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.

 Charistoph wrote:

Fhionnuisce wrote:Your interpretation has separated the IC unit entirely from the joined unit and ignored the party if the joined unit instruction. Since it's unit status is simultaneously the IC unit and the unit it joined, when you target the IC unit you have also targeted the joined unit. If you recognized both unit affiliations in the target then wound allocation works as normal.

My interpretation has only done what is stated. I have done nothing but what is instructed. I have actually addressed this already. Special Rules only affect a unit when they say they affect a unit, otherwise, they only affect the model. Read the Introduction to Special Rules, including WHAT SPECIAL RULES DO I HAVE? for more information.

The references to "independent characters" in the Independent Character USR never reference a unit, and so only reference a model. To put it more explicitly "While an Independent Character (model) is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes, though he still follows the rules for characters." At no point are we to consider it as "While an Independent Character (unit) is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes, though he still follows the rules for characters.".

Fhionnuisce wrote:ICs begin the game as their own unit.

Correction. ICs begin the list building stage in a unit of one model. All Special Rules listed on a Datasheet are applied to the models in the unit per the legends for datasheets and army list entries in ever single codex.

Also, for clarity, ICs can begin the game already joined to a unit, either declared joined and in Reserves, Embarking the Transport another unit is in, or by being deployed in Coherency with another unit on the table.

Fhionnuisce wrote:Nothing in the instructions for joining a unit removes this unit status so the remain their own unit even when joined to another. Based on this you use that as justification to directly target the IC unit with a shooting attack.

Because if the IC's unit is recognized at any point on the table it can be shot, per the instructions for Shooting.

Fhionnuisce wrote:You now have your target unit selected, however your target unit is associated with two units, the IC unit and the joined unit.

Already demonstrated that this is a false assertion. The correct phrase is "You now have your target unit selected, however the target unit has a model associated with two units, the IC unit and the joined unit".

I see this happen a lot. People conflate the concepts of unit and model. They are not conflatable. To put it simply, you Shoot a unit, but the models are Wounded. Units do not have Wounds, models do. Units Run, models are moved.

Fhionnuisce wrote:Both are valid and you were given permission to choose the target unit but to not which unit association within that unit the attack resolves against, therefore both must be considered in continuing to resolve the attack.

I have been "given permission to choose the target group, but not which group association within that group the attack resolves against"? Show me where the term "association" is used in this context within the Shooting or Assault Phase.

To put it simply, units are a group of models. The models are associated together, so a unit is an association of models. An association of units has a different name, though, it is called "a detachment". Look it up. An no point is an association of units ever defined as a unit. If you can prove otherwise, please quote and reference.

Since your premises are flawed from the word go, any other considerations you make using it are equally as flawed, if not more so.

Ceann wrote:You are quoting the rules exactly as the are, but disregarding that he COUNTS AS that unit for ALL purposes. It is a special rule and takes precedence over the basic unit rules you are quoting.

I am disregarding NOTHING. In order to demonstrate that a special rule is breaking a rule, you need to demonstrate the rule that is broken. And to restate, a model counting as a member of another unit does not literally mean that he stops being a member of his own unit, nor does it literally mean the IC's own unit is no longer recognizable. Counting as a member of another unit only means that what affects the unit it joined affects it, too.

To put it another way, all elk are deer, but not all deer are elk. You are saying that because all elk are deer, then all deer are elk.

Ceann wrote:The argument you are presenting is tantamount to saying that a scout squad shooting a sniper rifle cannot target a specific model in a unit because the basic shooting rules don't say that they can do it. Snipers have a special rule that allow them to choose the unit.

Incorrect on several terminologies, and this demonstrates where your premise is wrong.

Every unit with a ranged weapon has basic rules that allow them to shoot any unit they can see. This makes your final statement of, "Snipers have a special rule that allow them to choose the unit", is either misstated or msiconcepted.

What the Sniper and Precision Strikes/Shots state is:

Wounds from Precision Shots are allocated against a model (or models) of your choice in the target unit, as long as it is in range and line of sight of the firer, rather than following the normal rules for Wound allocation.

Nothing in there states that I can shoot any specific model. What it states is that I, as the owner of the Shooting model, can determine where those Wounds are Allocated, which changes the normal Wound Allocation from being the nearest one. Nor does the Precision Strikes rule stop Line of Sight from happening.

Also, I never stated anything about only Shooting a specific model in my statements, except when I was talking about Shooting a unit which only contains one, single model. There is a HUGE difference in connotations and operations between the two statements that you do not seem to comprehend.

Ceann wrote:Just like an IC has a special rule that allows them to COUNT AS the unit they joined, hence the wounds have to go onto the joined unit. Without you interpreting the "count as" rule in a way that gives you the ability to make an argument, your argument has no leg to stand on. In order for you to actually have a point you have to prove that COUNTS AS does not function this way and until you can do that, you cannot make an argument based on what the basic rules state.

Again, you are conflating the IC UNIT with the IC MODEL. The "Independent Character' is never referenced as a unit, so can only be referencing the model. The MODEL counts as being a member of the unit they joined, but nothing is stated about the IC's UNIT in these interactions except for when it states, "If an Independent Character joins a unit, and all other models in that unit are killed, he again becomes a unit of one model at the start of the following phase." That's it. And while this tells us it after the fact, nothing tells us what to do before the fact. Any decision on what is done before the fact is based on implications and assumptions, aka HYWPI.

Ceann wrote:Col_impact also demonstrated that you were not properly interperting the plasma pistol correctly as RAW so that is no longer a valid point to use as a "counts as" example that is somehow contradictory.

Col_Ignored also regularly misstates terms and phrases and has lied about what others have said. I have him on Ignore for a very good reason. Using him as a standard is not a sign of endorsement for the consideration, and usually a reason to consider it in the opposite light.

There's a big wall of text here and a lot of criticism of word choice but not much to address my points. Fact remains an IC is a unit in itself until it joins another unit. You presented nothing that says it stops being one upon joining. That means whether you call it a unit in a unit it a model that is in two units, you still still have two units in your target unit.

Count's as.

Anything you try to do to the unit.

Count's as.

The other unit he joined.

For ALL rules purposes.

If you try to start a shooting attack against the IC it count's as the unit he has joined. You don't get to directly apply anything to him as a unit. The rule is directing you to the unit he joined. If you are shooting a Librarian who count's as a tactical squad, then it count's as you shooting at a tactical squad. You don't get to decide to single out the librarian unit on its own, you don't have that choice.

