of the Shooting model, can determine where those Wounds are Allocated, which changes the normal Wound Allocation from being the nearest one. Nor does the Precision Strikes rule stop Line of Sight from happening.
Also, I never stated anything about only Shooting a specific model in my statements, except when I was talking about Shooting a unit which only contains one, single model. There is a HUGE difference in connotations and operations between the two statements that you do not seem to comprehend.
Ceann wrote:Just like an IC has a special rule that allows them to COUNT AS the unit they joined, hence the wounds have to go onto the joined unit. Without you interpreting the "count as" rule in a way that gives you the ability to make an argument, your argument has no leg to stand on. In order for you to actually have a point you have to prove that COUNTS AS does not function this way and until you can do that, you cannot make an argument based on what the basic rules state.
Again, you are conflating the IC UNIT with the IC MODEL. The "Independent Character' is never referenced as a unit, so can only be referencing the model. The MODEL counts as being a member of the unit they joined, but nothing is stated about the IC's UNIT in these interactions except for when it states, "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." That's it. And while this tells us it after the fact, nothing tells us what to do before the fact. Any decision on what is done before the fact is based on implications and assumptions, aka HYWPI.
Ceann wrote:Col_impact also demonstrated that you were not properly interperting the plasma pistol correctly as RAW so that is no longer a valid point to use as a "counts as" example that is somehow contradictory.
Col_Ignored also regularly misstates terms and phrases and has lied about what others have said. I have him on Ignore for a very good reason. Using him as a standard is not a sign of endorsement for the consideration, and usually a reason to consider it in the opposite light.
There's a big wall of text here and a lot of criticism of word choice but not much to address my points. Fact remains an IC is a unit in itself until it joins another unit. You presented nothing that says it stops being one upon joining. That means whether you call it a unit in a unit it a model that is in two units, you still still have two units in your target unit.
If you try to start a shooting attack against the IC it count's as the unit he has joined. You don't get to directly apply anything to him as a unit. The rule is directing you to the unit he joined. If you are shooting a Librarian who count's as a tactical squad, then it count's as you shooting at a tactical squad. You don't get to decide to single out the librarian unit on its own, you don't have that choice.
The rules are directing you to count him as the unit he joined for all purposes. I never mention anything about the model I only talk about the unit. Nothing has to be stated about the unit because "fill in the blank" you perform that has the Librarian unit in it, is counted as the unit he joined.
I shoot at the Librarian unit . Gets changed to joined unit.
I assault the Librarian unit. Gets changed to joined unit.
Any rule you are applying COUNTS AS. It is not an option you are being given, to decide which is which, it is a directing of ANY rule you try to apply, to instead apply to the joined unit.
You claimed that there were other failures of count's as that support your assertion of how you view it but the example you provided was wrong. The burden of proof is on you to provide a contrary interpretation of count's as.
Page 42 BRB - A pistol ALSO count's as a close combat weapon in the assault phase.
Not ONLY, ALSO.
Until you can prove that "Count as" works the way you claim it does you have first prove that it failing in a way that allows it to be open to your interpretation. Which has not yet been demonstrated.
No, you are presenting your theory on how it works. That doesn't mean that it's what the rules say. The fact remains that whether you call it overriding, taking precedent or whatever, "for all rules purposes" (except as specified in the IC rules) he is part of a unit and is treated only as being part of one unit. For rules purposes (except for exceptions specified in the IC ruels) he is not treated as a unit in a unit.
It's not me calling the interaction between Basic and Advanced rules one of "override" and "precedence". That isn't just my theory. That's exactly how the BRB describes the relationship and logical interaction between Basic and Advanced rules.
We need to adhere to the terms and logic the BRB uses. If you don't then you are making up your own rules and are house ruling.
Ceann wrote:Col_impact also demonstrated that you were not properly interperting the plasma pistol correctly as RAW so that is no longer a valid point to use as a "counts as" example that is somehow contradictory.
Col_Ignored also regularly misstates terms and phrases and has lied about what others have said. I have him on Ignore for a very good reason. Using him as a standard is not a sign of endorsement for the consideration, and usually a reason to consider it in the opposite light.
Let's face it Charistoph. You aren't fooling anyone. You have me on ignore because you can't defeat the logic and rules support of my arguments. Dodging my straightforward, rational arguments with excuses and insults only underscores the problems in your argument.
I proved with rules support that you were not properly interpreting the plasma pistol and 'counts as'. As Ceann points out, that cripples your argument. If you ignore that, you have effectively conceded since your argument has been built around a provably false interpretation of 'counts as'.
No, you are presenting your theory on how it works. That doesn't mean that it's what the rules say. The fact remains that whether you call it overriding, taking precedent or whatever, "for all rules purposes" (except as specified in the IC rules) he is part of a unit and is treated only as being part of one unit. For rules purposes (except for exceptions specified in the IC ruels) he is not treated as a unit in a unit.
It's not me calling the interaction between Basic and Advanced rules one of "override" and "precedence". That isn't just my theory. That's exactly how the BRB describes the relationship and logical interaction between Basic and Advanced rules.
We need to adhere to the terms and logic the BRB uses. If you don't then you are making up your own rules and are house ruling.
Yes, it is you. Show me in the rules where GW discusses "override" and "precedence" as you are using them. This is you.
If you "count as" being part of another unit for "all" rules purposes, you are treated as being part of a unit. You don't get to also be your own unit, unless there have been specifically defined exceptions in the IC rules. The things you have cited are stated exceptions, not things that show precedence for treating the unit as still being its own unit.
If you're treating something as being part of a unit for all rules purposes, you don't get to treat the IC as being its own unit (except where specifically defined by IC rules.) You can try to insist it is still its own unit, but according to RAW, for rules purposes you treat it as part of another unit. If you are treating it as part of another unit for all rules purposes, it doesn't matter if you think it is still its own unit since for rules purposes you don't get to treat it as its own unit, but as part of a unit, like you are told to in the main rulebook.
Ceann wrote:Col_impact also demonstrated that you were not properly interperting the plasma pistol correctly as RAW so that is no longer a valid point to use as a "counts as" example that is somehow contradictory.
Col_Ignored also regularly misstates terms and phrases and has lied about what others have said. I have him on Ignore for a very good reason. Using him as a standard is not a sign of endorsement for the consideration, and usually a reason to consider it in the opposite light.
Let's face it Charistoph. You aren't fooling anyone. You have me on ignore because you can't defeat the logic and rules support of my arguments. Dodging my straightforward, rational arguments with excuses and insults only underscores the problems in your argument.
I proved with rules support that you were not properly interpreting the plasma pistol and 'counts as'. As Ceann points out, that cripples your argument. If you ignore that, you have effectively conceded since your argument has been built around a provably false interpretation of 'counts as'.
Posting this , making accusations against Charistoph when you know he has you on ignore - meaning he isn't reading your posts - speaks volumes.
Fhionnuisce wrote:There's a big wall of text here and a lot of criticism of word choice but not much to address my points. Fact remains an IC is a unit in itself until it joins another unit. You presented nothing that says it stops being one upon joining. That means whether you call it a unit in a unit it a model that is in two units, you still still have two units in your target unit.
There is a lot of criticism of word choice because the word choice does not reflect the term choice of the rules. And considering that difference of term definitions addresses your points, ignoring them demonstrates a misunderstanding of the rules. In game terms, Models are not units, and Units are not models, Models make up Units. Do not mix them up in your consideration of the terms.
The fact is at no point are every once instructed to treat the IC UNIT as part of the unit the IC MODEL joins. Not once. Because of this FACT, it throws every other point you make out the window.
For an exercise on how these different terms interact, review Relentless and Slow and Purposeful and consider whom/what they affect. If they are not as different as I claim, then one of these rules doesn't operate as extensively as we had supposed.
Ceann wrote:Count's as.
Anything you try to do to the unit.
Count's as.
The other unit he joined.
For ALL rules purposes.
For the IC model, yes. The unit the IC was purchased in, no. Your statements continue to conflate the two concepts of unit and model and ignore this basic concept which the IC rules do not address.
Ceann wrote:If you try to start a shooting attack against the IC it count's as the unit he has joined. You don't get to directly apply anything to him as a unit. The rule is directing you to the unit he joined. If you are shooting a Librarian who count's as a tactical squad, then it count's as you shooting at a tactical squad. You don't get to decide to single out the librarian unit on its own, you don't have that choice.
Incorrect. If I try to start a Shooting Attack against the IC UNIT, it will not count as an Attack against the unit he joined, because they are not the same unit, nor do we have instructions to treat them as the same unit, nor do we have any allowances for transferring Wounds between units by any rule used in this interaction.
Until you understand the relationship between models, units, and the rules in general, you will not understand this concept and continue making mistakes in rules understanding. For example, why does a Librarian in Terminator Armour not allow the entire Devastator Squad to fire without Snap Shots after Moving, but a Chapter Master in a Centurion Squad can fire off his Orbital Bombardment after moving? Without recognizing the differences between model and unit, can you answer this question?
Until you understand this relationship, anything else you claim is nonsensical and not worth reviewing.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
doctortom wrote: Posting this , making accusations against Charistoph when you know he has you on ignore - meaning he isn't reading your posts - speaks volumes.
