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.

Nemesor Dave 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.

The IC attaches and detaches during the movement phase. At the start of the IC's movement phase the IC would be required to attempt to detach from the unit because of a lack of coherency with live models. Also on page 48

An independent character may not join or leave a unit during the shooting and assault phases- once shots are fired or assaults are launched it is too late to join in or duck out !

Removing the IC from a squad during an opponents shooting phase would be a clear violation of that rule. The IC is stuck being a part of the dead unit until the next friendly movement phase.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Having an IC join a unit is a lot like marriage. Good or bad the IC is stuck with that unit until death or divorce, and divorce court is only open during the movement phase.

It's like these are the exact arguments given pages ago...

Dukal wrote: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?

The rule you're citing is about what the IC can, and cannot do, not what the unit can or cannot do. The IC cannot leave the unit, but can the unit leave the IC? Of course it can, by dying.

RAW there is nothing about what happens when the unit leaves the game. Obviously the IC is alone.

So the argument from Nos is that the IC becomes the unit. Yes, he says they are now one and the same until the model checks coherency in its next movement phase. Although there are a couple other minor variations of this interpretation, some that say it can never leave the unit, the premiss is the same - the Independant character IS the unit.

My final argument against this is that the rulebook, yes RAW always references the unit and the IC separately, so any interpretation of the outcome must do the same to follow RAW. The Independant Character CAN NOT be the unit and still in line with the other wording of rules in the rulebook.

So you're ignoring the fact that the IC is a normal member of te 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.

Except it isnt, for the reasons already given, that you have yet to address. At least 4 pages back at a guess. If no member of the unit I joined (context remember?) is within 2" then I have left. I CAN prove that, as I've already shown 100 times

insaniak wrote:

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.

No, you havent. That isnt my interpretation, and the fact you consistently tell me it is means you really arent reading the argument I am making.

The. IC. Is. NOT. An. Original. Member. Of. The. Unit. When you try to leave "the unit" the rule is referencing the original members of the unit, not the IC. Otherwise the IC can never leave, even when the unit has 1+ initial members left

Do NOT repeat that my interpretation results in an IC unable to leave a dead unit, because that is 100% false.

ND - So, page 48 and 49 still eluding you?

Does this not mean they are a member of the unit? a normal member of the unit Try it, page 49. Cant find that in your rulebook? Oh, and every time you reference a plural? Needed to make sure that you realise that the whole unit, including the joined IC, are there.

Your latest made up rule results in me being able to shoot your IC, even when attached. After all, if you are claiming they are ALWAYS separate units, that means Ic an target you, right?

Seriously, do you even THINK your arguments through, in the slightest?

Dukal wrote: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?

Yeah, I do think he means THAT unit


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

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.

Except it isnt, for the reasons already given, that you have yet to address. At least 4 pages back at a guess. If no member of the unit I joined (context remember?) is within 2" then I have left. I CAN prove that, as I've already shown 100 times

insaniak wrote:

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.

No, you havent. That isnt my interpretation, and the fact you consistently tell me it is means you really arent reading the argument I am making.

The. IC. Is. NOT. An. Original. Member. Of. The. Unit. When you try to leave "the unit" the rule is referencing the original members of the unit, not the IC. Otherwise the IC can never leave, even when the unit has 1+ initial members left

Do NOT repeat that my interpretation results in an IC unable to leave a dead unit, because that is 100% false.

ND - So, page 48 and 49 still eluding you?

Does this not mean they are a member of the unit? a normal member of the unit Try it, page 49. Cant find that in your rulebook? Oh, and every time you reference a plural? Needed to make sure that you realise that the whole unit, including the joined IC, are there.

Your latest made up rule results in me being able to shoot your IC, even when attached. After all, if you are claiming they are ALWAYS separate units, that means Ic an target you, right?

Seriously, do you even THINK your arguments through, in the slightest?

But you can only leave at the end of your movement phase!

rigeld2 wrote:So you're ignoring the fact that the IC is a normal member of te unit?

