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.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
I gues spage 39 needs explaining, again.

You are told the IC joins, and is anormal member of the unit for ALL rules purposes. Ergo the IC unit cannot exist - if it does, you are NOT treating the IC as a normal member for all, just SOME, purposes

then it tells you that, when the IC leaves, he again becomes his own unit. Meaning the unit "IC" reappears.

This is what page 39 says. Note I didnt use quote marks? That tells you i was not quoting the rules, but parsing their meaning into a more concise and useful form.

I wasn't explaining, I was quoting. I do not need you to do parsing for me, thank you anyway.

I stress again that there is nothing in the rules saying what happens to the IC who leaves a unit. How does he become a unit of his own? Can you explain that to me?

So, again. Prove you have to leave the IC unit

Or how about you prove to me that the IC unit just disappears? First you are fine with "parsing/explaining" and then suddenly you want actual written rules. Which one is it?

fulfilling the criteria for doing so, becore you can join another unit. That includes measuring for 2" coherency to your own model, something entrely impossible.

You also ignored the part where it forbids the IC from going close to the other unit. Why would there be such a stipulation if that restriction meant nothing?

Until then I will go down the rules supported path.

But you did not support that by rules, you explained/parsed. You insist on saying that page 39 says something that it does not and then say that you weren't quoting.

In your explanation the IC unit just ceases to be, you try to circumvent the fact that by not leaving his previous unit the IC would be part of two units, hence this disappearance of the unit. That is a weak explanation when a more simple one is that the IC simply leaves his previous unit, whatever it is, and attaches itself to the new one.

The fact that he is alone in his own unit does not matter, in the end rules support the evidence that he is seen as having left his unit.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Where is the model restricted?

I can see the restriction on UNit A, but I am not assaulting with Unit A but Unit B. Please cite where the restriction on Unit B arises wrt unit A

This is where I think your argument lacks merit. Yes there is a restriction on Unit A that does not affect Unit B. However, even though Unit A no longer exists, it's component models do exist as part of Unit B.

Now, even though Unit A no longer exists, any persistent effects that affected its component models must still affect those models, otherwise rules like, Blind, Enfeeble, Endurance, Forewarning, Misfortune, Fireshield, Objuration, Mechanicum, Dominate, Terrify, Invisibility and Hallucination (3-4) now have no effect on ICs because as soon as they IC joins another unit, the target unit no longer exists and the effects disappear.

This cannot be the case and I would love to see the pages of discussion here on YMDC if that was proposed to be the rules.

So, yes, there is no restriction on an IC joining another unit on arrival from reserves, but that unit is then bound by the reserves rule implicit on the IC, which is cant assault that turn.

This is different, from shooting, because the shooting phase applies to the individual models, assault however applies to the unit, which is all models within the unit, p21.

Cheers

Andrew

Naw wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
I gues spage 39 needs explaining, again.

You are told the IC joins, and is anormal member of the unit for ALL rules purposes. Ergo the IC unit cannot exist - if it does, you are NOT treating the IC as a normal member for all, just SOME, purposes

then it tells you that, when the IC leaves, he again becomes his own unit. Meaning the unit "IC" reappears.

This is what page 39 says. Note I didnt use quote marks? That tells you i was not quoting the rules, but parsing their meaning into a more concise and useful form.

I wasn't explaining, I was quoting. I do not need you to do parsing for me, thank you anyway.

I stress again that there is nothing in the rules saying what happens to the IC who leaves a unit. How does he become a unit of his own? Can you explain that to me?

So, again. Prove you have to leave the IC unit

Or how about you prove to me that the IC unit just disappears? First you are fine with "parsing/explaining" and then suddenly you want actual written rules. Which one is it?

fulfilling the criteria for doing so, becore you can join another unit. That includes measuring for 2" coherency to your own model, something entrely impossible.

You also ignored the part where it forbids the IC from going close to the other unit. Why would there be such a stipulation if that restriction meant nothing?

Until then I will go down the rules supported path.

But you did not support that by rules, you explained/parsed. You insist on saying that page 39 says something that it does not and then say that you weren't quoting.

In your explanation the IC unit just ceases to be, you try to circumvent the fact that by not leaving his previous unit the IC would be part of two units, hence this disappearance of the unit. That is a weak explanation when a more simple one is that the IC simply leaves his previous unit, whatever it is, and attaches itself to the new one.

The fact that he is alone in his own unit does not matter, in the end rules support the evidence that he is seen as having left his unit.

How does an IC "leave" a unit? As per the rules, "An Independent Character can leave a unit during the Movement phase by moving out of unit coherency with it."

