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.

 AndrewC wrote:

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.

That's not what page 21 requires. Misquoting to support your argument is bad form.

p21 wrote:Charging units must attempt to engage as many opposing models in the enemy unit as possible with as many of their models as possible - no holding back or trying to avoid terrain!

All of the models in a charging unit make their charge move - up to the 2D6 distance you rolled earlier - following the same rules as in the Movement phase, with the exception that they can be moved within 1" of enemy models.

It's not holding back at all. And there's no rule (or one hasn't been cited) preventing you from declaring the charge.
Declare charge. Move models. Model prevented from moving? No rule preventing it from taking part in the assault, it just can't move.

So how does the unit maintain coherency?

 AndrewC wrote:
So how does the unit maintain coherency?

Perhaps the target is close enough? Please show where coherency is required - it certainly isn't in the charge rules.

Do you have a rules based counter or are you just throwing out hypothetical scenarios to try and say "GOTCHA!!"

nosferatu1001 wrote:
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?

I wonder which thread you refer to, the BB one? Do not recall claiming that "IC unit never goes away".

for the former argument, the "all rules purposes" line proves the IC unit can no longer exists

I am not in disagreement with this, I have not claimed otherwise. My point is that I read the rules to forbid joining a new unit on the turn the IC arrives from the reserves, quoting rules to support my view.

- 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.

Actually, that rule itself further points out that the IC's also follow rules given for characters, so they are not normal members. Refer to challenge and precision shot rules as an example.

means the only possible explanation is that the unit just ceases to exist.

Let's just agree that we disagree and leave it at that. That is an assumption, something you blame me doing. Kettles and pots, or something..

Your assumption is only being made in order tyo support you conclusion.

rigeld2 wrote:
? Please show where coherency is required - it certainly isn't in the charge rules.

Umm, page 21, Charge move, first bullet point.

"A charging model MUST end it's move in unit coherency with another model in its own unit that has already moved."

 don_mondo wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
? Please show where coherency is required - it certainly isn't in the charge rules.

Umm, page 21, Charge move, first bullet point.

"A charging model MUST end it's move in unit coherency with another model in its own unit that has already moved."

Great.
So if a model doesn't move (because it can't) there's no requirement for coherency.

rigeld2 wrote:

 AndrewC wrote:
So how does the unit maintain coherency?

Perhaps the target is close enough? Please show where coherency is required - it certainly isn't in the charge rules.

Do you have a rules based counter or are you just throwing out hypothetical scenarios to try and say "GOTCHA!!"

No ulterior motive, just following a chain on thought.

And coherency is in the charge rules, p21, 2nd column, 1st and 3rd bullet points.

This also doesn't do you any good either. You maintain that your rules quotes are right , accuse others of using hypotheticals and then use hypotheticals yourself.

I would be interested to hear where I have misquoted p21. 3rd para of charge move. "All of the models in a charging unit make their charge move..."

Cheers

Andrew


Automatically Appended Next Post:
But if that model is an IC which when moved more than 2" from the unit is deemed to have left the unit, which it is prohibited from doing so in the assault phase?

Cheers

Andrew

AndrewC wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 AndrewC wrote:
So how does the unit maintain coherency?

Perhaps the target is close enough? Please show where coherency is required - it certainly isn't in the charge rules.

Do you have a rules based counter or are you just throwing out hypothetical scenarios to try and say "GOTCHA!!"

No ulterior motive, just following a chain on thought.

And coherency is in the charge rules, p21, 2nd column, 1st and 3rd bullet points.

I'd forgotten the 1st bullet point, and responded to that already. The 3rd bullet point is irrelevant to the situation (as in, it doesn't apply).

This also doesn't do you any good either. You maintain that your rules quotes are right , accuse others of using hypotheticals and then use hypotheticals yourself.

Really? My answer of your hypothetical makes me look bad? No. I haven't used hypotheticals.

I would be interested to hear where I have misquoted p21. 3rd para of charge move. "All of the models in a charging unit make their charge move..."

AndrewC wrote: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.

The underlined is a misquote. Page 21 does not require any such thing. It tells all models to make their charge move. If a model cannot make a charge move, it can't make a charge move. Thus the rule is satisfied.
Your assertion would require all models to move - since that's demonstrably not what page 21 says, it's a misquote.

rigeld2 wrote:

 don_mondo wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
? Please show where coherency is required - it certainly isn't in the charge rules.

Umm, page 21, Charge move, first bullet point.

"A charging model MUST end it's move in unit coherency with another model in its own unit that has already moved."

Great.
So if a model doesn't move (because it can't) there's no requirement for coherency.

All I'm pointing out is that there is a coherency requirement in the charge rules. As for the rest of it, personally, I'm going to wait a couple of days and see what the new rules have to say.................

No that's a misinterpretation on your part. All means all, it doesn't any all models may move, or those models who can move, it says all models, with no exceptions listed.

