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 recently had a game where my friend wanted to join Ovesa and Farsight, I told him he couldn't because you can't join a MC to an IC. He said he was having Ovesa join Farsight so he wasn't technically breaking that rule, I told him I didn't think that that is how it works because since they are both IC if Ovesa joins farsight the farsight is also joining Ovesa and that is against the rules. He persisted in his previous argument and in the interests of getting the game started I just let him do it.

tl;dr Can Ovesa and Farsight combine into a single unit?

It's a really good question, and it has no good answer.

It's obvious that RAI he cannot.

In order to join a unit, an Independent Character simply has to move so that he is within the 2" unit coherency distance of a friendly unit at the end of their Movement phase.
One simple question: If a Model has not moved, can it trigger a clause that requires movement?

Honestly I do not know what the Authors intended with O'vesa, they could of intended it to be one of the very few Monstrous Creatures that is easily able to join another Unit or maybe have forgotten that these existed. I do know that they had many chances to Errata away the Independent Special Rule from this Model and have not done so, which means that the Rule as Written grants it access to the ability to Join. As the Restriction in question is forbidding something from joining the Monstrous Creature, and not forbidding it from joining them, there is nothing to prevent O'vesa from exploiting what might or might not be a 'loophole.'

However, even without dissecting the words used in the Rule, there is an issue with your interpretation:
... he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes ...

If Model A and Model B are joining each others Unit simultaneously, they will now belong to each other's Unit for all Rule purposes and belonging to two separate Units at the same time is messy.

The joining each other at the same time thing only really applies to two ICs joining each other and is based off of the IC joining IC rules in the IC special rule section. It says (or said, they could have changed the wording as I can't look in the 7th BRB at the moment) something like 'multiple IC can join each other to form one super unit of ICs' or something like that.

An MC IC CAN join a unit, as long as it is not an IC joining a unit containing a MC. So no Ovesa+Riptide, but Ovesa joining farsights unit is possible

Joining is a one sided action. If it were not, then no IC could join a non-IC unit, as a non-IC unit has no permission (usually) to join another unit.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
An MC IC CAN join a unit, as long as it is not an IC joining a unit containing a MC. So no Ovesa+Riptide, but Ovesa joining farsights unit is possible

Joining is a one sided action. If it were not, then no IC could join a non-IC unit, as a non-IC unit has no permission (usually) to join another unit.

My view on this as well. O'Vesa would need to be the last one joining the unit, and if you detach someone... can't put him back until O'Vesa leaves and re-joins as well, kek

On another note, not letting O'Vesa join with any other of the Eight breaks the fluff and one of the central ideas in Farsight Enclaves; it'd require a FAQ for exception

Agreed. O'Vesa can join any unit other than a unit containing another MC.

Also, no other IC may join a unit containing O'Vesa.

The important distinction here is that O'Vesa is joining Farsight's unit. Farsight is not joining O'Vesa's. Joining is an active action and only one IC is doing it at a time.

NL_Cirrus,
The Rule I quoted is how an Independent Character can go about joining another Unit, if I misquoted it then please quote the actual Rule which supports the concept of joining without moving the Independent Character.

Also, take extra note of the word 'their Movement Phase' in the Rule, this terminology is used repetitively throughout the book when discussing an individual Unit's action within the controlling player's Movement Phase. The very first encounter of this terminology is in Regrouping, where it uses the 'their movement phase' terminology while telling us to do something right before moving the Unit. The only curiosity within the Independent Character Special Rule is the inclusion of the words 'end of' right before the words 'their movement phase,' but that does not grant us grounds to ignore the rest of the Rule itself. The action which triggers this Rule is still that of moving the Independent Character into a specific position, without that movement this Rule can not trigger.

Also take note of the Restriction preventing the unit being joined from moving afterwards... little strange for that Restriction to even exist if the joining occurred at the end of the Movement Phase itself.

What more can I put forth to show that Joining is a one-way action?
If you want I can dissect your interpretation to see how it survives interaction with other Rules, Sequencing alone will cause problems as we can not resolving the two Independent Character Special Rules simultaneously.
Once it comes to resolving the second Independent Character Special Rule, is there even the Unit for it to join at that point or is it trying to join up with Models already in it's Unit?

