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.

kirsanth wrote:

fuusa wrote:In the book, where does it specifically mention that this should be checked?

Page 12. Once a unit has finished moving.

That's not true.

No-where does it tell you to check, that's an assumption on our part and a quite necessary one, since in order to comply you have to.
But, it simply does not tell you when you can or cant.
To suggest you can only check after the fact and not while on-going, is an invention.

There is no choice in the matter, when you move a unit, it must end its move coherent.
There is no wiggle room to allow you to move in whichever manner you wish and to end up out of coherency, wether by accident or design.
You must be coherent.

If I am to move a unit, I am under an absolute demand for accurracy.
I am not told I cannot check this accurracy while I am moving, just that I must achieve it by the end.

By checking if my unit is capable of remaining coherent by the end and, please note, that does not mean maintaining coherency as I move each model, but, that I have not, or am not about to render the imperative impossible, I am not breaking any rules.

What I am doing, is ensuring I am obeying, that is, in the process of obeying, the rules set down, because each model I move, may be the one that first makes coherency impossible to achieve.
If I must attain coherency (I must, no choice), by placing any one model, in a position, that makes it subsequently impossible to do what I must, I am clearly doing something I musn't.

On p3, measuring distances, it states that generally you are not allowed to measure "except where the rules call for it."
If I must end up in coherency then I must ensure that I don't end up out of coherency, therefore, I must check to prevent me from performing an illegal move, which may be at one of the many steps in moving the models within a unit.

Can't check, becomes must check the process, not only the result.

fuusa wrote:That's not true.

No-where does it tell you to check, that's an assumption on our part and a quite necessary one, since in order to comply you have to.
But, it simply does not tell you when you can or cant.
To suggest you can only check after the fact and not while on-going, is an invention.

You are told when a measurement needs to be done, since you are given a distance and an exact time that distance needs to be correct.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Youre again ignoring the rules for ICs, whereby they check to see if they are in coherency with the unit they joined. He is a "normal member" of the unit he joined, but that doesnt override the IC rules for joining and leaving.

You are never in coherency with yourself, that is a chronic misreading of the coherency rules - which specify a chain between members of a unit. Coherency is not relevant for single model units.

And you are ignoring the fact that a unit of one model can never move out of coherency per the very IC rule you say I'm ignoring which states:

"An independent character can leave a unit during the Movement phase by moving out of coherency distance with it."

So tell me, how is the IC to perform this action while it cannot move in or out of coherency?

RAW if the squad is killed the IC can never actually leave it, since he can't move away from it if it's not there?
Seems implicit to me that if the squad is wiped out the IC is on his own.

Abandon wrote:So tell me, how is the IC to perform this action while it cannot move in or out of coherency?

IC moves.
Now, measure coherency to the unit it was with to determine if it's still a member of that unit.
There is no unit within 2".
The IC is now on his own.

rigeld2 wrote:

Abandon wrote:So tell me, how is the IC to perform this action while it cannot move in or out of coherency?

IC moves.
Now, measure coherency to the unit it was with to determine if it's still a member of that unit.
There is no unit within 2".
The IC is now on his own.

No. You said he's still a member of the unit until you move him out of coherency with it. In that case he'd be the only member of that unit and cannot be found to be out of coherency with it. Can a unit with one model move out of coherency? No.

"An independent character can leave a unit during the Movement phase by moving out of coherency distance with it." <--This rule does not serve the purpose you seem to think it does regarding this situation.

Would it still be an IC? Yes.
Would it ever be allowed to leave the unit? No.
Would this be absurd? Yes.
Does Abandon agree with Joey? Yes.

Abandon wrote:No. You said he's still a member of the unit until you move him out of coherency with it. In that case he'd be the only member of that unit and cannot be found to be out of coherency with it. Can a unit with one model move out of coherency? No.

Correct - he cannot be out of coherency with himself.

Your interpretation of that sentence means that an IC can *never* leave a unit, regardless of how big it currently is. You aren't measuring coherency to the IC - you cannot.
You are measuring coherency to his "home" unit - the home unit is not within 2", therefore he has left the unit.

"An independent character can leave a unit during the Movement phase by moving out of coherency distance with it." <--This rule does not serve the purpose you seem to think it does regarding this situation.

Lets look at this.

