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.

col_impact wrote:

Spoiler:

CHARACTER AND MOVING
Characters follow the movement rules for models of their type, whether Infantry, Jump Infantry, Bikes, etc. However, remember that they must maintain unit coherency with any unit they are in.

No portion of that rule says "he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes" and the coherency bit is overwritten by the IC rule that allows the IC to break coherency during the movement phase.

I think we have hit the religious level of debate here peoples.

The IC cannot benefit from bounding pope, per the faq. If the unit assaults something the IC has also assaulted with the unit, unless we want to get into some bizarre argument that the IC in the you it is not locked in assault somehow.

This of course is in conflict with allowing the wulfen to assault after running, but as they are in the same unit and we are told the IC may not benefit that conflict is there and the faq answer does not directly or explicitly answer the question "can an unit of wulfen with IC still run and charge even though the UC is not allowed to do so, and if so how does that work".

The faq answer grants permission for the wulfen to still use bounding lope but it doesn't allow the IC to benefit and does not address wtf happens in su h a case, the brb doesn't actually have permission to assault with models from an unit, but not all of the unit.

This thread seems to be using assault and charge as interchangeable terms which really doesn't work. There are rules prohibiting run and charge but to the best of my knowledge not rules banning running then being dragged into assault. Thus it is not a big stretch to say the FAQ clarifies that bounding lope gives wulfen permission to run and charge when the attached IC can't, overriding BRB norm. The IC doesn't get charge bonus but still gets dragged into assault following normal pile in rules.

Granted it is not as clear as it should be, but that seems the most logical interpretation of wulfen can but IC doesn't benefit. Particularly since nearly every other interpretation concludes wulfen can't use the rule at all with an attached IC, which directly contradicts the FAQ answer.

Fhionnuisce wrote:
This thread seems to be using assault and charge as interchangeable terms which really doesn't work. There are rules prohibiting run and charge but to the best of my knowledge not rules banning running then being dragged into assault. Thus it is not a big stretch to say the FAQ clarifies that bounding lope gives wulfen permission to run and charge when the attached IC can't, overriding BRB norm. The IC doesn't get charge bonus but still gets dragged into assault following normal pile in rules.

Granted it is not as clear as it should be, but that seems the most logical interpretation of wulfen can but IC doesn't benefit. Particularly since nearly every other interpretation concludes wulfen can't use the rule at all with an attached IC, which directly contradicts the FAQ answer.

How many grenades did a squad of 5 tac marines with krak grenades throw before the faq in your meta? What seems as intent to some is very different to others. Sometimes the others are the people who did not write the rules.

blaktoof wrote:

Fhionnuisce wrote:
This thread seems to be using assault and charge as interchangeable terms which really doesn't work. There are rules prohibiting run and charge but to the best of my knowledge not rules banning running then being dragged into assault. Thus it is not a big stretch to say the FAQ clarifies that bounding lope gives wulfen permission to run and charge when the attached IC can't, overriding BRB norm. The IC doesn't get charge bonus but still gets dragged into assault following normal pile in rules.

Granted it is not as clear as it should be, but that seems the most logical interpretation of wulfen can but IC doesn't benefit. Particularly since nearly every other interpretation concludes wulfen can't use the rule at all with an attached IC, which directly contradicts the FAQ answer.

How many grenades did a squad of 5 tac marines with krak grenades throw before the faq in your meta? What seems as intent to some is very different to others. Sometimes the others are the people who did not write the rules.

Except that this exact same FAQ for this exact same faction gives the exact same answer to almost the exact same question for "For glory, For Russ!" Which allows a unit with an attached IC to run and charge. So I imagine that the IC in the Wulfen unit does exactly what the IC in the Thunderwolf unit does - which unfortunately is anyone's guess - but what isn't a guess is that we are told that the IC doesn't prevent the unit from using the special rule. No if's, and's, or but's are given, and in "For Glory, For Russ!" We are told specifically that the unit can charge - so any claims that Wulfen are different stand on very loose footing.

Fhionnuisce wrote:
This thread seems to be using assault and charge as interchangeable terms which really doesn't work. There are rules prohibiting run and charge but to the best of my knowledge not rules banning running then being dragged into assault. Thus it is not a big stretch to say the FAQ clarifies that bounding lope gives wulfen permission to run and charge when the attached IC can't, overriding BRB norm. The IC doesn't get charge bonus but still gets dragged into assault following normal pile in rules.

Granted it is not as clear as it should be, but that seems the most logical interpretation of wulfen can but IC doesn't benefit. Particularly since nearly every other interpretation concludes wulfen can't use the rule at all with an attached IC, which directly contradicts the FAQ answer.

This is a solution that obeys the directive of the FAQ and does not violate the BRB.

Fhionnuisce wrote:
This thread seems to be using assault and charge as interchangeable terms which really doesn't work. There are rules prohibiting run and charge but to the best of my knowledge not rules banning running then being dragged into assault. Thus it is not a big stretch to say the FAQ clarifies that bounding lope gives wulfen permission to run and charge when the attached IC can't, overriding BRB norm. The IC doesn't get charge bonus but still gets dragged into assault following normal pile in rules.

Granted it is not as clear as it should be, but that seems the most logical interpretation of wulfen can but IC doesn't benefit. Particularly since nearly every other interpretation concludes wulfen can't use the rule at all with an attached IC, which directly contradicts the FAQ answer.

This seems right. Most likely the unit ends up not in coherency at the end of the charge (unless the charge is less than 2" distance), as the IC won't charge (since he counts as having run since the unit ran), but he'll still be part of the unit since it's not the movement phase. It's legal for him to not be in coherency as the charging rules only talk about being in coherency with models that have already charged; it doesn't say anything about maintaining coherency with models that haven't charged. As you note, he just catches up with a pile-in (without the charge bonus) during the fight subphase.

 doctortom wrote:

Fhionnuisce wrote:
This thread seems to be using assault and charge as interchangeable terms which really doesn't work. There are rules prohibiting run and charge but to the best of my knowledge not rules banning running then being dragged into assault. Thus it is not a big stretch to say the FAQ clarifies that bounding lope gives wulfen permission to run and charge when the attached IC can't, overriding BRB norm. The IC doesn't get charge bonus but still gets dragged into assault following normal pile in rules.

