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.

Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:

MekLeN wrote:
I guess I just don't see how he can trigger his move while still in the unit, then moving from the unit into one of his own, w/o forcing that units movement too...

To leave the unit means moving front the unit. In 6th ed, when a unit counted as moving even if only a single model moved, could an IC leave this way and still have heavy weapons not snapshot?

The IC is a unit all to himself. When he invokes his permission to leave a unit, you select the IC as a unit and move him. The unit he used to be attached to has nothing to do with the IC at this point.

But he is still a part of the unit until he is out of coherency. Your own quote states that.

No, once you invoke the permission to leave a unit which every IC has, he no longer counts as part of the unit and is a unit unto himself.

The permission states this . . .

Spoiler:

An Independent Character can leave a unit during the Movement phase by moving out of
unit coherency with it.

The permission does not state this . . .

Spoiler:

An Independent Character can leave a unit during the Movement phase [while that unit is selected to move] by moving out of
unit coherency with it.

You are adding that restriction.

No, I'm not adding the restriction, nor is that what I'm focusing on. Let me highlight the phrase to make it more clear what I'm saying:

Spoiler:

An Independent Character can leave a unit during the Movement phase by moving out of unit coherency with it.

The actual having left isn't recognized until the IC is out of coherency. The Intention to leave the unit allows him to move out of coherency in the first place, but until he actually DOES move out of coherency, he is still part of the unit.

You are failing to take into account that the IC is a unit all in itself.

This rule gives the IC permission to leave a unit during the movement phase. You select the IC and move him.

col_impact wrote:
You are failing to take into account that the IC is a unit all in itself.

This rule gives the IC permission to leave a unit during the movement phase. You select the IC and move him.

Spoiler:

An Independent Character can leave a unit during the Movement phase by moving out of
unit coherency with it.

Not while joined to another unit it isn't. When joined to another unit, an IC is part of that unit for all rules purposes. It is not until he has left coherency or had the unit destroyed from around him, that he reverts to being his own unit.

Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
You are failing to take into account that the IC is a unit all in itself.

This rule gives the IC permission to leave a unit during the movement phase. You select the IC and move him.

Spoiler:

An Independent Character can leave a unit during the Movement phase by moving out of
unit coherency with it.

Not while joined to another unit it isn't. When joined to another unit, an IC is part of that unit for all rules purposes. It is not until he has left coherency or had the unit destroyed from around him, that he reverts to being his own unit.

Incorrect. He "counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes, though he still follows the rules for characters" but he is still a unit. He has not lost the ability to leave a unit during the movement phase, any rules for characters, and any IC rules.

When this rule is invoked he no longer counts as part of the unit.

col_impact wrote:
If he was still part of the unit, he would not be able to move out of coherency since the models in a unit are required to stay in unit coherency.

The permission is simple. You select the IC and move him out of coherency. When you do that you have completed the movement for the IC unit.

So, by your interpretation, I can shoot the Chaplain unit who is joined to the Crusader Squad unit? Doing so will prevent the Chaplain from being able to LOS any of the Wounds produced by this Shooting, since there are no other models in the Chaplain unit but the Chaplain.

Could you also provide a reference on how units within units are treated? That would be nice.

Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
If he was still part of the unit, he would not be able to move out of coherency since the models in a unit are required to stay in unit coherency.

The permission is simple. You select the IC and move him out of coherency. When you do that you have completed the movement for the IC unit.

So, by your interpretation, I can shoot the Chaplain unit who is joined to the Crusader Squad unit? Doing so will prevent the Chaplain from being able to LOS any of the Wounds produced by this Shooting, since there are no other models in the Chaplain unit but the Chaplain.

Could you also provide a reference on how units within units are treated? That would be nice.

You are just not dealing with it logically and therewith have a flawed interpretation.

The IC is a unit. When he joins a unit, he 'counts as' part of the unit for all rule purposes. 'Counts as' does not strike 'unit' off the IC data sheet. The IC is still indeed a unit. The IC rules provide exceptions where he is handled as not part of the unit.

Do the IC rules allow you to shoot at him as if not part of the unit when joined to a unit? No. There are no IC rules to that effect.

The IC rules do allow the IC to leave a unit during the movement phase. When that permission is invoked the IC unit is not counting as part of the unit.

col_impact wrote:
You are just not dealing with it logically and therewith have a flawed interpretation.