I have an IC.
I've moved.
I measure coherency distance.
I am not within 2" of the unit.
I have left the unit.

What part of those 5 steps are you saying is incorrect?

Would it still be an IC? Yes.
Would it ever be allowed to leave any unit regardless of casualties? No.
Would this be absurd? Yes.
Does Abandon agree with Joey? Yes.

Are they both wrong? Yes. BTW, I fixed that for you. Your interpretation means that you always include the IC in the measurement, which means it's not possible, ever, to leave the unit.

Abandon - youre ignoring page 12. Again. And again, and again.

Coherency is IRRELEVANT for single model units. It does not apply. Please, actually read some rules before replying again, espeically after rigeld has already schooled you.

Or an i now biased against ICs as well?

nosferatu1001 wrote:Coherency is IRRELEVANT for single model units. It does not apply.

Then why are you demanding that people measure coherency for a single model unit?

You can't have it both ways.

Can we stick to the original question?

In the shooting phase.
An IC is in coherrency with a 5 man unit.
The 5 man unit is shot and killed.

Does the IC take a moral check for the unit taking 25% casualties?

No. What nobody has mentioned yet: The unit has left the IC. It actually has left the game too. It's dead and gone.

The IC is no longer part of a unit. The IC didn't leave. The unit left.

Does the IC fall back now for it's unit being below 50%?

No. The IC is no longer part of that unit. That unit left the game.

The unit takes moral checks, and any joined IC's are effected too. The unit falls back after losing models, the IC falls back with the unit is has joined. If the unit is gone and dead, the IC is no longer effected by conditions that are caused to the unit.

Nemesor Dave wrote:Does the IC take a moral check for the unit taking 25% casualties?

No. What nobody has mentioned yet: The unit has left the IC. It actually has left the game too. It's dead and gone.

The unit is gone now, yes. But the IC was a part of the unit when it was shot. Therefore, the IC a part of a unit that took 25% casualties that phase... and so takes a morale test.

The morale test for casualties is taken for actions that occurred in the preceding phase. So the fact that the unit is gone does not preclude survivors taking a morale test. By your logic, a unit would never take a morale test for casualties, as the 'dead' squad members have left the game and so are no longer counted as a part of the unit...

Does the IC fall back now for it's unit being below 50%?

No. The IC is no longer part of that unit. That unit left the game.

He will fall back if he fails his morale test. He simply won't be restricted by being unable to rally, as he is no longer joined to the unit that is no longer on the table.

insaniak wrote:

Nemesor Dave wrote:Does the IC take a moral check for the unit taking 25% casualties?

No. What nobody has mentioned yet: The unit has left the IC. It actually has left the game too. It's dead and gone.

The unit is gone now, yes. But the IC was a part of the unit when it was shot. Therefore, the IC a part of a unit that took 25% casualties that phase... and so takes a morale test.

The unit is dead, so it no longer has to take a moral test. Dead units don't take moral tests. The IC is no longer part of the unit the moment the last model from the unit has been removed.

insaniak wrote:

The morale test for casualties is taken for actions that occurred in the preceding phase. So the fact that the unit is gone does not preclude survivors taking a morale test. By your logic, a unit would never take a morale test for casualties, as the 'dead' squad members have left the game and so are no longer counted as a part of the unit...

Moral test is based on the original size of the unit, so your argument is invalid.

Dead units also do not fall back. The IC is not required to fall back. The second the unit is gone, the IC ceases to be effected by it.

Nemesor Dave wrote:The unit is dead, so it no longer has to take a moral test. Dead units don't take moral tests. The IC is no longer part of the unit the moment the last model from the unit has been removed.

At the time it took the casualties, the IC was a part of the unit. The IC was therefore a part of a unit that took 25% casualties... which is the trigger for a morale test.

Moral test is based on the original size of the unit,...

Which is exactly my point.

Nemesor Dave wrote:The IC is no longer part of the unit the moment the last model from the unit has been removed.

Citation please. IC's only have permission to leave units at the end of the movement phase.

rigeld2 wrote:

Nemesor Dave wrote:The IC is no longer part of the unit the moment the last model from the unit has been removed.

Citation please. IC's only have permission to leave units at the end of the movement phase.

The IC did not leave the unit. The unit left the game, and therefore left the IC.

