Unit Leaving an Independent Character

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.

**haendas**

nosferatu1001 wrote:Only if you assume the "vice versa" is meant to override the 100% clear distinction drawn further up

I dont.

So this is not a RAW question but simply your opinion:

Is the vice versa an error by the writer or was the writer trying to create an exception to the first bullet?

**rigeld2**

I see it as an exception for when the IC has gone to ground.

**Brother Ramses**

fuusa wrote:
Brother Ramses wrote:In fact it breaks the rules as a unit must move as slow as its slowest model. If the IC is not moving, the unit cannot move out of coherency as it is required to maintain coherency and has no rule allowing it to break coherency for the purpose of leaving the IC.

This is not true.
If it were, any single model in a unit that doesn't move would stop the entire unit moving, or the one that moved the least, quite by choice would slow the others to the same move.
The slowest model, is the one that has the least maximum move (see mixed infantry and jump pack falling back).

I think, because the idea that an ic must move, to leave a unit, an assumption has grown that it must be the ic that moves first, kaboom, I have left the unit. Unit now does whatever it wants.

But, when moving a unit, you are free to move whichever models you want, however you want, as long as coherency remains possible to achieve.
I am free to move the reaper portion of the combined unit however I wish, as long as coherency remains a potential. I have not broken any rules by selecting to move the seer last.

Because the seer does not have to retain coherency with the rest of the unit, it is free to do what it wants, including remain still.
The reapers havent broken any rules, neither has the seer.

Its now the end of their move, the reapers are coherent, the seer has left them by remaining still.

We now have 2 units, 1 of which moved, clearly, the other consists of a model that did not move.

This is why the question is a reasonable one for me.

So, if we look at heavy weapon rules, we are told that if any part of a unit moved, the entire unit is considered to have moved.
Goalposts now move to farseer unit, did it move, no, vs the farseer was once part of a unit that did, yes.

First = stationary, fire your heavy weapon.
Second = the farseer unit did not move, but the slowest member of the previously existing unit was infantry, so unless it was impeded by difficult terrain, the "speed" of the farseer = 6".

Actually it does break the rules for movement and maintaining unit coherency.

If the unit moves first, the IC MUST move with the unit because at that point they are still considered a unit and bound by the movement rules and maintaining unit coherency. If the IC chooses to stand still, then the unit must stand still to maintain coherency and follow the rules for movement. The unit is given no permission to break coherency or break the rules for movement.

On the otherhand, the IC is given explicit permission to move out of coherency from the unit in his rules that provides an exception to the rules for movement and maintaining unit coherency.

haendas wrote:
Brother Ramses wrote:
The onus is upon the IC to join or leave a unit.

Really? The last bullet shares the onus between the unit and the IC.

No, the last bullet point references a circumstancial situation that is not supported by any of the other bullet points. It also does not support the unit being able to break the rules for movement or unit coherency. The unit is not given any permission to leave an IC. That permission and onus is soley give and upon the IC.

**haendas**

Brother Ramses wrote:
haendas wrote:
Brother Ramses wrote:
The onus is upon the IC to join or leave a unit.

Really? The last bullet shares the onus between the unit and the IC.

No, the last bullet point references a circumstancial situation that is not supported by any of the other bullet points. It also does not support the unit being able to break the rules for movement or unit coherency. The unit is not given any permission to leave an IC. That permission and onus is soley give and upon the IC.

I'm solely talking about joining now, leaving is hard to argue and I get that. The last bullet and the first bullet are broken, unless you believe that the writer wanted to create an exception when writing the last bullet, in which case I completely disagree. I find it incredibly hard to believe that the last bullet was designed to create an exception.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:I see it as an exception for when the IC has gone to ground.

I understand why people feel like the last bullet created an exception, but as I said before, it is pretty obvious to me that that wasn't the design. Even with GWs bullet proof rule writing (sarcasm) in consideration, that is not how exceptions are addressed in their writing.

