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.

Nemesor Dave wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

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

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

Emphasis mine.

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

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

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

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

Independent characters that have
joined a unit are considered part of that unit and so
may not be picked out as targets.

Part of that unit.

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

"Once again" treated as normal members of the unit - meaning they must have been treated that way before, then changed for handling assault, and once again are treated that way.
The words "with" and "joined" are used quite often.

You still have zero rules basis for your assertion that the IC is now alone, despite being prevented from leaving a unit outside the Movement phase.

BRB Page 48 wrote:An independent character may not join or leave a
unit during the Shooting and Assault phases –
once shots are fired or assaults are launched it is
too late to join in or duck out!

nosferatu1001 wrote:What? Youre the one ignoring the perfectly clear rules - the IC is a NORMAL MEMBER of the unit. It has precisely *nothing* to do with allocating wounds - youre just making things up at this point.

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

Find a rule that says a IC is still part of a dead unit or concede.

How about a little reality.

On the table in front of you I have an captain and a 5 man unit of scouts. They are in a unit together in coherrency.

Now take away the 5 man unit and tell me what is left.

The IC is left. The unit is gone.

Now tell me what unit on the table, is the IC part of?

Nemesor Dave wrote:How about a little reality.

How about you decide if you're arguing RAW or RAI?

Nemesor Dave wrote:Now tell me what unit on the table, is the IC part of?

Depends on context - did the scout unit move away and disappear, or were they shot off the table?
Since the IC can only leave the unit during the Movement phase...

rigeld2 wrote:

Nemesor Dave wrote:Now tell me what unit on the table, is the IC part of?

Depends on context - did the scout unit move away and disappear, or were they shot off the table?
Since the IC can only leave the unit during the Movement phase...

There are not scouts on the table. There are no scouts left. The lone IC is not part of the scouts unit any more.

Nemesor Dave wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Nemesor Dave wrote:Now tell me what unit on the table, is the IC part of?

Depends on context - did the scout unit move away and disappear, or were they shot off the table?
Since the IC can only leave the unit during the Movement phase...

There are not scouts on the table. There are no scouts left. The lone IC is not part of the scouts unit any more.

So you're contriving a scenario outside the rules to make someone give you the answer you want so you can jump out from the side and say "AH HA!"

Yeah, no. Not a successful method of debating.

Nemesor Dave wrote:
Find a rule that says a IC is still part of a dead unit or concede.

The rule saying an IC only leaves a unit by moving out of coherency with it, and that there are no rules saying the unit can leave the IC. Oh wait, your false dichotomy is wrong, again. Surprise.

So, found the rule allowing the unit to leave the IC?

Thought you hadnt - just you, making up rules, again.

Nemesor Dave wrote:
Now take away the 5 man unit and tell me what is left.

The IC is left. The unit is gone.

Now tell me what unit on the table, is the IC part of?

How did the unit leave? They dont have any rules allowing THEM to leave, so what happened?

Your attempts at making up rules are so incredibly transparent.

Nemesor Dave wrote:Find a rule that says a IC is still part of a dead unit or concede.

It's not an issue of the IC still being part of the dead unit. It's the fact that the IC's unit took casualties.

The fact that the squad is now dead doesn't change that. At the time the wounds were inflicted, the IC was a part of the unit. So the unit that the IC was a part of took 25% casualties that phase... so whatever remains of that unit (a unit made up of the squad and the IC) must take a morale test.


I agree that from the next phase onwards the IC is no longer joined to the squad, because the squad no longer exists... But for the purposes of resolving things that happened to the IC while he was joined to the squad, they were a single unit.

Hey uh, nos and rigeld, I found where it says a unit can leave an IC. However it is circumstantial. The only possible way is if the unit and IC are embarked on a vehicle. Then the unit can leave, while the IC stays on boarb (Page 67).

Okay so there are no rules that pertain to this situation that allow the IC to leave, and especially not outside the movement phase.

rigeld2 wrote:

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

Correct - he cannot be out of coherency with himself.

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

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

Wrong again.
If there is more than one model in the unit the IC can move out of coherency per the IC rule for leaving units. There being more than one model allows for the rules for coherency to apply at all and makes moving out of it a legal action. Coherency does not apply to a unit with only one model and you are therefore not permitted to measure for coherency.

rigeld2 wrote: I have an IC.
I've moved.
I measure coherency distance.
I am not within 2" of the unit.
I have left the unit.