Yes, it does speak volumes about his ability to read or "listen" to another person.
And no, I did not put him on Ignore because I couldn't handle his statements. I put him on Ignore because I was sick and tired of being put on probation for calling him a liar.
And i called him a liar because he repeatedly quoted me stating one thing, and then says right after that I said the opposite, right after being corrected several times and warned of the fact. I never called him a liar for his perceptions on the rules, just on continuing to say I said something I didn't say.
It's not me calling the interaction between Basic and Advanced rules one of "override" and "precedence". That isn't just my theory. That's exactly how the BRB describes the relationship and logical interaction between Basic and Advanced rules.
We need to adhere to the terms and logic the BRB uses. If you don't then you are making up your own rules and are house ruling.
Yes, it is you. Show me in the rules where GW discusses "override" and "precedence" as you are using them. This is you.
"override", "precedence", "conflict" are not my terms. They are the BRB terms.
Spoiler:
Where advanced rules apply to a specific model, they always override any contradicting basic rules. For example, the basic rules state that a model must take a Morale check under certain situations. If, however, that
model has a special rule that makes it immune to Morale checks, then it does not take such checks – the advanced rule takes precedence. On rare occasions, a conflict will arise between a rule in this rulebook, and one printed in a codex. Where this occurs, the rule printed in the codex or Army List Entry always takes precedence.
The IC join rule overrides the unit status of the IC and takes precedence over that unit status while not removing that unit status. There is no rule that removes the unit status of the IC, otherwise I am sure Charistoph or someone would have posted it.
doctortom wrote: Posting this , making accusations against Charistoph when you know he has you on ignore - meaning he isn't reading your posts - speaks volumes.
Yes, it does speak volumes about his ability to read or "listen" to another person.
And no, I did not put him on Ignore because I couldn't handle his statements. I put him on Ignore because I was sick and tired of being put on probation for calling him a liar.
And i called him a liar because he repeatedly quoted me stating one thing, and then says right after that I said the opposite, right after being corrected several times and warned of the fact. I never called him a liar for his perceptions on the rules, just on continuing to say I said something I didn't say.
Charistoph wrote: Col_Ignored also regularly misstates terms and phrases and has lied about what others have said.
Charistoph, the mods enforce a standard of decorum and politeness on this forum. Baseless accusations of "lying" are rude and completely out of place in a mature debate on YMDC.
If you can point to an actual instance of me lying then feel free to do so, but so far I have only seen you use it as a personal attack and the mods, as you note above, have always seen your accusations of lying as a personal attack on me and taken the appropriate corrective measure.
Basically, there is never any reason to call anyone a liar on YMDC. If you actually encounter someone lying (eg for disruptive purposes) then you should bring that to the attention of the mods immediately and let them handle it.
So the IC MODEL joins another unit and it's considered part of that unit for all rules purposes. The IC UNIT isn't addressed at all by the IC rules and that unit and defined by the datasheet/army list is still there, so that reinforces the conclusion that the IC unit would still be recognized as such for the original question.
That still puts the IC model in both units though. So we declare the IC unit as the target, the only model in the IC unit is the IC model, that model is in both units, thus when we look at that unit we are still going to have the target be IC unit and joined unit. I don't think that changes any results from what I said before.
Fhionnuisce wrote: So the IC MODEL joins another unit and it's considered part of that unit for all rules purposes. The IC UNIT isn't addressed at all by the IC rules and that unit and defined by the datasheet/army list is still there, so that reinforces the conclusion that the IC unit would still be recognized as such for the original question.
That still puts the IC model in both units though. So we declare the IC unit as the target, the only model in the IC unit is the IC model, that model is in both units, thus when we look at that unit we are still going to have the target be IC unit and joined unit. I don't think that changes any results from what I said before.
Yup.
The IC is in both units. The membership in the Tac unit overrides and takes precedence over the IC unit for "all rule purposes", but the underlying IC unit status is never removed by any rule and can still be accessed by a rule that specifically addresses it.
Fhionnuisce wrote: That still puts the IC model in both units though. So we declare the IC unit as the target, the only model in the IC unit is the IC model, that model is in both units, thus when we look at that unit we are still going to have the target be IC unit and joined unit. I don't think that changes any results from what I said before.
Incorrect. Remember how Wound Allocation works, both in Shooting and in Combat. Wounds are allocated to the models in the unit that were attacked. We simply do not have permission to allocate Wounds to a unit that was not attacked. Even in Multiple Combat, the most likely place to find this without including ICs, you can't allocate Wounds from one unit to the other. Just because a model is in two different units does not mean the Wounds get to go from Unit L to Unit T.
Everything about units in all three sets of Allocating Wounds is about the target unit, nothing else. And if you targeted Unit Librarian, you are not targeting Unit Tactical Squad, are you? In order to be able to transfer Wounds from one unit to another, a Special Rule would have to specifically state it does that (and I am not aware of one that does do that, outside of one I wrote for a Fandex).
This is how the rules operate:
Attacks Hit Unit >
Attacks Wound Unit (based on Mutliple Toughness Values) >
Wounds are Allocated to Models in the unit until you run out of models or run out of Attacks.
It does NOT go:
Attacks Hit Unit >
Attacks Wound Unit (based on Mutliple Toughness Values) >
Wounds are Allocated to Models in the unit >
Remaining Wounds are transferred to connected units.
You will not find any any rules support for this latter concept.
I'm not arguing that you move wounds around to other units. I'm saying if the models in your "target unit" being to two units then you have targeted both those units and you can't arbitrarily ignore membership in one of those units by playing games with which one you declared the target.
Fhionnuisce wrote: That still puts the IC model in both units though. So we declare the IC unit as the target, the only model in the IC unit is the IC model, that model is in both units, thus when we look at that unit we are still going to have the target be IC unit and joined unit. I don't think that changes any results from what I said before.
Incorrect. Remember how Wound Allocation works, both in Shooting and in Combat. Wounds are allocated to the models in the unit that were attacked. We simply do not have permission to allocate Wounds to a unit that was not attacked. Even in Multiple Combat, the most likely place to find this without including ICs, you can't allocate Wounds from one unit to the other. Just because a model is in two different units does not mean the Wounds get to go from Unit L to Unit T.
Everything about units in all three sets of Allocating Wounds is about the target unit, nothing else. And if you targeted Unit Librarian, you are not targeting Unit Tactical Squad, are you? In order to be able to transfer Wounds from one unit to another, a Special Rule would have to specifically state it does that (and I am not aware of one that does do that, outside of one I wrote for a Fandex).
This is how the rules operate:
Attacks Hit Unit >
Attacks Wound Unit (based on Mutliple Toughness Values) >
Wounds are Allocated to Models in the unit until you run out of models or run out of Attacks.
It does NOT go:
Attacks Hit Unit >
Attacks Wound Unit (based on Mutliple Toughness Values) >
Wounds are Allocated to Models in the unit >
Wounds are transferred to connected units.
You will not find any any rules support for this latter concept.
You are forgetting the portion of the rules that tells us that the membership in the Tac unit overrides and takes precedence over the IC unit for "all rule purposes" (all while the underlying IC unit status is never removed by any rule), which makes Fhionnuisce's argument exactly accurate and shows your argument to be woefully lacking of rules support.
Fhionnuisce wrote: I'm not arguing that you move wounds around to other units. I'm saying if the models in your "target unit" being to two units then you have targeted both those units and you can't arbitrarily ignore membership in one of those units by playing games with which one you declared the target.
First off, you do not target models. EVER*. You target units. You select a target unit to shoot, not a target model. You declare Charges against Units, not models.
Since you are not targeting models, you are are not targeting two units at the same time. In fact, outside of Multiple Charges and very specific unit types or Special Rules, you CANNOT target two units a the same time.
* Okay, some very specific Psychic Powers and Special Rules do this. But those are exceptions outside of the bounds of the discussion.
Fhionnuisce wrote: I'm not arguing that you move wounds around to other units. I'm saying if the models in your "target unit" being to two units then you have targeted both those units and you can't arbitrarily ignore membership in one of those units by playing games with which one you declared the target.
First off, you do not target models. EVER. You target units. You select a target unit to shoot, not a target model. You declare Charges against Units, not models.
Since you are not targeting models, you are are not targeting two units at the same time. In fact, outside of Multiple Charges and very specific unit types or Special Rules, you CANNOT target two units a the same time.
Not an issue. The IC's membership in the Tac unit overrides and takes precedence over the IC unit for "all rule purposes".
Them's the rules.
An IC unit attached to a Tac unit is a unit within a unit but that doesn't mean you can shoot at the IC unit independently. The shooting rules would have to specifically access the underlying IC unit since that unit is being overridden and no longer has precedence. There are rules which can circumvent the Tac unit, but shooting isn't one of them.
Charistoph wrote: For the IC model, yes. The unit the IC was purchased in, no. Your statements continue to conflate the two concepts of unit and model and ignore this basic concept which the IC rules do not address.
If you try to start a shooting attack against the IC it count's as the unit he has joined. You don't get to directly apply anything to him as a unit. The rule is directing you to the unit he joined. If you are shooting a Librarian who count's as a tactical squad, then it count's as you shooting at a tactical squad. You don't get to decide to single out the librarian unit on its own, you don't have that choice.
