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.

I agree there is no unit, but the restriction is still there. Ceasing to be a unit does not remove the restriction, unless we are told it does. Otherwise there could be all sorts of shenanigans with changing statuses.

Honestly this is what breaks the game...not GW.

nosferatu1001 wrote:


No, you're told the IC unit may not charge. Once joined there IS NO IC UNIT.

If you claim there is, yours breaking the rules. Please state your exact permission to do so

If it helps you, think of IC as a set and as a member of the set. The restriction is the set, not the member. No set, no restriction

Does this mean if an IC joins another unit, and is killed, that he no longer counts for first blood and other VP that use unit kills as a condition?

Leerjawise wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:


No, you're told the IC unit may not charge. Once joined there IS NO IC UNIT.

If you claim there is, yours breaking the rules. Please state your exact permission to do so

If it helps you, think of IC as a set and as a member of the set. The restriction is the set, not the member. No set, no restriction

Does this mean if an IC joins another unit, and is killed, that he no longer counts for first blood and other VP that use unit kills as a condition?

Noticed the explicit exception written into first blood, that covers this exact situation?

Without it, losing an attached IC would not give up first blood.

Hisdudeness - erm, the restriction is on the unit. Please answer this - is the UNIT still there?

nosferatu1001 wrote:


Noticed the explicit exception written into first blood, that covers this exact situation?

Without it, losing an attached IC would not give up first blood.

Which exception?
First Blood:

The first unit, of any kind, to be completely destroyed during the game is worth 1 VP to the opposing player at the end of the game.

What am I missing?

If just the IC dies, the unit wouldn't be completely destroyed.
Same goes for tactical objectives 51,52, and 53.

Hmm, 6th had an explicit exception, as it was counted there and then. Potentially the "at the end of the game" kicks in, as you determine the unit by roster at that point...

It is no different than one member of the unit firing a Rapid fire weapon. If one member of the unit has done something that prevents assaults, then the unit has done something that prevents assaults.

Angelic wrote:
It is no different than one member of the unit firing a Rapid fire weapon. If one member of the unit has done something that prevents assaults, then the unit has done something that prevents assaults.

When you're told that restriction is model based, yes. Please cite where the restriction is model based.

Leerjawise wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:


Noticed the explicit exception written into first blood, that covers this exact situation?

Without it, losing an attached IC would not give up first blood.

Which exception?
First Blood:

The first unit, of any kind, to be completely destroyed during the game is worth 1 VP to the opposing player at the end of the game.

What am I missing?

If just the IC dies, the unit wouldn't be completely destroyed.
Same goes for tactical objectives 51,52, and 53.

Don't worry Nos, I will come to the rescue. With an IC rules quote:
While an Independent Character is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes, though he still follows the rules for characters.

The moment the IC dies, he is no longer part of the unit, as he is no longer part of the unit he is not part of the unit and therefore does not count as part of the unit for all rules purposes. I.e. he is, at the moment of death, a unit on his own again. The 6th edition caveat in first-blood was to "idiot proof" this concept.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Byte wrote:
The IC still arrived from reserve that turn regardless of the unit he joined, so...

Page 81 right column, first paragraph, Disembarkation Restrictions.

Page 162 Deep Strike, 3rd column, first para.

Your rules citations are worthless.

Read them: the unit, and the Unit, once the IC joins a different unit he is no longer a unit himself, the unit he has joined goes to assault, there is no restriction on that unit, that unit did not deepstike nor enter from reserves, and the unit that did is no longer on the table.

Just to clarify (again) Nos and Kel: Would you guys attempt to PLAY it that way, or are you just arguing the 'tecnically-correct-but-nobody-including-me-plays-it-like-this' RAW? No judgments, just curious.

My primary army is Guard, so I have very few ICs there.

My next army is sons of medusa, and I do have a jump pack captain, but he is always with my assault squad... so no I do not currently play it this way and do not really see any real benefit from playing it this way; but I would not object to my opponent doing it.

 hisdudeness wrote:
I agree there is no unit, but the restriction is still there. Ceasing to be a unit does not remove the restriction, unless we are told it does. Otherwise there could be all sorts of shenanigans with changing statuses.

Is the restriction on the unit or model? Simple question and the rules quoted prove it is not the model.

Honestly this is what breaks the game...not GW.

bs. GW writing this feces is what's broken the game.

