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.

 Elric Greywolf wrote:
I would like someone to explore Nem's earlier idea a little more.

Let's say there's a piece of wargear that prevents a model from ever declaring a charge. My HQ buys this Retardinator armour, and joins a unit of Marines.
There is a single model who, because of wargear, cannot charge. The rest of the models may charge.

Question: Can the unit declare a charge?
And if your answer concerning wargear conflicts/agrees with your answer concerning IC rules, please explain!

For some reason, it feels like a completely different scenario to me, but I couldn't elucidate why atm...

The best example I can give is the artillery unit. While the weapon is still there the unit can't assault. But how that applies to this situation I don't know.

Cheers

Andrew

 AndrewC wrote:

 Elric Greywolf wrote:
I would like someone to explore Nem's earlier idea a little more.

Let's say there's a piece of wargear that prevents a model from ever declaring a charge. My HQ buys this Retardinator armour, and joins a unit of Marines.
There is a single model who, because of wargear, cannot charge. The rest of the models may charge.

Question: Can the unit declare a charge?
And if your answer concerning wargear conflicts/agrees with your answer concerning IC rules, please explain!

For some reason, it feels like a completely different scenario to me, but I couldn't elucidate why atm...

The best example I can give is the artillery unit. While the weapon is still there the unit can't assault. But how that applies to this situation I don't know.

Different wording entirely. Artillery units may not charge as long as they include any gun models.
Units that arrive from reserve may not charge.

The rule isn't "Units may not charge as long as they contain models that arrive from reserve." which is what some people in this thread are trying to prove it says.

rigeld2 wrote:

 AndrewC wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 AndrewC wrote:
So the rule says that units that arrived from reserves may not charge, that sounds to me like a targeted unit to me.

Targeted by what? What action was taken by someone to say "That unit right there suffers from this effect."?
Not a hypothetical - you have to be able to answer it to legitimately say it's a targeted unit.

I disagree that someone has to take an action in order for a unit to be targeted. The rules provide a specific set of circumstances that must be met in order for a restriction to be enforced. To me, that sounds an awful lot like a targeted unit. However a precise answer is that it is targeted by the rules. For instance, blind is a persistent effect applied to a unit, and is suffered by simply being hit.

... being hit by an attack of course. And attacks are, wait for it - targeted. Oh, sorry - that doesn't fit your world-view apparently.

Please do me the courtesy of answering your own question, where in the rules does it say that a unit may only be targeted by the actions of someone?

By the choice of words. I'm honestly amazed that you assume "the rules" can target a unit with an effect without any words even hinting towards that. Seriously. That's a ballsy statement.

So you can't answer your own question? As for the rules targeting units, while it is almost never used, please review the mysterious terrain section for effects targeting units. Re the blind comment, I was thinking of the elder scattershield, which is rules response and not to the actions of the controlling player.

Cheers

Andrew

 AndrewC wrote:
So you can't answer your own question?

Interesting - on my screen the following appears:

By the choice of words.

Do they not appear on yours? Because that's an answer to my own question.

As for the rules targeting units, while it is almost never used, please review the mysterious terrain section for effects targeting units.

Yes - that's still *something* (the Mysterious Terrain) targeting the unit with a beneficial or harmful effect.

Re the blind comment, I was thinking of the elder scattershield, which is rules response and not to the actions of the controlling player.

"as if they had just been hit"... and it happens as a result of a passed roll. I'm curious as to how that's *not* due to the actions of the controlling player.

Arms getting tired from reaching yet?

1st, By the choice of words, I thought you were referring to my answer. and no that's not an answer by you, because there is no explanation behind it.

2nd, no, its the rules that are targeting the unit, your statement was that someone had to target the unit.

3rd, sorry the blind is a passive response to the hit, it is not a conscious decision of the elder player.

Cheers

Andrew


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I await your reply, but I'll have to respond later.

Cheers

Andrew

 AndrewC wrote:
1st, By the choice of words, I thought you were referring to my answer. and no that's not an answer by you, because there is no explanation behind it.

It is an answer. The words "the target of a beneficial or harmful effect" absolutely imply that *something* is doing the targeting. Not an amorphous "Rulez".