Incorrect. If I try to start a Shooting Attack against the IC UNIT, it will not count as an Attack against the unit he joined, because they are not the same unit, nor do we have instructions to treat them as the same unit, nor do we have any allowances for transferring Wounds between units by any rule used in this interaction.
Until you understand the relationship between models, units, and the rules in general, you will not understand this concept and continue making mistakes in rules understanding. For example, why does a Librarian in Terminator Armour not allow the entire Devastator Squad to fire without Snap Shots after Moving, but a Chapter Master in a Centurion Squad can fire off his Orbital Bombardment after moving? Without recognizing the differences between model and unit, can you answer this question?
Until you understand this relationship, anything else you claim is nonsensical and not worth reviewing.
Not worth reviewing...
My statements say nothing about models, they only talk about units. YOU are the one who keeps bringing up models. I understand the concepts just fine, you are interpreting them incorrectly.
You supplied the Plasma Pistol example and it was clearly wrong and I have referenced the appropriate page in BRB that demonstrates that, unless you now have some example of how "also" doesn't mean what it obviously means. Your interpretation of "count's as" still has no basis of precedence for you to use to it to prove your point. You keep spouting on and on about basic rules, at the end of the day the IC rules are special rules and any NORMAL rule is obsolete when a special rule contradicts it. You do not have any instructions to do anything EXCEPT counting it as the unit it joined for all purposes. Any reason you can give is a purpose, all your purposes are valid for the rule to apply too.
Please demonstrate that "count's as" works the way you say it does.
If the librarian unit is "counted as" the joined unit for all purposes. There is NO rule you can apply to it that does not instead get applied to the unit that was joined and you cannot use ANY demonstration of how a basic rule normally works because a special rule supersedes that. So I will reiterate, unless you have another plausible example of how "count's as" means something else, then clearly your interpretation is wrong.
My statements say nothing about models, they only talk about units. YOU are the one who keeps bringing up models. I understand the concepts just fine, you are interpreting them incorrectly.
I know you have been only talking about units, and that is the problem. The Independent Character that joins another unit is not a unit. It is a model. What tells you that the "independent character" the Independent Character rule is a unit?
I have stated this many times at this point, and you have done nothing to gainsay it. You have provided nothing to counter it.
Ceann wrote: You supplied the Plasma Pistol example and it was clearly wrong and I have referenced the appropriate page in BRB that demonstrates that, unless you now have some example of how "also" doesn't mean what it obviously means. Your interpretation of "count's as" still has no basis of precedence for you to use to it to prove your point. You keep spouting on and on about basic rules, at the end of the day the IC rules are special rules and any NORMAL rule is obsolete when a special rule contradicts it. You do not have any instructions to do anything EXCEPT counting it as the unit it joined for all purposes. Any reason you can give is a purpose, all your purposes are valid for the rule to apply too.
You do not understand because you are not understanding the relationship between unit and model. If you understood the concept I have repeatedly told you, you would understand the relationship of "counts as" which I speak in regards to Pistols.
Ceann wrote: Please demonstrate that "count's as" works the way you say it does.
Why? Could you not understand with the references to Flying Monstrous Creatures, Relentless, and Slow and Purposeful I provided earlier? Or do you just want me to do all the work?
Ceann wrote: If the librarian unit is "counted as" the joined unit for all purposes. There is NO rule you can apply to it that does not instead get applied to the unit that was joined and you cannot use ANY demonstration of how a basic rule normally works because a special rule supersedes that. So I will reiterate, unless you have another plausible example of how "count's as" means something else, then clearly your interpretation is wrong.
That is correct. However, as I have repeatedly stated, at no point are we told to have the Librarian UNIT count as the joined unit. This is only ever applied to the MODEL. That is why it is important to understand this relationship I keep talking about. Do you understand the difference between a model and a unit? Do you understand that when a special rule doesn't reference a unit or an attack, it is referencing a model?
You clearly do not understand because your interpretation was wrong when you tried to use the plasma pistol as an example and later proven wrong and you sidestep that fact entirely.
So please quit with the "you do not understand" nonsense about units and models.
Step 6. Allocate wounds & Remove Casualties. Any wounds caused by the firing unit must now be allocated one at a time to the closet model in the target unit.
The MODEL in the librarian unit. COUNTS AS a MODEL AS PART OF the unit it joined.
Applying wounds is a purpose.
You don't apply wounds to a unit, you apply wounds to MODELS in a unit. The MODEL counts as being in another unit. Because it also COUNTS AS that unit simultaneously, just like the Plasma Pistol COUNTS AS a CCW while still being a shooting weapon, as the player controller the librarian you are able to allocate wounds to the nearest model in the OTHER unit because he COUNTS AS being in that unit. If he is a part of that unit which is exactly that page 166 says, then wound allocating goes to THAT unit's models.
Your stipulation about him being a unit still exists, him being a model with the IC ability still exists, but once an effect happens that applies to the MODEL the COUNTS AS circumstance takes effect. His unit still exists, any effect that applies to him being a MODEL is applied to the other unit that he current counts as, for all purposes.
Ceann wrote: You clearly do not understand because your interpretation was wrong when you tried to use the plasma pistol as an example and later proven wrong and you sidestep that fact entirely.
You don't like the answer, so you refuse to accept it. Nice. Now, once you start understanding the differences between units and models, we might be able to discuss that.
And don't bother bringing up Col_Ignored's points. He has a very esoteric view of the English language, takes one tiny part and grants it far greater authority than it deserves while ignoring many other rules of grammar, and often misrepresents most of the rules.
Ceann wrote: So please quit with the "you do not understand" nonsense about units and models.
Then quit conflating them in your process and statements.
Ceann wrote: Step 6. Allocate wounds & Remove Casualties. Any wounds caused by the firing unit must now be allocated one at a time to the closet model in the target unit.
The MODEL in the librarian unit. COUNTS AS a MODEL AS PART OF the unit it joined.
Correct, now you are starting to get it. Don't forget the "target unit" part. It becomes very important later.
Ceann wrote: Applying wounds is a purpose.
You don't apply wounds to a unit, you apply wounds to MODELS in a unit. The MODEL counts as being in another unit. Because it also COUNTS AS that unit simultaneously, just like the Plasma Pistol COUNTS AS a CCW while still being a shooting weapon, as the player controller the librarian you are able to allocate wounds to the nearest model in the OTHER unit because he COUNTS AS being in that unit. If he is a part of that unit which is exactly that page 166 says, then wound allocating goes to THAT unit's models.
Your stipulation about him being a unit still exists, him being a model with the IC ability still exists, but once an effect happens that applies to the MODEL the COUNTS AS circumstance takes effect. His unit still exists, any effect that applies to him being a MODEL is applied to the other unit that he current counts as, for all purposes.
Incorrect. Wound allocation is still only made to the models in the unit that it was fired at, you know, the "target unit". I did not fire at the unit the IC joined, just the unit the IC is. The rules do not support the Wounds being allocated to any unit but the target unit. As soon as you begin to allocate Wounds to an original Tactical Squad model (i.e. Marine, Sergeant) that were made as a result of Attacks on a Librarian unit, YOU have broken the rules, not any special rule. The fact that Wounds being removed are being removed from a model in both units is immaterial and irrelevant. Wounds being removed from a model in the Tactical Squad isn't a problem so long as the model was from the IC unit.
"Counts as" does not allow for us to reverse the process without stating the reserve. I cannot make all deer elk, for example, even if a mule deer is running with an elk herd. The Librarian model counts as part of the Tactical Squad. Neither the Tactical Squad nor the Marines and Sergeant count as part of the Librarian unit.
Therefore, if my unit can see and recognize the Librarian's unit, I can shoot the witch. If the Librarian is joined to a Tactical Squad, then the Wounds cannot be allocated or reallocated (in the case of LOS) to the Marines and Sergeant as they are not part of the targeted Librarian unit. In order for Wounds to be allocated as such, the Tactical Squad would have to be the target unit.
Therefore, if my unit can see and recognize the Librarian's unit, I can shoot the witch.
That's the problem. The normal shooting rules cannot see the Librarian's unit, even though the Librarian's unit status is fully present. Per the rules, the Librarian's unit status is being overridden by the joined unit status and that joined unit status takes precedence over the underlying IC unit status.
In order for the underlying unit status of the IC to be seen by a rule, the rule must be specifically aware of the underlying unit status (e.g Kill Points, Soulburst, Psyker unit, IC Special Rules rule). Only in that way can a rule circumvent the overriding "counts as" clause.
And don't bother bringing up Col_Ignored's points. He has a very esoteric view of the English language, takes one tiny part and grants it far greater authority than it deserves while ignoring many other rules of grammar, and often misrepresents most of the rules.
You aren't convincing anyone. Would you care to point out what exactly is esoteric or a misrepresentation in this . . .?
Fhionnuisce wrote:And where have the rules used counts as to mean it loses its prior qualities? You keep claiming the pistol rules, but I haven't seen anything that says they lose the ranged profile, they are simply prevented from using a ranged profile in CC. So they remain a pistol with a ranged profile but also count as a CC weapon with the generic CC profile.
First off, there is no note of switch profiles during this interaction, nor is there any note that this is added on to it. It can only be for the entire time that is noted as there is no option mentioned for anything else.