The IC is considered for some purposes to be a normal member of the unit. Obviously it is an IC so it doesn't follow all of the rules of a normal member of a unit. And not the for purpose of telling which is the unit and which is the IC. The RAW still reference the IC separately from the unit.

So any interpretation must also do the same.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
ND - So, page 48 and 49 still eluding you?

Does this not mean they are a member of the unit? a normal member of the unit Try it, page 49. Cant find that in your rulebook? Oh, and every time you reference a plural? Needed to make sure that you realise that the whole unit, including the joined IC, are there.

Your latest made up rule results in me being able to shoot your IC, even when attached. After all, if you are claiming they are ALWAYS separate units, that means Ic an target you, right?

Seriously, do you even THINK your arguments through, in the slightest?

That would be true, except there is a specific rule about not being allowed to pick out an IC that is joined to a unit. Perhaps think about your response a little better.

I'm not claiming they are separate units. But they are two different things. For your interpretation to work they must become 1 thing. You're saying the IC IS the unit.

JGE - I know that, and have mentioned it a number of times. For this purpose it wasnt important to repeat it.

ND - "once again a normal member of the unit States you are wrong. Again

Nemesor Dave wrote:

Dukal wrote: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?

The rule you're citing is about what the IC can, and cannot do, not what the unit can or cannot do. The IC cannot leave the unit, but can the unit leave the IC? Of course it can, by dying.

RAW there is nothing about what happens when the unit leaves the game. Obviously the IC is alone.

So the argument from Nos is that the IC becomes the unit. Yes, he says they are now one and the same until the model checks coherency in its next movement phase. Although there are a couple other minor variations of this interpretation, some that say it can never leave the unit, the premiss is the same - the Independant character IS the unit.

My final argument against this is that the rulebook, yes RAW always references the unit and the IC separately, so any interpretation of the outcome must do the same to follow RAW. The Independant Character CAN NOT be the unit and still in line with the other wording of rules in the rulebook.

Units can't attach or detach from an IC, the IC attaches and detaches from the unit.

While the IC is attached to the unit the IC is part of the unit so the unit can't be wiped out as long as the IC is alive and attached to the unit. Page 48 of the rulebook is very clear that under no circumstances may an IC attach or detach from the unit during the shooting or assault phase.

nosferatu1001 wrote:JGE - I know that, and have mentioned it a number of times. For this purpose it wasnt important to repeat it.

ND - "once again a normal member of the unit States you are wrong. Again

The line is on page 49. Context! That is what the paragraph is about picking out a model separately for attacks. After combat is resolved, they can no longer be picked out separately from a unit they are joined with. That is all.

But you see, otherwise IC's simply are not normal members of the unit at all.
1) in every other case the unit is mentioned as a separate item from the unit - not normal behavior for a member of the unit
2) independant characters pile-in move differently - not normal
3) they can move out of coherency during moving - not normal

There are many many ways that IC's are not normal members of the unit, so the subject of that paragraphs context - picking out a model separately must be what returns to "normal".

ND, I am really glad that you so completely addressed schadenfreude's point that ICs join or leave units, and that units do not join or leave ICs. I am also really glad that you are using some general thoughts about the rules, and trying to use them to override specific rules. Good show.

Dukal wrote:ND, I am really glad that you so completely addressed schadenfreude's point that ICs join or leave units, and that units do not join or leave ICs. I am also really glad that you are using some general thoughts about the rules, and trying to use them to override specific rules. Good show.

The IC may not leave the unit except during movement phase. Very specific and not applicable. The unit is doing the leaving.

The unit may leave the IC by dying. It is removed from play. That's as specific as you can get.

Nos's final argument - that the IC is a regular member of the unit - in content is referent to purposes of being targeted separately. Not applicable.

As much as you and others like to pick apart words and take the most absurd interpretation as fact, I am still arguing the side that makes the most logical sense.

In a case like this you could admit as well there is a lack of any precise wording in the rulebook either way.

nosferatu1001 wrote:The. IC. Is. NOT. An. Original. Member. Of. The. Unit.

Which makes no difference when he is the only member of the unit left on the table.

You're adding an additional stipulation that doesn't actually exist in the rules. The rules do not reference 'original' unit members.