The rules are directing you to count him as the unit he joined for all purposes. I never mention anything about the model I only talk about the unit. Nothing has to be stated about the unit because "fill in the blank" you perform that has the Librarian unit in it, is counted as the unit he joined.

I shoot at the Librarian unit . Gets changed to joined unit.
I assault the Librarian unit. Gets changed to joined unit.

Any rule you are applying COUNTS AS. It is not an option you are being given, to decide which is which, it is a directing of ANY rule you try to apply, to instead apply to the joined unit.

You claimed that there were other failures of count's as that support your assertion of how you view it but the example you provided was wrong. The burden of proof is on you to provide a contrary interpretation of count's as.

Page 42 BRB - A pistol ALSO count's as a close combat weapon in the assault phase.

Not ONLY, ALSO.

Until you can prove that "Count as" works the way you claim it does you have first prove that it failing in a way that allows it to be open to your interpretation. Which has not yet been demonstrated.

 doctortom wrote:


No, you are presenting your theory on how it works. That doesn't mean that it's what the rules say. The fact remains that whether you call it overriding, taking precedent or whatever, "for all rules purposes" (except as specified in the IC rules) he is part of a unit and is treated only as being part of one unit. For rules purposes (except for exceptions specified in the IC ruels) he is not treated as a unit in a unit.

It's not me calling the interaction between Basic and Advanced rules one of "override" and "precedence". That isn't just my theory. That's exactly how the BRB describes the relationship and logical interaction between Basic and Advanced rules.

We need to adhere to the terms and logic the BRB uses. If you don't then you are making up your own rules and are house ruling.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:

Ceann wrote:Col_impact also demonstrated that you were not properly interperting the plasma pistol correctly as RAW so that is no longer a valid point to use as a "counts as" example that is somehow contradictory.

Col_Ignored also regularly misstates terms and phrases and has lied about what others have said. I have him on Ignore for a very good reason. Using him as a standard is not a sign of endorsement for the consideration, and usually a reason to consider it in the opposite light.

Let's face it Charistoph. You aren't fooling anyone. You have me on ignore because you can't defeat the logic and rules support of my arguments. Dodging my straightforward, rational arguments with excuses and insults only underscores the problems in your argument.

I proved with rules support that you were not properly interpreting the plasma pistol and 'counts as'. As Ceann points out, that cripples your argument. If you ignore that, you have effectively conceded since your argument has been built around a provably false interpretation of 'counts as'.

col_impact wrote:

 doctortom wrote:


No, you are presenting your theory on how it works. That doesn't mean that it's what the rules say. The fact remains that whether you call it overriding, taking precedent or whatever, "for all rules purposes" (except as specified in the IC rules) he is part of a unit and is treated only as being part of one unit. For rules purposes (except for exceptions specified in the IC ruels) he is not treated as a unit in a unit.

It's not me calling the interaction between Basic and Advanced rules one of "override" and "precedence". That isn't just my theory. That's exactly how the BRB describes the relationship and logical interaction between Basic and Advanced rules.

We need to adhere to the terms and logic the BRB uses. If you don't then you are making up your own rules and are house ruling.

Yes, it is you. Show me in the rules where GW discusses "override" and "precedence" as you are using them. This is you.

If you "count as" being part of another unit for "all" rules purposes, you are treated as being part of a unit. You don't get to also be your own unit, unless there have been specifically defined exceptions in the IC rules. The things you have cited are stated exceptions, not things that show precedence for treating the unit as still being its own unit.

If you're treating something as being part of a unit for all rules purposes, you don't get to treat the IC as being its own unit (except where specifically defined by IC rules.) You can try to insist it is still its own unit, but according to RAW, for rules purposes you treat it as part of another unit. If you are treating it as part of another unit for all rules purposes, it doesn't matter if you think it is still its own unit since for rules purposes you don't get to treat it as its own unit, but as part of a unit, like you are told to in the main rulebook.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

col_impact wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:

Ceann wrote:Col_impact also demonstrated that you were not properly interperting the plasma pistol correctly as RAW so that is no longer a valid point to use as a "counts as" example that is somehow contradictory.

Col_Ignored also regularly misstates terms and phrases and has lied about what others have said. I have him on Ignore for a very good reason. Using him as a standard is not a sign of endorsement for the consideration, and usually a reason to consider it in the opposite light.

Let's face it Charistoph. You aren't fooling anyone. You have me on ignore because you can't defeat the logic and rules support of my arguments. Dodging my straightforward, rational arguments with excuses and insults only underscores the problems in your argument.

I proved with rules support that you were not properly interpreting the plasma pistol and 'counts as'. As Ceann points out, that cripples your argument. If you ignore that, you have effectively conceded since your argument has been built around a provably false interpretation of 'counts as'.

Posting this , making accusations against Charistoph when you know he has you on ignore - meaning he isn't reading your posts - speaks volumes.

Fhionnuisce wrote:There's a big wall of text here and a lot of criticism of word choice but not much to address my points. Fact remains an IC is a unit in itself until it joins another unit. You presented nothing that says it stops being one upon joining. That means whether you call it a unit in a unit it a model that is in two units, you still still have two units in your target unit.

There is a lot of criticism of word choice because the word choice does not reflect the term choice of the rules. And considering that difference of term definitions addresses your points, ignoring them demonstrates a misunderstanding of the rules. In game terms, Models are not units, and Units are not models, Models make up Units. Do not mix them up in your consideration of the terms.

The fact is at no point are every once instructed to treat the IC UNIT as part of the unit the IC MODEL joins. Not once. Because of this FACT, it throws every other point you make out the window.

For an exercise on how these different terms interact, review Relentless and Slow and Purposeful and consider whom/what they affect. If they are not as different as I claim, then one of these rules doesn't operate as extensively as we had supposed.

Ceann wrote:Count's as.

Anything you try to do to the unit.

Count's as.

The other unit he joined.

For ALL rules purposes.

For the IC model, yes. The unit the IC was purchased in, no. Your statements continue to conflate the two concepts of unit and model and ignore this basic concept which the IC rules do not address.

Ceann wrote:If you try to start a shooting attack against the IC it count's as the unit he has joined. You don't get to directly apply anything to him as a unit. The rule is directing you to the unit he joined. If you are shooting a Librarian who count's as a tactical squad, then it count's as you shooting at a tactical squad. You don't get to decide to single out the librarian unit on its own, you don't have that choice.