2nd, no, its the rules that are targeting the unit, your statement was that someone had to target the unit.

It's the rules? Really? So this effect could happen without the Mysterious Terrain on the table? That's like saying it's not the Bolter that caused the wounds, it's the rules. An untenable position, surely.

3rd, sorry the blind is a passive response to the hit, it is not a conscious decision of the elder player.

... And? What's your point. Does the Blind have a source? Yes. Did that source do something? Yes. Awesome! Fits perfectly into my understanding and doesn't require some funky "Well, the Wraithknight didn't Blind me, the Rulez did. So even if you're immune to Blind from Eldar units, you still suffer. Take that!" Which is exactly what you're saying would happen.

I don't know why the whole targeted thing came up in the first place. The IC is manifestly and obviously not being targeted by anything. No examination of persistent effects is going to help here in anything but the most peripheral and tangential sort of way.

@rigeld2

The rule isn't "Units may not charge as long as they contain models that arrive from reserve." which is what some people in this thread are trying to prove it says.

That's an interesting assertion. I think the rules come a lot closer to saying that than you'd like (sort of). The best parallel here, IMO anyway, is heavy weapons. Loosely quoted, "units that shot a heavy weapon may not make an assault move". That's what the assault rules say anyway, but that's obviously not a fully comprehensive statement. Models shoot on a model-by-model basis, and what those models choose to shoot, on a model-by-model basis, determines whether or not the entire unit may or may not launch an assault that turn. In other words, despite the inclusive use of "if the unit..." in the rules for assault, what the rule actually does mean is "a unit [containing a model that] fired a heavy weapon may not assault". The elided phrase is still logically necessary when you set the model-by-model nature of the shooting phase next to the whole-unit nature of the assault phase.

The parallel there is obvious, to me anyway. Rules that apply on a model by model basis can indeed prevent an entire unit from declaring an assault. The sticky part is that the IC joining a unit thing isn't specifically covered by the rules (obviously). However, there is precedent for rules that effect single models preventing assault. I don't actually see any rule that would prevent the IC from joining a unit, but I also don't see any precedent or rules-based reason that joining that unit should obviate a very specific rules restriction place on the IC prior to him joining.

rigeld2 wrote:

 AndrewC wrote:
1st, By the choice of words, I thought you were referring to my answer. and no that's not an answer by you, because there is no explanation behind it.

It is an answer. The words "the target of a beneficial or harmful effect" absolutely imply that *something* is doing the targeting. Not an amorphous "Rulez".

That's a better answer. And also a change from your earlier response that someone had to target the unit.

2nd, no, its the rules that are targeting the unit, your statement was that someone had to target the unit.

It's the rules? Really? So this effect could happen without the Mysterious Terrain on the table? That's like saying it's not the Bolter that caused the wounds, it's the rules. An untenable position, surely.

No, its the only position to take. How do you go about targeting a unit, under what framework do you operate? The rules. What input does the mysterious terrain have to target a unit? None, it happens as a result of a players actions. By moving into, on or near to it there is a response according to a dice roll. The unit is targeted as a result of its own actions. Terrain never consciously targets a unit. The best analogy I can think of to put this into words is that the unit targets itself as a result of its own actions. In the exact same way a unit, by entering play from reserves, targets itself for the effects that go with that action. Nothing consciously targets it, it is a 'passive' targeting so to speak.

3rd, sorry the blind is a passive response to the hit, it is not a conscious decision of the elder player.

... And? What's your point. Does the Blind have a source? Yes. Did that source do something? Yes. Awesome! Fits perfectly into my understanding and doesn't require some funky "Well, the Wraithknight didn't Blind me, the Rulez did. So even if you're immune to Blind from Eldar units, you still suffer. Take that!" Which is exactly what you're saying would happen.

And again you are misinterpreting my point, you claimed that a unit can only be targeted by the conscious decision of a player. Now leaving aside that the player had to pick the wargear, there is no player input into the activation of that particular effect by the owning player (beyond making a saving throw, which is taken for a different reason).