Granted it is not as clear as it should be, but that seems the most logical interpretation of wulfen can but IC doesn't benefit. Particularly since nearly every other interpretation concludes wulfen can't use the rule at all with an attached IC, which directly contradicts the FAQ answer.

This seems right. Most likely the unit ends up not in coherency at the end of the charge (unless the charge is less than 2" distance), as the IC won't charge (since he counts as having run since the unit ran), but he'll still be part of the unit since it's not the movement phase. It's legal for him to not be in coherency as the charging rules only talk about being in coherency with models that have already charged; it doesn't say anything about maintaining coherency with models that haven't charged. As you note, he just catches up with a pile-in (without the charge bonus) during the fight subphase.

The FAQ indicates coherency must be maintained.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
No the rule does not read this way . . .

Spoiler:

While an Independent Character is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes, and he still follows the rules for characters.

It reads this way . . .

Spoiler:

While an Independent Character is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes, though he still follows the rules for characters.

"Though" does not mean "and". Though means "however" or "except". I think you are being deliberately obtuse on this matter. I am assuming you can read.

I am not being obtuse. The term "though" does mean "however", but not always "except". The statement is not completely absolving the previous statement of any force, but putting limits on it where they are stated. As I stated earlier, if the Characters rules actually stated anything that would present itself as an exception, they would take precedence. That is how "though" works. It does not immediately exclude everything before from everything after.

So when we look at Character rules, they do not provide exceptions and place reminders to that statement numerous times. If we are to completely ignore it, why do they keep reminding us of it?

If we are to continue on how you propose, then ICs being in a unit is a completely useless gesture. They would not access Look Out Sir! since they do not count as being part of their own unit while joined to another unit. I could shoot them individually aside from the unit they joined. All of the their movement would allow them to be free agents at all times. They would be allowed to Split Fire without anyone having the rule. If they do not count as part of the unit for Movement, they would not be able to be a "model in this unit with this special rule" if they have it or be a part of "a unit with a model with this special rule" if they do not.

Since this puts to lie numerous other rules in the rulebook and makes them non-functional, it means your interpretation is trash and you do not seek to progress this discussion in to anything but a round where you repeat the same thing without properly addressing the questions asked or to put the game in to a useless mess.

"Though" is not acting as an adverb in the sentence. "Though" is acting as a subordinating conjunction for the subordinate clause ('he still follows the rules for characters') to indicate contrast and exception to the main clause.

So the Character rules are indeed exceptions to the 'counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes'.

Also, your slippery slope argument is a fallacious one. You need to actually find Character rules that actively open up issues since exception to the "counts as" clause is only provided for Character rules. Outside of the Character rules and the Independent Character rules the IC counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes (ie a model in the unit). In the absence of Character rules or Independent Character rules the 'counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes' applies. So no slippery slope. Nice try.

 NightHowler wrote:

blaktoof wrote:

Fhionnuisce wrote:
This thread seems to be using assault and charge as interchangeable terms which really doesn't work. There are rules prohibiting run and charge but to the best of my knowledge not rules banning running then being dragged into assault. Thus it is not a big stretch to say the FAQ clarifies that bounding lope gives wulfen permission to run and charge when the attached IC can't, overriding BRB norm. The IC doesn't get charge bonus but still gets dragged into assault following normal pile in rules.

Granted it is not as clear as it should be, but that seems the most logical interpretation of wulfen can but IC doesn't benefit. Particularly since nearly every other interpretation concludes wulfen can't use the rule at all with an attached IC, which directly contradicts the FAQ answer.

How many grenades did a squad of 5 tac marines with krak grenades throw before the faq in your meta? What seems as intent to some is very different to others. Sometimes the others are the people who did not write the rules.

Except that this exact same FAQ for this exact same faction gives the exact same answer to almost the exact same question for "For glory, For Russ!" Which allows a unit with an attached IC to run and charge. So I imagine that the IC in the Wulfen unit does exactly what the IC in the Thunderwolf unit does - which unfortunately is anyone's guess - but what isn't a guess is that we are told that the IC doesn't prevent the unit from using the special rule. No if's, and's, or but's are given, and in "For Glory, For Russ!" We are told specifically that the unit can charge - so any claims that Wulfen are different stand on very loose footing.

Which changes the rules for assaulting in the BRB, there is no permission to assault with part of an unit. In fact we are specifically told instances of when models are not allowed to assault, the unit may not assault. I.e. if a model fires heavy weapons, the unit may not assault. It does not read the model may not assault.

using for glory for russ is a faq rule for a different question, one could easily say "skyhammer faq" and now the unit cannot charge with the attached IC.

blaktoof wrote:

 NightHowler wrote:

blaktoof wrote:

Fhionnuisce wrote:
This thread seems to be using assault and charge as interchangeable terms which really doesn't work. There are rules prohibiting run and charge but to the best of my knowledge not rules banning running then being dragged into assault. Thus it is not a big stretch to say the FAQ clarifies that bounding lope gives wulfen permission to run and charge when the attached IC can't, overriding BRB norm. The IC doesn't get charge bonus but still gets dragged into assault following normal pile in rules.

Granted it is not as clear as it should be, but that seems the most logical interpretation of wulfen can but IC doesn't benefit. Particularly since nearly every other interpretation concludes wulfen can't use the rule at all with an attached IC, which directly contradicts the FAQ answer.

How many grenades did a squad of 5 tac marines with krak grenades throw before the faq in your meta? What seems as intent to some is very different to others. Sometimes the others are the people who did not write the rules.

