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.

ND - sigh.

The diagram shows how you check coherency, the process. Coherency Distance is a value in inches.

That is why it is meaningless. You inability to tell the difference between a value and a process is quite amusing.

"If the destroyed unit is gone, then the IC does not need to leave it and stops being 'part of it' the moment the unit is destroyed. "

This has absolutely no basis whatsoever in the rules. Your claim is that an attached IC, which has lost combat by 20 due to his squad being wiped out, has somehow NOT lost combat at all. This is not only utterly stupid, but breaks the rules something chronic - if he caused one wound on the opponent, and nothing on him in return, then your "reading" of the "rules" (in quotes because, quite frankly, you are simply making up rules - so you cannot actually read any) results in the IC "winning" combat.

Yet another absurd result based on your making up rules. Can you quit making up rules any time soon? It may make your arguments less....easily ignorable .

nosferatu1001 wrote:
This has absolutely no basis whatsoever in the rules. Your claim is that an attached IC, which has lost combat by 20 due to his squad being wiped out, has somehow NOT lost combat at all. This is not only utterly stupid, but breaks the rules something chronic - if he caused one wound on the opponent, and nothing on him in return, then your "reading" of the "rules" (in quotes because, quite frankly, you are simply making up rules - so you cannot actually read any) results in the IC "winning" combat.

Nice strawman argument. However as you should know IC's are already treated as a separate single-model unit during combat and when attacks are resolved. Also you apparently need to re-read the rules on multi -combat and how the winner is determined.

I'm really a little surprised you wouldn't know that even if the IC and unit were not joined and the unit of 20 wiped out (and did no wounds in return) that the IC would still lose combat by 20. Page 41 of BRB is where you can learn about multiple combats.

Thats a joke - I need to read rules again? LOL, rich from the king of making things up. Im just pointing out a logical conclusion to your rule-less claims. It is of course absurd, but thats because it is based on your absurd ideas

Can you provide some rules for your claims, for once in 10 pages?

You have yet to do so - specifically, as this is your most recent made up set of rules, this one?

ND failing to provide any rules citations for this made up rule wrote:"If the destroyed unit is gone, then the IC does not need to leave it and stops being 'part of it' the moment the unit is destroyed. "

I notice how that, every time you are asked to FOR ONCE substantiate your rules claims with page numbers, you fail to do so? Your credibility one here would be raised if you could actually respond correctly.

Permissive ruleset. When the unit leaves the game, all benefits (and drawbacks) provided to the IC by that unit stop including being counted as "part of a unit".

A single model is never "part of a unit". It is a unit itself.

BRB p. 47 "Independant Characters are represented by individual models, which fight as units in their own right."

As an individual model an IC is its own unit, not part of another unit.

Ah, you still dont understand the permissive ruleset bit, do you?

You have permissionto be part of the unit. You have a specific set of circumstances where you are permitted to leave said unit. If you cannot find PERMISSION to leave the unit in the manner you describe, then you may not do so.

So, please find PERMISSION to leave the unit. You have been asked this 20 times or more. Good going on totally ignoring the question though....

"A single model is never "part of a unit". It is a unit itself. "

So, you mean an IC is never a "normal member of a unit"? Really? Despite this rule having been shown to you about 15 times this thread alone (page 49, also read p48) you still are trying to use the general rule on page 47 to override the specific rule on pages 48 and 49?

Really?

Seriously....

nosferatu1001 wrote:
If the destroyed unit is gone, then the IC does not need to leave it and stops being 'part of it' the moment the unit is destroyed.

If a person is with a group of friends, and those friends leave and go somewhere else, can that person leave the group of friends? No, he is alone. He has involuntarily been left. He cannot leave since he is already no longer with that group. That does not mean he is still "part of the group". He is automatically not part of that group.

Unfortunately GW is quite lacking when it comes to common sense, and I'm starting to lean more towards the opinion that he can't leave

nosferatu1001 wrote:Insaniak - you still keep on ignoring context. The context of the IC moving away from a unit IS the IC moving away from the members of the unit he joined originally - otherwise he can never leave, as he can never move away from himself. Your interpretation is absurd, you just dont see it because you are not applying it to the general case

'My' interpretation is that the IC is not considered to be still joined to a unit that no longer exists, which is far less absurd than forcing him to move blindly away from a unit that isn't there in order to determine whether he is now more than 2" away from himself so that he can leave a unit that was removed from the table 15 minutes ago...

The IC is ALWAYS a normal member of the unit (outside of resolving attacks, but we'll leave that for now) therefore, if you are saying he can only leave by moving away from any member of the unit, including himself, he can NEVER leave. Which is absurd, because you are ignoring the context given in the rules for joining and leaving units.