Edit: The wording is only half of why I think it wasn't designed to create an exception. The other half is that the exception that some feel is created by the last bullet doesn't even work on it's own.

Think about it. From a pure RAW standpoint, even if you take the last bullet as an exception, it still creates a broken rule at worst or a pointless statement at best. The last bullet doesn't give permission for a stationary GTG IC to let a moving unit join it. It simply states that if a unit did join a GTG IC then the unit would GTG automatically. Since none of the bullets give permission for a stationary IC to allow a moving unit to join it, the unit GTG automatically after joining a GTG IC "exception" breaks down on its own.

**Saldiven**

haendas wrote:
nosferatu1001 wrote:Only if you assume the "vice versa" is meant to override the 100% clear distinction drawn further up

I dont.

So this is not a RAW question but simply your opinion:

Is the vice versa an error by the writer or was the writer trying to create an exception to the first bullet?

In my opinion, the "vice versa" phrase was applying to a single, specific instance.

I really don't understand why people are wanting to apply this phrase to every other instance as well.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

haendas wrote:Think about it. From a pure RAW standpoint, even if you take the last bullet as an exception, it still creates a broken rule at worst or a pointless statement at best. The last bullet doesn't give permission for a stationary GTG IC to let a moving unit join it. It simply states that if a unit did join a GTG IC then the unit would GTG automatically. Since none of the bullets give permission for a stationary IC to allow a moving unit to join it, the unit GTG automatically after joining a GTG IC "exception" breaks down on its own.

You sound like GW writing poorly worded rules rife with internal confusion is somehow uncommon or unlikely.

**Brother Ramses**

The problem that arises with a unit moving to join a unit is that you have absolutely no direction on how to do so or restrictions in place regulating it. There is no section titled,

"Units joining or leaving independent characters".

People are trying to allow units to join IC by using the rules for IC joining units. That is not how the rules work. When units are given directions on how they can join an IC, they they will be good to go. Until then, you can't assume you are allowed to use the rules for an IC joining a unit to allow a unit to join an IC.

**haendas**

Saldiven wrote:In my opinion, the "vice versa" phrase was applying to a single, specific instance.

An instance that can't possibly occur because no rules in that section ever give a unit permission to move and join a stationary IC. The last bullet is not a permissive. So why was vice versa even included? As it stands, with pure RAW of the section, vice versa is either pointless or broken.

If you play that a moving unit can join a GTG IC you are breaking the RAW of the section also.

**Brother Ramses**

haendas wrote:
nosferatu1001 wrote:Only if you assume the "vice versa" is meant to override the 100% clear distinction drawn further up

I dont.

So this is not a RAW question but simply your opinion:

Is the vice versa an error by the writer or was the writer trying to create an exception to the first bullet?

I would say error because the BRB does not then go on to outline ANY rules whatsoever for a unit joining an IC. For example, can a unit move to within 2" of two IC? Does the unit have to declare which IC it is joining if within 2" of two IC? What if one of the IC is already within 2" of one unit when another unit moves to within 2" of that IC?

So do you see just a few problems that arise by trying to imply that "vice versa" is an intent to allow units to join IC when there is then no rules direction/restriction on how units are supposed to join/leave IC?

**haendas**

It is entirely possible that the vice versa was an error, and I'd agree with that interpretation before I'd agree that it was written as an exception.

Disclaimer: I know there is no RAW support for units joining ICs nor for the vice versa being used for the entire section instead of just that last bullet (which I'd like to point out that nobody has yet disputed that the vice versa is either a pointless or broken inclusion).

Hypothetically speaking, as far as complications that arise from units joining ICs, the section already has a bullet governing an IC declaring which unit he is joining. It would be easy to apply that rule to the unit making a declaration in a reversed scenario. If a unit is within 2" of multiple ICs they have to declare which they are joining or possibly join both. As far as 2 units moving within 2" of the same IC, the actual existing rule governing the IC declaring which unit he would join would apply. I don't think the situations you described with units moving to join ICs would be that hard to handle with the rules written for ICs. Once again this is hypothetical.

