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.

Rigeld2, I understand what you are saying but ceasing be a unit is not covered under the rules. We are not even told that the IC does stop being a unit- just the IC 'inclusion clause'. Further we are given no guidance that restrictions (unit or model) are removed with a status change.

While I agree the likelihood of this situation happening is slim, this could also be used as precedent to further egg hunts.

As far as Easter egg hunts...rereading the rules multiple times and combining them with other separate rules that are also reread multiple times is the definition of Easter egg hunting. And we don't know if BlackBerry in transports was intended because this a new edition of the rules. Going off your assertion, woumds overflow was intended...oh, wait...last edition it was FAQ'D to not overdlow...this edition it is specifically spelled out that it does. perfect example of the current discussion. We are not explicitly told something happens (restriction are removed) based on an action (IC joining a unit) so it doesn't.

There is no company in the world that could take the rule set as complicated as 40k and abuse proof it a reasonable cost. Could they do better, sure...much better for the price we pay. But good number of 40k players are easter egg hunters. As shown by the shear number of 'look what I found if you reinterpret and combine X, Y, and Z' thread on release weekend. Most of these are the exact same claims made at the release of 6th that people want to try and prove yet again. Players break the game...but GW does make it easier than most games.

 hisdudeness wrote:
Rigeld2, I understand what you are saying but ceasing be a unit is not covered under the rules. We are not even told that the IC does stop being a unit- just the IC 'inclusion clause'. Further we are given no guidance that restrictions (unit or model) are removed with a status change.

The phrase "again becomes a unit of one model" was removed? The IC ceases to become a unit, demonstrably. Please use rules to prove otherwise.
And also use actual rules to prove that a restriction on Unit A applies to Unit B.

As far as Easter egg hunts...rereading the rules multiple times and combining them with other separate rules that are also reread multiple times is the definition of Easter egg hunting.

Only if the goal is to find a hole. I read the rules a lot. Like - a lot. I don't try and find holes, I just see an oddity and then try and figure out how that oddity works.

And we don't know if BlackBerry in transports was intended because this a new edition of the rules. Going off your assertion, woumds overflow was intended...oh, wait...last edition it was FAQ'D to not overdlow...

True. I should've said it could've been intended and those that insulted me (and others) for proving, using rules, that it was the actual rules were in the wrong.

this edition it is specifically spelled out that it does. perfect example of the current discussion. We are not explicitly told something happens (restriction are removed) based on an action (IC joining a unit) so it doesn't.

There isn't a restriction being removed. You're asserting that one is applied to Unit B when the restriction is on Unit A. You've failed, utterly, to prove why.

There is no company in the world that could take the rule set as complicated as 40k and abuse proof it a reasonable cost. Could they do better, sure...much better for the price we pay. But good number of 40k players are easter egg hunters. As shown by the shear number of 'look what I found if you reinterpret and combine X, Y, and Z' thread on release weekend. Most of these are the exact same claims made at the release of 6th that people want to try and prove yet again. Players break the game...but GW does make it easier than most games.

Abuse proof? No. And that's not what I'm saying.
Saying that players break the game is stupid because players play the game. GW demonstrably has no idea what they're doing when writing rules - look at how wound allocation was written in the BRB vs how it was FAQed. Are you really going to tell me that players were "abusing" the wound allocation rules and it's not GWs fault?

 Nem wrote:
1. Yes the restriction is on the unit. Also, as well as being part of the unit, the IC rules also specify the Model continues to carry ongoing effects - even effects which are tagged to his unit (not him as a model) that he is no longer a part of and his new unit does not have ( See soul blaze, blind and the section 'ongoing effects') . So the rules for IC take care of that. Yes he is part of the unit, but there is also another half a page of IC rules which deal with what this means. Nothing suggests and the rules don't even hint at this point the IC restriction -The unit can not charge- goes away. IC rules do not specify restrictions are lifted, or the IC loses anything that he had, in fact the rules go all out saying the IC doesn't get to sidestep rules for joining a unit, or leaving a unit.
Part of the unit - is shown to be a 2 way effect. Rules from both the unit prior to the IC joining remain but are not shared, and rules from the IC's unit which has joined remain but not shared. I would suggest anything unit based which was happened before his joining remain, this includes the unit's special rules (Including Independent Character special rule), the unit's restrictions and the unit's permissions.