Did you have a point to make at the end? because you seem to have thought I typed something about being immune to blind.

Cheers

Andrew


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Fenris-77 wrote:
I don't know why the whole targeted thing came up in the first place. The IC is manifestly and obviously not being targeted by anything. No examination of persistent effects is going to help here in anything but the most peripheral and tangential sort of way

The reason the persistent effects came up is because the restriction on charging is at a unit level, and make no mention of models. As Nos and Rigeld have rightly pointed out, the unit no longer exists on the board and as such how can a unit restriction on A affect B. This is logical and sound. The only thing I can see which would invalidate that is the 'Persistent Effects' caveat on P39, which does transfer unit effect to model effect.

Cheers

Andrew

 Fenris-77 wrote:

The rule isn't "Units may not charge as long as they contain models that arrive from reserve." which is what some people in this thread are trying to prove it says.

That's an interesting assertion. I think the rules come a lot closer to saying that than you'd like (sort of). The best parallel here, IMO anyway, is heavy weapons. Loosely quoted, "units that shot a heavy weapon may not make an assault move". That's what the assault rules say anyway, but that's obviously not a fully comprehensive statement.

p51 wrote:Models that shoot with Heavy weapons in the Shooting phase cannot charge in the ensuing Assault phase.

Your "loose quote" left out the part that referred to the actual rules on page 51. Leaving the rest of your post a bunch of conjecture based on a false premise.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AndrewC wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 AndrewC wrote:
1st, By the choice of words, I thought you were referring to my answer. and no that's not an answer by you, because there is no explanation behind it.

It is an answer. The words "the target of a beneficial or harmful effect" absolutely imply that *something* is doing the targeting. Not an amorphous "Rulez".

That's a better answer. And also a change from your earlier response that someone had to target the unit.

Not a significant one, but yes - a change. And it's the same answer really.

2nd, no, its the rules that are targeting the unit, your statement was that someone had to target the unit.

It's the rules? Really? So this effect could happen without the Mysterious Terrain on the table? That's like saying it's not the Bolter that caused the wounds, it's the rules. An untenable position, surely.

No, its the only position to take.

Stop here. Yes, we need rules to play the game. In the context of the game, what causes a wound - a bolter or the rules? Really important question that should be easy.

3rd, sorry the blind is a passive response to the hit, it is not a conscious decision of the elder player.

... And? What's your point. Does the Blind have a source? Yes. Did that source do something? Yes. Awesome! Fits perfectly into my understanding and doesn't require some funky "Well, the Wraithknight didn't Blind me, the Rulez did. So even if you're immune to Blind from Eldar units, you still suffer. Take that!" Which is exactly what you're saying would happen.

And again you are misinterpreting my point, you claimed that a unit can only be targeted by the conscious decision of a player. Now leaving aside that the player had to pick the wargear, there is no player input into the activation of that particular effect by the owning player (beyond making a saving throw, which is taken for a different reason).

I never claimed that - you assumed that's what I meant.

Did you have a point to make at the end? because you seem to have thought I typed something about being immune to blind.

If a tac squad fires a Melta gun at an Eldar avatar, can he be wounded? After all, according to your statements it's the rules causing the wound, not a weapon with the Melta special rule.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Fenris-77 wrote:

The rule isn't "Units may not charge as long as they contain models that arrive from reserve." which is what some people in this thread are trying to prove it says.

That's an interesting assertion. I think the rules come a lot closer to saying that than you'd like (sort of). The best parallel here, IMO anyway, is heavy weapons. Loosely quoted, "units that shot a heavy weapon may not make an assault move". That's what the assault rules say anyway, but that's obviously not a fully comprehensive statement.

p51 wrote:Models that shoot with Heavy weapons in the Shooting phase cannot charge in the ensuing Assault phase.

Your "loose quote" left out the part that referred to the actual rules on page 51. Leaving the rest of your post a bunch of conjecture based on a false premise.

Except that I accurately quoted the in rules question, which you seem to want to ignore. Whatevs I guess. YMDC isn't about precedent or anything. Oh wait...