Of course it's absurd. Which should be a clue that your argument that he has to leave the unit is flawed, because it isn't my interpretation, it's yours. It's where you wind up if you assume that the IC still has to leave the unit despite it no longer being present on the table.

insaniak wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Insaniak - you still keep on ignoring context. The context of the IC moving away from a unit IS the IC moving away from the members of the unit he joined originally - otherwise he can never leave, as he can never move away from himself. Your interpretation is absurd, you just dont see it because you are not applying it to the general case

'My' interpretation is that the IC is not considered to be still joined to a unit that no longer exists, which is far less absurd than forcing him to move blindly away from a unit that isn't there in order to determine whether he is now more than 2" away from himself so that he can leave a unit that was removed from the table 15 minutes ago...

The IC is ALWAYS a normal member of the unit (outside of resolving attacks, but we'll leave that for now) therefore, if you are saying he can only leave by moving away from any member of the unit, including himself, he can NEVER leave. Which is absurd, because you are ignoring the context given in the rules for joining and leaving units.

Of course it's absurd. Which should be a clue that your argument that he has to leave the unit is flawed, because it isn't my interpretation, it's yours. It's where you wind up if you assume that the IC still has to leave the unit despite it no longer being present on the table.

What do you mean it's not present, The IC IS effectively the unit

nosferatu1001 wrote:Ah, you still dont understand the permissive ruleset bit, do you?

You have permissionto be part of the unit. You have a specific set of circumstances where you are permitted to leave said unit. If you cannot find PERMISSION to leave the unit in the manner you describe, then you may not do so.

So, please find PERMISSION to leave the unit. You have been asked this 20 times or more. Good going on totally ignoring the question though....

You keep saying the IC needs permission to leave. The IC is not the one leaving, the unit LEFT already. The unit has permission to leave the table by dying.

You don't need to measure to see the IC is not in a unit. You can count. Yes, the units size is -non existent-. The IC can not be joined to a unit with a size of -dead-. By your reasoning the IC is still in a unit because his dead buddies are laying around him on the field.

How many units of size 0 can I field according to your RAW interpretation?

Insaniak - exceot, as I have shown, that ISNT my interpretation

MY interpretation is, and has been throughout this, that:

1) The IC only has permission to leave at the end of their own movement phase, which is supported by rules

Your position, that they immediately leave, has no merit as it is not based on rules

2) They achieve this by falling back and finding out they are no longer within 2" of their joined-unit, which context tells you is the original members of the unit. Which you can prove, by showing that within 2" no members of that unit exist

IT works perfectly fine, and unlike your position actually follows the rules.

Nemesor Dave wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Ah, you still dont understand the permissive ruleset bit, do you?

You have permissionto be part of the unit. You have a specific set of circumstances where you are permitted to leave said unit. If you cannot find PERMISSION to leave the unit in the manner you describe, then you may not do so.

So, please find PERMISSION to leave the unit. You have been asked this 20 times or more. Good going on totally ignoring the question though....

You keep saying the IC needs permission to leave. The IC is not the one leaving, the unit LEFT already. The unit has permission to leave the table by dying.
The IC is STILL part of the unit, the unit hasn't left

You don't need to measure to see the IC is not in a unit. You can count. Yes, the units size is -non existent-. The IC can not be joined to a unit with a size of -dead-. By your reasoning the IC is still in a unit because his dead buddies are laying around him on the field.
Does what you describe appear in the rulebook?


How many units of size 0 can I field according to your RAW interpretation?
None, But the IC counts as part of the unit

jgehunter wrote:What do you mean it's not present, The IC IS effectively the unit

That's precisely my point.

IF you consider the IC to still be joined to the destroyed squad, then he can't leave because it is impossible for him to move more than 2" away from the only remaining member of the unit (himself).

IF you consider the IC to be no longer joined to the squad (on account of the squad no longer being on the table), then he doesn't have to leave... he reverts to being an IC once the squad is removed.

insaniak wrote:

jgehunter wrote:What do you mean it's not present, The IC IS effectively the unit

That's precisely my point.

IF you consider the IC to still be joined to the destroyed squad, then he can't leave because it is impossible for him to move more than 2" away from the only remaining member of the unit (himself).

IF you consider the IC to be no longer joined to the squad (on account of the squad no longer being on the table), then he doesn't have to leave... he reverts to being an IC once the squad is removed.