By the interpretation that some have put forth:

I come up to a table on turn 3 and look at the unit that consists of 3 Crisis Suits + Farsight + O'vesa.

Is it illegal or not? Don't you think there is something wrong with arguing that one way it is and one it isn't?

Also, Farsight will "re"join the unit in every Movement phase because, unless he isn't within 2" of the unit at the end of the movement phase, he will satisfy the conditions for joining the unit. This isn't optional if the IC is within 2" of a legal unit at the end of a movement phase. Since O'Vesa will be within 2" of the unit at the end of the movement phase (these aren't sequential effects subject to timing), Farsight will be prohibited from joining the unit.

Angelic wrote:
By the interpretation that some have put forth:

I come up to a table on turn 3 and look at the unit that consists of 3 Crisis Suits + Farsight + O'vesa.

Is it illegal or not? Don't you think there is something wrong with arguing that one way it is and one it isn't?

Also, Farsight will "re"join the unit in every Movement phase because, unless he isn't within 2" of the unit at the end of the movement phase, he will satisfy the conditions for joining the unit. This isn't optional if the IC is within 2" of a legal unit at the end of a movement phase. Since O'Vesa will be within 2" of the unit at the end of the movement phase (these aren't sequential effects subject to timing), Farsight will be prohibited from joining the unit.

Which is why its illegal. Had a guy try and use this against me. I didn't let him. Then proceeded to beat his face in that game. Never wanted to play me again which I'm fine with

Angelic,
Simply walking into a on-going game and claiming something you witnessed illegal is not enough to conclude that it is actually illegal. That can only be done by highlighting what Restriction or instruction within a Rule was broken. In this situation, the two players involved would easily informed you that the Rules where followed to the letter. They may even point out in the book exactly how it allows this to be done without violating any Rule. Would you still consider X illegal after that occurred, ignoring for now the situation at hand and just assuming a hypothetical X?

Sequencing also causes a problem with what you are claiming will occur, as it requires us to resolve one Independent Character Rule then the other in a specific order. Therefore, even in situations where the conditions are met to trigger a 're-joining' to one of the Units, the order in which the Models are joining the Unit can still allow O'vesa to join last. As it is the action of an Independent Character joining a Unit which already contains a Monstrous Creature which is illegal, the act of joining O'vesa in that order fails to meet the Restriction in question.

I would also like to bring to your attention the requirement to treat the Independent Character as a member of the Unit for all Rule purposes while it is joined. The timing involved in your interpretation means the Independent Character is still joined during the rest of the Movement Phase, as we only have permission to check to see if it moved out of coherency at the end under your interpretation. If the Independent Character did does not meet the Requirements within the Rule to leave said Unit, it must still be joined to the Unit. At that point I would simply ask why you are treating the Independent Character as a separate Unit, when we are specific informed to treat it as a member of the joined Unit for all Rule purposes?

Disagree with the Written Rule all you like, but it is not illegal unless those Rules state it is.

When they wrote the rules preventing ICs from joing units containing MCs, they probably didn't consider that an MC IC might want to join a unit containing, amongst other things, a non MC IC.

I believe the intention is that ICs and MCs can't be in the same unit. The actual rules as written don't accomplish this. As we can't ever know the intention (short of an FAQ entry), we are limited to rules as written.

As silly as it sounds, the current rules do allow O'Vesa to join a unit composed of Farsight and some Crisis Suits. The only restriction is that an IC can't join a unit containing an MC. O'Vesa isn't joining a unit containing an MC, so the join is legal. They do not allow Farsight to join a unit composed of O'Vesa and some Crisis Suits. Farsight would be joining a unit containing an MC, so the join would be illegal.

And to whoever wrote saying that ICs have to rejoin their squads every turn... that's silly. You can choose to join and you can choose to leave, but so long as you are a member of the unit, you move with them and stay in coherency just like any other model in the unit. Unless you state that you're leaving the unit, you are not.

Kriswall,
I do have a concern with the 'Authors Intent' argument, even though it is true we can not know either way.