You're actually proving my point. A specific model in a unit is preventing that unit from charging because of rule X. Unicorn blood. Keep in mind my point was about models that prevent a unit`from X`, which you have amply illustrated, thank you. Making my own arguments can be so tiring.

Fenris - how does a restriction on models help the case you are making, where the restriction is on a unit declaring a charge?

Naw - in the BB thread you made the claim thart the IC unit was still there. Which is the same claim as it "never going away" - i.e. it didnt go away, it is still there. Of course that is rules nonsense, otherwise the specific exceptions to the First Blood rules would not be needed.

Giving this issue further thought, I feel my position to be correct but for wrong reasons.

I've always thought that the missing rules steps are an oversight and I've placed emphasis on the fact that the game requires everything to be a unit. I still feel that way, but taking into account evidence brought here, I can see it work intentionally in a way to allow the IC to join a new unit.

Maybe that is even intention of the rule, working as intended, who knows..?

Why I think my initial response to be correct is the transference of restrictions and affects. I do not believe they simply disappear and there is no rules support for that either as far as I can tell. On the contrary, persistent effects are given as examples.

Pg 20 lists common reasons that prevent a unit from declaring a charge, with 4th bullet point specifying The unit shot Rapid Fire weapons....

By the wording we can deduce that there are other uncommon reasons, under which the specific restriction for units/models arriving from Reserve falls into.

Then the actual rule about Rapid Fire on pg 52 says Models that shoot with Rapid Fire weapons in the Shooting phase cannot charge.

We were already told that a unit cannot declare a charge by following the rule laid out for that previously, thus one model firing Rapid Fire disallows the whole unit from declaring the charge.

This leads us back to the IC joining the unit from Reserves. GW's brilliant editing has them write "unit cannot charge" in all possible locations where declaring a charge is not allowed. As the restriction on the IC persists, it prevents the whole unit from declaring their charges.

To me a more logical limitation is not to allow the IC from forming/joining up a new unit in the first place upon arrival.






Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Fenris - how does a restriction on models help the case you are making, where the restriction is on a unit declaring a charge?

Naw - in the BB thread you made the claim thart the IC unit was still there. Which is the same claim as it "never going away" - i.e. it didnt go away, it is still there. Of course that is rules nonsense, otherwise the specific exceptions to the First Blood rules would not be needed.

In the BB thread the unit part made no difference whatsoever, it was not required for anything. You insisted on bringing that in the discussion, not me. I don't want to continue that discussion on this topic also, so don't bring it up, okay?

It was needed, as the IC is no longer a unit in the joined unit, meaning the rules for Battle Brothers - which requires a unit - cannot apply. It was absolutely needed then.

I was just intrigued as to why you claimed that there was still an IC unit within the joined unit, and now you claim in stead that an IC has to leave the IC unit in order to join another, and wondered what is yor position now.

Neither is supported by any rules, it is just an attempt to come to some understanding of your position. that way I can see where your rules interpretations are going wrong. But fine - if you want to sweep away your assertions and pretend they dont exist, we can do so.

So now, to be clear, do you NO LONGER assert that the IC has to leave a unit, their OWN unit, in order to join? A simple yes or no here is all that is needed.

The restriction is on the unit charging, yet the unit does not exist

With being a unit and not being a unit while still being in his own unit and things, it's because the rules are not very clear with how its handled.

From the rules we are given we know some things, and draw some things from others....

1. A Unit is a group of models. During game, with IC rules this can be fluid.
2. A IC can join a unit, once joined he is part of that unit for all rules purposes, though retains his character status*
3. A IC which has joined a unit does not share ongoing effects, and the unit does not share them with him - Even if the target was the IC unit which may no longer exists.
4. A IC which leaves a unit, retails ongoing effects, even if the target was the Unit he is no longer with.
% Potentially, a unit as bought for the codex is different from a unit as described during the game. **

*Rules for characters, as in, in an assault he still acts like a character, piles in as soon as he can etc.
** Noted; Special rules from the codex are given to models for being in the unit, other parallels much samey can be drawn.

Problem is, finding a solid answer to what happens to the IC's 'unit' when joined, while ticking all of the above.... It's one of 3 things.

