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.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:The case IS clear. You can only target one unit, and that unit isnt a GK Unit. No Shrouding apples

So what is clear for you? THat you are targetting multiple units? If so where is you permission to do so?

Simple, yes no question for you: do you vbelieve you can target multiple units with a single units firing?

Yes or No. [its like that damn hammer again, isnt it.]

Those aren't the only options so there's no point in answering the question.

Shooting at a unit that contains an IC isn't shooting at two units, it's shooting at a combined unit with different attributes given by different models that comprise it.

Hammer?

Bzzzt, wrong again.

The criteria for Shrouding to activate at all is that you are TARGETTING a UNIT of GKs.

We've been over this, man.

At the end of page 6 I pointed out that you are not shooting at a unit of grey knights, NOR are you shooting at a combined unit. When shot at, the GK IC becomes a member of the unit he is attached to.

Thus, if attached to a blood angel assault squad, the GK IC is a part of the blood angel unit. He is not a GK unit within a BA unit. You are not even targeting or having an effect on a grey knight unit, only a BA unit.

After the shooting phase, the GK IC behaves differently obviously, like being a different unit in CC in the assault phase. But for shooting, there is only 1 unit, and it is not a grey knight unit, nor is it a combined/amalgamated unit, it is whatever unit the IC is attached to.

As an aside, if you had a unit of ICs, you would be able to say the other ICs are joining the GK IC unit. Thus, if you have a GKGM with a BA apothicary, a BA elite chappy, and Master Seth, all 3 BA ICs would be able to join the GK IC unit, thus when shot at would count as a single unit of grey knights. OR, the GKGM could instead join them to count as a single BA unit.

Hope this helps the discussion

Wait, do you have an answer then MR? Oh, wait, you dont.

Classic.

WHat was the first line of shroudings rule? Targetting a unit of GK. Where is the unit of GK? It doesnt exist while the GKGM is joined to a non-GK unit.

Unless you think you can target more than one unit? Care to answer the oh so simple question now?

DevianID wrote:
Thus, if attached to a blood angel assault squad, the GK IC is a part of the blood angel unit. He is not a GK unit within a BA unit. You are not even targeting or having an effect on a grey knight unit, only a BA unit.

This.

Daemon-Archon Ren wrote:Its 6am, I've been up all night playing 40k and Borderlands and contrary to my title, I do need sleep now and then. Consider this post a place holder for tomorrow morning, when I will address some of the "new" (Nothings really new besides Devians post) concerns.

~To be continued~

I had forgotten that since I rarely do sleep, when I do, I am out for typically, more then 24 hours.

But fear not, for I HAVE AWOKEN.

Time to kill this argument ONCE AND FOR ALL!

My Argument: When a unit joins another unit, it does not forfeit its original status as a "Unit of X" in favor for "A Combined Unit" where X is no longer present.

The counter would obviously be "When a unit joins another unit, it becomes a Combined Unit, therefor, it is no longer a Unit of X whenever such is called for by either the main rule book or codex specific examples (The primary(s) of this thread being The Shrouding (and Aegis)

Reasons why the Counter is invalid:

To assume that the counter would be correct would in theory, retract a MONUMENTAL listing of rulings, which (while most likely not the intent of those countering) would SIGNIFICANTLY alter the value of those special rules, and the codexes in which they come from, for the worse. This is, in its entierty, a form of illegal speach known commonly as Libel, and if the owner of the publications being "diminished" by this interpretation were to notice and sort of loss in services based on this Libel, such owners would be wholly and entirely capable of pursuing legal compensation by the proponents of the hurtful speach towards their product...

Now, you might be reading this and wondering "Well How is my argument Libel, mr DAR?"

Let me show you!