The IC is a unit. When he joins a unit, he 'counts as' part of the unit for all rule purposes. 'Counts as' does not strike 'unit' off the IC data sheet. The IC is still indeed a unit. The IC rules provide exceptions where he is handled as not part of the unit.

Do the IC rules allow you to shoot at him as if not part of the unit when joined to a unit? No. There are no IC rules to that effect.

The IC rules do allow the IC to leave a unit during the movement phase. When that permission is invoked the IC unit is not counting as part of the unit.

I am looking at it quite logically. If the IC can be referenced as his own unit while joined to another, than the scenario I presented is perfectly viable.

However, if an IC's unit identity is subsumed in to the joined unit's identity,, than he cannot be shot separately from the joined unit.

So, too, the ICs classification as "not joined* and operating as his own unit applies only when he moves out of coherency during the Movement Phase (ignoring crazy situations like Dangerous Terrain and Intercept). Before the IC moves, he is in coherency, and therefore, still part of the unit.

"A unit consists of several models banding together, but a single model such as a lone character is also considered to be a unit in its own right"

"The different elements of THE UNIT have to stay together to remain a fighting force..."

An IC can begin the game already part of a unit...

In order to join a unit, move within coherency with it...

If an IC 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....

While an IC is part LD a unit, he counts as part of THE UNIT for all rules purposes, tho he still follows the rules of characters...

"

The character rules state nothing of unitness.

Nothing here states while a part of a unit he remains a unit, unless :

-) lone
-) leaves
-) all else is killed, leaving him alone.

I see mentuns of a singular form, UNIT, whenever mentioned he being part of it.

Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
You are just not dealing with it logically and therewith have a flawed interpretation.

The IC is a unit. When he joins a unit, he 'counts as' part of the unit for all rule purposes. 'Counts as' does not strike 'unit' off the IC data sheet. The IC is still indeed a unit. The IC rules provide exceptions where he is handled as not part of the unit.

Do the IC rules allow you to shoot at him as if not part of the unit when joined to a unit? No. There are no IC rules to that effect.

The IC rules do allow the IC to leave a unit during the movement phase. When that permission is invoked the IC unit is not counting as part of the unit.

I am looking at it quite logically. If the IC can be referenced as his own unit while joined to another, than the scenario I presented is perfectly viable.

However, if an IC's unit identity is subsumed in to the joined unit's identity,, than he cannot be shot separately from the joined unit.

So, too, the ICs classification as "not joined* and operating as his own unit applies only when he moves out of coherency during the Movement Phase (ignoring crazy situations like Dangerous Terrain and Intercept). Before the IC moves, he is in coherency, and therefore, still part of the unit.

Incorrect. If the IC was part of the unit in this scenario he would be wholly unable to move out of coherency. Models in units are not allowed to end their movement out of coherency. So your interpretation is deeply flawed here. If the IC is part of the unit as you claim, the movement rules prevent him from ending his move out of coherency.

This IC rule . . .



. . .allows the IC during the movement phase to not 'count as part of the unit' and move and break coherency (which models that are part of a unit cannot do) by simply acting as a unit in and of itself (a capability which it never fully lost - just the IC independent unit status has been regulated in other circumstances by the 'counts as part of the unit' clause).

I wish I could follow this line of ruling... It'd make things OP in certain situations

But I just really don't think it works that way.

A unit is a unit.
A Single Unit: all models within counting as one, for all purposes (i really do mean all).
A single IC becomes -part- of a unit, until it separates again. No where in any rule or circumstance is this supported in any other way than that. Not LD checks, not wounds allocation, not special rules, not beneficial buffs, not negative effects, LoS, targeting, not even joining within transports (they are now in that squad within the transport, able to stay or leave w/ or w/o the main unit).

I just don't follow you, I'm sorry.

Killpoints, however, each are counted separately.

I've jotted down every ruling on unit-ness from the BRB I could find, and still haven't seen where it's stated that an IC remains a unit while being with another - only before and after is he separate.
That's really the best I got.

MekLeN wrote:
I wish I could follow this line of ruling... It'd make things OP in certain situations

But I just really don't think it works that way.

A unit is a unit.
A Single Unit: all models within counting as one, for all purposes (i really do mean all).
A single IC becomes -part- of a unit, until it separates again. No where in any rule or circumstance is this supported in any other way than that. Not LD checks, not wounds allocation, not special rules, not beneficial buffs, not negative effects, LoS, targeting, not even joining within transports (they are now in that squad within the transport, able to stay or leave w/ or w/o the main unit).