Yes, units are allowed to leave IC's by dying.

Nemesor Dave wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Nemesor Dave wrote:The IC is no longer part of the unit the moment the last model from the unit has been removed.

Citation please. IC's only have permission to leave units at the end of the movement phase.

The IC did not leave the unit. The unit left the game, and therefore left the IC.

Yes, units are allowed to leave IC's by dying.

Please clarify - are you arguing RAW or RAI?

The IC is a normal member of the unit until he leaves the unit.
The unit, except for the IC, is destroyed.
The IC has to make a morale check.

The IC only moves first when assaulting otherwise he just moves with the unit.

insaniak wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Coherency is IRRELEVANT for single model units. It does not apply.

Then why are you demanding that people measure coherency for a single model unit?

You can't have it both ways.

I'm not, if you would read a little closer.

I am demanding that you measure coherency to the now-dead unit. Which you can only do at the *end* of the movement phase.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

White Ninja wrote:The IC only moves first when assaulting otherwise he just moves with the unit.

The exact opposite is true when it comes to ICs and assaults. The IC only moves first when assaulting IF and ONLY IF he is the closest model. He ALWAYS moves first during defenders react and pile in moves

White Ninja wrote:The IC only moves first when assaulting otherwise he just moves with the unit.

He doesn't even move first while assaulting.

I'm pretty sure it's only Pile-In, but I can't find the rules quote atm.

rigeld2 wrote:

Nemesor Dave wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Nemesor Dave wrote:The IC is no longer part of the unit the moment the last model from the unit has been removed.

Citation please. IC's only have permission to leave units at the end of the movement phase.

The IC did not leave the unit. The unit left the game, and therefore left the IC.

Yes, units are allowed to leave IC's by dying.

Please clarify - are you arguing RAW or RAI?

The IC is a normal member of the unit until he leaves the unit.
The unit, except for the IC, is destroyed.
The IC has to make a morale check.

I would call this more a question of simple math and logic.

Your first statement is incorrect.

"The IC is a normal member of the unit until he leaves the unit." is wrong. The unit may leave the IC by dying. The IC is not in coherency with a dead unit. The IC may not leave the unit. The unit however may die and leave the IC.

I have an IC which is effected by the unit is has joined. Now I subtract the unit.
IC is not part of a dead unit. The IC is out of coherency.
The dead unit does not take moral checks or fall back.

Another example:
An IC that is not fearless and is part of a fearless unit so it gain's the fearless rule.
That unit is destroyed in the shooting phase and then the IC is assualted.
Is the IC fearless?
Absolutely no. The unit granting fearless to the IC is dead.

No, you have a failure in reading rules. Again.

Please find a rule saying the unit can leave the IC. It isnt on page 48, unless *at best* you believe the shaky vice versa line.

Meaning your entire argument fails from the get go

Nemesor Dave wrote:Your first statement is incorrect.

"The IC is a normal member of the unit until he leaves the unit." is wrong. The unit may leave the IC by dying. The IC is not in coherency with a dead unit. The IC may not leave the unit. The unit however may die and leave the IC.

Citation needed. Also, please answer RAW vs RAI.

rigeld2 wrote:

Nemesor Dave wrote:Your first statement is incorrect.

"The IC is a normal member of the unit until he leaves the unit." is wrong. The unit may leave the IC by dying. The IC is not in coherency with a dead unit. The IC may not leave the unit. The unit however may die and leave the IC.

Citation needed. Also, please answer RAW vs RAI.

The same rule that says a character that has gained the fearless USR by joining a unit with fearless, loses fearless when it leaves the unit.

The same rule that says a wrecked tank may not shoot.

We can agree the IC may join or leave a unit under certain conditions. If the unit has been removed from play, the IC did neither and those rules don't apply. The unit is gone!

p.44 BRB "A unit losing 25%..." The unit is dead. Show me where you roll morale checks for dead units.

Nemesor Dave wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Nemesor Dave wrote:Your first statement is incorrect.

"The IC is a normal member of the unit until he leaves the unit." is wrong. The unit may leave the IC by dying. The IC is not in coherency with a dead unit. The IC may not leave the unit. The unit however may die and leave the IC.

Citation needed. Also, please answer RAW vs RAI.

The same rule that says a character that has gained the fearless USR by joining a unit with fearless, loses fearless when it leaves the unit.