Here's a thing: A Captain and a Librarian joined to a Tactical squad. The Captain is within 2" of a Tactical marine. The Librarian is within 2" of the Captain. Has the Librarian left the unit? He's not within 2" of an 'original' squad member.

Nemesor Dave wrote:

Dukal wrote:ND, I am really glad that you so completely addressed schadenfreude's point that ICs join or leave units, and that units do not join or leave ICs. I am also really glad that you are using some general thoughts about the rules, and trying to use them to override specific rules. Good show.

The IC may not leave the unit except during movement phase. Very specific and not applicable. The unit is doing the leaving.

The unit may leave the IC by dying. It is removed from play. That's as specific as you can get.

Nos's final argument - that the IC is a regular member of the unit - in content is referent to purposes of being targeted separately. Not applicable.

As much as you and others like to pick apart words and take the most absurd interpretation as fact, I am still arguing the side that makes the most logical sense.

In a case like this you could admit as well there is a lack of any precise wording in the rulebook either way.

If the IC is in the unit the IC is a current member of the unit and is stuck there until his next movement phase. The IC doesn't count towards the unit's size and can be sniped out in CC, but is otherwise a member of the unit. Those are the only 2 exceptions to the normal rules while the IC is joined. If all of the non IC members of a unit die there is nothing in the rulebook written about the IC leaving the unit. The only thing written about the situation was on page 48 and it goes as follows.

An independent character may not join or leave a unit during the shooting and assault phases- once shots are fired or assaults are launched it is too late to join in or duck out !

It really can't get any more specific than that. The IC and original unit always remain 1 unit through the entire shooting and entire assault phase no matter what. If the IC dies the IC and unit remain 1 unit though the entire shooting and assault phase. If the non IC members of the unit die the IC and the unit remain 1 through the entire shooting and assault phase. If the IC and the unit are both wiped out they die together during the shooting and assault phase.

nosferatu1001 wrote: 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: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

You did quite clearly demonstrate that you need to check the rules before you post as your statement was completely wrong per the IC & Assault rules, page 49 BRB and the mutlple combat rules page 41
Also, less personal ridicule of other posters would help the debate go smoother and would be more in line with the tenets #1 and #5 of YMDC. Perhaps you should read those as well.

You also have yet to acknowledge the fact that moving the IC away from a unit that the IC is the only member of is not possible. Measuring 2" around means nothing. You are improperly trying to prove you did something you cannot and have not done.
-----------------------------------------------------------

IMO
The IC rules for joining, being a part of and leaving units all imply there is a unit/rest of the unit to join, be a member of or leave. Trying to apply these rules to an IC and a unit that does not exist is taking them out of context. Since those rules not longer apply you are no longer permitted to consider the IC a member of the unit.

schadenfreude wrote:The IC doesn't count towards the unit's size...

...for the purposes of determining if the unit is below 50%. He does count for all other purposes.

Current INAT FAQ used is pretty much every GT.

Page 10

RB.49A.01 – Q: When an Independent Character is
part of a unit, and that unit is wiped out by shooting
or close combat, does the character still take Morale
and Pinning tests as if he was part of the unit?
A: Yes, as the character counts as being part of the unit until
the start of their next turn. This also means that enemies
who fired at and wiped out the unit the IC was with may still
declare a charge against the character in the subsequent
Assault phase [clarification].

Link

http://www.dakkadakka.com/s/up/INATFAQv5.1.pdf

INAT FAQ Is fine if you are arguing HYWPI, however, it doesn't mean anything in a RAW debate in YMDC. As it is I think we've moved away from RAW and msot people are arguing HYWPI.

HYWPI, I would follow INAT.
RAW, as the IC is not given permission to leave the unit until the movement phase (and the only time a unit can leave an IC is by disembarking from a vehicle), and cannot move away from a non-existent point, he would be stuck falling back.

Happyjew - RAW and INAT agree in this case.

Specifically - Abandon and insaniak are arguing that the unit that destroyed the "fodder" unit is unable to assault the IC - since he's a completely separate unit now. That's something the INAT brings up I hadn't even thought of.

rigeld2 wrote:Specifically - Abandon and insaniak are arguing that the unit that destroyed the "fodder" unit is unable to assault the IC - since he's a completely separate unit now.