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

You went wrong at the third line when you measured coherency for a one model unit.
The fourth line is false by your own ideas as the IC would still be a 'normal member' of the unit. Still your illegally measuring coherency on a one model unit.
Line 5 would then also be incorrect.

You must measure coherency for an IC to make sure you're still in the unit.

How is step 3 wrong? If you don't measure coherency, how do you know when the IC is no longer in coherency with the unit?

rigeld2 wrote:Okay so there are no rules that pertain to this situation that allow the IC to leave, and especially not outside the movement phase.

This is correct. There are actually no rules in the RAW allowing an IC to leave a unit of which it is the only member. Of course the idea that it would still be a member of a unit it joined when the rest of the unit has been wiped out is also absurd.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:You must measure coherency for an IC to make sure you're still in the unit.

This would be correct if it were not the only one left.

Happyjew wrote:How is step 3 wrong? If you don't measure coherency, how do you know when the IC is no longer in coherency with the unit?

A unit with one model cannot be measured to be either in or out of coherency. That is the point. Without other members of the unit being in play it can never be determined that the ' IC is no longer in coherency with the unit'.

Happyjew wrote:How is step 3 wrong? If you don't measure coherency, how do you know when the IC is no longer in coherency with the unit?

The unit being dead would normally be a clue.

insaniak wrote:

Happyjew wrote:How is step 3 wrong? If you don't measure coherency, how do you know when the IC is no longer in coherency with the unit?

The unit being dead would normally be a clue.

Agreed

Abandon wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:Okay so there are no rules that pertain to this situation that allow the IC to leave, and especially not outside the movement phase.

This is correct. There are actually no rules in the RAW allowing an IC to leave a unit of which it is the only member. Of course the idea that it would still be a member of a unit it joined when the rest of the unit has been wiped out is also absurd.

Actually, my wording was incorrect - There are no rules that pertain to this situation that allow the unit to leave the IC, so the IC is still a member of the unit.
He can absolutely leave the unit - at the end of the movement phase.

rigeld2 wrote:You must measure coherency for an IC to make sure you're still in the unit.

This w=ould be correct if it were not the only one left.

Cite the exception in the rules please.

Happyjew wrote:How is step 3 wrong? If you don't measure coherency, how do you know when the IC is no longer in coherency with the unit?

A unit with one model cannot be measured to be either in or out of coherency. That is the point. Without other members of the unit being in play it can never be determined that the ' IC is no longer in coherency with the unit'.

That's not true.
The IC rules say that you are automatically a member of any unit within 2", and that if you move out of coherency of a unit you are no longer a member of that unit.
The IC falls back.
The IC is not within 2" of any unit.
The IC is now not a member of any unit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

insaniak wrote:

Happyjew wrote:How is step 3 wrong? If you don't measure coherency, how do you know when the IC is no longer in coherency with the unit?

The unit being dead would normally be a clue.

Could you cite the rule that allows that to happen?
Because I don't think there is one. Therefore the IC falls back during movement, you check to see if he's within 2" of any unit, he isn't, he's by himself and can therefore regroup/stop falling back.

He's still a part of the unit until the end of the next movement phase because there is no permission to measure coherency or check his status until then.

Instead of discussing how the rules should be (because I agree - a dead unit should not penalize the IC) discuss the rules as they are written. Or, as the tenets of the forum require, please make it clear that you're discussing RAI or HYWPI... because I've asked for that clarification multiple times (not from insaniak) and gotten no response, so I must assume you're attempting to discuss RAW. Without citing any rules.

I've cited rules backing up my portion. Please do me the courtesy of doing the same.

rigeld2 wrote:He's still a part of the unit until the end of the next movement phase because there is no permission to measure coherency or check his status until then.

Doesn't the rule on Page 46 in regards of the pre-requisites for Regrouping at the start of the movement phase, not give you permission to A. Measure to enemy units and B.Measure to check coherency?

Good question. I'll check my rule book in the morning.

rigeld2 wrote:Could you cite the rule that allows that to happen?
Because I don't think there is one. Therefore the IC falls back during movement, you check to see if he's within 2" of any unit, he isn't, he's by himself and can therefore regroup/stop falling back.