Except that this exact same FAQ for this exact same faction gives the exact same answer to almost the exact same question for "For glory, For Russ!" Which allows a unit with an attached IC to run and charge. So I imagine that the IC in the Wulfen unit does exactly what the IC in the Thunderwolf unit does - which unfortunately is anyone's guess - but what isn't a guess is that we are told that the IC doesn't prevent the unit from using the special rule. No if's, and's, or but's are given, and in "For Glory, For Russ!" We are told specifically that the unit can charge - so any claims that Wulfen are different stand on very loose footing.

Which changes the rules for assaulting in the BRB, there is no permission to assault with part of an unit. In fact we are specifically told instances of when models are not allowed to assault, the unit may not assault. I.e. if a model fires heavy weapons, the unit may not assault. It does not read the model may not assault.

It may change the rules from the BRB, but irregardless of whether or not it changes anything, that's what it says.

blaktoof wrote:
using for glory for russ is a faq rule for a different question, one could easily say "skyhammer faq" and now the unit cannot charge with the attached IC.

I would have to call you out on this one. Skyhammer is addressed in a different FAQ. Both For Glory, For Russ! And Bounding Lope (and the new Counter Charge from the Wolfclaw Strike Force for that matter) give the same answer in THIS FAQ, and the answer in For Glory, For Russ! And Counter Charge in THIS FAQ tell us that we can charge although the IC does not benefit, and are worded almost word for word exactly like Bounding Lope is worded.

I find it fascinating that the other two rules tell you clearly that the unit can charge, but because Bounding Lope has the added bonus of rerolling failed charges you feel you can claim it is somehow different and not allowed to charge.

col_impact wrote:


The FAQ indicates coherency must be maintained.

Spoiler:

Q: If an Independent Character joins a unit of Wulfen, do the Wulfen models still get to use the Bounding Lope rule?
A: Yes, but the Independent Character does not benefit, and all models in the unit must maintain unit coherency.

Fair point, but that does change the rules for charging. It means you will most likely hold back one or two models to maintain coherency with the IC. It looks like that coherency will override the bit about if at all possible move into base contact with an enemy model, if you know that you can't maintain unit coherency if you don't. And will probably have some people arguing that you still should be moving them into base contact.

It really sounds like they didn't think the implications of their ruling through.

 doctortom wrote:
It really sounds like they didn't think the implications of their ruling through.

I think this, honestly is the most likely of all possibilities.

The new Necron FAQ has a direct contradiction withe the Space Wolves FAQ on how to handle helfrost vs reanimation protocol, indicating that many of these FAQ rulings will change before the dust settles.

Nevertheless, this FAQ clearly states that the unit can charge, but unfortunately leaves out what we're supposed to do with the attached IC.

As always, it would be best to discuss with your opponent before beginning the match and if he disagrees just roll off.

 NightHowler wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
using for glory for russ is a faq rule for a different question, one could easily say "skyhammer faq" and now the unit cannot charge with the attached IC.

I would have to call you out on this one. Skyhammer is addressed in a different FAQ. Both For Glory, For Russ! And Bounding Lope (and the new Counter Charge from the Wolfclaw Strike Force for that matter) give the same answer in THIS FAQ, and the answer in For Glory, For Russ! And Counter Charge in THIS FAQ tell us that we can charge although the IC does not benefit, and are worded almost word for word exactly like Bounding Lope is worded.

Skyhammer is dealing with charging after coming in from reserves via Deep Strike so its not the same case by any stretch.

Fhionnuisce wrote:This thread seems to be using assault and charge as interchangeable terms which really doesn't work. There are rules prohibiting run and charge but to the best of my knowledge not rules banning running then being dragged into assault. Thus it is not a big stretch to say the FAQ clarifies that bounding lope gives wulfen permission to run and charge when the attached IC can't, overriding BRB norm. The IC doesn't get charge bonus but still gets dragged into assault following normal pile in rules.

Granted it is not as clear as it should be, but that seems the most logical interpretation of wulfen can but IC doesn't benefit. Particularly since nearly every other interpretation concludes wulfen can't use the rule at all with an attached IC, which directly contradicts the FAQ answer.

Nothing is stated that the IC doesn't get the Charge bonus if there are no other factors in play.

In the rulebook, when it comes to the Charge (and Running), the UNIT Charges, and the MODELS Move. Nothing in this is stated when making a Charge move that if a model was in a Run, it cannot make a Charge Move, nor does it state it makes a Disordered Charge (i.e. lose Charge bonus).

Quite simply put, the rules do not cover this situation at all, no matter how disassociated the thinking of Impact is.

col_impact wrote:"Though" is not acting as an adverb in the sentence. "Though" is acting as a subordinating conjunction for the subordinate clause ('he still follows the rules for characters') to indicate contrast and exception to the main clause.

So the Character rules are indeed exceptions to the 'counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes'.

Yes, it is acting as a conjuction and not as an adverb (OED def 1.2 and not "2"). That doesn't make my interpretation wrong. In order to be an actual exception, they still have to provide what the exceptions are. In this phrase, the exceptions are listed in the Character rules.

If we go by your interpretation, "though" is being used as the verb "excludes", which does not match up with how the rest of the game operates.

Which is why I was saying it as "and still". They continue to use the rules for Characters and being Joined to a Unit changes none of this. Shall we go over what Oxford uses as example sentences and see which fits the situation better, yours or mine?

The Character rules have primacy in this case, but the Character rules still do absolutely nothing to separate the IC from the unit for any of the unit's interactions. Indeed, they repeatedly keep making and identifying that connection all the way through. Where it does separate an IC from the unit is for Challenges, where even a Wulfen Pack Leader gets separated from his unit to a specific degree.

col_impact wrote:Also, your slippery slope argument is a fallacious one. You need to actually find Character rules that actively open up issues since exception to the "counts as" clause is only provided for Character rules. Outside of the Character rules and the Independent Character rules the IC counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes (ie a model in the unit). In the absence of Character rules or Independent Character rules the 'counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes' applies. So no slippery slope. Nice try.