2. Even if the reserves restriction are debatable, this falls short of the restriction of disembarking which says model can not charge.

Bring something new or debate or justify using rules why those IC rules do not apply.

And yes when your reading between the lines to justify skipping a restriction as such it just yells we-skip-50%-rule-because-ours-happens-first.

AS its has been quoted above for anyone from Google trying to find the answer. Nem has gotten this completely correct. There is not 1 rule that takes away the, paraphrasing of course, "reserves cannot charge the turn they come in". It is a specific denial of permission.

osirisx69 wrote:

 Nem wrote:
1. Yes the restriction is on the unit. Also, as well as being part of the unit, the IC rules also specify the Model continues to carry ongoing effects - even effects which are tagged to his unit (not him as a model) that he is no longer a part of and his new unit does not have ( See soul blaze, blind and the section 'ongoing effects') . So the rules for IC take care of that. Yes he is part of the unit, but there is also another half a page of IC rules which deal with what this means. Nothing suggests and the rules don't even hint at this point the IC restriction -The unit can not charge- goes away. IC rules do not specify restrictions are lifted, or the IC loses anything that he had, in fact the rules go all out saying the IC doesn't get to sidestep rules for joining a unit, or leaving a unit.
Part of the unit - is shown to be a 2 way effect. Rules from both the unit prior to the IC joining remain but are not shared, and rules from the IC's unit which has joined remain but not shared. I would suggest anything unit based which was happened before his joining remain, this includes the unit's special rules (Including Independent Character special rule), the unit's restrictions and the unit's permissions.

2. Even if the reserves restriction are debatable, this falls short of the restriction of disembarking which says model can not charge.

Bring something new or debate or justify using rules why those IC rules do not apply.

And yes when your reading between the lines to justify skipping a restriction as such it just yells we-skip-50%-rule-because-ours-happens-first.

AS its has been quoted above for anyone from Google trying to find the answer. Nem has gotten this completely correct. There is not 1 rule that takes away the, paraphrasing of course, "reserves cannot charge the turn they come in". It is a specific denial of permission.

You paraphrase is incomplete and as such is incorrect. Perhaps if you'd read the thread from last week you'd understand why Nem is not correct.

rigeld2 wrote:

 hisdudeness wrote:
Rigeld2, I understand what you are saying but ceasing be a unit is not covered under the rules. We are not even told that the IC does stop being a unit- just the IC 'inclusion clause'. Further we are given no guidance that restrictions (unit or model) are removed with a status change.

The phrase "again becomes a unit of one model" was removed? The IC ceases to become a unit, demonstrably. Please use rules to prove otherwise.
And also use actual rules to prove that a restriction on Unit A applies to Unit B.

Show an actual rule showing the IC ceases to be a unit when joining. You showed rules of what happens when an IC leaves a unit and doesn't join another, not what happens when it joins one. There is a difference.

As far as Easter egg hunts...rereading the rules multiple times and combining them with other separate rules that are also reread multiple times is the definition of Easter egg hunting.

Only if the goal is to find a hole. I read the rules a lot. Like - a lot. I don't try and find holes, I just see an oddity and then try and figure out how that oddity works.

Sadly, I believe most of these threads are not people looking for clarification, but a loophole.

And we don't know if BB in transports was intended because this a new edition of the rules. Going off your assertion, wounds overflow was intended...oh, wait...last edition it was FAQ'D to not overflow...

True. I should've said it could've been intended and those that insulted me (and others) for proving, using rules, that it was the actual rules were in the wrong.

this edition it is specifically spelled out that it does. perfect example of the current discussion. We are not explicitly told something happens (restriction are removed) based on an action (IC joining a unit) so it doesn't.

