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.

Where are these rules for 'sequencing' in the rulebook please? Because its entirely possible for events to physically occur sequentially but considered to be simultaneous according to the rules.

It's possible under very specific circumstances such as combat, but if there is a question of order, it is always determined by who evers turn it is.

The way I see it is that when the IC declares that he's entering the transport both rules trigger by the single event.

General Principal section, around where it explains what The Turn is, but I can quote the actual Rule when I get home if you would like. As it provides us with a method to determine the order in which Rules are resolved, particularly if they occur at the very same point on the Time-line, it is not possible yo state that we have permission to resolve Rules simultaneously. Of course, I can be wrong so feel free to quote a Rule which grants such permission.

JinxDragon wrote:
Insaniak,
Feel free to change 'debate' to 'thread' if it makes that sentence of mine easier to understand.
If you have a problem with defining the thread as a debate between those two views, please explain why that is incorrect.

It doesn't matter what you call it. Where was anyone arguing that the IC joins the unit before embarking in the vehicle?

Let me explain the concept a little better with a question:
If a Unit is in the process of Embarking, but is not yet in the Transport, does it meet the criteria of 'Embarked?'

I chose the word 'Embark' because I believed it would represent a Unit that has completed the process of Embarking and was more 'grammatically correct' then stating 'Join and then Embarked' but I am having second thought on that choice of words. For if a Unit is joining as part of Embarking, ignoring sequencing for the time being, then it can be stated that it has not yet Embarked into the transport at time of Joining. As the other side of the argument requires the Unit be joined prior to completely the Embarking process, or else that would be two Units in a Transport which is what I am stating the Rules actually do, it still sounds as if 'Join and Embark' is describing their argument.

If not, what two or three words would you use to summarize the thread?

Actually if all the ICs get into the transport at the same time, none of them join into a unit, because none of them is already there when any other gets in.

Right ?

Morgoth,
How are you Embarking multiple Units simultaneously?

I'm doing it prior to deployment.

I declare all ICs embarked on transport A, then I deploy transport A.

Where is permission to resolve each 'Declaration of Embarking' simultaneously?
Where is permission to resolve five different instances of the Independent Character Special Rule simultaneously?

Even if you did find some way to get them all to Embark at the same time the Rules interactions do not change in the slightest. This is because the sentence forcing the joining doesn't contain instructions on who is joining who, or create some other timing loophole that can be exploited. It simply states that they are joined together whenever a Independent Character is Embarked with another Unit, so in a case of simultaneous Embarking this Rule still requires the Unit to be joined together. The only possible headache that could be generated, what is the name of the Unit which remains, is solvable because Sequencing exists. By the time we Resolve each individual Independent Character Special Rule is Resolved we will have one Independent Character that was joined by three others, but never evoked the Rule to join a fifth himself....

Wonder which Unit is the one which remains after all the 'togetherness' has been resolved?

If an Independent Character (or even more than one) and a unit are both embarked upon the same vehicle, they are automatically joined, just as if the Independent Character was within 2" of the unit.

from 'Independent characters and transports'

as ICs can join ICs, the embarked models are all 1 unit.

not sure why this is an issue.

regardless of the order, or some made up simultaneous embarking, that they are on the same vehicle they are now 1 unit.

blaktoof wrote:

If an Independent Character (or even more than one) and a unit are both embarked upon the same vehicle, they are automatically joined, just as if the Independent Character was within 2" of the unit.

from 'Independent characters and transports'

as ICs can join ICs, the embarked models are all 1 unit.

not sure why this is an issue.

regardless of the order, or some made up simultaneous embarking, that they are on the same vehicle they are now 1 unit.

I have no idea why there is even a discussion.

Academical debate, nothing more, for there is merit on understanding how the Rules brought us to this result we all agreed is the conclusion.
I like it when we discover that a Rule operates completely differently to how people, myself included, believed it operated.

It's only application is specifically in Witchfires, because if they are in fact seperate units, they can in fact all fire off the same witchfire. Unless you follow the interpretation that that is not actually the case.

Otherwise yes, it's purely a " what happens if" thread.

Jinxdragon get back in the deep strike thread thanks and check out my IRAC post. I feel it's pretty good and explanatory.