- The IC unit is 'disbanded' (for lack of a better word) ##conflicts with %,3&4, unless Unit rules are carried by models.
- The IC retains the rules and tags from the unit he was in.
- The IC unit is 'disbanded', but he still retains a being a 'unit' as bought for from the army list, and retains everything from being -that- unit, but not the erm.. other unit thing.##conflicts with 3&4


********

Way I see it.

Many things are tagged to a unit - and certainly in some demonstration-able examples in the BRB 'unit' is used as a paraphrase for 'Models in that group'. Units are not a physical entity, like void shields don't actually exist - neither do units. Unit's don't shoot. Unit's don't target. Unit's don't hit, wound or anything, models-as-a-group do these things. Grounding tests are conducted if the unit hits. If we are treating unit's as a physical entity this is impossible situation, as a 'unit' never does that. In this case, it's if a hit is scored from one of those models in that group. This also means, there has to be other models in it to constitute leaving a unit.

There was a related debate recently around rest of the unit. It was put forward that a single model unit who could target something else to the rest of his unit could nominate a target for the unit, then for himself. I would argue this means rest of the models in the unit, as a unit is dependent on models rather than units flying around without them. If the unit was a separate, sure. however, it's not.

But some of the same people are arguing while the rest of the unit can exist for that purpose it doesn't for this (leaving a unit). I agree the IC doesn't leave, the unit is that one model, in this case he is all, and everything of the unit. It's the same basic principle of thought to 'what constitutes a unit', and it gets my goat people are pointing others change of mind while it's also in fact their own.

..........Unit..Y.....................Unit.Z
..../------------------/......... /---------/
.......A.B.H.H.D................... Y


/------/ - Denotes ' the unit' if it was a physical entity.
ABHHD - Denotes models.
Y - Denotes IC

Of the above, we want to know what happens when the IC joins Unit Y. - now this is literally how it's put in the BRB, the IC joins the unit... so does this happen?

...........Unit Y
.../------------------/...Y
....... A.B.H.H.D

There you have it, the IC has joined unit Y.
It becomes pretty obvious at this point unit has no physical layer. Joining the unit means joining that group of models - Not actually joining ''the unit''

.............Unit Y
../-----------------------/
......A.B.H.H.D.Y

The above is the end point, but we have a few niggles...

While the IC was detached we could say the following things..
5. Unit Z is Soul Blaze'd
6. Unit Z can not charge this turn.

Acknowledging unit is not a physical layer is important to this. While I've used /----/ to denote where they sit, those 2 items above are tagged to the following..

..........Unit..Y.....................Unit.Z
..../------------------/......... /---------/
.......A.B.H.H.D................... IY

Unit Z's existence was just the one model. We know the IC, as a model continues to carry point 5. So he's either still in unit Z, or when the unit has something, it's models do too. Saying he does not also carry point 6 as a model is illogical, does not hold basis is any rules and is unprecedented. Similarly, i think people should decide if a unit is a entity on is own or not, would keep other rules debates simple and in line. Even the words part of that unit make it clear units are everything models.

What we actually have is..

5. IC is Soul Blaze'd
6. IC can not charge this turn.


Now you have a rule which says the unit can charge and a rule that one of them in the unit can't. Is one more specific to the other? At this pojnt, probably worth noting unlike shooting, embarking, effing every other section charging doesn't specify if some models don't have to or it has to be done as a group.

In the case of embarking all or no models.


*****EDIT*****

Gone back through my posts to find examples of similar situations I spoke of earlier etc.

-A IC pops from a Rhino, and joins a unit of Assault Marines which have not yet moved, they later wish to assault - While the 'unit' has not disembarked and are able to assault - actually they can not. As that IC can not charge, the unit can not charge. It doesn't remove the restriction from the model.
-You can attach a Terminator IC to a squad of power armor. If the unit wants to embark on a Rhino, it can't unless the IC leaves, even though the 'unit' can.

You get the idea, a IC which can't do something will prevent a unit which can from performing that action.