I am using the examples YOU provided to create this slippery slope.

You stated that an IC is still recognized as his own unit for movement because "Character and Movement" doesn't state that the Character counts as part of the unit for movement. It doesn't say that for Look Out Sir!. It doesn't state that for Character and Shooting, so it doesn't state that for when the unit gets shot or when it shoots. It doesn't state that for how Characters interact for Special Rules, either (admittedly, the Character section does not have a section for this). It also doesn't state it for Characters as Leaders, though it is as heavily implied there as it is for Character and Movement. Indeed, the only place it actually states Characters are part of the unit is in Character and Assaults.

So, yeah, have fun with your slippery slope that you think is a flatland.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

col_impact wrote:
Skyhammer is dealing with charging after coming in from reserves via Deep Strike so its not the same case by any stretch.

Skyhammer deals with a Unit Charging after having the base restriction against it removed for the unit as one of its four rules.

A unit cannot Charge after it comes from Deep Strike. A unit cannot Charge after it arrives from Reserves. A unit cannot Charge after it Runs. Skyhammer grants Assault Marine Squads in its formation to Charge after Arriving from Deep Strike Reserves. Bounding Lope grants Wulfen the ability to Charge after Running.

Sounds like it is pertinent to me.

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:"Though" is not acting as an adverb in the sentence. "Though" is acting as a subordinating conjunction for the subordinate clause ('he still follows the rules for characters') to indicate contrast and exception to the main clause.

So the Character rules are indeed exceptions to the 'counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes'.

Yes, it is acting as a conjuction and not as an adverb (OED def 1.2 and not "2"). That doesn't make my interpretation wrong. In order to be an actual exception, they still have to provide what the exceptions are. In this phrase, the exceptions are listed in the Character rules.

If we go by your interpretation, "though" is being used as the verb "excludes", which does not match up with how the rest of the game operates.

I have never said that it acts as the verb "excludes". "Though" is a subordinate conjunction that acts like "but", "however" , and "except" and indicates contrast and exception to the main clause. I think you need to start opening up a few books on grammar!

By no stretch of English does "though still" mean "and still". "And still" is not a subordinating conjuction and does not indicate contrast and exception to the main clause. Your parsing here is plain silly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:Also, your slippery slope argument is a fallacious one. You need to actually find Character rules that actively open up issues since exception to the "counts as" clause is only provided for Character rules. Outside of the Character rules and the Independent Character rules the IC counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes (ie a model in the unit). In the absence of Character rules or Independent Character rules the 'counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes' applies. So no slippery slope. Nice try.

I am using the examples YOU provided to create this slippery slope.

You stated that an IC is still recognized as his own unit for movement because "Character and Movement" doesn't state that the Character counts as part of the unit for movement. It doesn't say that for Look Out Sir!. It doesn't state that for Character and Shooting, so it doesn't state that for when the unit gets shot or when it shoots. It doesn't state that for how Characters interact for Special Rules, either (admittedly, the Character section does not have a section for this). It also doesn't state it for Characters as Leaders, though it is as heavily implied there as it is for Character and Movement. Indeed, the only place it actually states Characters are part of the unit is in Character and Assaults.

So, yeah, have fun with your slippery slope that you think is a flatland.

There are no slippery slopes in Look Out Sir. The Character is a unit in a unit and can allocate wounds to models in its unit. There are no 'Shooting at a Character' rules so normal rules apply when shooting at a independent character.

So no slippery slopes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
Skyhammer is dealing with charging after coming in from reserves via Deep Strike so its not the same case by any stretch.

Skyhammer deals with a Unit Charging after having the base restriction against it removed for the unit as one of its four rules.

A unit cannot Charge after it comes from Deep Strike. A unit cannot Charge after it arrives from Reserves. A unit cannot Charge after it Runs. Skyhammer grants Assault Marine Squads in its formation to Charge after Arriving from Deep Strike Reserves. Bounding Lope grants Wulfen the ability to Charge after Running.

Sounds like it is pertinent to me.

Does Bounding Lope have anything at all to do with reserves?

Apple meet orange.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:

Fhionnuisce wrote:This thread seems to be using assault and charge as interchangeable terms which really doesn't work. There are rules prohibiting run and charge but to the best of my knowledge not rules banning running then being dragged into assault. Thus it is not a big stretch to say the FAQ clarifies that bounding lope gives wulfen permission to run and charge when the attached IC can't, overriding BRB norm. The IC doesn't get charge bonus but still gets dragged into assault following normal pile in rules.

Granted it is not as clear as it should be, but that seems the most logical interpretation of wulfen can but IC doesn't benefit. Particularly since nearly every other interpretation concludes wulfen can't use the rule at all with an attached IC, which directly contradicts the FAQ answer.

Nothing is stated that the IC doesn't get the Charge bonus if there are no other factors in play.

In the rulebook, when it comes to the Charge (and Running), the UNIT Charges, and the MODELS Move. Nothing in this is stated when making a Charge move that if a model was in a Run, it cannot make a Charge Move, nor does it state it makes a Disordered Charge (i.e. lose Charge bonus).

Quite simply put, the rules do not cover this situation at all, no matter how disassociated the thinking of Impact is.

The FAQ covers it and tells you that the Wulfen models benefit and can run and charge (while the IC does not). They just have to maintain coherency. So you are required to follow that directive.

 Charistoph wrote:

Fhionnuisce wrote:This thread seems to be using assault and charge as interchangeable terms which really doesn't work. There are rules prohibiting run and charge but to the best of my knowledge not rules banning running then being dragged into assault. Thus it is not a big stretch to say the FAQ clarifies that bounding lope gives wulfen permission to run and charge when the attached IC can't, overriding BRB norm. The IC doesn't get charge bonus but still gets dragged into assault following normal pile in rules.