Second, if one can fire a Pistol in Overwatch, then I can shoot the Librarian unit while the model is joined to a Tactical Squad. If the Pistol's profile is completely available during a time when it is counting as something else, then the Librarian unit is completely available with the Librarian model in it when its model is counting as a part of another unit, and that includes for being shot at and being Charged.
I suggest you read the rules.
The rules says this . . .
Pistols are effectively Assault 1 weapons. A Pistol ALSO counts as a close combat weapon in the Assault phase.
The rules do not say this . . .
Pistols are effectively Assault 1 weapons. A Pistol counts as a close combat weapon instead of a shooting weapon in the Assault phase.
The rules also make clear that the switch in profiles happens when the pistol is explicitly used as a close combat weapon.
Pistols as Close Combat Weapons
A pistol can be used as a close combat weapon. If this is done, use the profile given above – the Strength, AP and special rules of the pistol’s shooting profile are ignored.
So there is no problem at all with using a pistol for Overwatch. Since you are not using the pistol as a close combat weapon at that time, the pistol's shooting profile is entirely available.
Ignoring straightforward, rational arguments that are fully supported by the rules makes your argument look ridiculous to all participants in the thread.
It's not me calling the interaction between Basic and Advanced rules one of "override" and "precedence". That isn't just my theory. That's exactly how the BRB describes the relationship and logical interaction between Basic and Advanced rules.
We need to adhere to the terms and logic the BRB uses. If you don't then you are making up your own rules and are house ruling.
Yes, it is you. Show me in the rules where GW discusses "override" and "precedence" as you are using them. This is you.
"override", "precedence", "conflict" are not my terms. They are the BRB terms.
Spoiler:
Where advanced rules apply to a specific model, they always override any contradicting basic rules. For example, the basic rules state that a model must take a Morale check under certain situations. If, however, that
model has a special rule that makes it immune to Morale checks, then it does not take such checks – the advanced rule takes precedence. On rare occasions, a conflict will arise between a rule in this rulebook, and one printed in a codex. Where this occurs, the rule printed in the codex or Army List Entry always takes precedence.
The IC join rule overrides the unit status of the IC and takes precedence over that unit status while not removing that unit status. There is no rule that removes the unit status of the IC, otherwise I am sure Charistoph or someone would have posted it.
So my argument is proven by the rules.
Actually you disprove yourself by your own argument. You ignore the fact that when they say you override the other rule in advanced vs basic, you ignore the rule being overridden. The status of the IC being treated as part of the unit for all rules purposes overrides the solitary unit status of the IC, which means that for rules purposes you ignore the solitary unit status of the IC. If you are ignoring it because it is being overridden, that means for rules purposes the IC is not also treated as its own unit.
Here's the first 5 definitions of override from dictionary.com
1.to prevail or have dominance over; have final authority or say over; overrule:
to override one's advisers.
2.to disregard, set aside, or nullify; countermand:
to override the board's veto.
3.to take precedence over; preempt or supersede:
to override any other considerations.
4.to extend beyond or spread over; overlap.
5.to modify or suspend the ordinary functioning of; alter the normal operation of.
None of these say that you still keep the original thing being overridden, it says you disregard it, you supercede it, you suspend that rule being overridden. By trying to keep the solitary runit status of the IC as well as having him be part of the unit, you are ignroring what override means. So you're right in that "counts as" overrides the original rules, but you are wrong in your assertion that you still keep the rules being overridden (in this case, the IC being its own unit).
You should have realized this earlier when you quoted the pistol rules at Charistoph. There, it says "Pistols are effectively Assault 1 weapons. A Pistol also counts as a close combat weapon in the Assault phase." Note they had to use "also" to let it still have both functions. You do not have the rules saying the IC also counts as part of the unit, or counts as part of the unit as well as keeping its unit status.
I'll agree that they made a hash of writing the psychic powers section when they started bringing in "psyker units" and sometimes differentiated them from normal units, but not always. To be honest though, that is a problem with how they wrote the psyker rules, not with the IC rules. The Librarian still has his special rule of being a psyker and we are not told he loses it. If you say he can't use it it's not because of the IC rules but of how they wrote up "psyker unit"
Charistoph wrote: Incorrect. Wound allocation is still only made to the models in the unit that it was fired at, you know, the "target unit". I did not fire at the unit the IC joined, just the unit the IC is. The rules do not support the Wounds being allocated to any unit but the target unit. As soon as you begin to allocate Wounds to a Tactical Squad that were made as a result of Attacks on a Librarian unit, YOU have broken the rules, not any special rule. The fact that Wounds being removed are being removed from a model in both units is immaterial and irrelevant. Wounds being removed from a model in the Tactical Squad isn't a problem so long as the model was from the IC unit.
"Counts as" does not allow for us to reverse the process without stating the reserve. I cannot make all deer elk, for example, even if a mule deer is running with an elk herd. The Librarian model counts as part of the Tactical Squad. Neither the Tactical Squad nor the Marines and Sergeant count as part of the Librarian unit.
Therefore, if my unit can see and recognize the Librarian's unit, I can shoot the witch. If the Librarian is joined to a Tactical Squad, then the Wounds cannot be allocated or reallocated (in the case of LOS) to the Marines and Sergeant as they are not part of the targeted Librarian unit. In order for Wounds to be allocated as such, the Tactical Squad would have to be the target unit.
Incorrect.
Page 166.
"While an IC is a part of that unit, he count's as part of that unit, for all rules purposes, thought he still follows the rules for characters."
You have identified the process backwards is your mistake, just as is the case of the pistol rules. If your argument held water you would be arguing that pistol can't be used as a CCW because it still remembers it is a shooting weapon. You never made that argument. You also at that time agreed that, counts as, is a substitution of the original profile of the weapon, in this case you are trying to argue that, counts as, does not perform the same exact functionality you previously described it to have, you have now hypocritically tried to explain "count as" two different ways to fit your argument. The tactical squad units don't have rules on those models stating that they count as another unit, this relationship only exists when something happens to the librarian model. If an artillery shot picks off the librarian model in the rear, no changes of any kind take place for the tactical squad. But if 5 AP2 shots come in and kill the entire squad in front of the librarian, he goes back to being a unit with one model, otherwise that unit would forever exist by the IC remembering he was a part of it.
The above quote is a special rule, it is allowed to break basic rules. If you are shooting at his unit, HE count's as a part of that other unit, the line literally says that he does. If you aren't shooting his original unit then what he counts as doesn't matter. And no, you can't shoot at him, you can shoot at the unit, please remember the difference between unit's and models, you do get how that works, right?
When wound allocation takes places the special rule on the model, dictates that he counts as a part of a different unit, for ALL purposes. Therefore wound allocation rules state that you must apply wounds to the closest model. Yes a rule is being broken, but a special rule dictates this.
Ceann wrote: You have identified the process backwards is your mistake, just as is the case of the pistol rules. If your argument held water you would be arguing that pistol can't be used as a CCW because it still remembers it is a shooting weapon.
Actually, this just demonstrates that you do not properly remember the argument regarding Pistols or you completely misunderstood it. (Or, possibly, you believed Col_Ignored, who has yet to demonstrate a understanding of anything i have written sufficient to answer them or properly rewrite them in his own words.)
If a Pistol, which counts as a Close Combat Weapon during the Assault Phase, can fire in Overwatch, then I can shoot at the Librarian Unit because "counts as" does not remove the previous identity, but rather adds it on to existing identity. Adding on something does not mean I get to shoot the Close Combat Weapon, which is what you are proposing the equivalent of when Shooting at the Librarian Unit.
In order for "counts as" to remove the Librarian Unit from consideration, then it must stop the Librarian model from being considered as a member of the Librarian Unit, which leaves the Librarian Unit off the table for game purposes. So, then, when the Assault Phase happens, a Pistol does not have a Ranged profile, but the same profile as a Chainsword, and cannot be fired.
Ceann wrote: You also at that time agreed that, counts as, is a substitution of the original profile of the weapon, in this case you are trying to argue that, counts as, does not perform the same exact functionality you previously described it to have, you have now hypocritically tried to explain "count as" two different ways to fit your argument.
See? You did not understand my argument. I have a case of two things happening depending on how you treated "counts as".
How I Play It, is that "counts as" is a substitution, just like it is with Relentless and Slow and Purposeful. With them, you substitute the fact that the model/unit moved with the temporary consideration that they didn't move for the Shooting Phase. While it doesn't change their position, they are allowed to fire their Heavy/Ordnance Weapons without Snap Firing, and the second number and full range of Salvo Weapons.
If we take the statements literally (without consideration on how the rulebook uses the phrase), the Pistol can still be fired in Overwatch and the Librarian can be still be fired at, as "counts as" doesn't tell us to do a complete substitution and ignore what was there previously.
Ceann wrote: The tactical squad units do have rules on those models stating that they count as another unit, this relationship only exists when something happens to the librarian model.
They do not. The IC counts as part of THEIR unit, not the other way around. There models remain completely with the unit of Tactical Squad. We are not directed to do anything regarding the Joined Unit's models in this regard.
Ceann wrote: If an artillery shot picks off the librarian model in the rear, no changes of any kind take place for the tactical squad. But if 5 AP2 shots come in and kill the entire squad in front of the librarian, he goes back to being a unit with one model, otherwise that unit would forever exist by the IC remembering he was a part of it.