This is due to the fact Errata for the Farsight Enclaves was released to bring it in-line with 7th Edition. Given that the unique characters within where the 'meat and bones' of this supplement, it stands to reason that their Army List Entries would have also been reviewed to see if they complied with the new Rules. This leads me to conclude that the Authors had a chance to remove the Independent Character Special Rule, or add a clause that O'Vesa can not join other Units which a few Models with the Independent Character Special Rule have, and they chose instead to leave everything as it currently was. Of course, without the Authors outright saying either way I can't conclude for sure what happened but it is undeniable that they had a chance to make changes and did not actually do so.

Jinx,

I totally agree. I hesitated to even mention by thoughts about intent, because they aren't even remotely relevant to a rules as written discussion.

We have the Main Rulebook, the Codex, the Supplement and the Errata/FAQs. Nothing within any of these sources prevents O'Vesa, as a Monstrous Creature who happens to have the Independent Character special rule, from joining any unit in the Tau Empire stable of units, excepting the various Riptide variants(XV-104, XV-107 and the upcoming new Forgeworld XV-10? variant) and including those containing other Independent Characters.

JinxDragon wrote:
Angelic,
Simply walking into a on-going game and claiming something you witnessed illegal is not enough to conclude that it is actually illegal.

I didn't do any such thing. I simply asked about a hypothetical situation to illustrate a point. Why should one way be illegal and the other not? Isn't the rule there to prohibit a result, not a method by which the rule is easily circumvented and thus becomes completely meaningless? What exactly is the purpose of the rule as it has been interpreted by some?

 Kriswall wrote:

And to whoever wrote saying that ICs have to rejoin their squads every turn... that's silly. You can choose to join and you can choose to leave, but so long as you are a member of the unit, you move with them and stay in coherency just like any other model in the unit. Unless you state that you're leaving the unit, you are not.

You misinterpreted what I said. Whether the IC intends to or not, whether the IC has already joined the unit or not, it "joins" a unit if it is within 2" of it at the end movement phase. "Stating" joining/leaving has no bearing on it. If an IC is with 2" of the unit at the end of the movement phase, it has joined the unit. The rule doesn't ask if the IC had previously joined the unit. It only asks that if attempting to leave the unit, which can only be accomplished by being more than 2" away.

Your hypothetical situation involved arriving mid-game, then asking if an action was illegal. My reply is a direct answer to you: We can not determine legality without looking at the Rules that where involved in the scenario. This is because the Rules exist to tell us how to play the game, not how to conclude if something is illegal by simply glancing at the Result. They exist to grant us permission to do X or Y, or remove said permission if it has already been granted, and nothing more. By default, the Result of following any Written Rules is always going to be legal because no Rule was violated to get to that outcome.

JinxDragon wrote:
Rules exist to tell us how to play the game, they do not restrict the games outcome

False. The Kansas City Chiefs could not have beaten the New England Patriots by a score of banana to zebra, though they may have wished it so.

JinxDragon wrote:
By default, the result of following the written Rules is always going to be legal because no Rule was violated in doing so.

And this is the rub. Because the rules as written can be interpreted differently by different people. There seems to be a mistaken belief that RAW is absolute and certain on its face. It is not and never was.

JinxDragon wrote:

The Rule prevents Independent Characters from joining Monstrous Creatures

"Join" is a two-way street as I see the word.

JinxDragon wrote:
which is not enough to prevent a Monstrous Creature from evoking a Rule within their Army List Entry which grants them permission to join others.

Which "as written" to me means order is meaningless as the rule is there to prevent IC's and MC's from being present in the same unit through the use of the standard IC special rue.

Only because the Rules do not give the Patriots permission to score a Banana or the Chiefs to score a Zebra.
Unless, in this hypothetical situation, the Rules actually do then it becomes entirely possible for the Patriots to beat the Chiefs with a score of Banana to Zebra.

While this side thought has been completely unproductive to proving your point, it has been fun in proving my own. The only reason the end result of 'Banana to Zebra' would be illegal is because nothing grants permission for those two values to be included in something known as a 'score.' Instead there would be a list of Rules telling which actions generate a score, and a numeral value of points which are then added to that score. Given that the only way for a value to be added to the score would be through one of these Rules granting permission to do so, there is no possible outcome where Banana and Zebra will ever be scores. Very different to having a situation where all Rules can be obeyed to create an outcome that is only legal if the actions are taken in a very specific order....