 Jimsolo wrote:
Just to clarify (again) Nos and Kel: Would you guys attempt to PLAY it that way, or are you just arguing the 'tecnically-correct-but-nobody-including-me-plays-it-like-this' RAW? No judgments, just curious.

I truly believe Kel would try to play it this way. Disappointing.

 Byte wrote:

 Jimsolo wrote:
Just to clarify (again) Nos and Kel: Would you guys attempt to PLAY it that way, or are you just arguing the 'tecnically-correct-but-nobody-including-me-plays-it-like-this' RAW? No judgments, just curious.

I truly believe Kel would try to play it this way. Disappointing.

So an hour after he posted he doesn't, you say you think he would?
I'd believe him over what you think any day when the question is what he would do.

 Jimsolo wrote:
Just to clarify (again) Nos and Kel: Would you guys attempt to PLAY it that way, or are you just arguing the 'tecnically-correct-but-nobody-including-me-plays-it-like-this' RAW? No judgments, just curious.

I have no ICs that would go in reserve, as they're all choppy and being, at best , turn three to charge us unacceptable for me. I had never considered it until the last thread in the subject.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Byte wrote:

 Jimsolo wrote:
Just to clarify (again) Nos and Kel: Would you guys attempt to PLAY it that way, or are you just arguing the 'tecnically-correct-but-nobody-including-me-plays-it-like-this' RAW? No judgments, just curious.

I truly believe Kel would try to play it this way. Disappointing.

So an hour after he posted he doesn't, you say you think he would?
I'd believe him over what you think any day when the question is what he would do.

Thank you?

This brings to mind, "Cant shoot because my model has no eyes!" from 6th edition. I cant believe this is still happening.

 extremefreak17 wrote:
This brings to mind, "Cant shoot because my model has no eyes!" from 6th edition. I cant believe this is still happening.

Wait... you can shoot without eyes?

rigeld2 wrote:

 hisdudeness wrote:
I agree there is no unit, but the restriction is still there. Ceasing to be a unit does not remove the restriction, unless we are told it does. Otherwise there could be all sorts of shenanigans with changing statuses.

Is the restriction on the unit or model? Simple question and the rules quoted prove it is not the model.

Again it doesn't matter, we are not told that ceasing to be a unit and joining another removes any restrictions the unit/model/vehicle/whatever may currently have. Show me a rule that states this happens. We don't get to make up when and how things happen, we are told.

Honestly this is what breaks the game...not GW.

bs. GW writing this feces is what's broken the game.

No, it's the Easter egg hunting knuckleheads that break the game. A majority of players dont even come across most of these 'hidden gems found between the line of the rules." Because we read the rules and go with the basic understanding of the reading or just go with what makes sense...not breaking down every word and phrase for a magic power.

 hisdudeness wrote:
Because we read the rules and go with the basic understanding of the reading or just go with what makes sense...not breaking down every word and phrase for a magic power.

It's called exegesis, and it's a pretty common practice (under various names) at universities across the globe. Anyone who has graduated from a university (or beyond) should be familiar with the process. You try and decipher the meaning of a text by looking very closely at words and phrases. You also do this with the knowledge that the author is a thoughtful, careful person who considers the implications and meaning of what he writes.

Now, perhaps the problem we at YMDC occasionally run into with GW is that they are NOT thoughtful, careful writers. But for the most part, it's a very valid waste of time

As to your implication that some people try to read the rules in a way that doesn't make sense... I have played against folk who have the strangest ideas about 40k rules you've ever heard. This is invariably because they have NOT read the rules carefully, and instead just want to do something really cool with their models and toss loads of dice. At least I'm reading the rules, and making them fit together. I played a game about a year after 6e came out, where a fellow became very upset with me because I wouldn't allow his Ork horde to charge through a solid Ruins wall, without LoS to the target. I'd rather be me, who reads the rules carefully and obeys them, then him.

 hisdudeness wrote:


No, it's the Easter egg hunting knuckleheads that break the game. A majority of players dont even come across most of these 'hidden gems found between the line of the rules." Because we read the rules and go with the basic understanding of the reading or just go with what makes sense...not breaking down every word and phrase for a magic power.

You mean you're not constantly on the lookout for magical rhetorical bullets that will allow you to contravene the plain desires of the 40k rule set? I'm having trouble deciding why you'd even post on the forum this week.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Elric Greywolf wrote:


It's called exegesis, and it's a pretty common practice.