To be honest, I don't think the rules adequately cover either interpretation.

Yes, there is no rule that says that the IC ceases to be considered to be joined to the squad when the squad is no longer on the table... But similarly, the rules don't give a way to judge coherency in a unit that no longer has more than one model, because it's not normally necessay.

So as far as I can determine from the existing rules, either the squad is dead, in which case the IC reverts to being a unit of 1... or the IC is still considered joined to a unit that is no longer there, and at the start of his movement is therefore required to move to regain coherency with that unit and continue to fall back. In that latter case, he will never be able to rally, and will never be able to leave the unit. He can't leave the unit at the end of the movement phase by being out of coherency with them, because the rules forbid ICs from leaving units that are falling back,.

Either of those interpretations is equally valid given the rules as they currently stand... so I'm personally inclined to stick with the one that makes more sense. Which is to assume that if the squad is no longer on the table, the IC can't be still joined to it.

rigeld2 wrote:You must measure coherency for an IC to make sure you're still in the unit.

Ok, then, how about this ...

I pick a unit to move, unit + ic is chosen.
Ic moves away 6".
The ic is still part of the unit at this point and is a normal member of it.
What can I do with the rest of the unit?

"So, once a unit has finished moving, the models in it must form an imaginary line ... coherency."

The ic that moved away is still part of the unit, he can't leave it until the entire unit finishes its movement, that's the only point you can measure and prove he has left, so the other models in the unit must form the chain with it.
= ic's stuck forever.

rigeld2 wrote:Good question. I'll check my rule book in the morning.

He has made that point before.
Also, I asked something along similar lines, that was left unanswered, so if you wouldn't mind.

I have a unit, mauled by shooting, I do not know if they are in coherency or not or perhaps it is obvious they are not.
Can I justify leaving them stationary to shoot over 24"?
+
What does "lose unit coherency" mean?

fuusa wrote:I have a unit, mauled by shooting, I do not know if they are in coherency or not or perhaps it is obvious they are not.
Can I justify leaving them stationary to shoot over 24"?
+
What does "lose unit coherency" mean?

Kinda touched on that one before too I think

insaniak wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:Could you cite the rule that allows that to happen?
Because I don't think there is one. Therefore the IC falls back during movement, you check to see if he's within 2" of any unit, he isn't, he's by himself and can therefore regroup/stop falling back.

To be honest, I don't think the rules adequately cover either interpretation.

Yes, there is no rule that says that the IC ceases to be considered to be joined to the squad when the squad is no longer on the table... But similarly, the rules don't give a way to judge coherency in a unit that no longer has more than one model, because it's not normally necessay.

So as far as I can determine from the existing rules, either the squad is dead, in which case the IC reverts to being a unit of 1... or the IC is still considered joined to a unit that is no longer there, and at the start of his movement is therefore required to move to regain coherency with that unit and continue to fall back. In that latter case, he will never be able to rally, and will never be able to leave the unit. He can't leave the unit at the end of the movement phase by being out of coherency with them, because the rules forbid ICs from leaving units that are falling back,.

Either of those interpretations is equally valid given the rules as they currently stand... so I'm personally inclined to stick with the one that makes more sense. Which is to assume that if the squad is no longer on the table, the IC can't be still joined to it.

Well said.

The mistake that is being made here is "the IC leaving the unit" keeps being mentioned. In no way are we talking about an IC leaving the unit. Those rules simply do not apply.
The unit ceases to exist therefore the IC cannot be part of it at that very moment.

No rule says that out of two, if you remove one, the one remaining is the only one left because it is that obvious and simple logic.

The same thing happens in assualt when a non-fearless IC is joined to a fearless squad. Lets say at I4 the squad is wiped out. At I3,I2,I1 and for combat resolution, the IC is no longer fearless! There is no fearless unit for him to be a part of.

fuusa - except the IC does have permission to leave the unit. He is the only one who CAN break coherency with a unit, as he has express permission to do so. So he moves away, you move the rest of the unit, measure coherency, find out he is more than 2" away - boom, he has left the unit

Really not tricky, and follows the rules exactly

Abandon - again, you are ignoring the rules which determine if an IC has left a unit; you measure to OTHER members of the unit (because coherency is irrelevant, as in DOES NOT APPLY, to single models) - find there arent any, and boom, the IC has left.


