Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Can an independent character leave a unit by remaining stationary while the unit moves away?

The only rule I can find is on pg. 48 which says "An independent character can leave a unit during the Movement phase by moving out of coherency distance with it." This makes me believe that the IC could stand still because the important part appears to be that it is not in coherency with the unit at the end of the Movement phase. Whether or not this is achieved by the IC moving away or the unit moving away appears to make no difference.

Second question, assuming you agree with my determination that the IC can leave a unit by remaining stationary and letting the unit move away, can the IC that is not relentless shoot a heavy weapon in the following shooting phase?

The only rule I can find on this is on pg. 48 which says "If an independent character moves and joins or leaves a unit that did not move, the character counts as having moved in the ensuing Shooting phase, but the unit does not." The problem is this rule only addresses a moving IC and stationary Unit. Do you feel that if this rule is true that the opposite is also true with a stationary IC and a moving unit?

Example: Big Mek w/ SAG starts the Movement phase joined to a unit of gretchin. The unit of gretchin move more than 2" away from the Big Mek. The Mek remains stationary. The Big Mek shoots the SAG in the ensuing Shooting phase. Acceptable scenario?

As of right now, the only way for a uni to leave the IC is by disembarking from a different access point of a vehicle. Or leave on different turns.

The rule you quoted states that the IC must move out of coherency with the unit. While the model itself need not physically move in your example (since you could always claim that the Big Mek wiggled one inch to the left, and then hokey-pokeyed an inch to the right again) it would still count as moving in the following shooting phase. Now, I don't have my BGB on me, and I am only going with the wording that you've mentioned. If the specific wording is different, I could be wrong.

And of course, that's just my take on it. I could be totally off base.

5 days ago a similar question was asked.

Check it out here:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/431354.page

The Unit can move away while the IC is stationary.

This is noted on P.48 where it says "If an independent character joins a unit that has gone to ground, he immediately goes to ground as well, and vice versa."

The "and vice versa" means if the unit moves and joins an IC that has gone to ground, the IC goes to ground as well.

Thanks for that link. I missed it in my search terms because I used "independent character" instead of "IC".

The vice versa comment and what it eludes to for the entire page is very interesting.

Consider the first bullet on pg 48. "In order to join a unit, an independent character simply has to move so that he is within the 2" coherency distance of a friendly unit at the end of their Movement phase."

A lot of people will take this to mean that the IC must make a physical movement to join the unit and cannot have the unit move to him, in the same vein of saying that an IC must move away from a unit and can't simply let the unit move away from the IC.

Assuming that is true, then how can the last bullet make any sense? pg. 48 "If an independent character joins a unit that has gone to ground, he immediately goes to ground as well, and vice versa."

Regarding the vice versa, this indicates that an IC may join a unit by having the unit move to him. Considering a GTG IC can't move, there is no other explanation. That then indicates that the bullets regarding an IC "moving" into and out of 2" coherency to join and leave a unit, respectively, need not be done by the IC. The unit can make those moves.

Additionally, when you extend this thinking across bullet 4 (pg. 48 "if an independent character moves and joins or leaves a unit that did not move, the character counts as having moved in the ensuing Shooting phase, but the unit does not") that only the unit that moved, be it the IC or the unit, counts as moving.

I think that basically permits the scenario that I proposed in the first post. Thanks for showing me that thread and pointing out the last bullet, DeathReaper.

I'll have to go out to my car and get the BRB, since I am totally confused.

Or, the vice versa bit is entirely unintentional, and should not be lent much weight as it contradicts the very explicit requirements given elsewhere.

DR, you have an argument with units moving to join ICs, I disagree, with you, but that is my choice. However the only exception for a unit to leave an IC is under disembarking.

It seems to me the rules for grounded units are a special exception to the general case where the IC is required to do the moving.

The problem is that the last bullet directly contradicts the first bullet through the vice versa. There are then a few options as I see it. You can think that the entire vice versa comment is a complete error, that it was written to create an exception, or that it is intentional and any mentioning of "move" in the previous bullets is being used as a relative term (movement is relative anyway so it isn't like this is a stretch of the imagination). I don't really think we readers can be sure.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Magpie wrote:It seems to me the rules for grounded units are a special exception to the general case where the IC is required to do the moving.

The bullet isn't worded as if it was written to create an exception in my opinion.

There is an implied contradiction, or you take it to be a limited exception, same as the vehcile embarkation rules.

To claim it must directly negate the preceeding bullets is an unsafe, unsound assumption

Yeh for my mind, given that Visa Versa is only mentioned in the last case it seems to be the special case.

A bit like my rationale for retinues in that the last point says "Character" not "Independent Character"

I am not confident however that we can be that certain of GW's phrasing consistency.

There are exceptions all over the place in GW rules. Out of all of those many exceptions, I'm not aware of any that are created or addressed soIely by an obscure comment such as this "vice versa". That isn't the way GW writes rule exceptions.