Granted it is not as clear as it should be, but that seems the most logical interpretation of wulfen can but IC doesn't benefit. Particularly since nearly every other interpretation concludes wulfen can't use the rule at all with an attached IC, which directly contradicts the FAQ answer.

Nothing is stated that the IC doesn't get the Charge bonus if there are no other factors in play.

In the rulebook, when it comes to the Charge (and Running), the UNIT Charges, and the MODELS Move. Nothing in this is stated when making a Charge move that if a model was in a Run, it cannot make a Charge Move, nor does it state it makes a Disordered Charge (i.e. lose Charge bonus).

Quite simply put, the rules do not cover this situation at all, no matter how disassociated the thinking of Impact is.

It's murky. "All of the models in a charging unit make their charge move..." (page 48) is the sticking point. He counts as having run (as per page 38) The question is whether the statement that he doesn't benefit from the rule means that the model can't both run and charge. If he does, then it really does raise the question of why they would say he wouldn't benefit from bounding lope if that doesn't change his situation at all compared to if he did have the rule. It might be more appropriate to say that Units declare charges, but models charge. Each of the bullet points on page 46 have the phrase "a charging model", so it might be appropriate to look at charging in relation to the models as well as the unit. That would tend to make it clearer, but it's certainly an interpretation that can be argued with. Arguments could be made either way.

I do agree that it's certainly not clear from the rules which way all the rules would fall; there's too many questions for it to not be addressed further by them.

col_impact wrote:
I have never said that it acts as the verb "excludes". "Though" is a subordinate conjunction that acts like "but", "however" , and "except" and indicates contrast and exception to the main clause. I think you need to start opening up a few books on grammar!

By no stretch of English does "though still" mean "and still". "And still" is not a subordinating conjuction and does not indicate contrast and exception to the main clause. Your parsing here is plain silly.

But it is how you are using it. You keep saying that this phrase means that they do not count as part of a unit for Character Rules because of that "though".

And yes, it can be used to mean "and still". In a case where something may prevent something from being recognized, it would allow the following phrase to be recognized.

In other words, the following phrase could provide restrictions if what it referenced actually provided any, but they do not. It is stating we cannot disconnect the "Character" from the "Independent Character" while they re joined to a unit.

While I am no English Major or professor, I do read quite a bit of it in both instructional and in conversational type and can understand it quite easily. I may not be able to put all of what I know in fancy terms like "subordinating conjunction", but that doesn't mean I am wrong.

col_impact wrote:
There are no slippery slopes in Look Out Sir. The Character is a unit in a unit and can allocate wounds to models in its unit. There are no 'Shooting at a Character' rules so normal rules apply when shooting at a independent character.

So no slippery slopes.

There are slippery slopes in Look Out Sir if we follow your position.

You stated that the reason an Independent Character can move as its own unit is that Character and Movement do not carry the phrase "counts as a member of the unit".

Guess what, the phrase "counts as a member of the unit" does not appear in Look Out Sir! By continuing to use the standards you provided for disconnecting the IC from the unit for movement, I can do the same for Look Out Sir!

col_impact wrote:
Does Bounding Lope have anything at all to do with reserves?

Apple meet orange.

Failure to ignore the counter-argument does not help and demonstrates your own lack of semantical judgement. No one said Bounding Lope has anything to do with Reserves, that is inserted by you.

Both are rules against the restrictions against a unit Charging, and both rules in question allow a unit to bypass are noted by the Draft FAQs as not affecting the IC.

Red Delicious meet Granny Smith. (For those unaware, those are two types of apples used for different things).

col_impact wrote:
The FAQ covers it and tells you that the Wulfen models benefit and can run and charge (while the IC does not). They just have to maintain coherency. So you are required to follow that directive.

No, it does not cover it. It says the unit benefits, nothing about the Wulfen models. The only models addressed are the ICs, which do not benefit. The Charge Move rules do not care if a model has Run. If you believe otherwise, actually quote the paragraph.

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
I have never said that it acts as the verb "excludes". "Though" is a subordinate conjunction that acts like "but", "however" , and "except" and indicates contrast and exception to the main clause. I think you need to start opening up a few books on grammar!

By no stretch of English does "though still" mean "and still". "And still" is not a subordinating conjuction and does not indicate contrast and exception to the main clause. Your parsing here is plain silly.

But it is how you are using it. You keep saying that this phrase means that they do not count as part of a unit for Character Rules because of that "though".

And yes, it can be used to mean "and still". In a case where something may prevent something from being recognized, it would allow the following phrase to be recognized.

In other words, the following phrase could provide restrictions if what it referenced actually provided any, but they do not. It is stating we cannot disconnect the "Character" from the "Independent Character" while they re joined to a unit.

While I am no English Major or professor, I do read quite a bit of it in both instructional and in conversational type and can understand it quite easily. I may not be able to put all of what I know in fancy terms like "subordinating conjunction", but that doesn't mean I am wrong.

"And still" is a coordinating conjuction. "Though still" is a subordinating conjunction. So your grammar is flat-out wrong here. Time for you to open up a grammar book.

"And still" merely adds two clauses together. "Though still" indicates contrast and exception in the subordinate clause. Time for you to open up a dictionay.

 doctortom wrote:
It's murky. "All of the models in a charging unit make their charge move..." (page 48) is the sticking point. He counts as having run (as per page 38) The question is whether the statement that he doesn't benefit from the rule means that the model can't both run and charge. If he does, then it really does raise the question of why they would say he wouldn't benefit from bounding lope if that doesn't change his situation at all compared to if he did have the rule. It might be more appropriate to say that Units declare charges, but models charge. Each of the bullet points on page 46 have the phrase "a charging model", so it might be appropriate to look at charging in relation to the models as well as the unit. That would tend to make it clearer, but it's certainly an interpretation that can be argued with. Arguments could be made either way.