The claims have been made that when a unit of Grey knights (as defined by page 20 of C: DH) joins or is joined by another unit, they are no longer a "Unit of Grey knights" (as defined by page 20 of C: DH) as the 'permissive rules' only permit the unit to hold such a label if they are "A Unit of Grey Knights" not "A Unit of Grey KNights AND a unit of Non-Grey Knights". This provision however, MUST ALSO APPLY to any such alteration of "A Unit of Grey Knights" including "A unit of Grey KNights AND a Unit of Grey Knights" (As the specific definition is not allowed in the C: DH and in permissive rules, if you are not told you can do something, then you CANNOT do it " This however would also invalidate such entries as "A Unit of Space Wolves"(for abilities such as "Bjorn the Fel Handed, and Logan Grimnar" etc) an "Eldar Unit" (for the purposes of certain Eldar Psychic Powers and special rules) an "Ork Unit" (For the purposes of WAAAAUGH! And other special rules) and "Blood Angels" unit (For the purposes of "Red Thirst" "Decent of angels" and other special rules) as well as many other rulings, not discussed in this thread, but also not explicitly covering "Combined Units". In fact, one MAJOR consideration of a judge in deciding if to fall into the counter-arguments claims is that under a "Permissive Ruleset" and the "Combined Unit, No Meta-unit" arguments, there are no such rules that would permit any such unit in any such codex to be considered a "Friendly Unit" and as such, any/all rules concerning friendly units (especially those that are "Combined Units") would be utterly revoked. To consider a "Combined Unit" for the purposes of targeting, or anything for that matter as no longer a combination of those any of the involved unit groups (assuming you do not refute the previous statements regarding the definition of "Combined Units") as 'not a part of the unit' (so in the case of the shrouding, not eligible for The Shrouding's rule) without proper justification would be unwise, as such a ruling would bring into question again, all of the above negative precedence.

Now, as described in the above, to say that the C: DH rules are weaker then what is actually present on the paper it is printed on (without the consent of the writer or the company which owns the IP) and without proper justification is Libel, so as a warning to all those involved in this debate, if you are contacted by a legal representative of any of the discussed parties, I would advise that you cease any and all illegal activities so that you could best provide yourself a defense if such a 'inconvenient occasion' were to arise. (I would also like to offer my services as a legal council, if the need did arise, feel free to contact me via PM. I will help Dakka members with this kind of issue free of charge!)

((( Thats right, I just owned you you're argument , legally. I AM THE LAW BRINGER! I now also have my sights set on a huge series of 'injustices' in YMDC <Such as the Permissive Ruleset cannon in general> so watch out boyz, here I come!)))

~DAR

{GK+non-GK} == non-GK Unit. Its' really THAT simple. Mathematically, logically and using the english language (which is your friend in this, and you HAVE to use it...) there is no other answer.

Nothing you have shown alters that simple, unutterable fact. Sorry, it really doesnt. Also, for future reference: claim of "you should listen to me because I am "X"" fails horribly in an argument. Appeal to authority fallacy and all that.

Later.

Okay, so if I am to understand correctly your argument in the above post can be summarized as...

The definition of a unit of GK necessarily includes anything joined to or joined by said unit. The reason being other codices use terminology like "a unit of space wolves" or "a unit of blood angels," which implies unlike things grouped together are labeled based on their constituent parts.

Is this summary correct - I just want to make sure I understand what you are saying.

I think introducing the idea of libel into your argument weakens it significantly, as well as, it being an exceptionally large intellectual stretch.

It also ignores that DARs argument relies on being able to target two units with one squad. WHich is just wrong.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
{GK+non-GK} == non-GK Unit. Its' really THAT simple. Mathematically, logically and using the english language (which is your friend in this, and you HAVE to use it...) there is no other answer.

Then why did you say "You can't post full definitions of words" when I posted the definition of the word "Joined" (and refuted your claim that the English language supports your argument).

Again, You say that GK + Non-GK = Non-GK. I Say that GK + Non GK = GK AND Non GK so it would still fufill the requirement of being a unit of GK. You have yet to refute this with any actual evidence, all you have done is talked circles about how "logic and the English language supports you" (even when I PROVED the english language DOES NOT SUPPORT YOU).

calypso2ts wrote:
The definition of a unit of GK necessarily includes anything joined to or joined by said unit. The reason being other codices use terminology like "a unit of space wolves" or "a unit of blood angels," which implies unlike things grouped together are labeled based on their constituent parts.

Is this summary correct - I just want to make sure I understand what you are saying.

Yes and No.

