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.

insaniak wrote:

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.

You target a single unit. That single unit is squad + IC.

By your interpretation, the squad + IC unit ceases to exist after everyone in the squad dies.

You can only charge what you shot - which means you can only charge the unit that consists of squad + IC.

nosferatu1001 wrote: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

Just out of curiosity, how are you determining that there are no models within 2"?

The "measure 2" around my IC" isn't supported by the rules. Measurements are base-to-base between models (see p. 3). Permissive ruleset.

biccat, So I'm not allowed to have a (for example):
3" ruler, 6" ruler, 12" ruler, 18" ruler, 24" ruler, 36" ruler, 48" ruler and 60" ruler because that is the max range of all my weapons. If I fire a weapon that has a range of 12". I don't need to measure out 13" to see that I'm short. I can measure 12" and see that I'm not hitting anything. By the same logic, I can measure out 2" around my IC and see that there is nothing within 2" of him.

biccat wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote: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

Just out of curiosity, how are you determining that there are no models within 2"?

The "measure 2" around my IC" isn't supported by the rules. Measurements are base-to-base between models (see p. 3). Permissive ruleset.

Measurements are not restricted to only between models - for example, movement.

The IC rules tell you to move out of coherency distance. We know that distance is 2". Measure 2" in every direction.

Happyjew wrote:biccat, So I'm not allowed to have a (for example):
3" ruler, 6" ruler, 12" ruler, 18" ruler, 24" ruler, 36" ruler, 48" ruler and 60" ruler because that is the max range of all my weapons. If I fire a weapon that has a range of 12". I don't need to measure out 13" to see that I'm short. I can measure 12" and see that I'm not hitting anything. By the same logic, I can measure out 2" around my IC and see that there is nothing within 2" of him.

Except measurements between models (and the coherency rules address distances between models) is always base-to-base.

So no, technically you cannot have a 12" ruler to determine if you are within rapidfire range of an enemy. You must measure the distance between the firer and the target and if it is less than 12", you can fire.

My oh my did this discussion get side tracked on some coherency nonsense.

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.

As myself and others have also said in this thread. RAW, the IC is still running away.

Dukal wrote: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.

Emphasis mine. Again, in this side-tracked debate about coherency and whether or not a unit exists, it misses the only important point. RAW, an IC can only leave a unit in the Movement phase. That means in the Shooting Phase and Assault Phase, the IC counts as part of the Multiple-Unit Unit still. He'll be required to take the morale tests, can still be assaulted, and still under the affect of any psychic powers (such as Murderous Hurricane's Dangerous/Difficult Terrain for example).

schadenfreude wrote: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

Happyjew wrote: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.

What Happyjew said.

RAW is like I said it was a few pages ago, and many others have said in this thread. For the most part their posts are ignored so 4 of you can argue a pointless semantic (to the RAW argument here) with one another.

RAW: The IC can join a unit to form a single mult-unit unit. The IC can only join or leave this unit during the movement phase. Voluntarily, the only way for the IC to leave the unit is to move out of Coherency with the unit. You check Coherency at the end of movement. If the IC is falling back, he cannot join or leave a unit. Falling back happens before any movement for that unit.

Example: Warboss + Boyz. The Boyz portion of the unit is wiped out due to enemy shooting. 25% casualties are inflicted that turn so a Morale test is required. The Warboss' Leadership is used but the test fails. The unit (of which the Warboss is the last remaining member) has to fall back. Beginning of the Ork Player's movement phase, the Warboss is still technically a member of the multi-unit unit, at least RAW. RAI/HYWPI all are irrelevant to YMDC. This means the Warboss is stuck falling back. He cannot 'leave' the multi-unit with RAW.

Its stupid, but it seems to be making sense. I'd never want to play it that way against my foes so I'll be sure to discuss it with them if it comes up.

cowmonaut wrote:RAW: The IC can join a unit to form a single mult-unit unit. The IC can only join or leave this unit during the movement phase. Voluntarily, the only way for the IC to leave the unit is to move out of Coherency with the unit. You check Coherency at the end of movement. If the IC is falling back, he cannot join or leave a unit. Falling back happens before any movement for that unit.

That can't be a voluntary only action - as has been posted.