When checking if the unit can or cannot take an action, every part of that unit and the rules on each model are included, he is part of the unit for all rule purposes - and the unit accounts for rules on all models which are part of it when taking a unit related action, another instance might be charging, if the IC has a different charge speed it can potentionally slow the charge down - the IC does not just charge at the same pace as the rest of the unit... Models can have different rules, and the IC's rules for movement etc do not disappear because he joined a unit where the models have a different movement speed to him. If you need more examples, the link and other posts on Dakka put forward a multitude of examples where a unit can't do something, becuase the IC that just joined can't. Being part of the unit means you must use the IC's rules and restrictions, rather than meaning you can ignore them.

I believe the original I was referring to was terminator captain one. Not sure if new codex's changed any of those rules.

The relativity to models is important. The BRB defines a unit as a group of models. So when it says a unit can not charge this turn - it is saying the models in that group can not charge this turn. The necessary rules have been put forward also that the models carry those rules tied to that group when no longer in the group, until the rules are satisfied (Upon ending).

The opposition is that it's a unit rule not effecting and not carried by the models which are no longer in that group. So far, I have yet to see a rules based argument to support this - only 'it's on the unit' which has satisfied by the counter.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
I was just intrigued as to why you claimed that there was still an IC unit within the joined unit

I have never made such a claim, as a matter of fact I have said that there must be a step when the IC leaves his old unit to join a new unit even if it was not specified in the rules. I even said that it is not possible to belong to two units at the same time. So no, I have not claimed anything like that and as such the rest your message also has no merit.

So now, to be clear, do you NO LONGER assert that the IC has to leave a unit, their OWN unit, in order to join? A simple yes or no here is all that is needed.

Unfortunately that is not something I will deliver as it is anything but simple. I still believe the IC is not allowed to join a new unit on the turn it enters the game from reserves, however if we move past that and do allow the IC in the new unit, the restrictions placed upon the IC would prevent the whole unit from charging as I pointed out in my previous post. Did that clarify the issue?

The restriction is on the unit charging, yet the unit does not exist

I believe this is where we disagree. The model defines the unit and the restriction is placed there. Just because he joined up to a new unit did not lift the restriction. My reasoning is that joining the unit happens at the end of the movement phase, but the restriction lasts all the way to the assault phase.

Naw - erm, discussing the BB thread. Sorry, I thought that was clear.

We're not saying you belong to two units - which is why the IC rules lead you to concluding the IC is not a unit while joined to another unit.

However your assertion is still they must leave, despite the fact - which you refuse to address - that this is impossible within the rules. As well as the fact that, EVEN IF your IC has to leave himself, it would be irrlevenat ANYWAY as the rule quoted only disallows an IC from leaving when he joined a unit in reserves. Unless you now not only claim the IC has to leave himself, but join himself in the first place...?

It is that simple: do you believe an IC has to leave "themselves" in order to join another unit? Yes or No. No ducking the question - yes or no.

The models make up the unit, but do not define it. A set is not just defined by the members of the set.

I believe that the solo unit the IC forms is disbanded upon joining the new unit. I believe there should be a written step, but there isn't. I do not believe that something just ceases to exist as that is also not supported by the rules.

This is not the only unclear rule. Like I wrote before, there is nothing that describes what happens when the IC leaves a unit. How does he become a unit? We are given rules on how IC attaches itself to a unit, but RAW, can he go on his own? The rules demand (in bold on page 3) that everything on the table are units and the IC just can't enter limbo.

In short, to make the rules work, there are some steps that are just assumed.

Why is this irrelevant to the discussion? Because the restriction to not being able to charge (and therefore preventing a unit from declaring a charge as per the rules) does not cease to exist, it stays with the model.

The reasoning for this I posted already.

Now if you want to, we can open another thread to discuss what happens to an IC who wants to leave a unit of other models.

Naw wrote:
Why is this irrelevant to the discussion? Because the restriction to not being able to charge (and therefore preventing a unit from declaring a charge as per the rules) does not cease to exist, it stays with the model.

The reasoning for this I posted already.