So again, how does an IC (which is a unit when he is alone) move out of coherency with itself (coherency is measured as being within 2" of another model in the unit, again, as per the rules)?

As for the Original question -
RAW, the Unit does not exist any more so the restriction is gone.
HIWPI, as I wouldn't ever do it myself (I'd never have an IC alone in reserves walking on to join a unit that hung back for so long anyway) I'd allow my opponent to do so if he really wanted (or was even able) to.

Let me clarify, I know how it is done. That was from the rules perspective. Not everything is clearly defined in the rules, especially when the meaning is clear.

Let's just agree to disagree and move to another topic.

Naw - so, given you are adamant that the IC leaves the unit, please provide page and paragraph.

Please explain how you measure the >2" distance requirement, which must be between two different models as explained on ~page 3, how to measure distances.

I pointed out where the rules on page 39 state that the unit again becomes a unit of his own. He cannot "again" become something if that something wasnt lost. I also again pointed out how you are breaking the IC rules on page 39 by NOT treating them as a NORMAL MEMBER of the unit for ALL rules purposes. But hey, dont let those rules get in the way!

You keep parroting rules that have no bearing, and keep glossing over that you are assuming the char leaves their own unit in order to support the rest of your argument

So, over to you. Prove they leave. Page and para. Failure to do so means I will ignore your argument as having no merit.

For at least the second thread you seem to have a critically different parsing of page 39 to anyone else. Firstly you claimed in the other thread on BB ICs that the unit still exists, now you claim that they leave the unit. Both are made up, nonexistent rules that you ahve created from whole cloth.

Andrew - again, the "persistent affect" is unit based. Unlike those you mentioned, which affect models, this disallows the unit from making a charge declaration. not the model, but the unit. The unit IS allowed to make a charge declaration, as only unit A is restricted.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Naw wrote:
Let me clarify, I know how it is done. That was from the rules perspective. Not everything is clearly defined in the rules, especially when the meaning is clear.

Let's just agree to disagree and move to another topic.

No. How about you follow the tenets and back up your assertions?

Page and para. How to measure between 2 models when you only have one would be a start. Over to you. No ducking this time.

This could be one of those 'completely unforeseen circumstances" where there are no rules to cover the situation! No matter which way it's played....it's a house rule.

Every argument, on either side, has been tangential and makes inferences to other rules. Since there is nothing actually written that addresses this set of circumstances, it's completely a RAI argument.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yes, but that isnt an effect on the model, but on the unit declaring an action.

the IC model in the unit is not declaring a charge, the unit is.

That makes no sense.

If a unit is taking an action like assaulting, then all of the models within the unit must assault and as such all of the models in the unit are declaring a charge since units are made up of models, anything the unit does the models also do. (With exceptions listed like movement as not all models must move in the movement phase, but all models must fall back if the unit is falling back etc).

nosferatu1001 wrote:



Andrew - again, the "persistent affect" is unit based. Unlike those you mentioned, which affect models, this disallows the unit from making a charge declaration. not the model, but the unit. The unit IS allowed to make a charge declaration, as only unit A is restricted.

Sorry Nos, please check your rule book, not one example I quoted affects models, each and every one only affects the target unit.

Cheers

Andrew

Nos, you never back up your statements with rules. I quoted real actual rules, you have not. This is an ongoing trend by you. Don't demand as you yourself never deliver.

nos wrote:I pointed out where the rules on page 39 state that the unit again becomes a unit of his own.

Give a quote from pg 39 BRB then? Surely this must be an easy task.

Oops, blind affects models, I got one wrong, but the others still stand.

nos wrote:I also again pointed out how you are breaking the IC rules on page 39 by NOT treating them as a NORMAL MEMBER of the unit for ALL rules purposes. But hey, dont let those rules get in the way!

As my point has always been that he is not even allowed to join, how and where have I broken above rules? Maybe you are talking about somebody else.

On a mobile device, forum doesn't work too well with this browser.

The IC is part of the unit and can't leave it in the assault phase. If any member of a unit is disallowed from charging for any reason, the unit can't charge.

Similarly, if an IC moves to join a unit in the movement phase, the entire unit counts as having moved in the subsequent shooting phase for the purposes of firing heavy weapons etc. even if nobody else in the unit moves.

Having moved in regards to firing heavy weapons is actually on a model-by-model basis.

Naw wrote:
Nos, you never back up your statements with rules. I quoted real actual rules, you have not. This is an ongoing trend by you. Don't demand as you yourself never deliver.

nos wrote:I pointed out where the rules on page 39 state that the unit again becomes a unit of his own.