Yup, for the bible maybe, but the process there is a little different. Exegesis refers to either the explanation or critical interpretation of a text. I think what we've seen so far about 7th is far more the latter than the former, which isn't really very YMDC if you ask me.

 Byte wrote:

 extremefreak17 wrote:
This brings to mind, "Cant shoot because my model has no eyes!" from 6th edition. I cant believe this is still happening.

Wait... you can shoot without eyes?

Yes actually, in 7th you now can shoot without having eyes.

 Elric Greywolf wrote:

Rorschach9 wrote:
And, since he'd be attached to that unit, how is he leaving the unit on the turn he arrives from reserves?

Because...he's allowed to leave coherency in his turn? I don't know what you're trying to say. In 6e, there was a restriction on leaving a unit the turn the IC arrived from reserve. I cannot find that restriction in 7e. You seem to think it's still there, so could you please cite the page for me?

Fair enough, I missed that being removed.

*Edit to remove useless banter : Yes, the UNIT can assault .. the IC cannot because it disembarked (and that restriction is on the model level).

 Elric Greywolf wrote:

 hisdudeness wrote:
Because we read the rules and go with the basic understanding of the reading or just go with what makes sense...not breaking down every word and phrase for a magic power.

It's called exegesis, and it's a pretty common practice (under various names) at universities across the globe. Anyone who has graduated from a university (or beyond) should be familiar with the process. You try and decipher the meaning of a text by looking very closely at words and phrases. You also do this with the knowledge that the author is a thoughtful, careful person who considers the implications and meaning of what he writes.

Now, perhaps the problem we at YMDC occasionally run into with GW is that they are NOT thoughtful, careful writers. But for the most part, it's a very valid waste of time

As to your implication that some people try to read the rules in a way that doesn't make sense... I have played against folk who have the strangest ideas about 40k rules you've ever heard. This is invariably because they have NOT read the rules carefully, and instead just want to do something really cool with their models and toss loads of dice. At least I'm reading the rules, and making them fit together. I played a game about a year after 6e came out, where a fellow became very upset with me because I wouldn't allow his Ork horde to charge through a solid Ruins wall, without LoS to the target. I'd rather be me, who reads the rules carefully and obeys them, then him.

Yet that level of reading interpretation is not needed for the 40k rule set. Additionally, assaulting from reserves has been a pretty big no-no for quite a while now. Why would GW write a vague permission to break this rule? We simply have a basic and clear restriction on performing an action. To break this restriction we would need pretty specific permission...not some hidden and debatable 'read between the lines' Easter egg.

1. Yes the restriction is on the unit. Also, as well as being part of the unit, the IC rules also specify the Model continues to carry ongoing effects - even effects which are tagged to his unit (not him as a model) that he is no longer a part of and his new unit does not have ( See soul blaze, blind and the section 'ongoing effects') . So the rules for IC take care of that. Yes he is part of the unit, but there is also another half a page of IC rules which deal with what this means. Nothing suggests and the rules don't even hint at this point the IC restriction -The unit can not charge- goes away. IC rules do not specify restrictions are lifted, or the IC loses anything that he had, in fact the rules go all out saying the IC doesn't get to sidestep rules for joining a unit, or leaving a unit.
Part of the unit - is shown to be a 2 way effect. Rules from both the unit prior to the IC joining remain but are not shared, and rules from the IC's unit which has joined remain but not shared. I would suggest anything unit based which was happened before his joining remain, this includes the unit's special rules (Including Independent Character special rule), the unit's restrictions and the unit's permissions.

2. Even if the reserves restriction are debatable, this falls short of the restriction of disembarking which says model can not charge.

Bring something new or debate or justify using rules why those IC rules do not apply.

And yes when your reading between the lines to justify skipping a restriction as such it just yells we-skip-50%-rule-because-ours-happens-first.

 Nem wrote:
1. Yes the restriction is on the unit. Also, as well as being part of the unit, the IC rules also specify the Model continues to carry ongoing effects - even effects which are tagged to his unit (not him as a model) that he is no longer a part of and his new unit does not have ( See soul blaze, blind and the section 'ongoing effects') . So the rules for IC take care of that. Yes he is part of the unit, but there is also another half a page of IC rules which deal with what this means. Nothing suggests and the rules don't even hint at this point the IC restriction -The unit can not charge- goes away. IC rules do not specify restrictions are lifted, or the IC loses anything that he had, in fact the rules go all out saying the IC doesn't get to sidestep rules for joining a unit, or leaving a unit.
Part of the unit - is shown to be a 2 way effect. Rules from both the unit prior to the IC joining remain but are not shared, and rules from the IC's unit which has joined remain but not shared. I would suggest anything unit based which was happened before his joining remain, this includes the unit's special rules (Including Independent Character special rule), the unit's restrictions and the unit's permissions.

