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 couldn't find anything looking back through the last few pages of the forum and these terms are order sensitive which makes the search engine return a very high noise-signal ratio.

I understand that an IC can join an allied unit by moving into coherency with them. Can the reverse occur-- i.e., can a unit move into coherency with an IC (such as one that has already moved) and form a single unit?

Edit: Looking back, I think that yes, the action is allowed because of the time at which coherency is measured. Details obviously follow.

And thus starts the debate on IC's and units joining (again). There are 2 groups here at dakka. One says, that since coherency is measured at the end of the movement phase, yes a unit can join with an IC. The other group says BGB says the IC must move into coherency, therefore, an IC cannot join by a unit moving up into coherency. Sadly this debate has yet to be resolved.

Units may move to join an IC and IC can move to join units.

This is taken from the wording on Page 48 which says "If an IC joins a unit that has gone to ground, he immediately goes to ground as well, and vice versa."

This tells us that if a unit joins an IC that has gone to ground the unit goes to ground as well.

DR, I have a feeling Nos is going to swing by and refute your point. HYWPI, my group plays they can join the IC. However, like I said, expect someone to come by argue you can't.

As above ^^^.

I am on the side that units cannot join an IC and that only IC can join units.

Just thought about this right now;

What is stopping multiple units from joining a single IC by moving into coherency?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DeathReaper wrote:Units may move to join an IC and IC can move to join units.

This is taken from the wording on Page 48 which says "If an IC joins a unit that has gone to ground, he immediately goes to ground as well, and vice versa."

This tells us that if a unit joins an IC that has gone to ground the unit goes to ground as well.

That does not tell you anything because you still lack any section in the BRB called,

"Units joining and leaving Independent Characters."

It may imply that it is possible, but you lack any direction of how to do it.

@Ramses. There are clear definitions of what happens when an IC is within 2" of more than 1 unit.

Just to extend this question further, can a unit embark in a transport which has an IC (but nothing else) in it? This is a particularly common tactic with vulnerable support characters like Farseers and Librarians, where they get left inside of transports to keep them safe but I was wondering if it then might actually be illegal for units to embark and join the IC?

Since you check coherency at the end of the phase, if the IC is within 2 inches of a unit, they are joined. it is that simple.

How they get there does not matter.

Brother Ramses wrote:What is stopping multiple units from joining a single IC by moving into coherency?

The rules that tell you if an IC is within 2 inches of more than one unit you have to pick which unit the IC joins.

DeathReaper wrote:Since you check coherency at the end of the phase, if the IC is within 2 inches of a unit, they are joined. it is that simple.

I think this is right. "In order to join a unit, an independent character simply has to move so that he is within the 2" coherency distance of a friendly unit at the end of their Movement phase." ~ Page 48 of the BRB, emphasis mine.

This seems to imply that coherency is checked once both units have moved, rather than after the IC has moved. If it were the latter, they would have used the singular pronoun "his," rather than the plural pronoun "their."

Does this seem like a reasonable interpretation?

Edit: "his", not "he".

Actually, it would be "his" not "he".

Unfortunately, "their" can be both singular and plural, so concentrating on that word doesn't work so well.

"Their" is not singular unless you're using it to avoid gender bias. As they had already specified a male independent character by their earlier pronoun, this is obviously not the case.

Powerguy wrote:@Ramses. There are clear definitions of what happens when an IC is within 2" of more than 1 unit.

Just to extend this question further, can a unit embark in a transport which has an IC (but nothing else) in it? This is a particularly common tactic with vulnerable support characters like Farseers and Librarians, where they get left inside of transports to keep them safe but I was wondering if it then might actually be illegal for units to embark and join the IC?

Yes there is, in the rules for an IC joining and leaving a unit. However you have no definitions for when a unit is joining an IC, which is what you are attempting to do.

And as has been pointed out, the use of the present indicative, "is" in the rule puts the burden of moving within 2" on the IC. The rule does not tell you to move the IC so that he WILL BE wiithin 2" of a friendly unit at the end of their Movement phase. The rule does not tell you to move the unit so it IS within 2" of a friendly IC at the end of their Movement phase either. You have to move the the IC so that his present indicative, is within 2" of a friendly unit at the end of their Movement phase.

Please cite in the BRB where I can find,

"In order to join an IC, a unit simply has to move so it is within 2" of a friendly Independent Character at the end of their Movement phase."

Because that is the only way a unit can force an IC to join it.

You're right. It tells you to move the IC and the unit so at the end of BOTH of their movement phases, they're in coherency. Which allows the maneuver in question, as well as the normal IC-moving-to-unit mechanism.