The only things that make sense to me is that "move" is being used relatively in the bullets or the writer did not realize that they were creating a contradiction with the first bullet.

In my mind, a contradiction does not equal an exception.

After careful reading of the rules, I think I'm going to have to stick with my original reading. The fourth bullet gives the only option for an IC leaving a unit, and that option is "moving out of coherency distance" with the unit. The way it reads there, it looks like the IC will always be counted as having moved during the ensuing Shooting phase. That's the way I read it, anyhow.

Something similar turned into a head-butting contest on warseer, that may be worthy of consideration.

Do you not think an ic can move away from a unit in order to leave it?

Now, that seems odd, but consider ...

I have a farseer in a unit of reapers and I want the seer to move away, I move him first.

If, only the seer has permission to move in such a way as to break coherency at the end of "their" move (ie, only ic's leave), does this not force the reapers to move in such a way as to maintain coherency with what is part of their unit?

The reapers can remain stationary after the seer moves away, by choice.
The ic may have moved, the reapers remained stationary, but who left who?

Now, vice versa.

Reapers move away from the seer (they have to be coherent with each other), seer decides not to follow, he has no obligation to retain coherency = stationary seer = unit coherency broken before the end of "their" move.

There are contradictions in these rules, like an ic cannot be within 2" of a unit it does not intend to join and yet if it is, it must choose which to join!!!

Err, what???

Yeh I'm with you mate it seems really silly to insist that the IC has to be the mover, why they can't just say "You go on lads, I'll wait here for a bit".

Here is the deal;

Point out in the BRB the section that details units joining and leaving independent characters. Don't point out a bullet point that infers how a unit MIGHT react if they could join an independent character in a specific circumstance, but point to a set of rules that detail a unit joining or leaving an independent character.

Take your time, I am just chilling at home.

We've covered all that mate, doesn't mean we cannot discuss possible inconsistencies.

@fuusa
Page 12 covers the rules that state a unit MUST maintain coherency.

But the Independent Character rules say that the IC JOINS a unit at the end of the units move but may leave the unit at any time by moving out of coherency.
So I'd think that would mean No the unit is not compelled to go tagging along with the IC to maintain coherency as they are no longer a part of the unit at the moment of them leaving.

You could possibly argue that the IC is moving out of coherency by not following the rest of the unit as it leaves, the IC's move is to not move but that is a fairly long bow to draw and good luck getting that one past the black and white brigade

"within 2" of more than one unit ... must declare which it is joining . ... must remain more than 2" away from it at the end of the Movement phase."

A lot of weight is put on words like "must" and "rules as written" in these forums, a courageous act when you see things like this.
The first bit says you can be within 2" of a unit you do not intend to join, the second bit says you cannot.

Given you removed context through ellipses, no wonder youre struggling with those rules.

In theory you have to remain 2"+ away from a wraithlord, as it is a unit you cannot join. You dont have to remain 2"+ away from 3 units of dire avengers, you just have to declare, f you are within 2" of more than which unit, which one you are joined to.

Fair point, I think the debate I mentioned was still ringing in my ears there.

Brother Ramses wrote:Point out in the BRB the section that details units joining and leaving independent characters. Don't point out a bullet point that infers how a unit MIGHT react if they could join an independent character in a specific circumstance.

The question was can a unit leave behind a stationary ic, when you take into consideration that an ic can end up joining a unit even if the ic doesn't move, its a reasonable question.

That's where I would say that "vice-versa" may (just may) be something to consider here.

Theoryhammer + rhetorical questions alert.

If we go back to my seer with reapers.
I move my reapers out of coherency with the seer is this fine?
The seer can remain part of the unit, by moving with the other models.
It remains stationary and so has left the unit. The reapers have moved away, leaving a stationary seer.

If all remains as is now, in the shooting phase, will the seer be part of a unit that moved?

After the reapers have moved away, the seer is now free to move independently???
It doesn't move.
Now, I move some avengers to within 2" of the seer.

If all remains as is now, the seer will be compelled to join the avengers, not because it moved toward them, but because it didn't move.

If all remains as is now, in the shooting phase, will the seer be part of a unit that moved?

Magpie wrote:We've covered all that mate, doesn't mean we cannot discuss possible inconsistencies.

@fuusa
Page 12 covers the rules that state a unit MUST maintain coherency.

But the Independent Character rules say that the IC JOINS a unit at the end of the units move but may leave the unit at any time by moving out of coherency.
So I'd think that would mean No the unit is not compelled to go tagging along with the IC to maintain coherency as they are no longer a part of the unit at the moment of them leaving.

You could possibly argue that the IC is moving out of coherency by not following the rest of the unit as it leaves, the IC's move is to not move but that is a fairly long bow to draw and good luck getting that one past the black and white brigade

"within 2" of more than one unit ... must declare which it is joining . ... must remain more than 2" away from it at the end of the Movement phase."

A lot of weight is put on words like "must" and "rules as written" in these forums, a courageous act when you see things like this.
The first bit says you can be within 2" of a unit you do not intend to join, the second bit says you cannot.