The first position is the one the rules support, it appears we have finally reached a conclusion

nosferatu1001 wrote:Insaniak - exceot, as I have shown, that ISNT my interpretation

MY interpretation is, and has been throughout this, that:

1) The IC only has permission to leave at the end of their own movement phase, which is supported by rules

Which means that he is still joined to the unit during his movement phase... which means that, as the sole surviving member of the unit, he can't leave, because he would have to move away from himself.

How can you not see the double standard in your interpretation? Either he is part of the unit, or he isn't. You're arguing that he has to physically leave the unit because he is still a part of it, but that he can leave the unit because he isn't actually a part of it.

You can't have it both ways. If he is still joined to the unit, then he is the unit, because with the rest of the unit gone it is a unit of one model.

insaniak wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Insaniak - exceot, as I have shown, that ISNT my interpretation

MY interpretation is, and has been throughout this, that:

1) The IC only has permission to leave at the end of their own movement phase, which is supported by rules

Which means that he is still joined to the unit during his movement phase... which means that, as the sole surviving member of the unit, he can't leave, because he would have to move away from himself.

How can you not see the double standard in your interpretation? Either he is part of the unit, or he isn't. You're arguing that he has to physically leave the unit because he is still a part of it, but that he can leave the unit because he isn't actually a part of it.

You can't have it both ways. If he is still joined to the unit, then he is the unit, because with the rest of the unit gone it is a unit of one model.

I'm arguing for that he is not allowed to leave, I think we are having a bit of a confusion here

jgehunter wrote:I'm arguing for that he is not allowed to leave, I think we are having a bit of a confusion here

No confusion here. I was responding to Nos' argument that the IC can leave by somehow moving away from himself. I have no problem with the 'can't leave' interpretation... it's just not the way I personally would play it.

Insaniak - because, if youd read the rules on joining and leaving, and the context those rules are written in, it is NOT a "double standard", and I am not having it both ways

Leaving requires you to move more than X" away form an original member of the unit you joined, because THAT is the context of the rules.

IF you claim that the requirement is NOT limited to the original members, then you are stating, flat out, that an IC can *never* leave

COuld you for once in this thread address that part of the argument? I've typed it out about 10 times already, and you consistently ignore it

jgehunter wrote:

insaniak wrote:

jgehunter wrote:What do you mean it's not present, The IC IS effectively the unit

That's precisely my point.

IF you consider the IC to still be joined to the destroyed squad, then he can't leave because it is impossible for him to move more than 2" away from the only remaining member of the unit (himself).

IF you consider the IC to be no longer joined to the squad (on account of the squad no longer being on the table), then he doesn't have to leave... he reverts to being an IC once the squad is removed.

The first position is the one the rules support, it appears we have finally reached a conclusion

Lucky for us we are playing a game with models that are real.

Take 5 models for a squad and place another model IC in coherency with them.

Now point to the IC that has joined the unit.
Now point to the unit that the IC is joined to. Yes, indeed you should be pointing to the 5 models.

Now remove the 5 models as if they died from shooting and put them where you cant see them to clearly show their current part in the game. (not in the game at all).

Now point to the IC that had been joined to but is no longer anywhere near a unit.
Now point to the unit that the IC is joined to.

At this point, you may become aware, the IC is no longer in coherency with the unit it had joined, and in fact there is no unit any longer.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Insaniak - because, if youd read the rules on joining and leaving, and the context those rules are written in, it is NOT a "double standard", and I am not having it both ways

Leaving requires you to move more than X" away form an original member of the unit you joined, because THAT is the context of the rules.

IF you claim that the requirement is NOT limited to the original members, then you are stating, flat out, that an IC can *never* leave

COuld you for once in this thread address that part of the argument? I've typed it out about 10 times already, and you consistently ignore it

I get the distinct feeling that you're not just arguing RAW but also HWYPI. Of course correct be if I'm wrong.

Do you realize your interpretation also means that if I join a fearless unit with an IC, he gains the fearless USR. Then in the movement phase, my IC leaves the unit. Nowhere in the rules does it say he loses the fearless USR.

This is a side effect of what you're arguing, that logic never comes into it. That if there is not a sentence that tells you exactly how something is done, there is no inferring any part of the rules.

The RAW says A causes B, but in the exact RAW it doesn't say that if you stop prevent A then B stops too. This is how you're interpreting the rules. It's a standard and requirement the rules from GW will never ever be written to meet.

Nemesor Dave wrote:

jgehunter wrote:

insaniak wrote:

jgehunter wrote:What do you mean it's not present, The IC IS effectively the unit

That's precisely my point.

IF you consider the IC to still be joined to the destroyed squad, then he can't leave because it is impossible for him to move more than 2" away from the only remaining member of the unit (himself).