No, you haven't. Not rules based reasoning anyway. All I've seen was something like "He was part of the unit and therefore he gets it even though it's not a restriction on the models." which, of course, isn't a rules based reason.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Fenris-77 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Fenris-77 wrote:

The rule isn't "Units may not charge as long as they contain models that arrive from reserve." which is what some people in this thread are trying to prove it says.

That's an interesting assertion. I think the rules come a lot closer to saying that than you'd like (sort of). The best parallel here, IMO anyway, is heavy weapons. Loosely quoted, "units that shot a heavy weapon may not make an assault move". That's what the assault rules say anyway, but that's obviously not a fully comprehensive statement.

p51 wrote:Models that shoot with Heavy weapons in the Shooting phase cannot charge in the ensuing Assault phase.

Your "loose quote" left out the part that referred to the actual rules on page 51. Leaving the rest of your post a bunch of conjecture based on a false premise.

Except that I accurately quoted the in rules question, which you seem to want to ignore. Whatevs I guess. YMDC isn't about precedent or anything. Oh wait...

No, seriously, you left out the reference to page 51 that exists in the rule. That reference is *vital* to the meaning of the rule. YMDC isn't about misquotes.

You're actually proving my point. A specific model in a unit is preventing that unit from charging because of rule X. Unicorn blood. Keep in mind my point was about models that prevent a unit`from X`, which you have amply illustrated, thank you. Making my own arguments can be so tiring.

A specific model in the unit is preventing the unit from charging because that rule says a single model can. It's a demonstrably differently worded rule and as such can't be used to support your argument.
So... you're welcome for proving you wrong?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Nem wrote:
The relativity to models is important. The BRB defines a unit as a group of models. So when it says a unit can not charge this turn - it is saying the models in that group can not charge this turn. The necessary rules have been put forward also that the models carry those rules tied to that group when no longer in the group, until the rules are satisfied (Upon ending).

Even if I grant that this is correct, your wording proves you wrong.
Unit Z carries a rule that prevents Unit Z from charging. Unit Z ceases to exist as far as the rules are concerned. Why is Unit Y prevented from charging?

The opposition is that it's a unit rule not effecting and not carried by the models which are no longer in that group. So far, I have yet to see a rules based argument to support this - only 'it's on the unit' which has satisfied by the counter.

Not at all satisfied by the counter.

rigeld2 wrote:

Naw wrote:
Why is this irrelevant to the discussion? Because the restriction to not being able to charge (and therefore preventing a unit from declaring a charge as per the rules) does not cease to exist, it stays with the model.

The reasoning for this I posted already.

No, you haven't. Not rules based reasoning anyway. All I've seen was something like "He was part of the unit and therefore he gets it even though it's not a restriction on the models." which, of course, isn't a rules based reason.

Your incapability for discussion and correct quotation, both of rules and others, has been noticed. Now good bye.

Naw wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Naw wrote:
Why is this irrelevant to the discussion? Because the restriction to not being able to charge (and therefore preventing a unit from declaring a charge as per the rules) does not cease to exist, it stays with the model.

The reasoning for this I posted already.

No, you haven't. Not rules based reasoning anyway. All I've seen was something like "He was part of the unit and therefore he gets it even though it's not a restriction on the models." which, of course, isn't a rules based reason.

Your incapability for discussion and correct quotation, both of rules and others, has been noticed. Now good bye.

I've incorrectly quoted you? Please. correct me.
Please, show me where I've misquoted rules.

Naw - so no answer, either yes or no? Ducking again.

He "again becomes" a single model unit. Meaning until that point he wasnt a single model unit, so wasnt a unit either. Hence, the unit ceases to be. It is no more.

When the model leaves a unit, he is now a single model, all alone, that is therefore a unit again.

You seem to assume a requirement to "join" in order to create a unit in the first place. So what about non-ICs, that CANNOT join? They just *are* a unit unto themselves - they never join or leave that unit.

This seems to be the fundamental disconnect - you have assumed a requirement, one that absolutely cannot be met by any rule, anywhere, and are using that to support your argument. Even when this is dismissed, you take a requirement on unit "A" and are applying it to unit "B".

The tuple (IC, unit A) is different, absolutely, from the tuple (IC, unit B)

.. and we're done....