Everything else you've posted we've already said. Thanks for repeating it.

biccat - and, as has been pointed out 20 times, an IC leaving is a check on coherency *dsitance*, NOT a check that he is outside of coherency. He just needs to be more than 2" away from any unit - and if there is no unit within 2" it has succeeded at what the rules actually required.

nosferatu1001 wrote:biccat - and, as has been pointed out 20 times, an IC leaving is a check on coherency *dsitance*, NOT a check that he is outside of coherency. He just needs to be more than 2" away from any unit - and if there is no unit within 2" it has succeeded at what the rules actually required.

No:
"An independent character can leave a unit during the movement phase by moving out of coherency distance with it."

You move out of "coherency distance" by calculating the distance between the IC and a model in the unit, which, as explained on page 3, is the distance between the nearest points on the bases of the models.

If you've got some rule to support your assertion that you can measure around your model, I'd be happy to see it. But by RAW you cannot.

nosferatu1001 wrote: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.

This is nonsense.

The fact that the IC can not move away from himself in no way prevents him from leaving a unit with other models in it. Moving away from other models is not the same as moving away from yourself.

The IC is a member of the unit until he is found to be out of coherency with them. But determining coherency requires there to be more than one model in the unit, because as was pointed out earlier in the thread coherency doesn't apply to single model units.

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.

But context doesn't tell you what to do when the unit is no longer on the table to measure a distance to them.

At that point, when the IC is the only unit member left on the table, and thus is a unit of one, there is nobody else to move away from.

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.

No it isn't. Already covered that.

insaniak wrote:

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.

No it isn't. Already covered that.

You were incorrect in your "coverage".
You target a unit. You are prohibited from targeting the IC.

How can you assault the IC when you shot at a different target?

Biccat - wrong. Seriously, reread what you just posted. Now, have you spotted the word distance in there?

The phase is NOT "move out of coherency with..." but |move out of coherency distance..."

If I move more than 2" away, I HAVE moved out of coherency *distance*, which is a different entity to *coherency* alone. Coherency requires measuring to models, coherency distance does NOT require this.


Insaniak - you are saying you must move away from members of the unit, in toto, and that this includes the IC. If you must move away from ALL members of the unit, then this would include yourself. You are artificially excluding the IC when the unit is alive from counting towards members of the unt they are required to move away from.

Stop a second and realise the inherent contrdiction you are creating here - you are saying that, if the unit is shot around the IC, he cannot leave because he must move away from himself. If, instead, he wants to leave a healthy unit, then why is he no longer required to move away from himself?

Yes, I agree it is nonsense, in that your argument is bogus. It ignores context (which tells you who you are moving away from - never yourself), contradictory, and ignores what is written.

Also - your final quote?

"The IC is a member of the unit until he is found to be out of coherency with them"

This is WRONG, plain and simple - he is a member of unit until he has moved out of choerency *distance* - which is 2". Coherency as a process is not used, you are simply checking if you are more than 2" away.

Stop repeating incorrect statements - the word DISTANCE is crucial, and may be a clue as to why your argument is floundering.

Aditionally - I am not following the rules for coherency, hence I dont have to measure to another unti to prove I am more than 2" away. If there is noone within 2" then de facto I am more than 2" away from a unit. So yes, it can be done. You are stuck in assuming that measurement in 40k is always unit to unit, but it isnt - the most trivial example being movement, deepstrike scatter, disembarking, et al. You are choosing to limit this measurement to between models, but have no rules basis for doing so.

Finally - ICs being assaulted. No, you have not covered it. If you target {unit + IC}, and shoot out {unit}. then you cannot (under YOUR interpretation of timing, not mine) assault the IC, because the UNIT you targetted did not exist

You are prohibited from choosing the IC as a target. You cannot therefore assault an IC unit, as it was not your target when you were shooting.

Under the interpretation that follows the rules - that an IC leaves at the end of the movement phase - you CAN charge the IC, as it is still a member of the unit you targetted. Meaning that, again, your reading of the rules just simply falls over at the first "sniff" test - the logical conclusion is absurd, which should tell you a little about the argument you are making.

Now please - address the points, paying particular attention to the phrasing used. You have been consistently flawed in phrasing and terminology, and its grating to have to repeatedly correct you. I expect it off some posters, but not you!

nosferatu1001 wrote:Insaniak - you are saying you must move away from members of the unit, in toto, and that this includes the IC.

No I'm not. I'm saying that the IC has to move away from the rest of the unit. And for that to happen, there has to be a 'rest of the unit'.