There isn't a restriction being removed. You're asserting that one is applied to Unit B when the restriction is on Unit A. You've failed, utterly, to prove why.

There is no company in the world that could take the rule set as complicated as 40k and abuse proof it a reasonable cost. Could they do better, sure...much better for the price we pay. But good number of 40k players are easter egg hunters. As shown by the shear number of 'look what I found if you reinterpret and combine X, Y, and Z' thread on release weekend. Most of these are the exact same claims made at the release of 6th that people want to try and prove yet again. Players break the game...but GW does make it easier than most games.

Abuse proof? No. And that's not what I'm saying.
Saying that players break the game is stupid because players play the game. GW demonstrably has no idea what they're doing when writing rules - look at how wound allocation was written in the BRB vs how it was FAQed. Are you really going to tell me that players were "abusing" the wound allocation rules and it's not GWs fault?

I'll respond to the rest when I'm not stuck responding from my phone...it takes too long and I have to at least pretend to get something done in the weather.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
Don't worry Nos, I will come to the rescue. With an IC rules 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.

The moment the IC dies, he is no longer part of the unit, as he is no longer part of the unit he is not part of the unit and therefore does not count as part of the unit for all rules purposes. I.e. he is, at the moment of death, a unit on his own again. The 6th edition caveat in first-blood was to "idiot proof" this concept.

That doesn't seem right to me, by saying that the IC is no longer a member of the unit at the point of death, it would mean that the wounds inflicted on him via shooting say, wouldn't cause a morale check, because he wasn't part of the unit when he died.

Which part is the rules quote, and which is your interpretation?

Cheers

Andrew

PS I don't have the rules, so I'm keeping out of this one, but a question for all the pro crowd. If an IC has the Forewarning blessing cast on him, and he joins a unit, does he lose his 4++?

 hisdudeness wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 hisdudeness wrote:
Rigeld2, I understand what you are saying but ceasing be a unit is not covered under the rules. We are not even told that the IC does stop being a unit- just the IC 'inclusion clause'. Further we are given no guidance that restrictions (unit or model) are removed with a status change.

The phrase "again becomes a unit of one model" was removed? The IC ceases to become a unit, demonstrably. Please use rules to prove otherwise.
And also use actual rules to prove that a restriction on Unit A applies to Unit B.

Show an actual rule showing the IC ceases to be a unit when joining. You showed rules of what happens when an IC leaves a unit and doesn't join another, not what happens when it joins one. There is a difference.

It's actually the same thing. If it again becomes a unit of one model, it wasn't a unit of one model before. It was a unit of one model plus a bunch of other models - the unit it was part of.
When it joins a unit, it stops being a unit by itself. Please read the BB in an allied transport threads for more proof, I can't be bothered to retype all of it if you're lazy.

Sadly, I believe most of these threads are not people looking for clarification, but a loophole.

Your belief != the truth in every circumstance. Most of the time, in YMDC at least that I've seen, is people looking for clarification because of the gak rules writing that comes out of Nottingham.

I'll respond to the rest when I'm not stuck responding from my phone...it takes too long and I have to at least pretend to get something done in the weather.

Bah... people don't do work outside in the rain! (just kidding... and for those unaware, dudeness and I know each other outside of dakka)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AndrewC wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
Don't worry Nos, I will come to the rescue. With an IC rules 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.

The moment the IC dies, he is no longer part of the unit, as he is no longer part of the unit he is not part of the unit and therefore does not count as part of the unit for all rules purposes. I.e. he is, at the moment of death, a unit on his own again. The 6th edition caveat in first-blood was to "idiot proof" this concept.

That doesn't seem right to me, by saying that the IC is no longer a member of the unit at the point of death, it would mean that the wounds inflicted on him via shooting say, wouldn't cause a morale check, because he wasn't part of the unit when he died.

Which part is the rules quote, and which is your interpretation?

Untrue. When the wounds were caused and the model removed as a casualty, he was part of the unit. The fact that the unit size changed is irrelevant.