Actually, I wouldn't have an issue with the IC being assaulted. He's (as I would play it) no longer joined to the squad, but he was still shot at by the assaulting unit, which makes him a valid target, IMO.


Having said that, the INAT take on it is fairly straightforward. I'd be more than happy to use that interpretation.

insaniak wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:Specifically - Abandon and insaniak are arguing that the unit that destroyed the "fodder" unit is unable to assault the IC - since he's a completely separate unit now.

Actually, I wouldn't have an issue with the IC being assaulted. He's (as I would play it) no longer joined to the squad, but he was still shot at by the assaulting unit, which makes him a valid target, IMO.

With no rules support, of course. The only exception to charging what you shot is vehicle transports.

Actually rigeld, RAW and INAT don't quite agree. RAW, since the IC cannot leave the unit, he would never be able to be an IC, meaning he would not be able to attempt to regroup. Per INAT, at the beginning of his next Movement phase, he reverts to bein an IC.

Well, INAT doesn't address falling back, but I see that distinction. Thanks for pointing that out.

rigeld2 wrote:With no rules support, of course.

So you're saying that the IC wasn't shot at when the squad was?

insaniak wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:With no rules support, of course.

So you're saying that the IC wasn't shot at when the squad was?

Absolutely not.

You target the squad. You can only charge the target you shot at.
You are prohibited from targeting the IC.

Since (under your interpretation) the IC immediately reverts to his own unit, he is not the squad that was targeted.
Therefore cannot be charged by the shooting unit.

rigeld2 wrote:

insaniak wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:With no rules support, of course.

So you're saying that the IC wasn't shot at when the squad was?

Absolutely not.

You target the squad. You can only charge the target you shot at.
You are prohibited from targeting the IC.

Since (under your interpretation) the IC immediately reverts to his own unit, he is not the squad that was targeted.
Therefore cannot be charged by the shooting unit.

The IC was a part of the unit at the time it was shot at and available to have wounds allocated to him along with all that comes with that. Every member of the unit was a target of the shooting attack, even the ones that could not be seen by the firing unit. BRB page 24 second to last paragraph.

rigeld2 wrote:You target the squad.

No you don't. You target the unit. That unit consists of the squad and the IC.

So the IC was a member of the unit you shot at.


If you want to try to draw the line on only targetting the unit with the same specific composition as the unit you shot at, you would be similarly unable to assault a unit if your shooting inflicted any casualties on them...

Saying the IC can not be shot at is a strawman argument intended to point out the inherent flaw in the logic that if every member of a unit except for an IC is removed as a casualty in the shooting phase the IC suddenly becomes a different unit that doesn't have to take a morale check, and can not be assaulted by any units that shot at the unit.

So if it was Draigo and 10 pallies that shot up the boys killing all of the ork boys but the warboss survived INAT and RAW say the warboss is still part of the mob even though the rest of the squad is dead. He still has to take a morale test, and then he still has to eat an assault by Draigo and his pallies. Some people here are not happy with the INAT and still insist the warboss doesn't need to take a morale test because he's now an IC that is not part of the mob of ork boys. Now the strawman argument comes into play. If the warboss is now an IC and no longer attached to the squad the target the paladins shot was the mob of boys not the IC, therefor if the IC doesn't need to take morale tests the paladins can't assault him. Now to selectively apply the rules so that the IC doesn't have to take a morale test but can still be assaulted one needs to selectively apply the rules which turns into pure RAI

schadenfreude wrote:Saying the IC can not be shot at is a strawman argument intended to point out the inherent flaw in the logic that if every member of a unit except for an IC is removed as a casualty in the shooting phase the IC suddenly becomes a different unit that doesn't have to take a morale check, and can not be assaulted by any units that shot at the unit.