Give a quote from pg 39 BRB then? Surely this must be an easy task.

"Never"? Really? Youre gonna make a bold claim and not back it up? thats an ongoing trend....

Maybe you didnt mean "never"? If so, change it.

currently in Munich, cannot look at rulebook, will do so when at home. However there is a line talking about 2again" being a unit of their own. Did you review page 39 yourself? It is acceptable to cite rules and not simply quote them, according to those tenets.

Care to back up your assertion - that you must leave a unit to join another - with some rules? Citations of pages would be fine, to stop you complaining that I am being unfair - I have cited page 39, now you cite a page for your made up rule. If you cannot do so I presume you concede no such rule exists

nos, all the rules say (regarding leaving) is that
a) the IC must move out of coherency
b) can only leave during the movement phase, and
c) if the unit is killed, the IC again becomes a unit of one model.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Naw wrote:
Nos, you never back up your statements with rules. I quoted real actual rules, you have not. This is an ongoing trend by you. Don't demand as you yourself never deliver.

nos wrote:I pointed out where the rules on page 39 state that the unit again becomes a unit of his own.

Give a quote from pg 39 BRB then? Surely this must be an easy task.

"Never"? Really? Youre gonna make a bold claim and not back it up? thats an ongoing trend....

Maybe you didnt mean "never"? If so, change it.

The discussions that we both have taken part in you have not.

currently in Munich, cannot look at rulebook, will do so when at home. However there is a line talking about 2again" being a unit of their own. Did you review page 39 yourself? It is acceptable to cite rules and not simply quote them, according to those tenets.

Fine, you will provide that quote when you get back then, yes?

Care to back up your assertion - that you must leave a unit to join another - with some rules? Citations of pages would be fine, to stop you complaining that I am being unfair - I have cited page 39, now you cite a page for your made up rule. If you cannot do so I presume you concede no such rule exists

Aha, so to summarize one more time:

- direct quote from pg 3 on Forming a Unit: The models that make up your [..] army must be organized into 'units' -> this one rule is bolded in the rulebook
- a lone character is considered to be a unit
- pg 124 on Reserves, direct quote: Independent Characters are also counted as a single unit regardless whether they have joined another unit or not -> this specifically describes what counts towards the allowance for Reserves, but shows that characters are units on their own
- direct quote from pg 124 on Arriving from Reserve: If an Independent Character has joined a unit in reserve, it cannot leave the unit whilst in reserve, and it cannot choose to leave the unit on the turn it arrives from reserve -> there's ambiguity here, bottom line according to the rules is that he is not allowed to leave the current unit
- pg 39 on Joining and Leaving a Unit: If an Independent Character does not intend to (or cannot) join a unit, it must (where possible) remain more than 2" away from it
- same page on unit being killed: If an Independent Character joins a unit, and all other models in that unit are killed, he again becomes a unit of one model at the start of the following phase -> Again proving that a single model is a unit, I suspect this is the quote you were talking about? It does not improve your point, though

You are arguing that this paragraph is relevant, direct 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

It is irrelevant as the character can only belong to one unit at a time and logically if he joins a new unit, he must leave his previous unit. And as I have shown, a lone IC is a unit, while in Reserves, arriving from Reserves or solo on table and rules specifically forbid him from leaving his unit. It is also not of relevance how leaving of unit happens, you can argue that the unit just ceases to exist (rules basis for this?) but it doesn't change the fact that the IC did leave his unit breaking the Reserves rule.

Edit: Quotations again.

Naw, how does an IC leave a unit?

 Happyjew wrote:
nos, all the rules say (regarding leaving) is that
a) the IC must move out of coherency
b) can only leave during the movement phase, and
c) if the unit is killed, the IC again becomes a unit of one model.

Exactly, and the rules specifically dictate that a lone character is also a unit.

Naw, please answer my question.

How does an IC leave a unit?

 Happyjew wrote:
Naw, how does an IC leave a unit?

Erm? By moving out of coherency of it? Do you stipulate that as the IC cannot leave his own unit by moving out of coherency, he is part of two units by joining another unit?

We already agreed that the rules do not cover everything. I pointed out why I believe it is not possible for the IC to join another unit when he arrives from the Reserves, just read my previous posts.

This would be no argument if the IC was part of another unit, then left that to join a new unit? This is no different, the rules clearly specify that he is his own unit. It just does not describe how leaving of that unit happens. I guess it's self-explanatory?

Naw wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
Naw, how does an IC leave a unit?

Erm? By moving out of coherency of it? Do you stipulate that as the IC cannot leave his own unit by moving out of coherency, he is part of two units by joining another unit?