IF you consider the IC to be no longer joined to the squad (on account of the squad no longer being on the table), then he doesn't have to leave... he reverts to being an IC once the squad is removed.

The first position is the one the rules support, it appears we have finally reached a conclusion

Lucky for us we are playing a game with models that are real.

Take 5 models for a squad and place another model IC in coherency with them.

Now point to the IC that has joined the unit.
Now point to the unit that the IC is joined to. Yes, indeed you should be pointing to the 5 models.

Now remove the 5 models as if they died from shooting and put them where you cant see them to clearly show their current part in the game. (not in the game at all).

Now point to the IC that had been joined to but is no longer anywhere near a unit.
Now point to the unit that the IC is joined to.

At this point, you may become aware, the IC is no longer in coherency with the unit it had joined, and in fact there is no unit any longer.

That sounds very convincing and it certainly makes sense BUT it is not supported by the rulebook, the method by which an IC leaves a unit is defined in the rulebook.

At this point, you will be aware that ND has still utterly failed to back his position with any rules, despite repeated requests to, and is thus now in "How I would play it" mode, as opposed to anything based in real rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, and ND -I'm not arguing HIWPI, I am arguing RAW - you are utterly and 100% failing to do so, despite repeated requests to do so. Any relevance you have to real rules discussions was voided a while ago, this just reinforces that opinion

nosferatu1001 wrote:At this point, you will be aware that ND has still utterly failed to back his position with any rules, despite repeated requests to, and is thus now in "How I would play it" mode, as opposed to anything based in real rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, and ND -I'm not arguing HIWPI, I am arguing RAW - you are utterly and 100% failing to do so, despite repeated requests to do so. Any relevance you have to real rules discussions was voided a while ago, this just reinforces that opinion

100% this, when I am in this forum, I forget all the good will that is in me (Other than the mandatory respect that is due in a discussion) and focus on the rules, however about HIWPI, I generally avoid loosing myself all the people I enjoy laying with

nosferatu1001 wrote:Leaving requires you to move more than X" away form an original member of the unit you joined, because THAT is the context of the rules.

And that is impossible if they are no longer on the board.

IF you claim that the requirement is NOT limited to the original members, then you are stating, flat out, that an IC can *never* leave

COuld you for once in this thread address that part of the argument? I've typed it out about 10 times already, and you consistently ignore it

I have addressed it, multiple times. I agree that your interpretation means the IC can never leave the destroyed unit.

insaniak wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Leaving requires you to move more than X" away form an original member of the unit you joined, because THAT is the context of the rules.

And that is impossible if they are no longer on the board.

IF you claim that the requirement is NOT limited to the original members, then you are stating, flat out, that an IC can *never* leave

COuld you for once in this thread address that part of the argument? I've typed it out about 10 times already, and you consistently ignore it

I have addressed it, multiple times. I agree that your interpretation means the IC can never leave the destroyed unit.

But the unit is still on the board! The IC is part of the unit and an enemy action in the enemy shooting phase doesn't change that according to my rulebook

nosferatu1001 wrote:At this point, you will be aware that ND has still utterly failed to back his position with any rules, despite repeated requests to, and is thus now in "How I would play it" mode, as opposed to anything based in real rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, and ND -I'm not arguing HIWPI, I am arguing RAW - you are utterly and 100% failing to do so, despite repeated requests to do so. Any relevance you have to real rules discussions was voided a while ago, this just reinforces that opinion

Here's as RAW. You are incorrectly referencing the IC as the unit. The unit and the IC are always for intents and purposes of RAW separate entities. When one is gone the only conclusion is that they cease to be joined.

From the leaving & joining units in BRB p. 48. Going through every bullet point:

1. "coherency with THEM".

Plural. The IC and the unit are two entities.

2. "while THEY stay together".

Plural again.

3. "An independant character can leave a unit"
"by moving out of coherency with it."

Above the unit, "it" is something other than the IC. Not the IC iteself.

4. "the character counts as having moved...but the unit does not"

The character and the unit are considered separately. One moves away from the other. Not applicable because it is referring to voluntary movement.

5. may not voluntarily join or leave.

Again, unit is a separate entity. Otherwise not applicable as we are not discussing a voluntary action.

6. "he or the unit" (falling back point)

Two distinct entities. Clearly.

7. "he immediately goes to ground as well, and vice versa." "he may (voluntarily) not leave"

Again not applicable as it refers to voluntarily leaving, however note the unit and the IC are distinct and separate.

Your interpretation relies on the IC being the unit and a single entity. This is not possible and not reflected in RAW. When the unit is dead, one of the two items being considered does not exist. The remaining entity is evaluated by itself. The IC cannot be considered joined to a unit any more.