I do agree that it's certainly not clear from the rules which way all the rules would fall; there's too many questions for it to not be addressed further by them.

The actual restrictions against Charging are listed as:

Some units are disallowed from charging. Common reasons a unit is not allowed to
declare a charge include:
• The unit is already locked in close combat.
• The unit Ran in the Shooting phase.
• The unit has Gone to Ground.
• The unit shot Rapid Fire weapons, Salvo weapons, Ordnance weapons or Heavy
weapons in the Shooting phase. This even applies if Snap Shots were made with these
weapons.
• The unit is Falling Back.
• The unit is a Flying Monstrous Creature that changed flight modes during this turn.

In every case, the restriction is against the unit itself, nothing on the model. Further on, the only restrictions in the Charge Move listed is in regards to how far a model can move and to where, not if.

Simply put, the base rules do not conceive of a possibility that a model may be put in a position that in which it would not be able to Charge it it was otherwise alone, even though the rest of the unit can. Bounding Lope does not address this fact, nor does the FAQ.

I believe a previous edition did block a unit from Charging if a single model could not make the move, but that is not in the current rulebook.

Interestingly enough, this restriction on unit coherency is counter to the Errata in the current live Rulebook FAQ which allows a unit to become out of coherency while performing a Charge Move.

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
There are no slippery slopes in Look Out Sir. The Character is a unit in a unit and can allocate wounds to models in its unit. There are no 'Shooting at a Character' rules so normal rules apply when shooting at a independent character.

So no slippery slopes.

There are slippery slopes in Look Out Sir if we follow your position.

You stated that the reason an Independent Character can move as its own unit is that Character and Movement do not carry the phrase "counts as a member of the unit".

Guess what, the phrase "counts as a member of the unit" does not appear in Look Out Sir! By continuing to use the standards you provided for disconnecting the IC from the unit for movement, I can do the same for Look Out Sir!

The IC is a 'unit in a unit' so Look Out, Sir rolls work just fine.

col_impact wrote:
The IC is a 'unit in a unit' so Look Out, Sir rolls work just fine.

But does not count as part of the other unit, per your own attestation.

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
Does Bounding Lope have anything at all to do with reserves?

Apple meet orange.

Failure to ignore the counter-argument does not help and demonstrates your own lack of semantical judgement. No one said Bounding Lope has anything to do with Reserves, that is inserted by you.

Both are rules against the restrictions against a unit Charging, and both rules in question allow a unit to bypass are noted by the Draft FAQs as not affecting the IC.

Red Delicious meet Granny Smith. (For those unaware, those are two types of apples used for different things).

It means that there are more variables at work. So you can't make a direct comparison, only a loose comparison.

Bounding Lope and For Glory, For Russ is a direct comparison.

Bounding Lope and Skyhammer is a loose comparison.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
The IC is a 'unit in a unit' so Look Out, Sir rolls work just fine.

But does not count as part of the other unit, per your own attestation.

He always is a unit in a unit. Whether or not he counts as a model in the unit for all purposes is up for question and qualified by the Character rules.

col_impact wrote:
It means that there are more variables at work. So you can't make a direct comparison, only a loose comparison.

Bounding Lope and For Glory, For Russ is a direct comparison.

Bounding Lope and Skyhammer is a loose comparison.

Still apples to apples, man. We may be talking about Red Delicious, Granny Smiths, and Honey Crisps, but they are all still apples for the purposes of this discussion.

For Glory, for Russ as much association to Bounding Lope as the Skyhammer rule, First the Fire, then the Blade. For Glory and First the Fire are both detachment rules. Bounding Lope is a unit rule.

But, all of these rules deal with ignoring restrictions on a unit from Charging, and that interaction with joined ICs is what is being addressed. Can you demonstrate how this is not what this post is supposed to be about?

col_impact wrote:
[He always is a unit in a unit. Whether or not he counts as a model in the unit for all purposes is up for question and qualified by the Character rules.

And per your own statements, because Character and Movement does not state that he counts as a model in the unit he has joined, we can also ignore Look Out Sir, because it does not state that he counts as model in the unit he has joined. You cannot even follow the rules for your own semantics.

The end phrase to the sentence which establishes an IC as a temporary member of the unit does and can not exclude this membership without the referenced section specifically detailing it. And it does not in the area you identified without making zero sense everywhere else.

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
It means that there are more variables at work. So you can't make a direct comparison, only a loose comparison.

Bounding Lope and For Glory, For Russ is a direct comparison.

Bounding Lope and Skyhammer is a loose comparison.

Still apples to apples, man. We may be talking about Red Delicious, Granny Smiths, and Honey Crisps, but they are all still apples for the purposes of this discussion.

For Glory, for Russ as much association to Bounding Lope as the Skyhammer rule, First the Fire, then the Blade. For Glory and First the Fire are both detachment rules. Bounding Lope is a unit rule.

But, all of these rules deal with ignoring restrictions on a unit from Charging, and that interaction with joined ICs is what is being addressed. Can you demonstrate how this is not what this post is supposed to be about?

The rules for reserves and Deep Striking are not movement rules. My argument is that ICs in a unit can move independently of the unit following only the restrictions of the Character and Moving rule and the Independent Charcter rules, free of the "counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes" clause.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
[He always is a unit in a unit. Whether or not he counts as a model in the unit for all purposes is up for question and qualified by the Character rules.

And per your own statements, because Character and Movement does not state that he counts as a model in the unit he has joined, we can also ignore Look Out Sir, because it does not state that he counts as model in the unit he has joined. You cannot even follow the rules for your own semantics.

The end phrase to the sentence which establishes an IC as a temporary member of the unit does and can not exclude this membership without the referenced section specifically detailing it. And it does not in the area you identified without making zero sense everywhere else.

When he joins he is a unit in a unit. Or are you struggling with parsing the verb "join"?

col_impact wrote:
The rules for reserves and Deep Striking are not movement rules. My argument is that ICs in a unit can move independently of the unit following only the restrictions of the Character and Moving rule and the Independent Charcter rules, free of the "counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes" clause.