You keep claiming that a model is always in coherency with itself - which STILL ignores the rules for coherency. A model is NEVER in coherency with itself,because coherency only applies *between* models, as per the rules on page 12.

There's only so many ways to prove you are wrong

nosferatu1001 wrote:

You keep claiming that a model is always in coherency with itself - which STILL ignores the rules for coherency. A model is NEVER in coherency with itself,because coherency only applies *between* models, as per the rules on page 12.

There's only so many ways to prove you are wrong

If it's how you say it is, lets say the IC + 1remaing model is falling back and that last model from the unit dies. In the following turn, the IC cannot leave the unit so continues to fall back. The unit is below 50% so it can never rally.

I only need one way to prove your entire point wrong. All the rules you are quoting don't apply. Put away your tape measure, there is no measuring coherency because anyone can tell you by looking at the table the IC is left and the unit is gone.

It's this simple:
Is the IC still part of a unit that has been destroyed? No.

Nemesor Dave wrote:[If it's how you say it is, lets say the IC + 1remaing model is falling back and that last model from the unit dies. In the following turn, the IC cannot leave the unit so continues to fall back. The unit is below 50% so it can never rally.

Shock, youre still wrong.

You are now, deliberately I assume, misinterpreting a very clear position and just making yet more rules up.

A falling back IC falls back then, at the end of movement checks to see if they are in coherency with a member of the unit they joined. Shockingly enough, when you try to measure 2" to the nearest member of that unit, as the coherency rules require, you find the IC ISNT a member of the unit any longer, because they are outside of 2" of the nearest member of the unit. As such they have left the unit, and NEXT TURN can rally.

There's only so many ways to explain a concept

Nemesor Dave wrote:I only need one way to prove your entire point wrong. All the rules you are quoting don't apply.

Ah, so youre going to prove me wrong by making rules up? Brilliant bit of arguing there, A+

Nemesor Dave wrote: Put away your tape measure, there is no measuring coherency because anyone can tell you by looking at the table the IC is left and the unit is gone.

So you are free to ignore the ruels on page 48 then? How are you free to do so? Where is your RULE telling you this? Or are you now arguing "HWYPI" and, again in contrary to the rules of the forum you are posting in you are not clearly denoting this in your post

So which is it - are you posting HYWPI or are you making up rules?

Nemesor Dave wrote:It's this simple:
Is the IC still part of a unit that has been destroyed? No. at the end of the movement phase, as the rules for ICs leaving untis tells you, as I have been unable to find a rule allowing the unit to leave the IC that isnt disembarking a vehicle, despite repeated requests to find something, anything written that supports my position

FTFY (my additions in bold)

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Nemesor Dave wrote:[If it's how you say it is, lets say the IC + 1remaing model is falling back and that last model from the unit dies. In the following turn, the IC cannot leave the unit so continues to fall back. The unit is below 50% so it can never rally.

Shock, youre still wrong.

You are now, deliberately I assume, misinterpreting a very clear position and just making yet more rules up.

A falling back IC falls back then, at the end of movement checks to see if they are in coherency with a member of the unit they joined. Shockingly enough, when you try to measure 2" to the nearest member of that unit, as the coherency rules require, you find the IC ISNT a member of the unit any longer, because they are outside of 2" of the nearest member of the unit. As such they have left the unit, and NEXT TURN can rally.

There's only so many ways to explain a concept

An IC may not leave a falling back unit. If the IC is falling back because it is part of a non-existent unit, it still may not leave that non-existent unit. Your explanation still fails.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Nemesor Dave wrote:It's this simple:
Is the IC still part of a unit that has been destroyed? No. at the end of the movement phase, as the rules for ICs leaving untis tells you, as I have been unable to find a rule allowing the unit to leave the IC that isnt disembarking a vehicle, despite repeated requests to find something, anything written that supports my position

FTFY (my additions in bold)

I would really hope the mods of this board do not support quoting someone and then changing the text that they wrote to misrepresent their opinion. I did not write the above, don't put my name on it.

DO NOT WRITE A COMMENT AND PUT IT AS A QUOTE FROM ME.

Nemesor Dave wrote:would really hope the mods of this board do not support quoting someone and then changing the text that they wrote to misrepresent their opinion. I did not write the above, don't put my name on it.