Incorrect. If I try to start a Shooting Attack against the IC UNIT, it will not count as an Attack against the unit he joined, because they are not the same unit, nor do we have instructions to treat them as the same unit, nor do we have any allowances for transferring Wounds between units by any rule used in this interaction.

Until you understand the relationship between models, units, and the rules in general, you will not understand this concept and continue making mistakes in rules understanding. For example, why does a Librarian in Terminator Armour not allow the entire Devastator Squad to fire without Snap Shots after Moving, but a Chapter Master in a Centurion Squad can fire off his Orbital Bombardment after moving? Without recognizing the differences between model and unit, can you answer this question?

Until you understand this relationship, anything else you claim is nonsensical and not worth reviewing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 doctortom wrote:
Posting this , making accusations against Charistoph when you know he has you on ignore - meaning he isn't reading your posts - speaks volumes.

Yes, it does speak volumes about his ability to read or "listen" to another person.

And no, I did not put him on Ignore because I couldn't handle his statements. I put him on Ignore because I was sick and tired of being put on probation for calling him a liar.

And i called him a liar because he repeatedly quoted me stating one thing, and then says right after that I said the opposite, right after being corrected several times and warned of the fact. I never called him a liar for his perceptions on the rules, just on continuing to say I said something I didn't say.

 doctortom wrote:

col_impact wrote:


It's not me calling the interaction between Basic and Advanced rules one of "override" and "precedence". That isn't just my theory. That's exactly how the BRB describes the relationship and logical interaction between Basic and Advanced rules.

We need to adhere to the terms and logic the BRB uses. If you don't then you are making up your own rules and are house ruling.

Yes, it is you. Show me in the rules where GW discusses "override" and "precedence" as you are using them. This is you.

"override", "precedence", "conflict" are not my terms. They are the BRB terms.



The IC join rule overrides the unit status of the IC and takes precedence over that unit status while not removing that unit status. There is no rule that removes the unit status of the IC, otherwise I am sure Charistoph or someone would have posted it.

So my argument is proven by the rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:

 doctortom wrote:
Posting this , making accusations against Charistoph when you know he has you on ignore - meaning he isn't reading your posts - speaks volumes.

Yes, it does speak volumes about his ability to read or "listen" to another person.

And no, I did not put him on Ignore because I couldn't handle his statements. I put him on Ignore because I was sick and tired of being put on probation for calling him a liar.

And i called him a liar because he repeatedly quoted me stating one thing, and then says right after that I said the opposite, right after being corrected several times and warned of the fact. I never called him a liar for his perceptions on the rules, just on continuing to say I said something I didn't say.

 Charistoph wrote:
Col_Ignored also regularly misstates terms and phrases and has lied about what others have said.

Charistoph, the mods enforce a standard of decorum and politeness on this forum. Baseless accusations of "lying" are rude and completely out of place in a mature debate on YMDC.

If you can point to an actual instance of me lying then feel free to do so, but so far I have only seen you use it as a personal attack and the mods, as you note above, have always seen your accusations of lying as a personal attack on me and taken the appropriate corrective measure.

Basically, there is never any reason to call anyone a liar on YMDC. If you actually encounter someone lying (eg for disruptive purposes) then you should bring that to the attention of the mods immediately and let them handle it.

So the IC MODEL joins another unit and it's considered part of that unit for all rules purposes. The IC UNIT isn't addressed at all by the IC rules and that unit and defined by the datasheet/army list is still there, so that reinforces the conclusion that the IC unit would still be recognized as such for the original question.

That still puts the IC model in both units though. So we declare the IC unit as the target, the only model in the IC unit is the IC model, that model is in both units, thus when we look at that unit we are still going to have the target be IC unit and joined unit. I don't think that changes any results from what I said before.

Fhionnuisce wrote:
So the IC MODEL joins another unit and it's considered part of that unit for all rules purposes. The IC UNIT isn't addressed at all by the IC rules and that unit and defined by the datasheet/army list is still there, so that reinforces the conclusion that the IC unit would still be recognized as such for the original question.

That still puts the IC model in both units though. So we declare the IC unit as the target, the only model in the IC unit is the IC model, that model is in both units, thus when we look at that unit we are still going to have the target be IC unit and joined unit. I don't think that changes any results from what I said before.

Yup.

The IC is in both units. The membership in the Tac unit overrides and takes precedence over the IC unit for "all rule purposes", but the underlying IC unit status is never removed by any rule and can still be accessed by a rule that specifically addresses it.

That's the way the rules are written.

Fhionnuisce wrote:
That still puts the IC model in both units though. So we declare the IC unit as the target, the only model in the IC unit is the IC model, that model is in both units, thus when we look at that unit we are still going to have the target be IC unit and joined unit. I don't think that changes any results from what I said before.

Incorrect. Remember how Wound Allocation works, both in Shooting and in Combat. Wounds are allocated to the models in the unit that were attacked. We simply do not have permission to allocate Wounds to a unit that was not attacked. Even in Multiple Combat, the most likely place to find this without including ICs, you can't allocate Wounds from one unit to the other. Just because a model is in two different units does not mean the Wounds get to go from Unit L to Unit T.

Everything about units in all three sets of Allocating Wounds is about the target unit, nothing else. And if you targeted Unit Librarian, you are not targeting Unit Tactical Squad, are you? In order to be able to transfer Wounds from one unit to another, a Special Rule would have to specifically state it does that (and I am not aware of one that does do that, outside of one I wrote for a Fandex).

This is how the rules operate:
Attacks Hit Unit >
Attacks Wound Unit (based on Mutliple Toughness Values) >
Wounds are Allocated to Models in the unit until you run out of models or run out of Attacks.

It does NOT go:
Attacks Hit Unit >
Attacks Wound Unit (based on Mutliple Toughness Values) >
Wounds are Allocated to Models in the unit >
Remaining Wounds are transferred to connected units.

You will not find any any rules support for this latter concept.

I'm not arguing that you move wounds around to other units. I'm saying if the models in your "target unit" being to two units then you have targeted both those units and you can't arbitrarily ignore membership in one of those units by playing games with which one you declared the target.

 Charistoph wrote:

Fhionnuisce wrote:
That still puts the IC model in both units though. So we declare the IC unit as the target, the only model in the IC unit is the IC model, that model is in both units, thus when we look at that unit we are still going to have the target be IC unit and joined unit. I don't think that changes any results from what I said before.