Again, not if taken literally. If the IC is the last model, of course it remains a unit a unit with one model. The unit was just reduced to being one model. We have to do a little abstraction and set of assumptions to alter this consideration in to something else, such as losing the joined unit's identity and bringing the IC's unit identity back in to play.
You probably haven't realized that I am looking at this as an exercise in literal instructions, just like a computer processing the instructions. It is not how I run the game. I am more intelligent than any computer, and I assume you are, too. And I know I have stated this before.
Ceann wrote: The above quote is a special rule, it is allowed to break basic rules.
No contention, in fact, I said that and provided directions on how to find that in the rulebook. However, just because they break basic rules, doesn't mean we get to break their rules or use them as an excuse to break rules they don't tell us to break.
Ceann wrote: If you are shooting at his unit, HE count's as a part of that other unit, the line literally says that he does. If you aren't shooting his original unit then what he counts as doesn't matter. And no, you can't shoot at him, you can shoot at the unit, please remember the difference between unit's and models, you do get how that works, right?
Again, you are confusing things. I am well aware of the difference between units and models. I have been trying to instruct you, and anyone willing to read through this, of the difference.
Just because the Librarian MODEL is part of the Tactical Squad does not make the Marines and Sergeant part of the Librarian UNIT.
If I can see the Librarian UNIT, I can shoot it. If I shoot it, then the Wounds are allocated to the models of the unit. The Unit only contains one model in this scenario (Librarain joined to a Tactical Squad). At the point I say I am Choosing to Shoot the Librarian, I am Shooting at the Librarian UNIT, not any specific model.
If I cannot see the Librarian UNIT, it is because the models which make up the Librarian UNIT are not available to be seen. This is either because it is Embarked, not deployed, Removed From Play, or all of its models are being considered as part of another unit because its unit association was replaced (temporarily). The only way the last one works is if "counts as" is a complete substitution for the duration of the period mentioned. If a complete substitution is made, the Pistol counting as a CCW is as effective as a Chainsword in Overwatch.
Ceann wrote: When wound allocation takes places the special rule on the model, dictates that he counts as a part of a different unit, for ALL purposes. Therefore wound allocation rules state that you must apply wounds to the closest model. Yes a rule is being broken, but a special rule dictates this.
Incorrect.
First, Wounds can only be allocated to the target unit, period. If I can shoot the unit, I can see it. If I can see it, that means there are models are on the board associated with that unit. I do not have permission to allocate Wounds to models that are not within the target unit. I cannot allocate Wounds made against the Librarian Unit to the Tactical Squad unit.
Second, while an IC joins another unit, the unit does not join the IC. The IC rules do not establish this, so are not breaking these rules. So the Marines and Sergeant would not be considered by the game as being part of the Librarian unit. For the rest, review the above.
In order for ANY Wounds allocated to the Librarian model to be reallocated/allocated on to a Marine or Sergeant, they must all be part of the same unit targeted by the Attacks which caused the Wounds.
As for the do/do not part, I already corrected that as I left the word out.
The MODEL count's as being a part of the other unit. Wounds are allocated to the nearest model in the unit. When wounds are applied to the model in the librarian unit, his rules state that he count's as being in the other unit. Because he count's as being in the other unit wounds go to the other unit.
The rule book says this.
Step 6. Allocate wounds & Remove Casualties. Any wounds caused by the firing unit must now be allocated one at a time to the closet MODEL in the target unit.
As I said wounds are applied to models IN a unit. The model receiving wounds in the unit you fired at, "count's as part of that unit, for all rules purposes"
If he counts as a part of that unit, regardless of what unit you originally fired at, the wounds have to be allocated to the closest model. The only literal association that needs to occur is whenever any rule interacts with the IC model and any circumstance where a rule interacts with the IC model, he directs its purpose to apply to the unit he joined for all purposes.
Again for the pistol, OPEN YOUR RULE BOOK and read the page. It says that pistols ALSO count as CCW's. Not ONLY count as CCW.
Ceann wrote: As for the do/do not part, I already corrected that as I left the word out.
The MODEL count's as being a part of the other unit. Wounds are allocated to the nearest model in the unit. When wounds are applied to the model in the librarian unit, his rules state that he count's as being in the other unit. Because he count's as being in the other unit wounds go to the other unit.
The rule book says this.
Incorrect. The Wounds do not go to the other unit. All rules regarding Allocating Wounds dictate models of the "target unit". Marines are never in a Librarian unit.
Ceann wrote: Step 6. Allocate wounds & Remove Casualties. Any wounds caused by the firing unit must now be allocated one at a time to the closet MODEL in the target unit.
See "target unit"? Was the Tactical Squad targeted? Yes or no?
Ceann wrote: As I said wounds are applied to models IN a unit. The model receiving wounds in the unit you fired at, "count's as part of that unit, for all rules purposes"
You are running that backwards. You are putting Marines in to the Librarian unit, which we do not have permission to do.
Ceann wrote: If he counts as a part of that unit, regardless of what unit you originally fired at, the wounds have to be allocated to the closest model. The only literal association that needs to occur is whenever any rule interacts with the IC model and any circumstance where a rule interacts with the IC model, he directs its purpose to apply to the unit he joined for all purposes.
Actually, it is regarding the unit you originally fired at. You have quoted the specific phrase at least twice now and glossed over it both times. I have mentioned it to you at least three times now.
Ceann wrote: You have identified the process backwards is your mistake, just as is the case of the pistol rules. If your argument held water you would be arguing that pistol can't be used as a CCW because it still remembers it is a shooting weapon.
Actually, this just demonstrates that you do not properly remember the argument regarding Pistols or you completely misunderstood it. (Or, possibly, you believed Col_Ignored, who has yet to demonstrate a understanding of anything i have written sufficient to answer them or properly rewrite them in his own words.)
If a Pistol, which counts as a Close Combat Weapon during the Assault Phase, can fire in Overwatch, then I can shoot at the Librarian Unit because "counts as" does not remove the previous identity, but rather adds it on to existing identity. Adding on something does not mean I get to shoot the Close Combat Weapon, which is what you are proposing the equivalent of when Shooting at the Librarian Unit.
Actually, the pistol rules state that " A Pistol also counts as" a ccw in assault after stating pistols are effectively Assault 1 weapons. The "also counts as" would indicate that it's still an assault 1 weapon while counting as a ccw, not merely the "counts as". part. Citing the pistol doesn't help your argument.
Ceann wrote: As for the do/do not part, I already corrected that as I left the word out.
The MODEL count's as being a part of the other unit. Wounds are allocated to the nearest model in the unit. When wounds are applied to the model in the librarian unit, his rules state that he count's as being in the other unit. Because he count's as being in the other unit wounds go to the other unit.
The rule book says this.
Incorrect. The Wounds do not go to the other unit. All rules regarding Allocating Wounds dictate models of the "target unit". Marines are never in a Librarian unit.
Ceann wrote: Step 6. Allocate wounds & Remove Casualties. Any wounds caused by the firing unit must now be allocated one at a time to the closet MODEL in the target unit.
See "target unit"? Was the Tactical Squad targeted? Yes or no?
Ceann wrote: As I said wounds are applied to models IN a unit. The model receiving wounds in the unit you fired at, "count's as part of that unit, for all rules purposes"
You are running that backwards. You are putting Marines in to the Librarian unit, which we do not have permission to do.
Ceann wrote: If he counts as a part of that unit, regardless of what unit you originally fired at, the wounds have to be allocated to the closest model. The only literal association that needs to occur is whenever any rule interacts with the IC model and any circumstance where a rule interacts with the IC model, he directs its purpose to apply to the unit he joined for all purposes.
Actually, it is regarding the unit you originally fired at. You have quoted the specific phrase at least twice now and glossed over it both times. I have mentioned it to you at least three times now.
RULES.... RULES is the key word here.
You keep using the BASIC rules to make your point.
Being an IC is a special rule, the rule that you are quoting as a contradiction is a basic rule. It is superseded by a special rule, a special rule that states that it applies for ALL purposes. If you are shooting at a unit, using the shooting rules, THAT is a purpose and for all purposes he COUNTS AS that unit. I am not putting Marines in a Librarian unit, I am attempting to apply wounds to the librarian model, in the librarian unit. The librarian model in the librarian unit has a rule that directs me to COUNT HIM AS belonging to the other unit for ALL purpose, my current purpose is to allocate wounds, anything that happened previously up until that point is now becoming superseded by a special rule. I now have to allocate wounds while COUNTING HIM AS PART OF the tactical unit. They do not join his unit, he tells me to count him as THEIR unit. The wound allocation rules for A UNIT is to apply them to the nearest model to the source of fire. So for the PURPOSE of being a target, he COUNTS AS the tactical unit.
Automatically Appended Next Post: The argument you have been attempting to make is that there are two decisions trees one of which involves firing at each unit and because it was never explicitly states that one of those units ceased to exist then you SHOULD be able to shoot at it.
Taken literally, yes you can shoot at it. Does the unit have anything to stop you from shooting it? No. A unit is a container for models and in general units do not have rules, models in the units tend to have rules.