As Nos points out you leave out or add to you argument that which is damaging to you argument.

The onus is upon the IC to join or leave a unit. Only he is given the exception to the movement rules to move in/out of coherency of unit to join/leave the unit. By trying to say that the IC can stand still, while the unit moves away does not fulfill the requirements of the rule. In fact it breaks the rules as a unit must move as slow as its slowest model. If the IC is not moving, the unit cannot move out of coherency as it is required to maintain coherency and has no rule allowing it to break coherency for the purpose of leaving the IC. The rule that tells you that an IC can move in/out of coherency of a unit to join/leave is an exception to the above rule. An IC can move the minimum distance to get out of coherency while the unit is still free to move the full distance.

Seriously, Stelek Slingshotting all over.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Given you removed context through ellipses, no wonder youre struggling with those rules.

In theory you have to remain 2"+ away from a wraithlord, as it is a unit you cannot join. You dont have to remain 2"+ away from 3 units of dire avengers, you just have to declare, f you are within 2" of more than which unit, which one you are joined to.

I am not struggling with the rules at all thanks mate.

"If a character does not intend to (or cannot) join a unit, it must remain more than 2" away from it at the end of the Movement phase."
If you don't want to join 2 of the units of Dire Avengers you MUST remain more than 2" away ?
Are you saying it only applies to units you cannot join? Even if it did given that you can't join 2 units any unit other than the unit you join is a unit you cannot join.

Point is the first part of the rule give a permission to be within 2" of a unit you don't want to join , the second part removes that permission. I think that is contradictory.

" but that is a fairly long bow to draw " means that I think there is, at best, a very thin basis to support a unit moving away from an IC, not that I suggest that you can, as it seems pretty clear that the onus is on the IC to do the moving.

Which relates to the IC moving. Other units than the IC are allowed to move you know. For example the unit of DA can move to within 2", then another moves within 2". Shock, 2 units within 2"

Fr the past 4 years people havent struggled with this.

Brother Ramses wrote:In fact it breaks the rules as a unit must move as slow as its slowest model. If the IC is not moving, the unit cannot move out of coherency as it is required to maintain coherency and has no rule allowing it to break coherency for the purpose of leaving the IC.

This is not true.
If it were, any single model in a unit that doesn't move would stop the entire unit moving, or the one that moved the least, quite by choice would slow the others to the same move.
The slowest model, is the one that has the least maximum move (see mixed infantry and jump pack falling back).

I think, because the idea that an ic must move, to leave a unit, an assumption has grown that it must be the ic that moves first, kaboom, I have left the unit. Unit now does whatever it wants.

But, when moving a unit, you are free to move whichever models you want, however you want, as long as coherency remains possible to achieve.
I am free to move the reaper portion of the combined unit however I wish, as long as coherency remains a potential. I have not broken any rules by selecting to move the seer last.

Because the seer does not have to retain coherency with the rest of the unit, it is free to do what it wants, including remain still.
The reapers havent broken any rules, neither has the seer.

Its now the end of their move, the reapers are coherent, the seer has left them by remaining still.

We now have 2 units, 1 of which moved, clearly, the other consists of a model that did not move.

This is why the question is a reasonable one for me.

So, if we look at heavy weapon rules, we are told that if any part of a unit moved, the entire unit is considered to have moved.
Goalposts now move to farseer unit, did it move, no, vs the farseer was once part of a unit that did, yes.

First = stationary, fire your heavy weapon.
Second = the farseer unit did not move, but the slowest member of the previously existing unit was infantry, so unless it was impeded by difficult terrain, the "speed" of the farseer = 6".

nosferatu1001 wrote:Which relates to the IC moving. Other units than the IC are allowed to move you know. For example the unit of DA can move to within 2", then another moves within 2". Shock, 2 units within 2".

That would be breaking the rules then as the IC is not remaining 2" away from another unit the rules don't give any latitude here.

A -> B does not mean B -> A. Basic logical fallacy you are making here.

A restriction affecting the ICs movement near to a unit does not apply to a units movement near to an IC.

Same as a skimmer not being allowed to end its move over another model has no effect on a model ending its move under a skimmer.

nosferatu1001 wrote:A -> B does not mean B -> A. Basic logical fallacy you are making here.

A restriction affecting the ICs movement near to a unit does not apply to a units movement near to an IC.

Same as a skimmer not being allowed to end its move over another model has no effect on a model ending its move under a skimmer.

The situation is different ; the skimmer cannot be over an enemy or friendly at the end of its movement, where as the restriction for the IC makes the distinction of not being permitted to be with 2" at the end of the movement phase, not just its own move.

No, it isnt, because again it relates to the ICs movement - context is king

Brother Ramses wrote:
The onus is upon the IC to join or leave a unit.

Really? The last bullet shares the onus between the unit and the IC.

Only if you assume the "vice versa" is meant to override the 100% clear distinction drawn further up

I dont.