Incorrect. Remember how Wound Allocation works, both in Shooting and in Combat. Wounds are allocated to the models in the unit that were attacked. We simply do not have permission to allocate Wounds to a unit that was not attacked. Even in Multiple Combat, the most likely place to find this without including ICs, you can't allocate Wounds from one unit to the other. Just because a model is in two different units does not mean the Wounds get to go from Unit L to Unit T.

Everything about units in all three sets of Allocating Wounds is about the target unit, nothing else. And if you targeted Unit Librarian, you are not targeting Unit Tactical Squad, are you? In order to be able to transfer Wounds from one unit to another, a Special Rule would have to specifically state it does that (and I am not aware of one that does do that, outside of one I wrote for a Fandex).

This is how the rules operate:
Attacks Hit Unit >
Attacks Wound Unit (based on Mutliple Toughness Values) >
Wounds are Allocated to Models in the unit until you run out of models or run out of Attacks.

It does NOT go:
Attacks Hit Unit >
Attacks Wound Unit (based on Mutliple Toughness Values) >
Wounds are Allocated to Models in the unit >
Wounds are transferred to connected units.

You will not find any any rules support for this latter concept.

You are forgetting the portion of the rules that tells us that the membership in the Tac unit overrides and takes precedence over the IC unit for "all rule purposes" (all while the underlying IC unit status is never removed by any rule), which makes Fhionnuisce's argument exactly accurate and shows your argument to be woefully lacking of rules support.

Fhionnuisce wrote:
I'm not arguing that you move wounds around to other units. I'm saying if the models in your "target unit" being to two units then you have targeted both those units and you can't arbitrarily ignore membership in one of those units by playing games with which one you declared the target.

First off, you do not target models. EVER*. You target units. You select a target unit to shoot, not a target model. You declare Charges against Units, not models.

Since you are not targeting models, you are are not targeting two units at the same time. In fact, outside of Multiple Charges and very specific unit types or Special Rules, you CANNOT target two units a the same time.

* Okay, some very specific Psychic Powers and Special Rules do this. But those are exceptions outside of the bounds of the discussion.

 Charistoph wrote:

Fhionnuisce wrote:
I'm not arguing that you move wounds around to other units. I'm saying if the models in your "target unit" being to two units then you have targeted both those units and you can't arbitrarily ignore membership in one of those units by playing games with which one you declared the target.

First off, you do not target models. EVER. You target units. You select a target unit to shoot, not a target model. You declare Charges against Units, not models.

Since you are not targeting models, you are are not targeting two units at the same time. In fact, outside of Multiple Charges and very specific unit types or Special Rules, you CANNOT target two units a the same time.

Not an issue. The IC's membership in the Tac unit overrides and takes precedence over the IC unit for "all rule purposes".

Them's the rules.

An IC unit attached to a Tac unit is a unit within a unit but that doesn't mean you can shoot at the IC unit independently. The shooting rules would have to specifically access the underlying IC unit since that unit is being overridden and no longer has precedence. There are rules which can circumvent the Tac unit, but shooting isn't one of them.

Charistoph wrote: For the IC model, yes. The unit the IC was purchased in, no. Your statements continue to conflate the two concepts of unit and model and ignore this basic concept which the IC rules do not address.

If you try to start a shooting attack against the IC it count's as the unit he has joined. You don't get to directly apply anything to him as a unit. The rule is directing you to the unit he joined. If you are shooting a Librarian who count's as a tactical squad, then it count's as you shooting at a tactical squad. You don't get to decide to single out the librarian unit on its own, you don't have that choice.
Incorrect. If I try to start a Shooting Attack against the IC UNIT, it will not count as an Attack against the unit he joined, because they are not the same unit, nor do we have instructions to treat them as the same unit, nor do we have any allowances for transferring Wounds between units by any rule used in this interaction.

Until you understand the relationship between models, units, and the rules in general, you will not understand this concept and continue making mistakes in rules understanding. For example, why does a Librarian in Terminator Armour not allow the entire Devastator Squad to fire without Snap Shots after Moving, but a Chapter Master in a Centurion Squad can fire off his Orbital Bombardment after moving? Without recognizing the differences between model and unit, can you answer this question?

Until you understand this relationship, anything else you claim is nonsensical and not worth reviewing.

Not worth reviewing...

My statements say nothing about models, they only talk about units. YOU are the one who keeps bringing up models. I understand the concepts just fine, you are interpreting them incorrectly.


You supplied the Plasma Pistol example and it was clearly wrong and I have referenced the appropriate page in BRB that demonstrates that, unless you now have some example of how "also" doesn't mean what it obviously means. Your interpretation of "count's as" still has no basis of precedence for you to use to it to prove your point. You keep spouting on and on about basic rules, at the end of the day the IC rules are special rules and any NORMAL rule is obsolete when a special rule contradicts it. You do not have any instructions to do anything EXCEPT counting it as the unit it joined for all purposes. Any reason you can give is a purpose, all your purposes are valid for the rule to apply too.

Please demonstrate that "count's as" works the way you say it does.

If the librarian unit is "counted as" the joined unit for all purposes. There is NO rule you can apply to it that does not instead get applied to the unit that was joined and you cannot use ANY demonstration of how a basic rule normally works because a special rule supersedes that. So I will reiterate, unless you have another plausible example of how "count's as" means something else, then clearly your interpretation is wrong.

Ceann wrote:
Not worth reviewing...

My statements say nothing about models, they only talk about units. YOU are the one who keeps bringing up models. I understand the concepts just fine, you are interpreting them incorrectly.

I know you have been only talking about units, and that is the problem. The Independent Character that joins another unit is not a unit. It is a model. What tells you that the "independent character" the Independent Character rule is a unit?

I have stated this many times at this point, and you have done nothing to gainsay it. You have provided nothing to counter it.

Ceann wrote:
You supplied the Plasma Pistol example and it was clearly wrong and I have referenced the appropriate page in BRB that demonstrates that, unless you now have some example of how "also" doesn't mean what it obviously means. Your interpretation of "count's as" still has no basis of precedence for you to use to it to prove your point. You keep spouting on and on about basic rules, at the end of the day the IC rules are special rules and any NORMAL rule is obsolete when a special rule contradicts it. You do not have any instructions to do anything EXCEPT counting it as the unit it joined for all purposes. Any reason you can give is a purpose, all your purposes are valid for the rule to apply too.