Also, Rule as Interpenetrate and Rules as Written are very different things.
Unless you are going to tell me that instructions to move the model into coherency can reasonably be interpenetrated as something other then moving the model into coherency?

Angelic wrote:
I didn't do any such thing. I simply asked about a hypothetical situation to illustrate a point. Why should one way be illegal and the other not? Isn't the rule there to prohibit a result, not a method by which the rule is easily circumvented and thus becomes completely meaningless? What exactly is the purpose of the rule as it has been interpreted by some?

You walk up to a game and see a single space marine with a LasCannon. This is an illegal unit configuration and therefore illegal.
Or... it is the result of a legal purchase, and gameplay has made it appear illegal. Exactly like the MC IC situation.

rigeld2 wrote:

Angelic wrote:
I didn't do any such thing. I simply asked about a hypothetical situation to illustrate a point. Why should one way be illegal and the other not? Isn't the rule there to prohibit a result, not a method by which the rule is easily circumvented and thus becomes completely meaningless? What exactly is the purpose of the rule as it has been interpreted by some?

You walk up to a game and see a single space marine with a LasCannon. This is an illegal unit configuration and therefore illegal.
Or... it is the result of a legal purchase, and gameplay has made it appear illegal. Exactly like the MC IC situation.

False analogy. I also did not make an assumption, but posed a question. The point of which was that a question even existed. The normal response to a single marine on the table would not be that somebody made an illegal list that somehow got to the middle of the game without being noticed.

Also, it's not illegal because they're playing Kill Team. But, please, bring up more like this. They really contribute to the discussion.

Angelic wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Angelic wrote:
I didn't do any such thing. I simply asked about a hypothetical situation to illustrate a point. Why should one way be illegal and the other not? Isn't the rule there to prohibit a result, not a method by which the rule is easily circumvented and thus becomes completely meaningless? What exactly is the purpose of the rule as it has been interpreted by some?

You walk up to a game and see a single space marine with a LasCannon. This is an illegal unit configuration and therefore illegal.
Or... it is the result of a legal purchase, and gameplay has made it appear illegal. Exactly like the MC IC situation.

False analogy. I also did not make an assumption, but posed a question. The point of which was that a question even existed. The normal response to a single marine on the table would not be that somebody made an illegal list that somehow got to the middle of the game without being noticed.

Also, it's not illegal because they're playing Kill Team. But, please, bring up more like this. They really contribute to the discussion.

You did make an assumption. You assumed that it's illegal just because you didn't have all the information when you walked up.
The normal response to O'Vesa being joined to a unit should not be that it's illegal - that's your perception at fault.

And I am contributing to the discussion. You said

Is it illegal or not? Don't you think there is something wrong with arguing that one way it is and one it isn't?

Is it illegal to have a single marine with a LasCannon outside of Kill Team? I don't see anything wrong with arguing that it's illegal to have that in your list, but perfectly legal if all his buddies were shot by that mean Necron Warrior squad. The issue with your hypothetical situation is that you're making the assumption that it's wrong in the first place.

rigeld2 wrote:

Angelic wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

The normal response to O'Vesa being joined to a unit should not be that it's illegal - that's your perception at fault.

Therein lies your misinterpretation of my statement considering you even quoted it:

rigeld2 wrote:

Angelic wrote:


And I am contributing to the discussion. You said

Is it illegal or not?...

If you perceive that as an assumption of illegality, that is your perception at fault.

JinxDragon wrote:
Only because the Rules do not give the Patriots permission to score a Banana or the Chiefs to score a Zebra.
Unless, in this hypothetical situation, the Rules actually do then it becomes entirely possible for the Patriots to beat the Chiefs with a score of Banana to Zebra.