We are not talking about the rules for Reserves (Arriving From Reserves involves Movement, btw) and Deep Striking (counts as moving, btw) any more than we are talking about the rules for Running. We are talking about how they affect on the Assault Phase. Do you understand this?

col_impact wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
[He always is a unit in a unit. Whether or not he counts as a model in the unit for all purposes is up for question and qualified by the Character rules.

And per your own statements, because Character and Movement does not state that he counts as a model in the unit he has joined, we can also ignore Look Out Sir, because it does not state that he counts as model in the unit he has joined. You cannot even follow the rules for your own semantics.

The end phrase to the sentence which establishes an IC as a temporary member of the unit does and can not exclude this membership without the referenced section specifically detailing it. And it does not in the area you identified without making zero sense everywhere else.

When he joins he is a unit in a unit. Or are you struggling with parsing the verb "join"?

I am not, but you do not seem to be understanding what you are saying, much less myself.

Look Out Sir and Shooting does not use the word "join" or "counts as" anywhere in its paragraphs, so there is nothing in there that would state that Characters count as part of the unit they have joined any more than it is stated in Character and Movement.

Since you assert that an Independent Character does not count as part of the unit they joined for movement because Character and Movement does not include the phrase "counts as part of the unit they have joined", then by association, the Independent Character does not count as part of the unit they joined for Look Out Sir, since that phrase is also missing in Look Out Sir and Shooting.

Oddly enough, it would work for Look Out Sir in Assault, since Character and Assault does include the phrase as a reminder (very first sentence).

So, either you are on a slippery slope without realizing it or your assertion is crap. If you can prove otherwise, please quote the whole paragraph in the sidebar which does state this phrase is in it to consider the Independent Character to count as a member of the unit for the purposes of Look Out Sir and Shooting.

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
The rules for reserves and Deep Striking are not movement rules. My argument is that ICs in a unit can move independently of the unit following only the restrictions of the Character and Moving rule and the Independent Charcter rules, free of the "counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes" clause.

We are not talking about the rules for Reserves (Arriving From Reserves involves Movement, btw) and Deep Striking (counts as moving, btw) any more than we are talking about the rules for Running. We are talking about how they affect on the Assault Phase. Do you understand this?

Characters do not have separate rules for arriving from Reserves or Deep Striking. Do you understand this?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
[He always is a unit in a unit. Whether or not he counts as a model in the unit for all purposes is up for question and qualified by the Character rules.

And per your own statements, because Character and Movement does not state that he counts as a model in the unit he has joined, we can also ignore Look Out Sir, because it does not state that he counts as model in the unit he has joined. You cannot even follow the rules for your own semantics.

The end phrase to the sentence which establishes an IC as a temporary member of the unit does and can not exclude this membership without the referenced section specifically detailing it. And it does not in the area you identified without making zero sense everywhere else.

When he joins he is a unit in a unit. Or are you struggling with parsing the verb "join"?

I am not, but you do not seem to be understanding what you are saying, much less myself.

Look Out Sir and Shooting does not use the word "join" or "counts as" anywhere in its paragraphs, so there is nothing in there that would state that Characters count as part of the unit they have joined any more than it is stated in Character and Movement.

Since you assert that an Independent Character does not count as part of the unit they joined for movement because Character and Movement does not include the phrase "counts as part of the unit they have joined", then by association, the Independent Character does not count as part of the unit they joined for Look Out Sir, since that phrase is also missing in Look Out Sir and Shooting.

Oddly enough, it would work for Look Out Sir in Assault, since Character and Assault does include the phrase as a reminder (very first sentence).

So, either you are on a slippery slope without realizing it or your assertion is crap. If you can prove otherwise, please quote the whole paragraph in the sidebar which does state this phrase is in it to consider the Independent Character to count as a member of the unit for the purposes of Look Out Sir and Shooting.

The Independent Character rules use the word "join" when the IC joins the unit. Does the Independent Character at any time cease to be an Independent Character joined to the unit while he is joined to the unit?

col_impact wrote:
Characters do not have separate rules for arriving from Reserves or Deep Striking. Do you understand this?

Both Moving On From Reserves and Deep Striking involve movement or counting as being moved.

Moving On From Reserve
When a Reserves unit arrives, it must move onto the table from the controlling player’s table edge.

In that turn’s Shooting phase, these units can fire (or Run, Turbo-boost or move Flat Out) as normal, and count as having moved in the previous Movement phase. Vehicles, except for Walkers, count as having moved at Combat Speed (even Immobilised vehicles). This can affect the number of weapons they can fire with their full Ballistic Skill.

But irrelevant. Again, this topic is not about Reserves or Deep Striking or Running, but about a rule that cancels their affect for the purposes of Charging in the Assault Phase.

We are talking about movement in the Assault Phase. Is that clear?

col_impact wrote:
The Independent Character rules use the word "join" when the IC joins the unit. Does the Independent Character at any time cease to be an Independent Character joined to the unit while he is joined to the unit?

Thank you for stating my case regarding this. That's what you have been ignoring when it comes to Character and Movement.

And let's keep up with your previous assessment. Characters are still considered part of the unit in Assault and nothing on ICs counting as their own unit, it is the very first sentence in Character and Assault, so they cannot be considered as their own lone unit for Thrusting (an Assault Phase move) then any more then they can when a Charge occurs.

Your case is crap no matter which way you look at it.

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
Characters do not have separate rules for arriving from Reserves or Deep Striking. Do you understand this?

Both Moving On From Reserves and Deep Striking involve movement or counting as being moved.

Moving On From Reserve
When a Reserves unit arrives, it must move onto the table from the controlling player’s table edge.