You do not understand because you are not understanding the relationship between unit and model. If you understood the concept I have repeatedly told you, you would understand the relationship of "counts as" which I speak in regards to Pistols.

Ceann wrote:
Please demonstrate that "count's as" works the way you say it does.

Why? Could you not understand with the references to Flying Monstrous Creatures, Relentless, and Slow and Purposeful I provided earlier? Or do you just want me to do all the work?

Ceann wrote:
If the librarian unit is "counted as" the joined unit for all purposes. There is NO rule you can apply to it that does not instead get applied to the unit that was joined and you cannot use ANY demonstration of how a basic rule normally works because a special rule supersedes that. So I will reiterate, unless you have another plausible example of how "count's as" means something else, then clearly your interpretation is wrong.

That is correct. However, as I have repeatedly stated, at no point are we told to have the Librarian UNIT count as the joined unit. This is only ever applied to the MODEL. That is why it is important to understand this relationship I keep talking about. Do you understand the difference between a model and a unit? Do you understand that when a special rule doesn't reference a unit or an attack, it is referencing a model?

You clearly do not understand because your interpretation was wrong when you tried to use the plasma pistol as an example and later proven wrong and you sidestep that fact entirely.

So please quit with the "you do not understand" nonsense about units and models.

Step 6. Allocate wounds & Remove Casualties. Any wounds caused by the firing unit must now be allocated one at a time to the closet model in the target unit.

The MODEL in the librarian unit. COUNTS AS a MODEL AS PART OF the unit it joined.

Applying wounds is a purpose.
You don't apply wounds to a unit, you apply wounds to MODELS in a unit. The MODEL counts as being in another unit. Because it also COUNTS AS that unit simultaneously, just like the Plasma Pistol COUNTS AS a CCW while still being a shooting weapon, as the player controller the librarian you are able to allocate wounds to the nearest model in the OTHER unit because he COUNTS AS being in that unit. If he is a part of that unit which is exactly that page 166 says, then wound allocating goes to THAT unit's models.

Your stipulation about him being a unit still exists, him being a model with the IC ability still exists, but once an effect happens that applies to the MODEL the COUNTS AS circumstance takes effect. His unit still exists, any effect that applies to him being a MODEL is applied to the other unit that he current counts as, for all purposes.

Ceann wrote:
You clearly do not understand because your interpretation was wrong when you tried to use the plasma pistol as an example and later proven wrong and you sidestep that fact entirely.

You don't like the answer, so you refuse to accept it. Nice. Now, once you start understanding the differences between units and models, we might be able to discuss that.

And don't bother bringing up Col_Ignored's points. He has a very esoteric view of the English language, takes one tiny part and grants it far greater authority than it deserves while ignoring many other rules of grammar, and often misrepresents most of the rules.

Ceann wrote:
So please quit with the "you do not understand" nonsense about units and models.

Then quit conflating them in your process and statements.

Ceann wrote:
Step 6. Allocate wounds & Remove Casualties. Any wounds caused by the firing unit must now be allocated one at a time to the closet model in the target unit.

The MODEL in the librarian unit. COUNTS AS a MODEL AS PART OF the unit it joined.

Correct, now you are starting to get it. Don't forget the "target unit" part. It becomes very important later.

Ceann wrote:
Applying wounds is a purpose.
You don't apply wounds to a unit, you apply wounds to MODELS in a unit. The MODEL counts as being in another unit. Because it also COUNTS AS that unit simultaneously, just like the Plasma Pistol COUNTS AS a CCW while still being a shooting weapon, as the player controller the librarian you are able to allocate wounds to the nearest model in the OTHER unit because he COUNTS AS being in that unit. If he is a part of that unit which is exactly that page 166 says, then wound allocating goes to THAT unit's models.

Your stipulation about him being a unit still exists, him being a model with the IC ability still exists, but once an effect happens that applies to the MODEL the COUNTS AS circumstance takes effect. His unit still exists, any effect that applies to him being a MODEL is applied to the other unit that he current counts as, for all purposes.

Incorrect. Wound allocation is still only made to the models in the unit that it was fired at, you know, the "target unit". I did not fire at the unit the IC joined, just the unit the IC is. The rules do not support the Wounds being allocated to any unit but the target unit. As soon as you begin to allocate Wounds to an original Tactical Squad model (i.e. Marine, Sergeant) that were made as a result of Attacks on a Librarian unit, YOU have broken the rules, not any special rule. The fact that Wounds being removed are being removed from a model in both units is immaterial and irrelevant. Wounds being removed from a model in the Tactical Squad isn't a problem so long as the model was from the IC unit.

"Counts as" does not allow for us to reverse the process without stating the reserve. I cannot make all deer elk, for example, even if a mule deer is running with an elk herd. The Librarian model counts as part of the Tactical Squad. Neither the Tactical Squad nor the Marines and Sergeant count as part of the Librarian unit.

Therefore, if my unit can see and recognize the Librarian's unit, I can shoot the witch. If the Librarian is joined to a Tactical Squad, then the Wounds cannot be allocated or reallocated (in the case of LOS) to the Marines and Sergeant as they are not part of the targeted Librarian unit. In order for Wounds to be allocated as such, the Tactical Squad would have to be the target unit.

 Charistoph wrote:


Therefore, if my unit can see and recognize the Librarian's unit, I can shoot the witch.

That's the problem. The normal shooting rules cannot see the Librarian's unit, even though the Librarian's unit status is fully present. Per the rules, the Librarian's unit status is being overridden by the joined unit status and that joined unit status takes precedence over the underlying IC unit status.

In order for the underlying unit status of the IC to be seen by a rule, the rule must be specifically aware of the underlying unit status (e.g Kill Points, Soulburst, Psyker unit, IC Special Rules rule). Only in that way can a rule circumvent the overriding "counts as" clause.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:

And don't bother bringing up Col_Ignored's points. He has a very esoteric view of the English language, takes one tiny part and grants it far greater authority than it deserves while ignoring many other rules of grammar, and often misrepresents most of the rules.

You aren't convincing anyone. Would you care to point out what exactly is esoteric or a misrepresentation in this . . .?




Ignoring straightforward, rational arguments that are fully supported by the rules makes your argument look ridiculous to all participants in the thread.

col_impact wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

col_impact wrote:


It's not me calling the interaction between Basic and Advanced rules one of "override" and "precedence". That isn't just my theory. That's exactly how the BRB describes the relationship and logical interaction between Basic and Advanced rules.