Edit: That the IC's movement phase might consist of standing still is immaterial. You still wait until both the IC and the unit joined have completed their movement phases. And as I already stated, the citation is on page 48 of the core rulebook, in the first sentence of the first bullet point. Very easy to find.

Which would make sense if indiviual units had Movement phases, but they do not.

Semantics do matter here. You have to ask did you move the IC so he is within 2" of a friendly unit at then end of their Movement phase or did you move the unit so that it is within 2" of the IC at the end of their Movement phase.

One of the above is clearly given in the BRB, the other only exists in made up rule land.

Individual units most definitely do have movement phases, just like individual units have shooting phases. You resolve wounds at the end of each unit's shooting phase, just like you resolve coherency at the end of the IC and joined unit's movement phases.

You're the one trying to turn a plural pronoun into a singular. If anyone's making up rules, I think you'd have the best luck finding them by looking in a mirror.

Edit: Unit Coherency, Page 12. "If this [broken coherency] happens, the models in the unit must be moed in such a way that they restore coherency in their next Movement Phase." Units most definitely do have phases.

The point here is that by the time coherency is resolved, both units have moved. Whether the IC did this by standing still is irrelevant -- his movement phase has passed, and he is within 2" of a friendly model. He enters their unit.

Brother Ramses wrote:You have to ask did you move the IC so he is within 2" of a friendly unit at then end of their Movement phase or did you move the unit so that it is within 2" of the IC at the end of their Movement phase.

Exzcept that you don't.

While the rules do refer to the IC as the one doing the moving, the actual check that the rules tell you to perform at the end of the phase in order to determine whether or not the IC has joined a unit is simply 'Is the IC within 2" of a unit?'

It makes no practical difference whether the IC moved or the unit did. If the IC finishes his movement phase within 2" of a unit, he has joined that unit. If he hasn't joined the unit, he can't be within 2" of it.

Couldn't have said it better, myself.

"He" is also a non-gender specific term as well as a gender specific, so "their" is still singular.

Why is this even an argument when it can simply be solved by nudging the IC a fraction of an inch and going "there, he/she/they moved and is not joining said unit."?

Regardless of whether the IC moves or not, the IC will not be counted as staionary since the unit he/she/they are now attached to has already moved.

And, for the record, not moving is a form of movement. An IC has to move so that it ends within 2" of unit. Well, in this case, remaining perfectly still is what allows him/her/them to join the unit.

Its not about the IC staying still, it's about the order of movement.

IC moves, is not in 2" range of the unit he wants to join. Can the unit he wants to join close the distance and "make it official"?

rigeld2 wrote:Its not about the IC staying still, it's about the order of movement.

IC moves, is not in 2" range of the unit he wants to join. Can the unit he wants to join close the distance and "make it official"?

So, what people are really nitpicking is that you need to move your units first and then move your ICs last and this would make this whole argument go away?

Powerguy wrote:@Ramses. There are clear definitions of what happens when an IC is within 2" of more than 1 unit.

Just to extend this question further, can a unit embark in a transport which has an IC (but nothing else) in it? This is a particularly common tactic with vulnerable support characters like Farseers and Librarians, where they get left inside of transports to keep them safe but I was wondering if it then might actually be illegal for units to embark and join the IC?

Page 67 of the main rules, under independent characters embarking and disembarking, "If either an independent character or a unit is already in a vehicle, the other may join them by embarking too..." meaning that in this case at least, the rules clearly allow a unit to join an IC by embarking into a transport that the IC is in.

Green is Best! wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:Its not about the IC staying still, it's about the order of movement.

IC moves, is not in 2" range of the unit he wants to join. Can the unit he wants to join close the distance and "make it official"?

So, what people are really nitpicking is that you need to move your units first and then move your ICs last and this would make this whole argument go away?

Yes.

In which case, you could accomplish the goal simply by changing the order of movement -- i.e. moving the joined unit closer first, and then moving the IC into coherency.

The reason this is relevant to me is deep striking. Trying to deep strike into coherency is just asking for a mishap -- deepstriking and moving another unit into coherency is a much safer maneuver (though it does prevent the resulting unit from assaulting, which may or may not be a problem).

You can still have an IC joined to a unit when the IC did not move at all.

As Insaniak has stated:

insaniak wrote:While the rules do refer to the IC as the one doing the moving, the actual check that the rules tell you to perform at the end of the phase in order to determine whether or not the IC has joined a unit is simply 'Is the IC within 2" of a unit?'

It makes no practical difference whether the IC moved or the unit did. If the IC finishes his movement phase within 2" of a unit, he has joined that unit. If he hasn't joined the unit, he can't be within 2" of it.