I agree with you there, but it seems to me that that is not what Kommissar Kel wrote.

Cheers

Andrew

 AndrewC wrote:
I agree with you there, but it seems to me that that is not what Kommissar Kel wrote.

Except it is. He's no longer a member of the unit for rules purposes, but that's not what matters for the Morale test.
When he was a member of the unit, the unit suffered a casualty. After suffering that casualty he's not a member of the unit, but that doesn't change the fact that the unit suffered a casualty.

I'm getting confused here. I think I'll take the topic to a separate thread. How about my other question about the forewarning on an IC who joins another unit?

Cheers

Andrew

 AndrewC wrote:
I'm getting confused here. I think I'll take the topic to a separate thread. How about my other question about the forewarning on an IC who joins another unit?

No, he keeps it. That's an ongoing effect and there are rules addressing that.
What has not been proven is that the restriction on assault is an ongoing effect - because the rules require that the IC/unit be "the target of a beneficial or harmful effect". Nothing is targeting the IC when he arrives from Reserves and bestowing a harmful effect.

Unless the rules for ongoing effects have changed, the blessing affects the unit only, nothing is mentioned about models? So why does an effect on a unit transfer in one case and not the other? because if you think about it, your argument has included a caveat that he hasn't in-fact left the unit, but that the unit had ceased to exist.

Cheers

Andrew

 AndrewC wrote:
Unless the rules for ongoing effects have changed, the blessing affects the unit only, nothing is mentioned about models? So why does an effect on a unit transfer in one case and not the other?

Because of the IC rules as I mentioned.

stuffs

R2, It's not the same thing. Different actions happen for each. Restriction can easily be classified as 'ongoing effects' because it's not a well defined term or the list all inclusive. Additionally, restrictions as an ongoing effect makes sense and doesn't require us to make any further assumptions beyond putting it under the effects umbrella. Nor does it require the combing of the rest of the book to justify anything.

more stuffs

The rule for leaving a unit can easily be interpreted to clarify that the IC is a 'single model unit' as opposed to a standard unit. Thus lending to the claim that the the IC ever stopped being a unit in and of itself.

I will not look up the BB discussion because I want your references to it to continue mean nothing to me.

further incorrect point

I did say 'most' and is a generalization. There are many clarification questions, but a majority are egg hunts looking for acceptance.

...who is this?...do I know you?...prank call, park call!!!

But those rules only applied to models leaving a unit, nothing about a unit ceasing to exist.

Your own argument is that the unit suffering the effects has ceased to exist, and that the IC hasn't left the unit. Applying the exact same argument to those blessings that affect units, with no mention of models in the description, ala blind, would mean that all sorts of blessings and maladictions can be circumvented.

Cheers

Andrew

 hisdudeness wrote:
R2, It's not the same thing. Different actions happen for each. Restriction can easily be classified as 'ongoing effects' because it's not a well defined term or the list all inclusive. Additionally, restrictions as an ongoing effect makes sense and doesn't require us to make any further assumptions beyond putting it under the effects umbrella. Nor does it require the combing of the rest of the book to justify anything.

It really does require assumptions. As I've quoted and demonstrated and I'm too lazy to repeat so you'll have to actually read - sorry.

The rule for leaving a unit can easily be interpreted to clarify that the IC is a 'single model unit' as opposed to a standard unit.

A standard unit? What's the difference between a standard unit and a single model unit? To use this argument you have to support it. Please, do so.

I will not look up the BB discussion because I want your references to it to continue mean nothing to me.

Sure - you can ignore rules based arguments all you want... it doesn't help your argument at all though.

There are many clarification questions, but a majority are egg hunts looking for acceptance.

I disagree.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AndrewC wrote:
But those rules only applied to models leaving a unit, nothing about a unit ceasing to exist.

The question you actually asked has nothing about leaving a unit, just an IC joining a unit:

If an IC has the Forewarning blessing cast on him, and he joins a unit, does he lose his 4++?