We need to adhere to the terms and logic the BRB uses. If you don't then you are making up your own rules and are house ruling.

Yes, it is you. Show me in the rules where GW discusses "override" and "precedence" as you are using them. This is you.

"override", "precedence", "conflict" are not my terms. They are the BRB terms.

Spoiler:

Where advanced rules apply to a specific model, they always override any contradicting basic rules. For example, the basic rules state that a model must take a Morale check under certain situations. If, however, that
model has a special rule that makes it immune to Morale checks, then it does not take such checks – the advanced rule takes precedence. On rare occasions, a conflict will arise between a rule in this rulebook, and one printed in a codex. Where this occurs, the rule printed in the codex or Army List Entry always takes precedence.

The IC join rule overrides the unit status of the IC and takes precedence over that unit status while not removing that unit status. There is no rule that removes the unit status of the IC, otherwise I am sure Charistoph or someone would have posted it.

So my argument is proven by the rules.

Actually you disprove yourself by your own argument. You ignore the fact that when they say you override the other rule in advanced vs basic, you ignore the rule being overridden. The status of the IC being treated as part of the unit for all rules purposes overrides the solitary unit status of the IC, which means that for rules purposes you ignore the solitary unit status of the IC. If you are ignoring it because it is being overridden, that means for rules purposes the IC is not also treated as its own unit.

Here's the first 5 definitions of override from dictionary.com

1.to prevail or have dominance over; have final authority or say over; overrule:
to override one's advisers.
2.to disregard, set aside, or nullify; countermand:
to override the board's veto.
3.to take precedence over; preempt or supersede:
to override any other considerations.
4.to extend beyond or spread over; overlap.
5.to modify or suspend the ordinary functioning of; alter the normal operation of.

None of these say that you still keep the original thing being overridden, it says you disregard it, you supercede it, you suspend that rule being overridden. By trying to keep the solitary runit status of the IC as well as having him be part of the unit, you are ignroring what override means. So you're right in that "counts as" overrides the original rules, but you are wrong in your assertion that you still keep the rules being overridden (in this case, the IC being its own unit).

You should have realized this earlier when you quoted the pistol rules at Charistoph. There, it says "Pistols are effectively Assault 1 weapons. A Pistol also counts as a close combat weapon in the Assault phase." Note they had to use "also" to let it still have both functions. You do not have the rules saying the IC also counts as part of the unit, or counts as part of the unit as well as keeping its unit status.

Doctortom, you would agree then that a Librarian in a Tac squad cannot use his Psychic powers?

I'll agree that they made a hash of writing the psychic powers section when they started bringing in "psyker units" and sometimes differentiated them from normal units, but not always. To be honest though, that is a problem with how they wrote the psyker rules, not with the IC rules. The Librarian still has his special rule of being a psyker and we are not told he loses it. If you say he can't use it it's not because of the IC rules but of how they wrote up "psyker unit"

They made a hash writing of the IC rules too. But that didnt answer the question.

I was adding to my reply which does address the question - you had posted before I finished the edit.

Charistoph wrote: Incorrect. Wound allocation is still only made to the models in the unit that it was fired at, you know, the "target unit". I did not fire at the unit the IC joined, just the unit the IC is. The rules do not support the Wounds being allocated to any unit but the target unit. As soon as you begin to allocate Wounds to a Tactical Squad that were made as a result of Attacks on a Librarian unit, YOU have broken the rules, not any special rule. The fact that Wounds being removed are being removed from a model in both units is immaterial and irrelevant. Wounds being removed from a model in the Tactical Squad isn't a problem so long as the model was from the IC unit.

"Counts as" does not allow for us to reverse the process without stating the reserve. I cannot make all deer elk, for example, even if a mule deer is running with an elk herd. The Librarian model counts as part of the Tactical Squad. Neither the Tactical Squad nor the Marines and Sergeant count as part of the Librarian unit.

Therefore, if my unit can see and recognize the Librarian's unit, I can shoot the witch. If the Librarian is joined to a Tactical Squad, then the Wounds cannot be allocated or reallocated (in the case of LOS) to the Marines and Sergeant as they are not part of the targeted Librarian unit. In order for Wounds to be allocated as such, the Tactical Squad would have to be the target unit.

Incorrect.

Page 166.

"While an IC is a part of that unit, he count's as part of that unit, for all rules purposes, thought he still follows the rules for characters."

You have identified the process backwards is your mistake, just as is the case of the pistol rules. If your argument held water you would be arguing that pistol can't be used as a CCW because it still remembers it is a shooting weapon. You never made that argument. You also at that time agreed that, counts as, is a substitution of the original profile of the weapon, in this case you are trying to argue that, counts as, does not perform the same exact functionality you previously described it to have, you have now hypocritically tried to explain "count as" two different ways to fit your argument. The tactical squad units don't have rules on those models stating that they count as another unit, this relationship only exists when something happens to the librarian model. If an artillery shot picks off the librarian model in the rear, no changes of any kind take place for the tactical squad. But if 5 AP2 shots come in and kill the entire squad in front of the librarian, he goes back to being a unit with one model, otherwise that unit would forever exist by the IC remembering he was a part of it.

The above quote is a special rule, it is allowed to break basic rules. If you are shooting at his unit, HE count's as a part of that other unit, the line literally says that he does. If you aren't shooting his original unit then what he counts as doesn't matter. And no, you can't shoot at him, you can shoot at the unit, please remember the difference between unit's and models, you do get how that works, right?

When wound allocation takes places the special rule on the model, dictates that he counts as a part of a different unit, for ALL purposes. Therefore wound allocation rules state that you must apply wounds to the closest model. Yes a rule is being broken, but a special rule dictates this.

Ceann wrote:
You have identified the process backwards is your mistake, just as is the case of the pistol rules. If your argument held water you would be arguing that pistol can't be used as a CCW because it still remembers it is a shooting weapon.

Actually, this just demonstrates that you do not properly remember the argument regarding Pistols or you completely misunderstood it. (Or, possibly, you believed Col_Ignored, who has yet to demonstrate a understanding of anything i have written sufficient to answer them or properly rewrite them in his own words.)