**DeathReaper**

haendas wrote:It is entirely possible that the vice versa was an error, and I'd agree with that interpretation before I'd agree that it was written as an exception.

Disclaimer: I know there is no RAW support for units joining ICs nor for the vice versa being used for the entire section instead of just that last bullet (which I'd like to point out that nobody has yet disputed that the vice versa is either a pointless or broken inclusion).

I guess you missed my first post in this thread.

**haendas**

DeathReaper wrote:
haendas wrote:It is entirely possible that the vice versa was an error, and I'd agree with that interpretation before I'd agree that it was written as an exception.

Disclaimer: I know there is no RAW support for units joining ICs nor for the vice versa being used for the entire section instead of just that last bullet (which I'd like to point out that nobody has yet disputed that the vice versa is either a pointless or broken inclusion).

I guess you missed my first post in this thread.

I read it, replied to it, and even thanked you for it. Either you haven't read this whole thread or you are being sarcastic, I can't tell which. Your previous post, quoted below, doesn't give RAW for units joining ICs. The vice versa bullet is not a permissive statement. It does not give permission for a unit to move to a stationary IC (as much as I want it too). It just indicates that they would GTG automatically if they joined an IC that had GTG, but as I've mentioned before this scenario is impossible per the rest of the section and the vice versa statement does not work on its own.

DeathReaper wrote:5 days ago a similar question was asked.

Check it out here:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/431354.page

The Unit can move away while the IC is stationary.

This is noted on P.48 where it says "If an independent character joins a unit that has gone to ground, he immediately goes to ground as well, and vice versa."

The "and vice versa" means if the unit moves and joins an IC that has gone to ground, the IC goes to ground as well.

**DeathReaper**

haendas wrote:(which I'd like to point out that nobody has yet disputed that the vice versa is either a pointless or broken inclusion).

I was responding to this bit, in my latest post.

So either the "scenario is impossible" (Unlikely)

Or they meant for units to be able to join IC's

**haendas**

DeathReaper wrote:
haendas wrote:(which I'd like to point out that nobody has yet disputed that the vice versa is either a pointless or broken inclusion).

I was responding to this bit, in my latest post.

So either the "scenario is impossible" (Unlikely)

Or they meant for units to be able to join IC's

I was trying to make a point on RAW with my "pointless or broken" comment that you were responding to. Unfortunately your point appears to only have basis in RAI because you are interpreting what the writer meant, not what they wrote. For what it is worth, I (and my gaming group) completely agree with you from a RAI or "how would you play it" standing. I was just trying to engage the people who are breaking the section down and applying RAW. Nobody has disputed my "pointless or broken" comment with RAW.

**DeathReaper**

The "and vice versa" means if the unit moves and joins an IC that has gone to ground, the IC goes to ground as well.

That seems to be RAW that a unit can move, and then be joined to an IC at the end of the Movement phase.

**nosferatu1001**

IFF it was to an IC that has gone to ground, as that is the only vaguest bit of permission you can possibly draw from that.

Otherwise you are directly contradicting the rules above, without any permission to do so.

You cannot go from a specific ruling to a generic ruling that way.

**haendas**

DeathReaper wrote:The "and vice versa" means if the unit moves and joins an IC that has gone to ground, the IC goes to ground as well.

That seems to be RAW that a unit can move, and then be joined to an IC at the end of the Movement phase.

How can anyone distinguish whether the last bullet permits a unit to move and join a stationary IC all of the time or only when joining an IC that has gone to ground? Nobody, because the last bullet isn't a permissive statement.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:IFF it was to an IC that has gone to ground, as that is the only vaguest bit of permission you can possibly draw from that.

As I've seen you say before, nos, regarding the "vaguest bit of permission", the vice versa only implies permission. It is not explicit.

Edit: Added DeathReaper's quote to indicate that my first comment was in response to him. Nosferatu replied while I was typing my initial reponse to DeathReaper.