Yes in that a Unit of grey knights would still be a unit of grey knights regardless of those which join it, much like how a unit of space wolves is still a unit of space wolves even if it would be joined by say, a unit of grey knights. The combined unit would then become: "A unit of Grey Knight and a Unit of space wolves, combined" While the wording on "The Shrouding" does not have any specific wording on what to do in the case of a combined unit, I am arguing that the logically course of action is to "go with what is written" in that the condition requests a "Unit of Grey Knights" and the condition cares not what else is joined to that unit. Much like, the unit of space wolves would gain "furious Charge" from ragnar blackmane's "War Howl" ability regardless of what is joined with them, and that a unit of plague-marines denies the bonus attacks for charging to any enemy units which assault them, regardless if they are joined by any "Units of non-plague marines" (For instance, a Chaos sorcerer of Tzeentch, who in no way is a unit of plague marines). Remember, the rules for ICs and assaults do not take place until the "Defenders react" step where in the "Blight Grenades" special rule applies at the "Move assaulting units" as the first step of the assault phase is when units are declared.

So in the exact way that the blight grenades special rule is applied, the shrouding special rule would be applied to a combined unit which contains the grey knight special rule (and as such, is a "Unit of grey knights being targeted by an enemy unit" )

Does that at least help?

~DAR

Okay, that is a more succinct description of your argument than in the previous posts. I certainly disagree for the previous reasons stated.

However, I think this discussion has run its course and both sides are clear in their thinking.

I think the problem with the definition you posted DAR may have been it was a complete dictionary definition, which is frowned upon by the forum rules, whereas referencing the meaning of a word itself is okay provided it is not cut and pasted into the post.

nosferatu1001 wrote:It also ignores that DARs argument relies on being able to target two units with one squad. WHich is just wrong.

The argument is if: Targeting a combined unit constitutes targeting the multiple sub-sets which the unit contains.

Which, even if you are correct in this matter, what would you propose would happen if a GKGM joined/is joined by a Rune Priest which joins/is joined by a WGBL? As you have three ICs, which IC is "Considered part of" which's unit. Who is able to decide? And if you are able to decide, why does a GK squad lose its shrouding when joined by an Inquisitor (Or even WGBL) as the character is supposed to be considered "Part of the unit" Of Grey Knights?

Daemon-Archon Ren wrote:what would you propose would happen if a GKGM joined/is joined by a Rune Priest which joins/is joined by a WGBL?

I would consider that a unit of ICs, not a unit of GK, unit of SW, or anysuch. It is a unit containing SW and GK.

/shrug

calypso2ts wrote:Okay, that is a more succinct description of your argument than in the previous posts. I certainly disagree for the previous reasons stated.

What?

Daemon-Archon Ren wrote:
So rules which apply to individual groupings, would apply to each... so If I am a Long Fang wanting to fire krack Missiles at a unit of Sanguinary Gaurd with a GK:Hero and a Sanguinary Priest. Because I am firing at a Unit of Grey Knights (as one of the units in the "Multi-Character unit") I must roll for the Shrouding.

Was the original description of the argument. The only reason I went so far in depth (and if you wish to refer to evidence backing up a claim as "wasted words" so be it) was BECAUSE YOU (among others) were not satisfied with that response. (I think I also brought up the Typhus example on page 2)

To allow this discussion to "Run its course" places a whole slew of rulings (which I mentioned briefly earlier) into question, which is unfair to the community as a whole, which is also why (while I agree it was a civil and reasonable request) I denied to simply leave it a "Judgement call".

I'm sorry, but as much as I would rather be doing other things (which I would, and I entirely respect your desire to do the same) I do feel we at least owe it to the OP to answer his question fully, or not answer it at all, if not, all we have done is cast unnecessary doubt to someone. As I stated before, if I am wrong, I would be happy to be proven wrong (You learn more in debate by being incorrect, then by being correct) but unfortunately, as I have stated, to accept this ruling, and the logic behind it, would open up a pandora's box of terrible rulings that would just about make it entirely wasteful to ever consider even taking "combined units" (With the exception of the "ICs not ever having to take wounds when being fired at" as I already stated, I disagree with this statement, but NOTHING would make me HAPPIER then to be wrong about it, and keep my ICs safe by placing them in 5-man suicide squads to prevent them from being shot at.)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

kirsanth wrote:

Daemon-Archon Ren wrote:what would you propose would happen if a GKGM joined/is joined by a Rune Priest which joins/is joined by a WGBL?

I would consider that a unit of ICs, not a unit of GK, unit of SW, or anysuch. It is a unit containing SW and GK.