There is no 'artificial exclusion'... If the IC is out of coherency, he leaves the unit. If there is nobody else in the unit, coherency doesn't apply.

Stop a second and realise the inherent contrdiction you are creating here - you are saying that, if the unit is shot around the IC, he cannot leave because he must move away from himself. If, instead, he wants to leave a healthy unit, then why is he no longer required to move away from himself?

There is no contradiction there.

He's not required to move away from himself. He simply can not do so. That's what prevents him from leaving a unit when he is the only member of it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Finally - ICs being assaulted. No, you have not covered it. If you target {unit + IC}, and shoot out {unit}. then you cannot (under YOUR interpretation of timing, not mine) assault the IC, because the UNIT you targetted did not exist

Is the IC a unit? Yes he is.
Did you shoot at the IC? Yes you did.
Can you assault the unit you shot at? Yes you can.

insaniak wrote:Is the IC a unit? Yes he is.
Did you shoot at the IC? Yes you did.

False. You are explicitly prohibited from targeting the IC with shooting.
You must have fired at the squad he joined.

rigeld2 wrote:False. You are explicitly prohibited from targeting the IC with shooting.
You must have fired at the squad he joined.

Once again, you don't target the squad. You target the unit. A unit that includes the IC.

insaniak wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:False. You are explicitly prohibited from targeting the IC with shooting.
You must have fired at the squad he joined.

Once again, you don't target the squad. You target the unit. A unit that includes the IC.

I was using the words interchangeably - I'm sorry.

Shooting, you target a unit (yes, it may have the IC attached).
Assault, you must charge the same unit. If the unit is defined as the squad plus IC, then the squad plus IC must be what is charged.

page 16 BRB wrote:A firing unit can choose a single enemy unit that is not
locked in combat as its target, and may not split its fire
among different targets.

Page 33 BRB wrote:In addition to the above, a unit that fired in the
Shooting phase can only assault the unit that it shot at
– it cannot assault a different unit to the one it
previously shot at.

You're defining "unit" as "squad + IC" in one section, and "unit" as "IC" in the other.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Biccat - wrong. Seriously, reread what you just posted. Now, have you spotted the word distance in there?

The phase is NOT "move out of coherency with..." but |move out of coherency distance..."

If I move more than 2" away, I HAVE moved out of coherency *distance*, which is a different entity to *coherency* alone. Coherency requires measuring to models, coherency distance does NOT require this.

Already addressed.

Please review the rules on Page 3 addressing how you measure between models. If you believe there are additional rules that contradict, supplement, or change those rules, please provide a reference to the page, paragraph, and line number. For additional details, see my post above.

Again, and to reiterate what has been repeated many times over, 40k is a permissive ruleset. Unless the rules specifically allow you to perform an action (e.g. measuring 2" around your independent character at the end of the movement phase), you may not perform that action.

Remember, argument is not a substitute for evidence.

There is no requirement to measure to a model.

rigeld2 wrote:There is no requirement to measure to a model.

How do you measure the distance between models if you don't measure to a model?

Insaniak - and, again, you are CREATING RULES out of whole cloth

You are not required to measure coherency - the process. YOu are required to measure coherency distance - a 2" measure.

These are not the same things. You repeatedly conflate these two terms as if they are the same thing. They are not. Given you never even *address* the point I raise every time you DO conflate tthe two terms, I assume you are simply not even reading the whole post

coherency distance is not the same thing as checking for coherency - do not repeat that they are the same thing, as it fatally undermines your argument.

"Is the IC a unit? Yes he is.
Did you shoot at the IC? Yes you did.
Can you assault the unit you shot at? Yes you can."

The IC, while joined to a unit, is a member of that unit. He is not a separate unit, and *cannot* be the target of your shooting.

You did NOT shoot "at" the IC - you shot at the Unit containing the IC as a normal member

You can therefore only assault the unit you targetted - which is NOT the IC, under your interpretation.

This is a fundamental issue you are having here
.

Unit A is comprised of models Y and IC V
When you target the unit, yo uare targetting Unit A

When you shoot all models Y away, under your interpretation the IC immediately becomes his own unit - which MUST be unit V. It cannot be any other unit, because the construct set {Y,V} no longer exists.

Thus, under YOUR interpretation an IC cannot be charged if his unit is shot down.