I just don't follow you, I'm sorry.

Killpoints, however, each are counted separately.

I've jotted down every ruling on unit-ness from the BRB I could find, and still haven't seen where it's stated that an IC remains a unit while being with another - only before and after is he separate.
That's really the best I got.

The IC is a unit that 'counts as' part of the unit he joins, but not in the cases of exceptions in the IC rules themselves.

This rule is an example of one of these exceptions . . .



When this rule is invoked, the IC at that point in time no longer 'counts as' part of the unit. He is then simply the unit he always was.

If the IC were still 'counting as' part of the unit then the IC would not be allowed to break coherency since models that are part of units are not allowed to break coherency.

col_impact wrote:
Incorrect. If the IC was part of the unit in this scenario he would be wholly unable to move out of coherency. Models in units are not allowed to end their movement out of coherency. So your interpretation is deeply flawed here. If the IC is part of the unit as you claim, the movement rules prevent him from ending his move out of coherency.

Incorrect, the ability to leave a unit is part of the Independent Character rules, and the unit coherency rules do not prevent it, even though they define it. So, being part of the unit at the start of movement is not a limitation.

col_impact wrote:
This IC rule . . .

Spoiler:

An Independent Character can leave a unit during the Movement phase by moving out of
unit coherency with it.

. . .allows the IC during the movement phase to not 'count as part of the unit' and move and break coherency (which models that are part of a unit cannot do) by simply acting as a unit in and of itself (a capability which it never fully lost - just the IC independent unit status has been regulated in other circumstances by the 'counts as part of the unit' clause).

Interesting that it never actually states that it is not part of the unit at the beginning of the movement, though. You are making an assumption, and not using the actual rules.

The rule you keep quoting states, "by moving out of unit coherency with it" as the condition, and that part is what you keep ignoring, in addition to adding the part about the IC leaving the unit before movement.

If the IC is subject to the 'counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes' during the movement phase then it is subject to this restriction on its movement . . .



Only if the IC is free from the clause 'counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes' can it actually break coherency.

So during the movement phase, the rule . . .



. . . means that in the context of a movement phase where the IC invokes the above rule, the IC does not 'count as part of the unit for all rule purposes' and acts according to a unit on its own. The rule is an exception to the 'counts as part of the unit for all rule purposes.'

col_impact wrote:

If the IC is subject to the 'counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes' during the movement phase then it is subject to this restriction on its movement . . .

Spoiler:

once a unit has
finished moving, the models in it must form an imaginary chain where the
distance between one model and the next is no more than 2" horizontally and
up to 6" vertically.

Only if the IC is free from the clause 'counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes' can it actually break coherency.

So during the movement phase, the rule . . .

Spoiler:

An Independent Character can leave a unit during the Movement phase by moving out of
unit coherency with it.

. . . means that in the context of a movement phase where the IC invokes the above rule, the IC does not 'count as part of the unit for all rule purposes' and acts according to a unit on its own. The rule is an exception to the 'counts as part of the unit for all rule purposes.'

The problem is that it doesn't actually say the IC has left the unit until it is out of coherency. The permission to move out of coherency in the first place is all that is needed to start that movement.

You are trying to use the effect to justify the cause.

Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:

If the IC is subject to the 'counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes' during the movement phase then it is subject to this restriction on its movement . . .

Spoiler:

once a unit has
finished moving, the models in it must form an imaginary chain where the
distance between one model and the next is no more than 2" horizontally and
up to 6" vertically.

Only if the IC is free from the clause 'counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes' can it actually break coherency.

So during the movement phase, the rule . . .

Spoiler:

An Independent Character can leave a unit during the Movement phase by moving out of
unit coherency with it.

. . . means that in the context of a movement phase where the IC invokes the above rule, the IC does not 'count as part of the unit for all rule purposes' and acts according to a unit on its own. The rule is an exception to the 'counts as part of the unit for all rule purposes.'

The problem is that it doesn't actually say the IC has left the unit until it is out of coherency. The permission to move out of coherency in the first place is all that is needed to start that movement.

You are trying to use the effect to justify the cause.