The same rule that says a wrecked tank may not shoot.

We can agree the IC may join or leave a unit under certain conditions. If the unit has been removed from play, the IC did neither and those rules don't apply. The unit is gone!

p.44 BRB "A unit losing 25%..." The unit is dead. Show me where you roll morale checks for dead units.

I still have no idea if you're arguing RAW or RAI.

None of the rules you quoted say that a unit may leave an IC.

The IC is a normal member of the unit.
The unit gets shot and suffers losses.
The unit must take a morale save.
The unit fails this morale save.
The unit falls back.
Find a rule that contradicts any of the last 5 lines.

rigeld2 wrote:

Nemesor Dave wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Nemesor Dave wrote:Your first statement is incorrect.

"The IC is a normal member of the unit until he leaves the unit." is wrong. The unit may leave the IC by dying. The IC is not in coherency with a dead unit. The IC may not leave the unit. The unit however may die and leave the IC.

Citation needed. Also, please answer RAW vs RAI.

The same rule that says a character that has gained the fearless USR by joining a unit with fearless, loses fearless when it leaves the unit.

The same rule that says a wrecked tank may not shoot.

We can agree the IC may join or leave a unit under certain conditions. If the unit has been removed from play, the IC did neither and those rules don't apply. The unit is gone!

p.44 BRB "A unit losing 25%..." The unit is dead. Show me where you roll morale checks for dead units.

I still have no idea if you're arguing RAW or RAI.

None of the rules you quoted say that a unit may leave an IC.

The IC is a normal member of the unit.
The unit gets shot and suffers losses.
The unit must take a morale save.
The unit fails this morale save.
The unit falls back.
Find a rule that contradicts any of the last 5 lines.

An IC is never a normal member of a unit. The rules still address the IC and the unit separately. The unit and the IC are still two separate entities. The IC may not leave the unit if the unit is falling back. You see? Two things, remove one. That leaves the IC alone, not in a unit.

When the unit is dead, the IC is not in a unit anymore.

Nemesor Dave wrote:
An IC is never a normal member of a unit.

Page 49 BRB wrote:Once all attacks have been resolved, these
characters are once again treated as normal members
of the unit they have joined (from determining assault
results onwards).

Emphasis mine.

The IC is a normal member of the unit.
The unit gets shot and suffers losses and is wiped out.
The unit must take a morale save. No, the unit is dead.
The unit fails this morale save. No, the unit is dead.
The unit falls back. No, the unit is dead.
Find a rule that contradicts any of the last 5 lines.

Nemesor Dave wrote:The IC is a normal member of the unit.
The unit gets shot and suffers losses and is wiped out.
The unit must take a morale save. No, the unit is dead.
The unit fails this morale save. No, the unit is dead.
The unit falls back. No, the unit is dead.
Find a rule that contradicts any of the last 5 lines.

So you've accepted that you were wrong about him not being a normal member of the unit - good.
If the unit is wiped out, the IC is also dead as he's a normal member of the unit.
If everyone but the IC is dead, the unit is still alive and has taken significant casualties - so must take a morale test.
The unit (again - consisting of the IC that is a normal member of the unit) fails this morale test with a boxcars.
Every member of the unit (in case you haven't been keeping track, that includes the IC) falls back.

rigeld2 wrote:

Nemesor Dave wrote:
An IC is never a normal member of a unit.

Page 49 BRB wrote:Once all attacks have been resolved, these
characters are once again treated as normal members
of the unit they have joined (from determining assault
results onwards).

Emphasis mine.

You're ignoring context. You cannot take a single sentence outside the context that it is used. This sentence is referring attacking and allocating wounds. It is not saying that an IC is exactly the same as any other member of the unit in every possible way.

The extreme you're taking this to is outside the realm of common interpretation of the language and ignoring all logic. This is not what following RAW means.

1) The unit is dead.
2) the IC did not leave the unit.
3) The dead unit does not make any morale checks.

The IC no longer benefits from the unit it was part of and no longer is penalized by the unit it was part of.

What? Youre the one ignoring the perfectly clear rules - the IC is a NORMAL MEMBER of the unit. It has precisely *nothing* to do with allocating wounds - youre just making things up at this point.

Find a rule that allows the unit to leave the unit, or concede.