Biccat - you addressed the same wrong thing as Insaniak. Page 3 deals with measuring between models - however this is not required, as you are NOT CHECKING COHERENCY - you are checking coherency dsistance which is not the same thing. Thus I fall back on the general rules for measuring, whcih are from my base "out" - same as you do when moving. Un less you are saying when moving you are measuring between models? How about DS scattter?

You are lacking rules because page 3 does not have to apply, as it is not the only way to check coherency distance (yes, I will keep emphasising this as both of you and Insaniak are guilty of dropping this crucial word) from a model. It IS one way, it is not the ONLY way.

Nos - still arguing your made up version of how to measure distances in 40k.
So when you shoot and your range is 36", you measure 36" in a circle around the firing model? This is ridiculous.
According to RAW you measure base to base between models. This is why when you shoot, you actually get to measure the full distance between the firer and the target even if they are out of range.
You apparently don't know how multi-combat works, how to measure, that IC's cannot be picked out for shooting from a unit they are joined to.

The IC, while joined to a unit, is a member of that unit. He is not a separate unit, and *cannot* be the target of your shooting.

You are only partly correct. The IC cannot be picked out, but this is not why.

"Independant Characters that have joined a unit are considered part of the unit and so may not be picked out as targets."

The are considered part of the unit regarding shooting. Not for everything.

"Independant characters that are monsterous creatures may be picked out as separate targets."

In some cases they may be picked out. They are simply not "normal members of the unit" in the way you are stating.

(edited for clarity)

Nemesor Dave wrote:Nos - still arguing your made up version of how to measure distances in 40k.
So when you shoot and your range is 36", you measure 36" in a circle around the firing model? This is ridiculous.

God, correcting you is getting tiresome.

So, when you move 6" forwards, are you doing so by measuring between units?

No? Then guess what - not all measurement is base to base.

Your inabiltiy to parse even such a simple concept as this is faintly tragic.

Nemesor Dave wrote:You apparently don't know how multi-combat works, how to measure, that IC's cannot be picked out for shooting from a unit they are joined to.

Sorry, but youre now spouting even more crap. YOUR contention is that an IC is *always* a separate unit, and when shooting you target units. There is no other reason why you cannot pick ICs out with shooting. THis is why your naive misreading of the rules on pages 47, and sheer ignorance of the rules on 48 and 49 is so utterly incomprehensibly wrong no wonder you cant see it youself.

Nemesor Dave wrote:

me wrote:The IC, while joined to a unit, is a member of that unit. He is not a separate unit, and *cannot* be the target of your shooting.

You are only partly correct. The IC cannot be picked out, but this is not why.

Then why can it not be picked out? I have multiple rules telling me the IC is a normal member of the unit, and not a separate unit any longer

I even have a specific rule telling me when the IC is to be "treated as" a separate unit (meaning he isnt actually a separate unit - stop me if this is going too quickly for you now) when resolving attacks - immediately followed by a rule sttating he is ONCE AGAIN a normal member of the unit

So where is your rule denying them being shot at that isnt tied to their status as a separate unit having gone now? OR is this more made up NDhammer rules that simply dont exist in the actual rulebook?

Nemesor Dave wrote:"Independant Characters that have joined a unit are considered part of the unit and so may not be picked out as targets."

The are considered part of the unit regarding shooting. Not for everything.

Wrong, they are considered a NORMAL member of the unit for everythihng except resolving attacks

Nemesor Dave wrote:"Independant characters that are monsterous creatures may be picked out as separate targets."

In some cases they may be picked out. They are simply not "normal members of the unit" in the way you are stating.

(edited for clarity)

Yes, there is an *exception* to the rule - SHOCK! 40k is full of exceptions. This in fact proves that your position is wrong, as they had to write an exception to the normal rule for Monstrous ICs (of which there arent any)

insaniak wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:There is no requirement to measure to a model.

How do you measure the distance between models if you don't measure to a model?

Where's the requirement to measure to a model? Don't cite page 3 - that only comes in when you actually need to measure to a model.
Movement, for example, doesn't require measuring to a model.

nosferatu1001 wrote: You repeatedly conflate these two terms as if they are the same thing.

Indeed. It's almost as if I disagree with you...

The IC, while joined to a unit, is a member of that unit. He is not a separate unit, and *cannot* be the target of your shooting.

So at least you're finally agreeing that he is a part of the unit. Which has been my point all along with your interpretation preventing him from leaving the unit once it is destroyed...