The statement that was made by Nos earlier implied that for shooting, you only have ONE unit, and that the character(s) are considered part of that ONE unit in the shooting phase, if you were to "Consider" the SWs/Non-GKs as "Part of the Unit of GKs" then by the same argument that is being made about why a GK-Unit loses its status of "GK-Unit" could/should be applied to the GK changing the SWs/non-GKs units status to GK-UNit (as they are considered part of the unit of GKs). It is merely a question that would assume that Nos' definition be used.

The counter I have previously provided to your "Unit Containing SW and GK" is that nothing in the rules suggests that a Unit Containing GKs/Non-GKs would dismiss the definition of a "Unit of Grey Knights" as described on page 20 of C: DH (which is what is triggering "The Shrouding".)

However, your introduction of the concept of "A unit of ICs" is interesting, care to provide any backing for such a claim? (Remember, the BRB describes ICs as "Units in their own right".)

~DAR

nosferatu1001 wrote:Wait, do you have an answer then MR? Oh, wait, you dont.

An answer that's been stated ad nauseum in this very thread? Why should I bother? I've stated my position, you disagree. Whatever. I have better things to do that bang my head against a wall, which is what arguing with you feels like.

Calm down, kid.

It's not shooting at two units, so your question is, if you'll forgive the term, pointless.

Daemon-Archon Ren wrote:
Again, You say that GK + Non-GK = Non-GK. I Say that GK + Non GK = GK AND Non GK so it would still fufill the requirement of being a unit of GK. You have yet to refute this with any actual evidence, all you have done is talked circles about how "logic and the English language supports you" (even when I PROVED the english language DOES NOT SUPPORT YOU).

And the rulebook.

1) You clearly dont understand the different between target and affect. Target is a specific used term int he rulebook. Hint: look in the shooting section for how the term is used. Done that yet?
2) The IC Is PART OF the unit. Part of /= separate (odd that!) so there IS only one unit you can target. The combined unit.
3) You can only target one unit. (have you found that rule yet?) That one unit is NOT a GK unit. No Shrouding as Shrouding REQUIRES you to TARGET a GK UNIT. You cannot Target a GK Unit - the models for a GK unit are there, but you are targetting the group. The group, or "UNIT", is not a GK Unit. How many ways can this be explained to mr law minor?

I'm not the one posting irrelevant rulebook scans, attempting to pretend that ALL units are given permission to target multiple units (theyre really not, and you have become oddly silent on this since being called on it) and claiming that shooting == targetting. WHen it really isnt.

You have also not proven anything about the English language. How many bananas does it take for a barrel of apples to stop being a barrel of apples again? One? Ten? 20?

As soon as 1 non-GK element is introduced to a GK unit that unit is no longer a GK unit. It contains GK models, and if you separated them you would get a GK unit again, but while combined they are NOT a GK unit. It couldnt be simpler, but apparently it could be....

MR - good to see you are unable to answer even simple questions. I thought you had unsubscribed? Love the "kid" comment, attempting to belittle again, how like your "style".

nosferatu1001 wrote:MR - good to see you are unable to answer even simple questions. I thought you had unsubscribed? Love the "kid" comment, attempting to belittle again, how like your "style".

Meh. Changed my mind when I started talking to people other than you. Is that not allowed?

"Kid" is general term for friend or bro or whatever in New England. Didn't mean to belittle. Also, I'm perfectly able to answer questions when I find them to be worth answering.

You'd be targeting a Unit that contains a Unit of GKs. Show me in the rules where that isn't the case.

Don't start waxing philosophical about is, and don't start listing equations(seems close to a Real Life Example to me, but what evs) just show me in the rules where that isn't the case and I'll drop it. Or you could drop it and we can move on with our lives. Here's hoping.

Daemon-Archon Ren wrote:However, your introduction of the concept of "A unit of ICs" is interesting, care to provide any backing for such a claim? (Remember, the BRB describes ICs as "Units in their own right".)

I was referencing page 48, first paragraph, last sentence: "form a powerful multi-character unit!"

kirsanth wrote:

Daemon-Archon Ren wrote:However, your introduction of the concept of "A unit of ICs" is interesting, care to provide any backing for such a claim? (Remember, the BRB describes ICs as "Units in their own right".)

I was referencing page 48, first paragraph, last sentence: "form a powerful multi-character unit!"