In the grim dark future there is only RAW

Page 48

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

Is the IC falling back? If the answer is yes then he can't leave the unit end of story. It doesn't matter if the rest of his unit is painted pink, painted blue, liberal, conservative, right handed, left handed, loyalists, traitors, alive, or living impaired (the politically correct term for dead) unless somewhere else in a rulebook or FAQ it specifically states there is an exception to the rule that a falling back IC can ignore the restriction against falling back IC leaving a unit.

RAW=The IC continues to soil his pants and run away.

schadenfreude wrote:In the grim dark future there is only RAW

Page 48

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

Is the IC falling back? If the answer is yes then he can't leave the unit end of story. It doesn't matter if the rest of his unit is painted pink, painted blue, liberal, conservative, right handed, left handed, loyalists, traitors, alive, or living impaired (the politically correct term for dead) unless somewhere else in a rulebook or FAQ it specifically states there is an exception to the rule that a falling back IC can ignore the restriction against falling back IC leaving a unit.

RAW=The IC continues to soil his pants and run away.

Again, this is about a voluntary action. This thread is about a involuntary action - the unit is gone.

Nemesor Dave wrote:

schadenfreude wrote:In the grim dark future there is only RAW

Page 48

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

Is the IC falling back? If the answer is yes then he can't leave the unit end of story. It doesn't matter if the rest of his unit is painted pink, painted blue, liberal, conservative, right handed, left handed, loyalists, traitors, alive, or living impaired (the politically correct term for dead) unless somewhere else in a rulebook or FAQ it specifically states there is an exception to the rule that a falling back IC can ignore the restriction against falling back IC leaving a unit.

RAW=The IC continues to soil his pants and run away.

Again, this is about a voluntary action. This thread is about a involuntary action - the unit is gone.

The quoted rule says nothing about the action being voluntary or involuntary. It merely states that it's illegal for a falling back IC to leave his unit. Therefor a falling back IC leaving the unit voluntary or involuntarily would be against the rules. Just because a unit is making an involuntary action doesn't mean it gets to ignore rules such as moving through impassible terrain, or leaving a unit while falling back. The black and white restriction that the IC can't leave the unit trumps the involuntary action of attempting to detach from the unit that the IC is required to attempt.

As I argued much much much earlier in this thread, i believe that schadenfreude has it right. The rules specifically say that an IC cannot leave a unit falling back. There is no rule that you can quote that says that this is restricted to voluntarily leaving the unit. As such, the rule should apply. The IC must fall back, because he can only leave a unit during the movement phase. The IC must continue to fall back, because he cannot leave a unit that is falling back.

I understand and appreciate all the arguments that you guys are making, but if you are going to make an argument please point to the specific rule. If you are 'interpreting' or using 'context', say so, and then admit that you are not arguing RAW by instead HWYPI, which is totally find on your table, and probably is even what the rulebook intended. But it isn't what they wrote.

schadenfreude wrote:

Nemesor Dave wrote:

schadenfreude wrote:In the grim dark future there is only RAW

Page 48

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

Is the IC falling back? If the answer is yes then he can't leave the unit end of story. It doesn't matter if the rest of his unit is painted pink, painted blue, liberal, conservative, right handed, left handed, loyalists, traitors, alive, or living impaired (the politically correct term for dead) unless somewhere else in a rulebook or FAQ it specifically states there is an exception to the rule that a falling back IC can ignore the restriction against falling back IC leaving a unit.

RAW=The IC continues to soil his pants and run away.

Again, this is about a voluntary action. This thread is about a involuntary action - the unit is gone.

The quoted rule says nothing about the action being voluntary or involuntary. It merely states that it's illegal for a falling back IC to leave his unit. Therefor a falling back IC leaving the unit voluntary or involuntarily would be against the rules. Just because a unit is making an involuntary action doesn't mean it gets to ignore rules such as moving through impassible terrain, or leaving a unit while falling back. The black and white restriction that the IC can't leave the unit trumps the involuntary action of attempting to detach from the unit that the IC is required to attempt.

Nobody is saying the IC can leave a living unit while falling back.

What if the unit is dead and removed from play? This is what we're discussing.

Oh? You mean the unit that the IC was attaching to during the shooting phase? You mean the unit that was wiped out, leaving the IC as the lone surviving member? You mean the unit that the IC is still attached to according to RAW, since he can only leaving the unit during the movement phase according to page 48? You mean the unit that the IC is still attached to, since you have not come up with any rules stating that he has permission to leave it? You mean that unit?

I know what the post is about, ND, I started the thread. Maybe go back and read the first few pages?