If a Pistol, which counts as a Close Combat Weapon during the Assault Phase, can fire in Overwatch, then I can shoot at the Librarian Unit because "counts as" does not remove the previous identity, but rather adds it on to existing identity. Adding on something does not mean I get to shoot the Close Combat Weapon, which is what you are proposing the equivalent of when Shooting at the Librarian Unit.

In order for "counts as" to remove the Librarian Unit from consideration, then it must stop the Librarian model from being considered as a member of the Librarian Unit, which leaves the Librarian Unit off the table for game purposes. So, then, when the Assault Phase happens, a Pistol does not have a Ranged profile, but the same profile as a Chainsword, and cannot be fired.

Ceann wrote:
You also at that time agreed that, counts as, is a substitution of the original profile of the weapon, in this case you are trying to argue that, counts as, does not perform the same exact functionality you previously described it to have, you have now hypocritically tried to explain "count as" two different ways to fit your argument.

See? You did not understand my argument. I have a case of two things happening depending on how you treated "counts as".

How I Play It, is that "counts as" is a substitution, just like it is with Relentless and Slow and Purposeful. With them, you substitute the fact that the model/unit moved with the temporary consideration that they didn't move for the Shooting Phase. While it doesn't change their position, they are allowed to fire their Heavy/Ordnance Weapons without Snap Firing, and the second number and full range of Salvo Weapons.

If we take the statements literally (without consideration on how the rulebook uses the phrase), the Pistol can still be fired in Overwatch and the Librarian can be still be fired at, as "counts as" doesn't tell us to do a complete substitution and ignore what was there previously.

Ceann wrote:
The tactical squad units do have rules on those models stating that they count as another unit, this relationship only exists when something happens to the librarian model.

They do not. The IC counts as part of THEIR unit, not the other way around. There models remain completely with the unit of Tactical Squad. We are not directed to do anything regarding the Joined Unit's models in this regard.

Ceann wrote:
If an artillery shot picks off the librarian model in the rear, no changes of any kind take place for the tactical squad. But if 5 AP2 shots come in and kill the entire squad in front of the librarian, he goes back to being a unit with one model, otherwise that unit would forever exist by the IC remembering he was a part of it.

Again, not if taken literally. If the IC is the last model, of course it remains a unit a unit with one model. The unit was just reduced to being one model. We have to do a little abstraction and set of assumptions to alter this consideration in to something else, such as losing the joined unit's identity and bringing the IC's unit identity back in to play.

You probably haven't realized that I am looking at this as an exercise in literal instructions, just like a computer processing the instructions. It is not how I run the game. I am more intelligent than any computer, and I assume you are, too. And I know I have stated this before.

Ceann wrote:
The above quote is a special rule, it is allowed to break basic rules.

No contention, in fact, I said that and provided directions on how to find that in the rulebook. However, just because they break basic rules, doesn't mean we get to break their rules or use them as an excuse to break rules they don't tell us to break.

Ceann wrote:
If you are shooting at his unit, HE count's as a part of that other unit, the line literally says that he does. If you aren't shooting his original unit then what he counts as doesn't matter. And no, you can't shoot at him, you can shoot at the unit, please remember the difference between unit's and models, you do get how that works, right?

Again, you are confusing things. I am well aware of the difference between units and models. I have been trying to instruct you, and anyone willing to read through this, of the difference.

Just because the Librarian MODEL is part of the Tactical Squad does not make the Marines and Sergeant part of the Librarian UNIT.

If I can see the Librarian UNIT, I can shoot it. If I shoot it, then the Wounds are allocated to the models of the unit. The Unit only contains one model in this scenario (Librarain joined to a Tactical Squad). At the point I say I am Choosing to Shoot the Librarian, I am Shooting at the Librarian UNIT, not any specific model.

If I cannot see the Librarian UNIT, it is because the models which make up the Librarian UNIT are not available to be seen. This is either because it is Embarked, not deployed, Removed From Play, or all of its models are being considered as part of another unit because its unit association was replaced (temporarily). The only way the last one works is if "counts as" is a complete substitution for the duration of the period mentioned. If a complete substitution is made, the Pistol counting as a CCW is as effective as a Chainsword in Overwatch.

Ceann wrote:
When wound allocation takes places the special rule on the model, dictates that he counts as a part of a different unit, for ALL purposes. Therefore wound allocation rules state that you must apply wounds to the closest model. Yes a rule is being broken, but a special rule dictates this.

Incorrect.

First, Wounds can only be allocated to the target unit, period. If I can shoot the unit, I can see it. If I can see it, that means there are models are on the board associated with that unit. I do not have permission to allocate Wounds to models that are not within the target unit. I cannot allocate Wounds made against the Librarian Unit to the Tactical Squad unit.

Second, while an IC joins another unit, the unit does not join the IC. The IC rules do not establish this, so are not breaking these rules. So the Marines and Sergeant would not be considered by the game as being part of the Librarian unit. For the rest, review the above.

In order for ANY Wounds allocated to the Librarian model to be reallocated/allocated on to a Marine or Sergeant, they must all be part of the same unit targeted by the Attacks which caused the Wounds.

As for the do/do not part, I already corrected that as I left the word out.

The MODEL count's as being a part of the other unit. Wounds are allocated to the nearest model in the unit. When wounds are applied to the model in the librarian unit, his rules state that he count's as being in the other unit. Because he count's as being in the other unit wounds go to the other unit.

The rule book says this.

Step 6. Allocate wounds & Remove Casualties. Any wounds caused by the firing unit must now be allocated one at a time to the closet MODEL in the target unit.

As I said wounds are applied to models IN a unit. The model receiving wounds in the unit you fired at, "count's as part of that unit, for all rules purposes"

If he counts as a part of that unit, regardless of what unit you originally fired at, the wounds have to be allocated to the closest model. The only literal association that needs to occur is whenever any rule interacts with the IC model and any circumstance where a rule interacts with the IC model, he directs its purpose to apply to the unit he joined for all purposes.

Again for the pistol, OPEN YOUR RULE BOOK and read the page. It says that pistols ALSO count as CCW's. Not ONLY count as CCW.

Ceann wrote:
As for the do/do not part, I already corrected that as I left the word out.

The MODEL count's as being a part of the other unit. Wounds are allocated to the nearest model in the unit. When wounds are applied to the model in the librarian unit, his rules state that he count's as being in the other unit. Because he count's as being in the other unit wounds go to the other unit.

The rule book says this.

Incorrect. The Wounds do not go to the other unit. All rules regarding Allocating Wounds dictate models of the "target unit". Marines are never in a Librarian unit.