Posters do this quite a bit, especially when someone posts wrong information. If I were to post that a rule can be found on the top of page 75 right hand column, when it's on the left, the next person should post either a correction, or quote me and make the necessary changes. Granted, however, I think nos went a little overboard on his reply.

Nemesor Dave wrote:An IC may not voluntarily leave a falling back unit. If the IC is falling back because it is part of a non-existent unit, it still may not leave that non-existent unit. Your explanation still fails.

Oh, and fixed that for you. If the IC cannot involuntarily leave a unit that is falling back, a memeber of the unit would have to stay alive, granting you an unkillable model.

Nemesor - an IC may not voluntarily leave. If he is not allowed to leave, period, then you are not allowed to kill the last member of a unit + IC that is locked in combat.

I did not alter your words at all - I clearly marked my additions to your incorrect statement, pointing out that the conclusion reached is only valid at a specific point in time. If you havea huge issue with it, the report button is there for a reason

Magpie wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:He's still a part of the unit until the end of the next movement phase because there is no permission to measure coherency or check his status until then.

Doesn't the rule on Page 46 in regards of the pre-requisites for Regrouping at the start of the movement phase, not give you permission to A. Measure to enemy units and B.Measure to check coherency?

Yes, you're allowed to measure to enemy units and measure coherency.
There's no permission to change an IC's status at this stage.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

insaniak wrote:So as far as I can determine from the existing rules, either the squad is dead, in which case the IC reverts to being a unit of 1... or the IC is still considered joined to a unit that is no longer there, and at the start of his movement is therefore required to move to regain coherency with that unit and continue to fall back. In that latter case, he will never be able to rally, and will never be able to leave the unit. He can't leave the unit at the end of the movement phase by being out of coherency with them, because the rules forbid ICs from leaving units that are falling back

Actually, you're right - I misread the IC rule.

An independent character may not join or leave a
unit while either he or the unit is locked in combat
or falling back.

I withdraw my support from the position that the IC would be able to regroup. Which means that yes, the IC would be routed off the field imo.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

fuusa wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:Good question. I'll check my rule book in the morning.

He has made that point before.

I must've missed it before. Oops.

Also, I asked something along similar lines, that was left unanswered, so if you wouldn't mind.

I have a unit, mauled by shooting, I do not know if they are in coherency or not or perhaps it is obvious they are not.
Can I justify leaving them stationary to shoot over 24"?
+
What does "lose unit coherency" mean?

No, you can't justify that - it'd be an illegal move because you must end your move in coherency.
Coherency is defined pretty well in the rulebook.

nosferatu1001 wrote:fuusa - except the IC does have permission to leave the unit. He is the only one who CAN break coherency with a unit, as he has express permission to do so.

Ok, lets have a look at what you said there ...

the IC does have permission to leave the unit
= certainly correct.

He is the only one who CAN break coherency with a unit
= 100% agree, he is the ONLY one that can.

nosferatu1001 wrote:So he moves away, you move the rest of the unit, measure coherency, find out he is more than 2" away - boom, he has left the unit.

find out he is more than 2" away
= where we have major problems.

If we assume you cannot measure coherency at the start of a units move, or, that you are capable of forming a coherent unit at the end of its move as you go. Just measuring at the end.

I select, the ic + infantry unit to move.
the IC does have permission to leave the unit
Good, that's what I want to do.
So he moves away
I move him 6" away from the unit.

At this point, he is still a member of the unit, the unit is still moving, he has not left it, you cannot check yet (even though, if all remains as is, its obvious what will happen).
Is that ok so far???

you move the rest of the unit
What I would like to do, is leave the rest stationary, to fire over 24"/fire heavy weapons.
But ...

He is the only one who CAN break coherency with a unit
Which he hasn't done, because he is still part of the unit and you havent finished moving the unit, until you have moved everything that must, and so have conformed to the rules.

"So, once a unit has finished moving, the models in it must (snip) coherency."
If they are still a unit, until the end of their movement, they will be compelled to move in such a way as to remain coherent with all of their unit. The ic hasn't yet left.

The models in a unit must be coherent at the end of their move.
He is the only one who CAN break coherency with a unit

Its a bizarre loop and this is what allows it ...
find out he is more than 2" away