You did NOT shoot "at" the IC - you shot at the Unit containing the IC as a normal member

...which means you shot at the IC.

Otherwise, we're back to not being able to assault a unit that suffered casualties from shooting. You didn't shoot at the 5-man tactical squad. You shot at a squad with 6 guys in it.

nosferatu1001 wrote:God, correcting you is getting tiresome.

You do realise that there is no prize for being the most correct, right?

rigeld2 wrote:Where's the requirement to measure to a model?

Establishing coherency involves measuring the distance between two models. That's kind of the point of it.

insaniak wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:Where's the requirement to measure to a model?

Establishing coherency involves measuring the distance between two models. That's kind of the point of it.

You are not required to establish coherency. You are required to be out of coherency distance.

Do you have a rules based reason for thinking they're the same?

rigeld2 wrote:You are not required to establish coherency. You are required to be out of coherency distance.

On consideration, I'm happy to concede that point. If you're required to measure to other models in order to establish that an IC is out of coherency of a unit, you would actually need to measure to every other friendly model on the board in order to establish that he is not in coherency with any of them.

That doesn't change my objection to the idea of having to leave a unit that isn't there, though. You can't move away from something that isn't there in the first place, nor can you move away from yourself.

insaniak wrote:That doesn't change my objection to the idea of having to leave a unit that isn't there, though. You can't move away from something that isn't there in the first place, nor can you move away from yourself.

You can move away from something that isn't there in the first place...

I'm required to move and be 60' from any elephants. Ignoring the fact that there are no elephants within 60 miles (at least) let alone 60 feet, I move 10 feet. I then check the surrounding 60 feet.
No elephants, so I've complied with the requirements.


It doesn't make a lot of logical sense. I don't see any other way to read the RAW and I've already said that I'd play it like INAT ruled.

rigeld2 wrote:I'm required to move and be 60' from any elephants. Ignoring the fact that there are no elephants within 60 miles (at least) let alone 60 feet, I move 10 feet. I then check the surrounding 60 feet.
No elephants, so I've complied with the requirements.

You haven't moved away from the elephants that you were previously hanging with, though.


Here's how I see it:
There's a group of people over in the corner. We'll call them, say, 'People Who Are a Little Bored With This Discussion and Would Rather Talk About Biscuits'. I go and join them.
Now:
Scenario A:
After a while, a thought suddenly comes to me: "Wait! Someone is wrong on the internet!" ... and so I leave the PWAALBWTDAWRTAB group, and go back to my computer to rejoin the rules discussion. I have succesfully left the PWAALBWTDAWRTAB group.


Scenario B:
After a while, I look up and notice that everyone else in the PWAALBWTDAWRTAB group has wandered off while I wasn't paying attention. I decide to go see if the rules discussion is still going. When I move out of the corner, have I left the group? Well, no... there is nobody else for me to leave, just me standing alone in the corner muttering about biscuits and twitching occasionally.

In the first scenario, I was a member of the group, but was able to leave the group by moving away from them.
In the second scenario, when I tried to leave the group I was the only one still in it. No matter how far away I go, I can't move away from the only remaining group member. So either I will always be a member of the group because I can't leave the last member... or I'm no longer a member of the group because the group is gone. I can't leave the group by waiting until tomorrow and suddenly jumping 3 feet to the left when I least expect it.

" You did NOT shoot "at" the IC - you shot at the Unit containing the IC as a normal member


...which means you shot at the IC. "

No, you didnt. You targeted the unit. That is what you shot at. That is what you are allowed to assault.

As for coherency /= coherency distance - you never addressed it, so never "disagreed" except passively. You never offered a single reason why they were the same, and have suddenly seen sense.

nosferatu1001 wrote:As for coherency /= coherency distance - you never addressed it, so never "disagreed" except passively. You never offered a single reason why they were the same, and have suddenly seen sense.

I never offered a reason for them being the same because, as I pointed out several times, it's completely irrelevant to the outcome. My argument has nothing to do with whether or not coherency and coherency distance are the same thing. It's solely to do with the fact that it's impossible for the sole member of a group to move away from that group.

I still disagree that they are different in the context of the rule being discussed. The only thing I have changed my opinion on is that establishing that the IC is out of coherency requires measuring to another model. It doesn't change my opinion on whether or not the IC can leave a unit that contains only the IC as the sole remaining member.