I answered the question. If you meant to ask something else, do so.

 hisdudeness wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 hisdudeness wrote:
Rigeld2, I understand what you are saying but ceasing be a unit is not covered under the rules. We are not even told that the IC does stop being a unit- just the IC 'inclusion clause'. Further we are given no guidance that restrictions (unit or model) are removed with a status change.

The phrase "again becomes a unit of one model" was removed? The IC ceases to become a unit, demonstrably. Please use rules to prove otherwise.
And also use actual rules to prove that a restriction on Unit A applies to Unit B.

Show an actual rule showing the IC ceases to be a unit when joining. You showed rules of what happens when an IC leaves a unit and doesn't join another, not what happens when it joins one. There is a difference.

As far as Easter egg hunts...rereading the rules multiple times and combining them with other separate rules that are also reread multiple times is the definition of Easter egg hunting.

Only if the goal is to find a hole. I read the rules a lot. Like - a lot. I don't try and find holes, I just see an oddity and then try and figure out how that oddity works.

Sadly, I believe most of these threads are not people looking for clarification, but a loophole.

And we don't know if BB in transports was intended because this a new edition of the rules. Going off your assertion, wounds overflow was intended...oh, wait...last edition it was FAQ'D to not overflow...

True. I should've said it could've been intended and those that insulted me (and others) for proving, using rules, that it was the actual rules were in the wrong.

this edition it is specifically spelled out that it does. perfect example of the current discussion. We are not explicitly told something happens (restriction are removed) based on an action (IC joining a unit) so it doesn't.

There isn't a restriction being removed. You're asserting that one is applied to Unit B when the restriction is on Unit A. You've failed, utterly, to prove why.

There is no company in the world that could take the rule set as complicated as 40k and abuse proof it a reasonable cost. Could they do better, sure...much better for the price we pay. But good number of 40k players are easter egg hunters. As shown by the shear number of 'look what I found if you reinterpret and combine X, Y, and Z' thread on release weekend. Most of these are the exact same claims made at the release of 6th that people want to try and prove yet again. Players break the game...but GW does make it easier than most games.

Abuse proof? No. And that's not what I'm saying.
Saying that players break the game is stupid because players play the game. GW demonstrably has no idea what they're doing when writing rules - look at how wound allocation was written in the BRB vs how it was FAQed. Are you really going to tell me that players were "abusing" the wound allocation rules and it's not GWs fault?

I'll respond to the rest when I'm not stuck responding from my phone...it takes too long and I have to at least pretend to get something done in the weather.

This is really the crux of this debate. Never has the other side shown any specific ruling that gives permission. All they have shown is loopholes and oddities that are basically just failed logic leaps. If there actually was a specific permission, cause remember folks a general ruling is always trumped by a specific ruling, then it would have been cited and referenced but it hasn't.

 Nem wrote:
1. Yes the restriction is on the unit. Also, as well as being part of the unit, the IC rules also specify the Model continues to carry ongoing effects - even effects which are tagged to his unit (not him as a model) that he is no longer a part of and his new unit does not have ( See soul blaze, blind and the section 'ongoing effects') . So the rules for IC take care of that. Yes he is part of the unit, but there is also another half a page of IC rules which deal with what this means. Nothing suggests and the rules don't even hint at this point the IC restriction -The unit can not charge- goes away. IC rules do not specify restrictions are lifted, or the IC loses anything that he had, in fact the rules go all out saying the IC doesn't get to sidestep rules for joining a unit, or leaving a unit.
Part of the unit - is shown to be a 2 way effect. Rules from both the unit prior to the IC joining remain but are not shared, and rules from the IC's unit which has joined remain but not shared. I would suggest anything unit based which was happened before his joining remain, this includes the unit's special rules (Including Independent Character special rule), the unit's restrictions and the unit's permissions.

2. Even if the reserves restriction are debatable, this falls short of the restriction of disembarking which says model can not charge.

I think this is a good explanation of some potentially-unclear rules gaps.

I, for one, am glad that my proposed situation is not possible.