2. Even if the reserves restriction are debatable, this falls short of the restriction of disembarking which says model can not charge.

Bring something new or debate or justify using rules why those IC rules do not apply.

And yes when your reading between the lines to justify skipping a restriction as such it just yells we-skip-50%-rule-because-ours-happens-first.

I can see the OP's point, to a degree, but once again Nem hits the nail on the head.

sonicaucie wrote:
See ongoing effects in respect to how they impact characters leaving or joining a unit.

IC A is affected by an ongoing effect X

A joins unit B and counts as being part of unit B

B now inherits any penalties from ongoing effect X unless it is specific to that model in which case it only applies to that model.

I.E: A character who was blinded is still blinded if it joins a unit but does not blind the unit he joins, but a character with a HfH (hunters from hyperspace) token will make any unit he's joined also affected by the HfH token.

I'm going with this reasoning. It requires defining "arrived from reserve this turn" as an ongoing effect, but it's pretty logical.

I doubt there isn't anything that hasn't already been said regarding this. Nem got it correct.

Now I need to prepare some popcorn.

Edit: Autocorrection, got to love it..

 hisdudeness wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 hisdudeness wrote:
I agree there is no unit, but the restriction is still there. Ceasing to be a unit does not remove the restriction, unless we are told it does. Otherwise there could be all sorts of shenanigans with changing statuses.

Is the restriction on the unit or model? Simple question and the rules quoted prove it is not the model.

Again it doesn't matter, we are not told that ceasing to be a unit and joining another removes any restrictions the unit/model/vehicle/whatever may currently have. Show me a rule that states this happens. We don't get to make up when and how things happen, we are told.

It does matter. If something effects a unit and that unit stops existing, why are you applying that effect to a completely different unit?

Honestly this is what breaks the game...not GW.

bs. GW writing this feces is what's broken the game.

No, it's the Easter egg hunting knuckleheads that break the game. A majority of players dont even come across most of these 'hidden gems found between the line of the rules." Because we read the rules and go with the basic understanding of the reading or just go with what makes sense...not breaking down every word and phrase for a magic power.

If GW wrote better rules this wouldn't be an issue. And it's rarely Easter egg hunting. It's normally someone that reads a rule for the 583829th time, thinks "huh. That's not how I thought it was worded... I wonder if..." And then looks into it more deeply. Seriously, what Easter egg is here?! For this to work there are so many different things that have to line up for such a small advantage you can't call it Easter egg hunting.

And sure, it's likely not intended. But BB riding in allied transports apparently was. Was that Easter egg hunting?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

niv-mizzet wrote:

sonicaucie wrote:
See ongoing effects in respect to how they impact characters leaving or joining a unit.

IC A is affected by an ongoing effect X

A joins unit B and counts as being part of unit B

B now inherits any penalties from ongoing effect X unless it is specific to that model in which case it only applies to that model.

I.E: A character who was blinded is still blinded if it joins a unit but does not blind the unit he joins, but a character with a HfH (hunters from hyperspace) token will make any unit he's joined also affected by the HfH token.

I'm going with this reasoning. It requires defining "arrived from reserve this turn" as an ongoing effect, but it's pretty logical.

Please, explain why it's an ongoing effect as required by the IC rules - don't they still require something to be taking an action and not just some random rule?

rigeld2 wrote:

Please, explain why it's an ongoing effect as required by the IC rules - don't they still require something to be taking an action and not just some random rule?

"Don't they require"? Why do you ask the above question when you aren't sure if the rules require it or not? I cannot see anything that makes me believe taking an action is a requirement.

Naw wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Please, explain why it's an ongoing effect as required by the IC rules - don't they still require something to be taking an action and not just some random rule?

"Don't they require"? Why do you ask the above question when you aren't sure if the rules require it or not? I cannot see anything that makes me believe taking an action is a requirement.

Because in the 6th edition BRB the wording did require it. It was hashed out in the last thread. That's my way of asking if that changed - since I don't have access to my BRB at this time.