Sorry, it just seemed appropriate.

Gwar! wrote:

kirsanth wrote:

Daemon-Archon Ren wrote:However, your introduction of the concept of "A unit of ICs" is interesting, care to provide any backing for such a claim? (Remember, the BRB describes ICs as "Units in their own right".)

I was referencing page 48, first paragraph, last sentence: "form a powerful multi-character unit!"

Sorry, it just seemed appropriate.

It's always appropriate.

That picture wins the internet.

All I know if somebody wanted to tell me that I can't shoot at his unit of whatevers with GK hero attached without testing, I would ask him to please explain why, and why I should continue to play him.

It is fairly clear in my book that a squad is being shot at is NOT a GK unit. The GK character might be attached to it, but the squad itself is not a GK squad. Maybe if I was shooting a vindicare or other single model effect I would say, ok, I won't argue. But against the unit? I would just exercise my right to not play. I can get plenty of other games in without dealing with this crap.

That being said, why would you even put a GK hero in a squad to begin with? To exploit a shoddy rules wording and shady rule interpretation? Not exactly sporting, even in a competitive no comp setting. First action would to appeal to judge, if ruling was against me I would resign from an event with such bad rules support. Congrats, you just won a game by default, and -1 player who will be there next year.

notabot187 wrote:That being said, why would you even put a GK hero in a squad to begin with?

I wouldn't. A GK hero is much better off being in a unit of GK Terminators, putting foot to ass. At the range that the Shrouding is even useful, which is far, you have a very under-utilized and expensive model.

MR - "The IC is PART OF the unit"

I am targetting the unit, not the IC. I in fact am entirely unable to target the ICs unit, as he is "part of" the unit and thus ineligble for targetting as there is no way to target a component of a unit, unless you have a special rule that says otherwise.

Gonna change your mind now?

nosferatu1001 wrote:MR - "The IC is PART OF the unit"

I am targetting the unit, not the IC. I in fact am entirely unable to target the ICs unit, as he is "part of" the unit and thus ineligble for targetting as there is no way to target a component of a unit, unless you have a special rule that says otherwise.

Gonna change your mind now?

I'll mull it over.

I don't know if the distinction between "targeting" and "affecting" is as clear as you'd make it considering the abstract nature of GW rules, but you make a fair point. I think DAR made a lot of good points as well though.

Thank Providence that this new codex is coming out soon is all I can say for sure.

Just my 2 cents.

Lets assume that a GK Hero + a unit of something other than GKs is a "unit of GK + other unit". Wouldn't that argument make the GK Hero an IC with a special rule?

With that in mind, we reference page 48 of the BRB which states "Unless specified in the rule itself, the unit's special rules are not conferred upon the character, and the character's special rules are not conferred upon the unit. In some cases though, the independent character or the unit may lose their special rules as a result of the character joing the unit.

The BRB may also provide some headway on whether the argument that a GK Hero joined to something other than a GK is still a "unit of GK".

Page 3 of the BRB
UNITS
"Warriors tend to band together to fight in squads, teams, sections, or similarly named groups - individuals do not normally go wandering off on their own for obvious reasons! In Warhammer 40,000, we represent this by grouping models together into units."

"A unit will usually considt of several models that fight as a group, but it can also be a single, very large or power model, such as a battle tank, a monstrous alien creature or a lone hero. In the rules that follow, all of these things are referred to as 'units'."

Page 48 of the BRB
"While an independent character is part of a unit,....

This information along with an understanding of the English language should point out the fact that a GK Hero is only a unit when he is a "lone hero". When he joins another unit, he's a part of a unit, not two units joined together.

kirsanth wrote: "form a powerful multi-character unit!"

So then you agree that a combined unit is multiple units then?

As page 48 describes the concept of a "Multi-Character" unit, and page 47 states that ICs are Units in their own right, therefore a "Multi-Character unit" (Or, Unit of ICs, as you put it) is actually a "Multi-Unit Unit" As it is a "Multi-unit unit" it would be rational to believe that a "Multi-Unit Unit" of Grey Knights and Non Grey Knights is still both a Unit of Grey knights AND a unit of Non grey knights.

I REALLY HATE this example, but I feel it is necessary in order to show exactally what is being discussed here (in direct reference to the GK thing)

Bob is a GK

because he is a GK, he prays a lot

His prayers make his enemies get angry when they try to shoot them, so it makes him harder to hit.