Ceann wrote:
Step 6. Allocate wounds & Remove Casualties. Any wounds caused by the firing unit must now be allocated one at a time to the closet MODEL in the target unit.

See "target unit"? Was the Tactical Squad targeted? Yes or no?

Ceann wrote:
As I said wounds are applied to models IN a unit. The model receiving wounds in the unit you fired at, "count's as part of that unit, for all rules purposes"

You are running that backwards. You are putting Marines in to the Librarian unit, which we do not have permission to do.

Ceann wrote:
If he counts as a part of that unit, regardless of what unit you originally fired at, the wounds have to be allocated to the closest model. The only literal association that needs to occur is whenever any rule interacts with the IC model and any circumstance where a rule interacts with the IC model, he directs its purpose to apply to the unit he joined for all purposes.

Actually, it is regarding the unit you originally fired at. You have quoted the specific phrase at least twice now and glossed over it both times. I have mentioned it to you at least three times now.

 Charistoph wrote:

Ceann wrote:
You have identified the process backwards is your mistake, just as is the case of the pistol rules. If your argument held water you would be arguing that pistol can't be used as a CCW because it still remembers it is a shooting weapon.

Actually, this just demonstrates that you do not properly remember the argument regarding Pistols or you completely misunderstood it. (Or, possibly, you believed Col_Ignored, who has yet to demonstrate a understanding of anything i have written sufficient to answer them or properly rewrite them in his own words.)

If a Pistol, which counts as a Close Combat Weapon during the Assault Phase, can fire in Overwatch, then I can shoot at the Librarian Unit because "counts as" does not remove the previous identity, but rather adds it on to existing identity. Adding on something does not mean I get to shoot the Close Combat Weapon, which is what you are proposing the equivalent of when Shooting at the Librarian Unit.

Actually, the pistol rules state that " A Pistol also counts as" a ccw in assault after stating pistols are effectively Assault 1 weapons. The "also counts as" would indicate that it's still an assault 1 weapon while counting as a ccw, not merely the "counts as". part. Citing the pistol doesn't help your argument.


(edited for dyslexic typing)

 Charistoph wrote:

Ceann wrote:
As for the do/do not part, I already corrected that as I left the word out.

The MODEL count's as being a part of the other unit. Wounds are allocated to the nearest model in the unit. When wounds are applied to the model in the librarian unit, his rules state that he count's as being in the other unit. Because he count's as being in the other unit wounds go to the other unit.

The rule book says this.

Incorrect. The Wounds do not go to the other unit. All rules regarding Allocating Wounds dictate models of the "target unit". Marines are never in a Librarian unit.

Ceann wrote:
Step 6. Allocate wounds & Remove Casualties. Any wounds caused by the firing unit must now be allocated one at a time to the closet MODEL in the target unit.

See "target unit"? Was the Tactical Squad targeted? Yes or no?

Ceann wrote:
As I said wounds are applied to models IN a unit. The model receiving wounds in the unit you fired at, "count's as part of that unit, for all rules purposes"

You are running that backwards. You are putting Marines in to the Librarian unit, which we do not have permission to do.

Ceann wrote:
If he counts as a part of that unit, regardless of what unit you originally fired at, the wounds have to be allocated to the closest model. The only literal association that needs to occur is whenever any rule interacts with the IC model and any circumstance where a rule interacts with the IC model, he directs its purpose to apply to the unit he joined for all purposes.

Actually, it is regarding the unit you originally fired at. You have quoted the specific phrase at least twice now and glossed over it both times. I have mentioned it to you at least three times now.

RULES.... RULES is the key word here.
You keep using the BASIC rules to make your point.

Being an IC is a special rule, the rule that you are quoting as a contradiction is a basic rule. It is superseded by a special rule, a special rule that states that it applies for ALL purposes. If you are shooting at a unit, using the shooting rules, THAT is a purpose and for all purposes he COUNTS AS that unit. I am not putting Marines in a Librarian unit, I am attempting to apply wounds to the librarian model, in the librarian unit. The librarian model in the librarian unit has a rule that directs me to COUNT HIM AS belonging to the other unit for ALL purpose, my current purpose is to allocate wounds, anything that happened previously up until that point is now becoming superseded by a special rule. I now have to allocate wounds while COUNTING HIM AS PART OF the tactical unit. They do not join his unit, he tells me to count him as THEIR unit. The wound allocation rules for A UNIT is to apply them to the nearest model to the source of fire. So for the PURPOSE of being a target, he COUNTS AS the tactical unit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The argument you have been attempting to make is that there are two decisions trees one of which involves firing at each unit and because it was never explicitly states that one of those units ceased to exist then you SHOULD be able to shoot at it.

Taken literally, yes you can shoot at it. Does the unit have anything to stop you from shooting it? No. A unit is a container for models and in general units do not have rules, models in the units tend to have rules.

In this cirumstance you are asserting that nothing in the IC unit is being done to change it from being anything other than what it originally was before it joined so that logically you can still shoot at it.

I have not seen any evidence to the contrary and I would agree that literally you can shoot at it as it is normally a target and you have not been instructed that cannot.

Once you attempt to apply a purpose to a model in the unit, be it shooting, a charge, psker powers or whatever there is a point where direct interaction with a model within a unit takes place. At this point the individual model in the unit contains a rule which states purposes that interact with that model are to be counted as model being a part of ANOTHER unit. That is all that rule directs us to do, is to count him as that other unit. It doesn't say to continue treating him as an his original unit at that point. We are not being provided an option, or an ALSO such as was the case for the pistol. We are being told to treat him as a part of that other unit EXPLICITLY.

Now we apply wounds as normal to the unit he has joined and if a wound happens to land on him still after the intervening models have already taken wounds he directs us to treat him as part of the joined unit AGAIN. Now at this point since his requirements have been met and there are no longer any intervening models we now apply wounds to him because he is the nearest model in the unit he joined.

Well, for all rules purposes (except where specifically mentioned in IC rules or in FAQs) he's treated as part of the unit, not just for the purpose of being a target. Which would mean for all rules purposes except for those mentioned in IC rules or FAQs he is NOT treated as being a unit of one.

So, for Col. Impact's edification, this means that he is only treated as his own unit when the rules tell us to treat him as his own unit when he's joined to another unit. We do not treat him as retaining his unit status overall while joined to another unit because that is overrideen; we are told to ignore that for rules purposes.