While this side thought has been completely unproductive to proving your point, it has been fun in proving my own. The only reason the end result of 'Banana to Zebra' would be illegal is because nothing grants permission for those two values to be included in something known as a 'score.' Instead there would be a list of Rules telling which actions generate a score, and a numeral value of points which are then added to that score. Given that the only way for a value to be added to the score would be through one of these Rules granting permission to do so, there is no possible outcome where Banana and Zebra will ever be scores. Very different to having a situation where all Rules can be obeyed to create an outcome that is only legal if the actions are taken in a very specific order....

Also, Rule as Interpenetrate and Rules as Written are very different things.
Unless you are going to tell me that instructions to move the model into coherency can reasonably be interpenetrated as something other then moving the model into coherency?

I'm not sure what you mean by that second to last sentence, because everything written must be interpreted. Every writing has multiple interpretations. Many jobs depend on that fact.

And restricting possible scores IS restricting outcomes. Your point was disproven.

Why does this issue keep coming up? Codex trumps BRB in this case and it clearly states: that when you take a farsight enclave you have access to a special unit called farsights command team. The key word there is unit and it goes on to say that the "unit" (with farsight) is an hq unit that does not take up a force org slot

 wilsmire wrote:
Why does this issue keep coming up? Codex trumps BRB in this case and it clearly states: that when you take a farsight enclave you have access to a special unit called farsights command team. The key word there is unit and it goes on to say that the "unit" (with farsight) is an hq unit that does not take up a force org slot

Because it doesn't say that. It makes no mention of them being a unit. It calls them an "HQ choice".

Angelic wrote:

 wilsmire wrote:
Why does this issue keep coming up? Codex trumps BRB in this case and it clearly states: that when you take a farsight enclave you have access to a special unit called farsights command team. The key word there is unit and it goes on to say that the "unit" (with farsight) is an hq unit that does not take up a force org slot

Because it doesn't say that. It makes no mention of them being a unit. It calls them an "HQ choice".

I know I can read https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1494120047507952&id=100007299128315&set=pcb.1494120467507910&source=48 look under farsights command team

Angelic,
There is a great difference between a Rule how it is being interpenetrated and a Rule how it is written, and this is a very good example of that. It is your interpretation that this particular Rule is designed to prevent a Monstrous Creature and an Independent Character from existing in the same Unit. However, the Written Rule is exactly as it has been posted here and it specifies movement of the Model as part of the instructions for how we go about joining other Units. How can any interpretation which doesn't involve the movement of the Independent Character trying to join be "more correct" then what is actually printed on the page?

Any interpenetration which does not include the movement of said Independent Character is clearly not following the Written Rules....

I also disagree with the whole 'your point is disproved,' but at this point it is obvious that no one here is going to be able to convince you as to why you are wrong. If you firmly believe that the Rules exist to restrict certain outcomes on a fundamental level, then you are trying an argument that has nothing to do with the Written Rules of the Game itself. Such an argument is all about how you personally believe this Games Rule system works, it is not a new argument and is one that continues to be proven wrong. The only thing we can point to is the existence of two types of systems, permission-based and restriction-based, and highlight that your view falls under the concept of a Restriction-based system where the Rules are designed to prevent actions from being taken or prevent outcomes those actions lead to. Given that the Rule book is written in a format to grant us permission to carry out actions, it is clearly not following the restriction-based system of Rule writing. Of course though, this will not sway you any more then anything else I have posted, so I will simply ask:

How can an action which breaks no Written Rules be illegal?

Jinx, I think he believes that when O'Vesa joins a unit, the unit is also somehow joining O'Vesa. This isn't the case. Joining isn't a two way street. It's an act that an Independent Character performs. A unit of Crisis Suits that happens to also contain Farsight has absolutely no ability to join any other unit. How can it possibly be a two way street if only one side of the equation has the ability to join?

 Kriswall wrote:
Jinx, I think he believes that when O'Vesa joins a unit, the unit is also somehow joining O'Vesa. This isn't the case. Joining isn't a two way street. It's an act that an Independent Character performs. A unit of Crisis Suits that happens to also contain Farsight has absolutely no ability to join any other unit. How can it possibly be a two way street if only one side of the equation has the ability to join?

However, since Farsight is part of the group, Ovesa is joining an IC as well.

If Farsight does not move, can he meet the Requirements found within the instructions on how a Model joins a Unit?