We already agreed that the rules do not cover everything. I pointed out why I believe it is not possible for the IC to join another unit when he arrives from the Reserves, just read my previous posts.

This would be no argument if the IC was part of another unit, then left that to join a new unit? This is no different, the rules clearly specify that he is his own unit. It just does not describe how leaving of that unit happens. I guess it's self-explanatory?

But it is different.

How do you measure coherency? By measuring between two models. Since an IC unit (normally) consists of only an IC, coherency is undefined. You cannot measure between 1 and nothing.

I am fully aware of that. Do tell me how he leaves a unit of his own then?

Also while you are at it, in my summary post, why do you think I am incorrect there? And what and why would happen, according to the rules?

Actually you claim I have never provided rules; even amended to "these two threads" I HAVE provided rules - citations are just as valid as direct quotes. This is factual, btw - not debateable.

You are making an assumption that you must leave unit "IC" before you can join. the point we are making is that there is no such stipulation in the rules.

given your entire argument is based on the fact you cannot leave a unit on arriving from reserves, which IS true, and your claim that the IC has to "leave" his unit first - which is NOT true - the IC cannot join another unit.

Yet we know there is no possible way for an IC to leave their own unit, ever. It cannot happen according to the rules given. so why, given it cannot happen, are you assuming it must? Because, presumably, this then makes your conclusion valid. However, given there is no stipulation that an IC has to leave their unit, and no such stipulation is necessary for them to join, the simpler, non assumed explanation is that you do exactly as told - move within 2" and you are joined. Done. nothing more needed.

You then made the claim, in a prior thread, that the IC "unit" never goes away - you now claim they "leave" the unit, two very different claims. Which are you now saying is true?

for the former argument, the "all rules purposes" line proves the IC unit can no longer exist - if it did, then you would at times be treating the IC NOT as a normal member of the unit they joined, but as something else. This is expressly forbidden. This means the only possible explanation is that the unit just ceases to exist.

this is handily backed up by the VP "first blood" changing the rules to count ICs attached to units for first blood - otherwise they would not be, as for a rules purpose you would be treating them differently.

Hopefully this makes more sense now? Your assumption is only being made in order tyo support you conclusion - it, literally, has no backing in the rules and is impossible to demonstrate as being even possible within the rules, which should tell you that perhaps it is unsound.

office_waaagh wrote:
The IC is part of the unit and can't leave it in the assault phase. If any member of a unit is disallowed from charging for any reason, the unit can't charge.

I keep looking for where that's said as it's been repeated often in this thread.
Mind citing it? Or is it an assumption?

Similarly, if an IC moves to join a unit in the movement phase, the entire unit counts as having moved in the subsequent shooting phase for the purposes of firing heavy weapons etc. even if nobody else in the unit moves.

False.

rigeld2 wrote:

office_waaagh wrote:
The IC is part of the unit and can't leave it in the assault phase. If any member of a unit is disallowed from charging for any reason, the unit can't charge.

I keep looking for where that's said as it's been repeated often in this thread.
Mind citing it? Or is it an assumption?

IC rules, can only join or leave in the movement phase, can not in any other phase.
However should the rest of the unit die, he would then be a 1 model unit, in this case the rules are clear what the IC retains from the unit.

The second point is proved through other rules. Units can embark, one model in the unit has a rule that he can not embark on land raiders (for example). Dakka decided the unit could not embark (this was quite a while ago and can't remember the specifics of the transport and the unit or character sorry)

Rigeld may have been asking why the model is disallowed from charging, when the restriction is on the non-existent unit

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Rigeld may have been asking why the model is disallowed from charging, when the restriction is on the non-existent unit

IC rules say the models still are bound by ongoing effects from those none existent units, or the units are not none existent, It's all a mess.

Soul blaze is applied at a unit level, it exists only to the unit. It causes effects to models but all unit based rules do (imo).

Except the models in this case do NOT declare a charge - that is a unit level decision, independent of the models.

Unit A is prohibited from declaring a charge
Unit Bis NOT.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Except the models in this case do NOT declare a charge - that is a unit level decision, independent of the models.

Unit A is prohibited from declaring a charge
Unit Bis NOT.

Please tell me how to check LOS to a unit, as for a unit to declare a charge units must have LOS.

Without using models.

Units are models.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Except the models in this case do NOT declare a charge - that is a unit level decision, independent of the models.

Unit A is prohibited from declaring a charge
Unit Bis NOT.

And so we then seem to turn full circle, p21 requires all models in the unit to make a charge move. So how do we make such a move when one of the models is/maybe prohibited from doing so.

Cheers

Andrew