So if it was Draigo and 10 pallies that shot up the boys killing all of the ork boys but the warboss survived INAT and RAW say the warboss is still part of the mob even though the rest of the squad is dead. He still has to take a morale test, and then he still has to eat an assault by Draigo and his pallies. Some people here are not happy with the INAT and still insist the warboss doesn't need to take a morale test because he's now an IC that is not part of the mob of ork boys. Now the strawman argument comes into play. If the warboss is now an IC and no longer attached to the squad the target the paladins shot was the mob of boys not the IC, therefor if the IC doesn't need to take morale tests the paladins can't assault him. Now to selectively apply the rules so that the IC doesn't have to take a morale test but can still be assaulted one needs to selectively apply the rules which turns into pure RAI

Good point. It looks like there are strange situations that can occur no matter which way you play it and the result of the unit leaving the games effect on the IC is not precisely in RAW.

In this case I think INAT took the best of both sides. It seems that for the sake of the turn in which they were separated the INAT is going with the "lone IC is part of the unit" and for the sake of the next turn going with the "lone IC is not part of the unit any more".

As someone else said the INAT FAQ is definitely HWYPI.

ND - ONCE AGAIN a normal member of the unit. It doesnt get more clearly written than that. In the context of the rules you are ONCE AGAIN a normal member of the unit, after Attacks have been resolved.

Once they have stopped being *treated as* a separate unit (not needed under your entirely ruleless opinion that he is always a separate unit, just to point out another problem with your argument - youre not only making rules up, but youre making other rules redundant AND allowing me to always shoot your IC - thanks for that!) you are now, once again, a normal member of the unit

Meaning you were a normal member of the unit, and you are now again a normal member of the unit.

Try again on this - please provide some ACTUAL RULES and not made up stuff to support that they are always a separate unit - that overrides the *specific* rules on page 48 and 49. WE'll wait, because it is hilarious that you are even going down this route, it really is quite amusing as it is a naive reading of the rules that occurs infrequently on these boards, but usually in more complex arguments than this (for example the old Shrouding rules in codex: DH)

Insaniak -could you respond to the *specific* conclusion your argument makes?

The IC is a normal member of the unit. YOUR interpretation of the rules is that he can never move away from himself, meaning he is always stuck. Meaning the GENERAL case an IC is never allowed to leave a unit, as he can never move away from himself.

CONTEXT tells you that you are required to only be in coherency of members of the unit you have joined, and it is THOSE members you are required to move away from - otherwise you can never, at any point, leave.

Meaning that a falling back IC CAN leave their unit, as they are not within 2" of the members of the unit they joined. This is not me adding in extra qualifiers - it is me actually using Context to say who you must join or leave "against", and making the IC rules function

Your interpretation means that the IC can never leave. Please address all points here, not just one, and address this central consquence of your idea that an IC must move away from itself.

Insaniak - in addition, if you beleive an IC immediately reverts to its own unit when its unit is shot out around it, then it CANNOT be charged - it is a different unit to the one that was shot at.

You shot at [dire avengers + IC], you are now trying to charge [IC] - a different unit. So this is another consequence of your idea that a unit is immediately removed from the IC upon destruction - you cannot any longer charge the IC.

Abandon - I was being silly in response to someone making up rules, as quite frankly that was all the response that was required or needed. It is a ridiculous argument that entirely ignores ALL the rules on page 48 in preference to a single general rule on page 47. It has no use in an actual rules discussion because it entirely ignores the entire way the rules are written, in favour of a bizarre interpretation than renders IC able to be shot at at any time, reduces a lot of rules to not being needed, and downright ignores others. Leave it - it is not relevant to this thread

I *have* shown that I can move outside of 2" of your unit, and shown the *2* methods you can use to achieve that. Not my fault you are unwilling to acknowledge this, or even basic mathematics, and is not a fault of mine. Once no unit is within 2" of me, and I have moved, by definition I HAVE moved 2"+ away from ANY unit, and A unit in particular. It is that simple, as that is what the rule is asking you to do. The rule is NOT requiring you to measure to the unit you are leaving and determine exactly how far away it is - it is asking you if you are at least 2" away from it.

Again, you may disagree here, however this is basic mathematics you are arguing with, and so your problem is your own understanding of what is required. Address that and you will seee your error