In that turn’s Shooting phase, these units can fire (or Run, Turbo-boost or move Flat Out) as normal, and count as having moved in the previous Movement phase. Vehicles, except for Walkers, count as having moved at Combat Speed (even Immobilised vehicles). This can affect the number of weapons they can fire with their full Ballistic Skill.

But irrelevant. Again, this topic is not about Reserves or Deep Striking or Running, but about a rule that cancels their affect for the purposes of Charging in the Assault Phase.

We are talking about movement in the Assault Phase. Is that clear?

Incorrect. We are dealing with units that have not arrived from Reserves that turn and that are moving in the Assault Phase. Is that clear?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
The Independent Character rules use the word "join" when the IC joins the unit. Does the Independent Character at any time cease to be an Independent Character joined to the unit while he is joined to the unit?

Thank you for stating my case regarding this. That's what you have been ignoring when it comes to Character and Movement.

And let's keep up with your previous assessment. Characters are still considered part of the unit in Assault and nothing on ICs counting as their own unit, it is the very first sentence in Character and Assault, so they cannot be considered as their own lone unit for Thrusting (an Assault Phase move) then any more then they can when a Charge occurs.

Your case is crap no matter which way you look at it.

That's not your case. Try to keep up. You are failing to note critical distinctions being made.

An Independent Character joined to a unit will always be an Independent Character joined to the unit while he is joined to the unit. In fact that is simply a tautology pointing out to you that the verb "join" indicates that the IC can claim the unit he joins as his own. At the barest minimum he is always "a unit in a unit"

So really the one thing that fluctuates is whether or not the Independent Character "counts as part of the the unit for all rules purposes". He does not "count as part of the unit for all rules purposes" for the Character rules, and in particular he does not "count as part of the unit for all rules purposes" for the Character and Moving rules.

So the Destroyer Lord attached to a unit of Wraiths gets to do its Thrust move during the Assault Phase and the Wulfen get to do their Bounding Lope move. Pretty nifty

So my argument is solid and you are too entrenched in your failed ways of thinking to admit it.

Either way you look at it my case is golden.

col_impact wrote:
Incorrect. We are dealing with units that have not arrived from Reserves that turn and that are moving in the Assault Phase. Is that clear?

Then you truly miss all the semantics and reasons why it was posted, and is why you didn't understand why I brought up Stubborn or cannot conceive the slippery slope of your interpretation of the last phrase in IC's counting as part of the unit..

Arriving From Reserves and Arriving by Deep Strike both place a limit against Charging in that Turn's Assault Phase just as much as Running does. Understand so far?

First the Fire, Then the Blade allow the Assault Squad units to Charge the same Turn they arrive from Deep Strike. A situation that Assault Squad units from a CAD cannot normally do.

Bounding Lope and For the Glory allow their units to Charge the same Turn they Ran. A situation that move units cannot normally do.

The key phrases here are "allow their unit to Charge the same Turn they". That is what we are supposed to be focusing on since the OP is asking, "So when you charge...".

col_impact wrote:
[That's not your case. Try to keep up. You are failing to note critical distinctions being made.

Well, since you are a liar and have been known to constantly misrepresent what I have stated in the past, why should I trust this now?

I know precisely what my case is.

col_impact wrote:
An Independent Character joined to a unit will always be an Independent Character joined to the unit while he is joined to the unit. In fact that is simply a tautology pointing out to you that the verb "join" indicates that the IC can claim the unit he joins as his own. At the barest minimum he is always "a unit in a unit"

But according to you,

col_impact wrote:
Again, you are conflating these two statements . . .

Spoiler:

While an Independent Character is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes.

Spoiler:

While an Independent Character is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes, though he still follows the rules for characters.

The difference between these two statements is why an Independent Character can move independently of the unit. The Character and Movement rules provide the exception to the "counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes".

col_impact wrote:

Spoiler:

While an Independent Character is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes, though he still follows the rules for characters.

The rules for characters are provided as an exception to the clause 'counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes'. Remember, the unit status of the IC is never discarded, unless you can provide a rule for that (specific rules quote only please). So when it comes to movement time the IC has exception to the 'counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes' and can move as a unit onto himself.

So, his being joined to another unit is ignored (not can be, is) for movement since it is part of the Character rules. Now, Look Out Sir rules are part of the Character rules, otherwise a Wulfen Pack Leader would not be able to make a Look Out Sir roll.

Character and Movement provide no exception to being "joined" any more than Look Out Sir does. All it states is that they move as their type, which is all any of the regular Movement rules state. It does not provide any leeway in allowing the IC to move as its own unit while joined to another unit. Only the IC rules provide that leeway, and that is limited to the "Joining and Leaving a Unit" section.

col_impact wrote:
So really the one thing that fluctuates is whether or not the Independent Character "counts as part of the the unit for all rules purposes". He does not "count as part of the unit for all rules purposes" for the Character rules, and in particular he does not "count as part of the unit for all rules purposes" for the Character and Moving rules.

Of which, Look Out Sir is a rule. No other model type can perform a Look Out Sir!, however, the basic movement rules allow for models to move at their own speed more than anything in the Character rules.

col_impact wrote:
So the Destroyer Lord attached to a unit of Wraiths gets to do its Thrust move during the Assault Phase and the Wulfen get to do their Bounding Lope move. Pretty nifty

Except the Thrust move is during the Assault Phase and ties the Character to all its movements, not its own type. Pay attention.

col_impact wrote:
So my argument is solid and you are too entrenched in your failed ways of thinking to admit it.

Either way you look at it my case is golden.

Your case is golden swiss cheese. Not gold, full of holes, and usually cut at an angle from the wedge.

Your case is that you get to pick and choose when an IC counts as part of the unit and when he doesn't. The rules do not allow for this leeway.

Charistophe.

Try to keep up.

When a IC is joined to a unit he is always considered joined to the unit.

He is either a unit in a unit.

Or he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

+When it comes to the Character and Moving rules the IC is a unit in a unit.+

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

My case is golden.


The rule reads this way . . .



And not this way . . .