There is no problem. Once the IC invokes permission to leave the unit and break coherency, the rule directly overrides a rule that restricts models in units to moves that don't break coherency and he is no longer subject to the 'counts as part of the unit for all purposes' because if he were, he would be wholly unable to break coherency due to the restriction I have already duly noted that models in units end their movement in coherency. Whenever the IC is placed in a context where he is not subject to the 'counts as part of the unit for all purposes' then he is simply able to exercise his capabilities as a unit in and of himself which he never fully lost.

What you need to realize is that 'counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes' does not strike the solitary unit status from the IC completely. This is the shortcoming of your rationale.

In debate, we must continue to provide fresh, new evidence to support our claims - than saying the same thing again and again.

All the same, were there a game between you and I, I wouldn't see it the same way, but for purposes of fun gameplay and to keep things moving, I would definitely throw a d6 at the situation and play this one game (and each game from that point with you) on whose side of the dice came up.

col_impact wrote:
There is no problem. Once the IC invokes permission to leave the unit and break coherency, the rule directly overrides a rule that restricts models in units to moves that don't break coherency and he is no longer subject to the 'counts as part of the unit for all purposes' because if he were, he would be wholly unable to break coherency due to the restriction I have already duly noted that models in units end their movement in coherency. Whenever the IC is placed in a context where he is not subject to the 'counts as part of the unit for all purposes' then he is simply able to exercise his capabilities as a unit in and of himself which he never fully lost.

At the beginning of his movement, while he is in coherency, he is part of the unit. The rule you keep quoting states, "can leave a unit during the Movement phase by moving out of unit coherency with it", not "can leave a unit during the Movement phase by starting to move out of unit coherency with it."

You are using effect to justify cause.

col_impact wrote:
What you need to realize is that 'counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes' does not strike the solitary unit status from the IC completely. This is the shortcoming of your rationale.

Did I ever state that the unit status is removed completely? No. Did I ever imply it? No.

What I have stated is that the solitary status doesn't begin to apply until it is out of coherency with the unit it has joined, because the rules have stated nothing else (when dealing with movement).

Col, the rule you posted

An Independent Character can leave a unit during the Movement phase by moving out of unit coherency with it.

The last 2 words "with it" that makes me think you have to move the IC with the Unit and both end out of coherency. Not one and then the other. If what i understood is right, until that movement is resolved, the IC is not reverted to it's individual unit.

Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
There is no problem. Once the IC invokes permission to leave the unit and break coherency, the rule directly overrides a rule that restricts models in units to moves that don't break coherency and he is no longer subject to the 'counts as part of the unit for all purposes' because if he were, he would be wholly unable to break coherency due to the restriction I have already duly noted that models in units end their movement in coherency. Whenever the IC is placed in a context where he is not subject to the 'counts as part of the unit for all purposes' then he is simply able to exercise his capabilities as a unit in and of himself which he never fully lost.

At the beginning of his movement, while he is in coherency, he is part of the unit. The rule you keep quoting states, "can leave a unit during the Movement phase by moving out of unit coherency with it", not "can leave a unit during the Movement phase by starting to move out of unit coherency with it."

You are using effect to justify cause.

col_impact wrote:
What you need to realize is that 'counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes' does not strike the solitary unit status from the IC completely. This is the shortcoming of your rationale.

Did I ever state that the unit status is removed completely? No. Did I ever imply it? No.

What I have stated is that the solitary status doesn't begin to apply until it is out of coherency with the unit it has joined, because the rules have stated nothing else (when dealing with movement).

This rule . . .



. . . is in effect for the entirety of the movement phase when it is invoked (the rule is clear that it covers the span of 'during the movement phase'). So for the entireity of the movement phase the IC is not subject to the 'counts as part of the unit for all rules' clause. The player selects the IC unit and moves the IC such that it will be out of coherency with the unit it wishes to leave.

But the rule says you have to move the unit it wishes to leave at the same time when you invoke de rule.

But yes, then the unit can choose to jump (or the IC can choose to jump, whoever has the jump pack).

But for what I asked, they must end turn as different units

Wallur wrote:
But the rule says you have to move the unit it wishes to leave at the same time when you invoke de rule.

The rule does not say this at all. You are misreading the rule.

All models in the unit must be able to re-roll their charge distance for this to work. However, your Rune Priest would still gain HoW

 natpri771 wrote:
All models in the unit must be able to re-roll their charge distance for this to work. However, your Rune Priest would still gain HoW

Hammer of Wrath is part of the movement mode, not generally applicable to the unit type.

The only rules Jump units have all the time are Bulky and Deep Strike.

+1 to Charistoph on the HoW thing