In this cirumstance you are asserting that nothing in the IC unit is being done to change it from being anything other than what it originally was before it joined so that logically you can still shoot at it.
I have not seen any evidence to the contrary and I would agree that literally you can shoot at it as it is normally a target and you have not been instructed that cannot.
Once you attempt to apply a purpose to a model in the unit, be it shooting, a charge, psker powers or whatever there is a point where direct interaction with a model within a unit takes place. At this point the individual model in the unit contains a rule which states purposes that interact with that model are to be counted as model being a part of ANOTHER unit. That is all that rule directs us to do, is to count him as that other unit. It doesn't say to continue treating him as an his original unit at that point. We are not being provided an option, or an ALSO such as was the case for the pistol. We are being told to treat him as a part of that other unit EXPLICITLY.
Now we apply wounds as normal to the unit he has joined and if a wound happens to land on him still after the intervening models have already taken wounds he directs us to treat him as part of the joined unit AGAIN. Now at this point since his requirements have been met and there are no longer any intervening models we now apply wounds to him because he is the nearest model in the unit he joined.
Well, for all rules purposes (except where specifically mentioned in IC rules or in FAQs) he's treated as part of the unit, not just for the purpose of being a target. Which would mean for all rules purposes except for those mentioned in IC rules or FAQs he is NOT treated as being a unit of one.
So, for Col. Impact's edification, this means that he is only treated as his own unit when the rules tell us to treat him as his own unit when he's joined to another unit. We do not treat him as retaining his unit status overall while joined to another unit because that is overrideen; we are told to ignore that for rules purposes.
Actually you disprove yourself by your own argument. You ignore the fact that when they say you override the other rule in advanced vs basic, you ignore the rule being overridden. The status of the IC being treated as part of the unit for all rules purposes overrides the solitary unit status of the IC, which means that for rules purposes you ignore the solitary unit status of the IC. If you are ignoring it because it is being overridden, that means for rules purposes the IC is not also treated as its own unit.
Here's the first 5 definitions of override from dictionary.com
1.to prevail or have dominance over; have final authority or say over; overrule:
to override one's advisers.
2.to disregard, set aside, or nullify; countermand:
to override the board's veto.
3.to take precedence over; preempt or supersede:
to override any other considerations.
4.to extend beyond or spread over; overlap.
5.to modify or suspend the ordinary functioning of; alter the normal operation of.
None of these say that you still keep the original thing being overridden, it says you disregard it, you supercede it, you suspend that rule being overridden. By trying to keep the solitary runit status of the IC as well as having him be part of the unit, you are ignroring what override means. So you're right in that "counts as" overrides the original rules, but you are wrong in your assertion that you still keep the rules being overridden (in this case, the IC being its own unit).
You should have realized this earlier when you quoted the pistol rules at Charistoph. There, it says "Pistols are effectively Assault 1 weapons. A Pistol also counts as a close combat weapon in the Assault phase." Note they had to use "also" to let it still have both functions. You do not have the rules saying the IC also counts as part of the unit, or counts as part of the unit as well as keeping its unit status.
Incorrect. The logic of 'override' and 'precedence' require that the rule being in place. Each time the rule is triggered it will be actively overridden by a more advanced rule that takes precedence.
You keep confusing functional relationship with actual relationship. When one rule takes precedence over another rule for (almost) all purposes, it might not matter functionally what the original rule was and so we could functionally treat it as wholly absent as a shorthand (but incorrect) description of what is going on. But technically the original rule is still there and recoverable by rules that specifically circumvent the advanced rule - See Soulburst, Kill Points, Psyker unit, and IC Special Rules rule.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
doctortom wrote: Well, for all rules purposes (except where specifically mentioned in IC rules or in FAQs) he's treated as part of the unit, not just for the purpose of being a target. Which would mean for all rules purposes except for those mentioned in IC rules or FAQs he is NOT treated as being a unit of one.
So, for Col. Impact's edification, this means that he is only treated as his own unit when the rules tell us to treat him as his own unit when he's joined to another unit. We do not treat him as retaining his unit status overall while joined to another unit because that is overrideen; we are told to ignore that for rules purposes.
Where in the rules are we told to ignore or actually remove the unit status of the IC? Page and paragraph please.
The exceptions in the IC rules, Soulburst, Psyker rules, FAQ, and IC Special Rules rule work because there is no actual removal of the unit status of the IC.
The "override - conflict - precedence" system (as implemented by the BRB in the Basic Advanced rules) simply layers rules over other rules and redirects logical flow to the upper rule layers based on conditions in the upper rules. The lower layers are still there.
doctortom wrote:Actually, the pistol rules state that " A Pistol also counts as" a ccw in assault after stating pistols are effectively Assault 1 weapons. The "also counts as" would indicate that it's still an assault 1 weapon while counting as a ccw, not merely the "counts as". part. Citing the pistol doesn't help your argument.
Semantically speaking, I was interpreting the "also" as "in addition to that rule" rather than "in addition to that profile". I honestly haven't considered it as a statement to add a supplemental profile since the discussions on mutli-profile Weapons with one Ranged and one Melee profile. People were quite violently against the idea that you won't be able to pistol whip someone if they fired it in Overwatch or the Shooting Phase. I guess I dropped it from my considerations.
Ceann wrote:RULES.... RULES is the key word here.
You keep using the BASIC rules to make your point.
Because until I have instructions to use a different rule, I use the basic rules. I have stated this before, in fact, I stated it in the post you just quoted. You need to demonstrate where it breaks those rules.
Ceann wrote:Being an IC is a special rule, the rule that you are quoting as a contradiction is a basic rule. It is superseded by a special rule, a special rule that states that it applies for ALL purposes. If you are shooting at a unit, using the shooting rules, THAT is a purpose and for all purposes he COUNTS AS that unit. I am not putting Marines in a Librarian unit, I am attempting to apply wounds to the librarian model, in the librarian unit. The librarian model in the librarian unit has a rule that directs me to COUNT HIM AS belonging to the other unit for ALL purpose, my current purpose is to allocate wounds, anything that happened previously up until that point is now becoming superseded by a special rule. I now have to allocate wounds while COUNTING HIM AS PART OF the tactical unit. They do not join his unit, he tells me to count him as THEIR unit. The wound allocation rules for A UNIT is to apply them to the nearest model to the source of fire. So for the PURPOSE of being a target, he COUNTS AS the tactical unit.
Then your assertion must be that the Librarian unit cannot be seen or interacted with, since the model which makes up that unit is now part of another one.
Because THE RULES, including the Independent Character rules, do not allow for the shenanigans in the process you are describing. Just because the model is part of a different unit, doesn't change the fact that the unit he is now in WAS NOT THE TARGET UNIT, and the models in that unit are also NOT PART OF THE TARGET UNIT.
Nothing in the Independent Character rules states that I must change my target to the Tactical Squad the Librarian is joined to. It is only if we no longer cannot recognize the Librarian unit, that I have no ability to single that model out by shooting a unit he is the lone member of. If I can target the Librarian unit, nothing in the original Tactical/Veteran/Terminator/Mcguffin Squad can have Wounds allocated to it, because it was not the target unit.
Here's a hint to why I do not ascribe to your assertion, nothing in the Independent Character rules states that the target unit changes when the IC joins the unit. Nothing in the Independent Character rules states that Wounds allocated to the IC from its unit are then allocated to the unit he joined. Nothing in the Independent Character rules tells us the UNIT counts as part of the other unit, just the model.
Without those points in a special rule, there is no Advanced rule overriding the Basic rule (and yes, that is also proper terminology, look up Basic vs Advanced in the front of your BRB).
Ceann wrote:The argument you have been attempting to make is that there are two decisions trees one of which involves firing at each unit and because it was never explicitly states that one of those units ceased to exist then you SHOULD be able to shoot at it.
That is correct, but only if we do not consider the use of "counts as" in other parts of the game.
Ceann wrote:Taken literally, yes you can shoot at it. Does the unit have anything to stop you from shooting it? No. A unit is a container for models and in general units do not have rules, models in the units tend to have rules.
Units do not have Special Rules. There are plenty of basic rules that units have to abide by.
Ceann wrote:In this cirumstance you are asserting that nothing in the IC unit is being done to change it from being anything other than what it originally was before it joined so that logically you can still shoot at it.
Nothing is being done to the IC unit, not necessarily in. It's pretty obvious that the model that makes up the IC unit has another unit connected to it.
Ceann wrote:I have not seen any evidence to the contrary and I would agree that literally you can shoot at it as it is normally a target and you have not been instructed that cannot.
Thank you for acknowledging that point. It's amazing all the loops people put themselves through just to come to recognize little things like this. It's actually the main reason I keep coming back to it.
Ceann wrote:Once you attempt to apply a purpose to a model in the unit, be it shooting, a charge, psker powers or whatever there is a point where direct interaction with a model within a unit takes place. At this point the individual model in the unit contains a rule which states purposes that interact with that model are to be counted as model being a part of ANOTHER unit. That is all that rule directs us to do, is to count him as that other unit. It doesn't say to continue treating him as an his original unit at that point. We are not being provided an option, or an ALSO such as was the case for the pistol. We are being told to treat him as a part of that other unit EXPLICITLY.
Now you are starting to understand what I mean about the "counts as" concept being put forth, and I even put it in the previous post you quoted.