Bob joins Bill (a Space wolf).

If Bob and Bill are targets of shooting, bob is still a target, so there is still a chance his enemies will be too upset from his praying to be able to shoot him. And as they are too upset to shoot him, they are too upset to shoot (because of his prayers)

Nothing in the rulebook suggest the above is not true, in fact quite the contrary.

Now, since I hate fluff examples, let me put this into more "rule friendly" wording,

A GKGM as a model, has a special rule that makes him harder to target.

As you have used the permissive rule cannon to discuss why "The Shrouding" would 'require' the permission of "even if joined by a non-grey knight unit" (To the phrase, when an enemy unit targets a unit of "Grey Knights") I equally submit (In addition to all of the evidence I have provided) that the Model's Rights Cannon must also be adhered to. The right in question is the "Right of the Shrouding". Model's Rights specifically states that when a rule is ambiguous (such as this is with the Shrouding, and the concept of "Unit Nomenclature Individuality") that you CANNOT interpret it in such away that would take away the right of the model (which in this case, you would be).

If the "Model's Rights Cannon" is to be stricken from the record (for whatever reason) then it is safe to place "Permissive Rules Cannon" in the same "Shall not be cannon for this discussion" category. If you strike the PRC issue from the debate, then the Shrouding's ability is still intact as it need not state "A Unit of Grey knights And any other combined units" in order for this to function properly (as it does not state OTHERWISE, which is the majority case in other codexes and in the BRB specifically) Examples of why this ability DOES still function are as follows:

The Special Rule of "Blight Grenades" has the most similar wording, and its effects in the current game extend to any joined/joining units, when being declared a target in the assault phase.

The rules for "Scoring Units" would also support the shrouding, as it allows for a unit of Troops to still count as scoring (and as such, still be a unit of troops) regardless of the number of "Non-troop" units joined/joining it.

I also submit that while there are more examples of why the shrouding DOES work in this situation then the two that I have provided (if you REALLY insist I list ALL of them, I will do my best to do so after borrowing a few of my friends codexes, as I do not own EVERY codex atm) there is not a clear example in ANY of the books that would suggest otherwise. If you can find such an example that would in fact infer that a combined unit is no longer a unit of grey knights (other then "The English language, as stated earlier, there are plenty of current examples that would counter the "English language defense" ((Such as Typhus)) and due to the lack of consistency, the defense hold no water.) then for the good of the debate, please submit such evidence.

Daemon-Archon Ren wrote:

kirsanth wrote: "form a powerful multi-character unit!"

So then you agree that a combined unit is multiple units then?

No, based on the fact it is listed as "a" (singular) unit.

Just want to make a clarification... "Model Right's Canon" does not actually exist in the rules. DAR made that one up - as indicated by the preceding "submit."

Also, shrouding does not require permission - a player requires permission from the rules to perform a given action.

calypso2ts wrote:Just want to make a clarification... "Model Right's Canon" does not actually exist in the rules. DAR made that one up - as indicated by the preceding "submit."

Also, shrouding does not require permission - a player requires permission from the rules to perform a given action.

Dude, permissive ruleset isn't "real" (in the BRB) either, its a canonized idea found on Rules Layers.com (listing other canonized ideas)...

http://www.theruleslawyers.com/the-models-rights-canon/

@Kirsanth

The first Bullet on the left of that same page states that:

"Alternatively an independent character(singular) may begin the game already with a (singular) unit, by being deployed in coherency with them."

By the wording of this bullet would you also claim that you may only joined ONE (singular) IC to ONE (Singular) unit at the start of the game, as the rules for deployment do not house any specifications for Multi-character units of more then 2 units being joined in deployment?

If you are asking if 1 IC can join 2 units; not at the same time.

If you are asking if an IC can only join 1 unit; only 1 at a time, not one per game.

If you are asking if 2 ICs joining each other are somehow 2 units; no, they form a powerful multi-character unit.

If you were asking something else, I think I missed it.

Why has this thread been going so long?

Is it a "Grey Knights unit" (that's not possessive form). No, it's a unit with a Grey Knight in it. End of.

As for an IC joining a unit of ICs, of course they can. The unit is already formed, all pre-conditions have been met for joining a regular unit!