In order for "counts as" to do as you are saying (and incidentally, how I stated I play it), then the Librarian's connection to the Librarian unit must be replaced (temporarily) by the Tactical Squad. If that is the case, then the Librarian unit has no models on the table and cannot be seen or measured to. If the Librarian unit cannot be seen, it cannot be shot. Another term for this concept is "recognized".
Therefore, you are not Shooting the Librarian unit, you are Shooting the Tactical Squad. The Tactical Squad is the actual "target unit" and Wound Allocation proceeds as you are used to doing it.
This avoids a situation where you have to try and justify Wounds being allocated to a unit that is not the target unit with zero instructions to do so (basic or advanced).
So to put it in text, with units and models, we start deployment as:
Captain
* Chapter Master
Then either during the game or deployment we join the Chapter Master to the Tactical Squad. If we take it literally, with "counts as" being a supplement, not as a supplement, the game sees:
Captain
* Chapter Master
The Captain unit is seen, can be shot, and Wound Allocation only goes the target unit, Captain, which only has Chapter Master as its model. The only time we can consider allocating Wounds to a Marine is if the Attacks were directed at Tactical Squad. The Chapter Master does not get to act as a conducting rod for Wound Allocation to the other models of the Tactical Squad.
However, when we consider the "counts as" to be a replacement, i.e. the unit identity the model identifies itself as part of, we get:
Tactical Squad
* Chapter Master
* Sergeant
* Marine
* Marine
* Marine
* Marine
No Captain unit is available to be seen or recognized because it has no model on the tabletop. It is not considered a kill for kill points, because the models have not been removed as casualties, yet. This is a lot better for the game, over all, and allows for fewer shenanigans.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ceann wrote: Tom the rules do not tell us that. The issue here is a discussion on the RAW not RAI or HYWPI
Ceann wrote:Once you attempt to apply a purpose to a model in the unit, be it shooting, a charge, psker powers or whatever there is a point where direct interaction with a model within a unit takes place. At this point the individual model in the unit contains a rule which states purposes that interact with that model are to be counted as model being a part of ANOTHER unit. That is all that rule directs us to do, is to count him as that other unit. It doesn't say to continue treating him as an his original unit at that point. We are not being provided an option, or an ALSO such as was the case for the pistol. We are being told to treat him as a part of that other unit EXPLICITLY.
Now you are starting to understand what I mean about the "counts as" concept being put forth, and I even put it in the previous post you quoted.
In order for "counts as" to do as you are saying (and incidentally, how I stated I play it), then the Librarian's connection to the Librarian unit must be replaced (temporarily) by the Tactical Squad. If that is the case, then the Librarian unit has no models on the table and cannot be seen or measured to. If the Librarian unit cannot be seen, it cannot be shot. Another term for this concept is "recognized".
You are making up your own terms here ('replaced', 'recognized') while the BRB provides a perfectly adequate logical system (override - conflict - precedence) to accomplish already with RAW what you think you need to invent with House Rule.
No Houe Ruling required!
The Librarian's unit status does not need to be house ruled as 'replaced' to get the rules to work. The membership of the Tactical Squad overrides the unit status of the Libarian and takes precedence over the unit status for all rules purposes (except exceptions).
Override and precedence means you cannot select the IC unit as a target unit in the shooting phase. The Shooting Phase rules do not circumvent the override that requires you to give precedence to the Tactical Squad membership.
So Charistoph, instead of making up your own terms via House Rules and making a mess of things, why don't you instead simply read and adhere to the BRB and apply the rules as they are written?
Spoiler:
Where advanced rules apply to a specific model, they always override any contradicting basic rules. For example, the basic rules state that a model must take a Morale check under certain situations. If, however, that model has a special rule that makes it immune to Morale checks, then it does not take such checks – the advanced rule takes precedence. On rare occasions, a conflict will arise between a rule in this rulebook, and one printed in a codex. Where this occurs, the rule printed in the codex or Army List Entry always takes precedence.
I have understood it the entire time, you have been under this false impression that I have not.
Units do have rules, for example Objective Secured, or formation bonus's that are applied to your units. There is nothing on a units datasheet that indicates it has formation granted ability's.
BRBpg 120. - "For example, the units in a Combined Arms Detachment benefit from the Ideal Mission Commander and Objective secured rules."
How I read the Chapter Master DOES get to act as a conducting rod for Wound Allocation to the other models of the Tactical Squad. You are instructed to treat him as that for all purposes. It is a special rule, so I don't see what your contention is that this is not permitted to happen.
You don't get to make the determination that the Captain in your example does not count as a that unit, you do not have a choice. The Captain Unit does not the IC ability, the model in the unit does, so only once you get to a point where rules apply to the model can you direct them to interact with the joined unit.
The Captain unit is technically available but the "all" clause of his special rule creates the scenario of the unit effectively not being able to be seen or recognized because he is the only model of that unit.
Ceann wrote:Once you attempt to apply a purpose to a model in the unit, be it shooting, a charge, psker powers or whatever there is a point where direct interaction with a model within a unit takes place. At this point the individual model in the unit contains a rule which states purposes that interact with that model are to be counted as model being a part of ANOTHER unit. That is all that rule directs us to do, is to count him as that other unit. It doesn't say to continue treating him as an his original unit at that point. We are not being provided an option, or an ALSO such as was the case for the pistol. We are being told to treat him as a part of that other unit EXPLICITLY.
Now you are starting to understand what I mean about the "counts as" concept being put forth, and I even put it in the previous post you quoted.
In order for "counts as" to do as you are saying (and incidentally, how I stated I play it), then the Librarian's connection to the Librarian unit must be replaced (temporarily) by the Tactical Squad. If that is the case, then the Librarian unit has no models on the table and cannot be seen or measured to. If the Librarian unit cannot be seen, it cannot be shot. Another term for this concept is "recognized".
You are making up your own terms here ('replaced', 'recognized') while the BRB provides a perfectly adequate logical system (override - conflict - precedence) to accomplish already with RAW what you think you need to invent with House Rule.
No Houe Ruling required!
The Librarian's unit status does not need to be house ruled as 'replaced' to get the rules to work. The membership of the Tactical Squad overrides the unit status of the Libarian and takes precedence over the unit status for all rules purposes (except exceptions).
Override and precedence means you cannot select the IC unit as a target unit in the shooting phase. The Shooting Phase rules do not circumvent the override that requires you to give precedence to the Tactical Squad membership.
So Charistoph, instead of making up your own terms via House Rules and making a mess of things, why don't you instead simply read and adhere to the BRB and apply the rules as they are written?
Spoiler:
Where advanced rules apply to a specific model, they always override any contradicting basic rules. For example, the basic rules state that a model must take a Morale check under certain situations. If, however, that model has a special rule that makes it immune to Morale checks, then it does not take such checks – the advanced rule takes precedence. On rare occasions, a conflict will arise between a rule in this rulebook, and one printed in a codex. Where this occurs, the rule printed in the codex or Army List Entry always takes precedence.
This is a hugely important distinction in this discussion. Replace would mean the original unit status is no longer present. Overriding or taking precedence means it retains both unit statuses at all times.
Ceann wrote: I have understood it the entire time, you have been under this false impression that I have not.
Because you kept saying things like the unit counts as part of the unit, which was in clear violation of the statement. You also stated that the IC can act as a conducting rod between his own unit and the unit he joined. Hard to believe someone is understanding you when the terminology they use does not match up at all with either the written rules or the terminology you are using.
Ceann wrote: Units do have rules, for example Objective Secured, or formation bonus's that are applied to your units. There is nothing on a units datasheet that indicates it has formation granted ability's.
BRBpg 120. - "For example, the units in a Combined Arms Detachment benefit from the Ideal Mission Commander and Objective secured rules."
You are actually better off looking at the definition of Command Benefits and the Formation legend under a 7th Edition codex.
But in and of themselves, units do not have Special Rules. The Datasheet legend states, "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 EPUB or in the Special Rules section of Warhammer 40,000: The Rules."
And some of those Special Rules are then applied back to the unit, such as Stubborn, Fearless, and Fleet.
Ceann wrote: How I read the Chapter Master DOES get to act as a conducting rod for Wound Allocation to the other models of the Tactical Squad. You are instructed to treat him as that for all purposes. It is a special rule, so I don't see what your contention is that this is not permitted to happen.
I quoted it, you quoted it. I underlined it several times. It is that Wound Allocation is applied only to models in the target unit. If the Tactical Squad was not the targeted unit, then Wounds cannot be allocated to models that are exclusively in the Tactical Squad, a Joined IC or no.
There are zero instructions in the Independent Character rules which state that the Marines and Sergeant count as part of the Captain unit. There are zero instructions in the Independent Character rules which state that all Attacks directed at the Captain unit be directed at the Tactical Squad.
Any step to do so will literally be adding rules to the game.
Ceann wrote: You don't get to make the determination that the Captain in your example does not count as a that unit, you do not have a choice. The Captain Unit does not the IC ability, the model in the unit does, so only once you get to a point where rules apply to the model can you direct them to interact with the joined unit.
As I have stated before, this only applies if "counts as" is a complete replacement of condition. Without it, YOU do not get to state that the Chapter Master is connected exclusively to that unit.
To which point, if the Chapter Master is no longer counting as a member of the Captain unit. The Captain unit has no model, and therefore cannot be seen. If it cannot be seen, it cannot be Attacked. If the Captain unit cannot be Attacked, the only way Wounds will reach the Chapter Master is by Wounding the Tactical Squad.
Ceann wrote: The Captain unit is technically available but the "all" clause of his special rule creates the scenario of the unit effectively not being able to be seen or recognized because he is the only model of that unit.
No, it does not. As I have stated before, without treating "counts as" being a complete replacement of condition, this statement only means that if anything happens to that unit or if that unit does anything, the IC model will be affected by it and is expected to perform along with it for the duration of the described situation. It does NOT work the other way around without explicit direction.
The IC counts as part of the unit it joins. It is not, the IC and the unit count as part of each others' units.
I never said that units had special rules, I said they have rules. You added the "special" part all on your own.
You say this...
It is that Wound Allocation is applied only to models in the "target"unit.
And state NOTHING can supersede or take precedence over that. Because you are quoting how shooting works out of the book.
IC is a special/advanced rule.
Where advanced rules apply to a specific model, they always override any contradicting basic rules. For example, the basic rules state that a model must take a Morale check under certain situations. If, however, that model has a special rule that makes it immune to Morale checks, then it does not take such checks – the advanced rule takes precedence. On rare occasions, a conflict will arise between a rule in this rulebook, and one printed in a codex. Where this occurs, the rule printed in the codex or Army List Entry always takes precedence.
Therefore, the IC rule on the model takes PRECEDENCE over the rules you are quoting. You are quoting a rule that is being ignored. If you are ignoring his association to the joined unit then you are not following the IC for all purposes. In this case the model with the IC rules, does not care that you targeted his unit, any rule you point to, once it interacts with the model, becomes subjected to this and then it begins counting him as the unit he joined. It doesn't care what came before that, the rule is now being told to follow an advanced rule instead.
Fhionnuisce wrote: This is a hugely important distinction in this discussion. Replace would mean the original unit status is no longer present. Overriding or taking precedence means it retains both unit statuses at all times.
Overriding and taking precedence may or may not have an affect, largely depending on what other instructions are also provided with it. Sadly, there are no instructions to replace, override, or give precedence to the joined unit's connection from its original unit in favor against the IC's original unit.
And that is part of why this thread is so long. Very few have been willing to admit that. They try and twist and turn every word beyond its meaning to say something it never actually states or is implied anywhere else in the rulebook. They are trying to push their RAI as RAW.
And that lack of specific instructions are part of the the rule's problem. We then have to extrapolate onward in order to have a clean and orderly game, which pretty much all of us have. Whatever path we choose to take, I am not aware of anyone who takes this instruction set in such a literal manner as to recognize for any game purpose the IC's original unit when it joins another unit.
Because, let's face it, if an IC's unit is 100% interactable on the table while joined to another, then aside from forcing a Multiple Charge or to tank shots against a better unit, there would be zero reason to join an IC to a unit.
And it would have to be 100% interactable, if at all, for balance. It wouldn't be balanced to b able to be non-interactable while the unit he is joined to is taking shots, but interactable while receiving a Charge, for example.
Indeed, it was one of the factors of why I think many of the ICFAQ rulings are explicitly counter to the written rules regarding an IC's interaction with a unit's or a detachment's unique rules. They are part of the unit for all rules purposes, except for the Wulfen want to Run and Charge. They are part of the unit for all rules purposes, unless the unit can deploy in a unique way. Never mind that none of these rules require all models to have the rule to work, like Fleet.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ceann wrote: It is that Wound Allocation is applied only to models in the "target"unit.
Because that is what the basic rule states.
Ceann wrote: And state NOTHING can supersede or take precedence over that. Because you are quoting how shooting works out of the book.
Because nothing actually states otherwise.
Ceann wrote: Where advanced rules apply to a specific model, they always override any contradicting basic rules. For example, the basic rules state that a model must take a Morale check under certain situations. If, however, that model has a special rule that makes it immune to Morale checks, then it does not take such checks – the advanced rule takes precedence. On rare occasions, a conflict will arise between a rule in this rulebook, and one printed in a codex. Where this occurs, the rule printed in the codex or Army List Entry always takes precedence.
Therefore, the IC rule on the model takes PRECEDENCE over the rules you are quoting. You are quoting a rule that is being ignored. If you are ignoring his association to the joined unit then you are not following the IC for all purposes.
You are mixing up concepts here, and being inconsistent. Make up your mind.
Either the models counts as part of that unit only, or he does not. (The rule itself never states only, by the way.)
If it is part of that unit only, then I cannot even target the Captain unit in the first place. All my target options in that area would be are the Tactical Squad.
If I can shoot at the Captain unit, then the Chapter Master is not only counting as a member of the Tactical Squad. When Wounds are being allocated to the Chapter Master from Attacks to the Captain unit, the Wounds are not being allocated to the Chapter Master of the Tactical Squad, but the Chapter Master of the Captain unit. The Marines have not been included as being part of the Captain unit, so no Wounds can be allocated to them.
The Independent Character rules do not override anything in the Wound Allocation process in regards to the target unit. The only thing it does modify in regards to Wound Allocation is changing Look Out Sir from a 4+ to a 2+. Indeed, if you could find and quote where "wound allocation" can be found within the Independent Character rule, I will find myself corrected. However, I have spent years studying the Independent Character rule over 3 editions, so I am fairly confident you will find no literal statement of "wound allocation". The next instance after Independent Character in the BRB can be found in Precision Shots, the previous is in Barrage.
Charistoph wrote: Sadly, there are no instructions to replace, override, or give precedence to the joined unit's connection from its original unit in favor against the IC's original unit.
Charistoph wrote: Sadly, there are no instructions to replace, override, or give precedence to the joined unit's connection from its original unit in favor against the IC's original unit.
In fact I don't think there is any action in the game you can take that could be considered as not having a purpose.
As I explained before, as a literal statement, all it does is include the IC as being part of the unit whole for when decisions are made for it or actions are taken against it. It is only a one way statement, period.
If the unit Runs, the IC counts as Running, even if he didn't move. If the unit takes Hits, the IC can be counted on to be part of the model list Wounds are allocated against. If the IC doesn't have Fleet, while the rest of the models do, they cannot use Fleet. If the IC doesn't have Deep Strike, joining him to a unit will preclude the unit from Deep Striking. If the unit has Stubborn, the IC's Ld is not reduced while taking Morale Checks.
Unless you receive directions to either ignore the IC's unit, give precedence to the joined unit in all interactions, or count the joined unit as part of the IC's unit, that's all it means without modifying the language to mean something else.
Fhionnuisce wrote: This is a hugely important distinction in this discussion. Replace would mean the original unit status is no longer present. Overriding or taking precedence means it retains both unit statuses at all times.
Overriding and taking precedence may or may not have an affect, largely depending on what other instructions are also provided with it. Sadly, there are no instructions to replace, override, or give precedence to the joined unit's connection from its original unit in favor against the IC's original unit.
Incorrect. The "counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes" overrides normal rule interactions such as those found in the Shooting Phase when you go to select a target unit. The Independent Character cannot be selected as a unit independently of the Tactical unit he joins since the Shooting Phase rules do not provide a way to specifically circumvent the "counts as" clause in the IC rule.
And that is part of why this thread is so long. Very few have been willing to admit that. They try and twist and turn every word beyond its meaning to say something it never actually states or is implied anywhere else in the rulebook. They are trying to push their RAI as RAW.
You are projecting here. You are the one trying to push HYWPI as RAW by coming up with concepts that are nowhere to be found in the BRB.
When you stick to the logical relationship between Basic and Advanced (override, conflict, precedence) you can come to no other conclusion than that the unit status of the IC is overridden by the Tactical squad unit status and that the Tactical squad unit status takes precedence over the unit status of the ICfor all rules purposes.
Simply read the BRB. It's all there. You are just unwilling to accept the plain English. There is no twisting and turning of any word. In fact, you are the one who is having to resort to inventing concepts out of the blue to push your HYWPI.
Indeed, it was one of the factors of why I think many of the ICFAQ rulings are explicitly counter to the written rules regarding an IC's interaction with a unit's or a detachment's unique rules. They are part of the unit for all rules purposes, except for the Wulfen want to Run and Charge. They are part of the unit for all rules purposes, unless the unit can deploy in a unique way. Never mind that none of these rules require all models to have the rule to work, like Fleet.
The fact that your argument can't make sense of the ICFAQ rulings underscores how faulty your argument is.
If you simply adhere to the logic of Basic vs Advanced (override, conflict, precendence) then you will find that the ICFAQ rulings are in fact not counter to the written rules at all. This is because override does not eradicate the underlying and separable unit nature of the IC. The IC Special Rules rule maintains a degree of separation between the IC unit and the unit he joins. The IC Special Rules rule provides specific exemption to the "counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes" which is why an IC does not get to run and charge like a Wulfen unit if the IC joins them.
But, since you've become personally invested into making up your House Rules you have lost sight of the fact that the rules make perfect sense in this regard all by themselves.
If you simply read the rules as they are and apply the concepts the BRB gives you and not make up your own faulty ones then you wind up with a sensible game, at least in this regard.