And if the statement of "Perhaps the unit is close enough" isn't a hypothetical I don't know what is.

Continuing with p21, last para "If you follow this sequence, you will end up with all the models in the charging unit in unit coherency..."

If the IC doesn't move, and so loses coherency with the rest of the unit because they are constrained to move toward the enemy or at least within 2" of them then we've done something wrong.

Cheers

Andrew

 AndrewC wrote:
No that's a misinterpretation on your part. All means all, it doesn't any all models may move, or those models who can move, it says all models, with no exceptions listed.

All models make their charge move.
What's the distance of the ICs charge move?

And if the statement of "Perhaps the unit is close enough" isn't a hypothetical I don't know what is.

So you're actually saying answering your hypothetical is a bad thing? Cool - I'll just completely ignore them in the future so you can accuse me of ignoring posts.

If the IC doesn't move, and so loses coherency with the rest of the unit because they are constrained to move toward the enemy or at least within 2" of them then we've done something wrong.

So you agree there's nothing preventing the unit from declaring an assault, correct? Just want to find the baseline of where we're disagreeing.

Naw wrote:

I am not in disagreement with this, I have not claimed otherwise. My point is that I read the rules to forbid joining a new unit on the turn the IC arrives from the reserves, quoting rules to support my view.

Umm...

BRB p.124 wrote:
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.

Emphasis mine.
Even if ICs had to "leave" their own unit, it's entirely irrelevant for this, as they are not forbidden from doing so, because they did not join a unit in reserves.

rigeld2 wrote:

 AndrewC wrote:
No that's a misinterpretation on your part. All means all, it doesn't any all models may move, or those models who can move, it says all models, with no exceptions listed.

All models make their charge move.
What's the distance of the ICs charge move?

And if the statement of "Perhaps the unit is close enough" isn't a hypothetical I don't know what is.

So you're actually saying answering your hypothetical is a bad thing? Cool - I'll just completely ignore them in the future so you can accuse me of ignoring posts.

If the IC doesn't move, and so loses coherency with the rest of the unit because they are constrained to move toward the enemy or at least within 2" of them then we've done something wrong.

So you agree there's nothing preventing the unit from declaring an assault, correct? Just want to find the baseline of where we're disagreeing.

I think the baseline here seems to be as to whether the unit can make an assault. Reading though your earlier posts, you seem to be implying that the IC can't take part in the assault because he is prohibited from charging?

The point of disagreement here between us seems to be, if one model in a unit can't charge, does this prevent the rest of them from charging?

Would this be correct?

Cheers

Andrew

 AndrewC wrote:
The point of disagreement here between us seems to be, if one model in a unit can't charge, does this prevent the rest of them from charging?

Would this be correct?

Sure. I believe there's no such restriction. I've asked for someone to cite it. Please do so or concede that point.

Well, since that's the case, since we both agree that the IC can't take part in the assault, because he can't move in that phase, I'd gladly concede that the unit may an assault as long as it maintains coherency with the stationary, noncombatant IC.

Cheers

Andrew


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Blooming auto correct!

That should be the unit may make an assault.

 AndrewC wrote:
Well, since that's the case, since we both agree that the IC can't take part in the assault, because he can't move in that phase, I'd gladly concede that the unit may an assault as long as it maintains coherency with the stationary, noncombatant IC.

That's incorrect. Even if you apply the restriction to the IC (which I'm not 100% okay with) he can still make Pile-In moves (in contradiction to your statement that he can't move in that phase).

Tactical_Genius wrote:

Naw wrote:

I am not in disagreement with this, I have not claimed otherwise. My point is that I read the rules to forbid joining a new unit on the turn the IC arrives from the reserves, quoting rules to support my view.

Umm...

BRB p.124 wrote:
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.

Emphasis mine.
Even if ICs had to "leave" their own unit, it's entirely irrelevant for this, as they are not forbidden from doing so, because they did not join a unit in reserves.

Do read my post regarding this. It is clearly said that the IC forms its own unit then. Also, page 3 demands (uses word must) that all models on table form units, even the solo ones.

Actually, I'll just paste it here:
pg 124 on Reserves, direct quote: Independent Characters are also counted as a single unit regardless whether they have joined another unit or not

Naw wrote:

Tactical_Genius wrote:

Naw wrote:

I am not in disagreement with this, I have not claimed otherwise. My point is that I read the rules to forbid joining a new unit on the turn the IC arrives from the reserves, quoting rules to support my view.

Umm...

BRB p.124 wrote:
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.

Emphasis mine.
Even if ICs had to "leave" their own unit, it's entirely irrelevant for this, as they are not forbidden from doing so, because they did not join a unit in reserves.

Do read my post regarding this. It is clearly said that the IC forms its own unit then. Also, page 3 demands (uses word [b]must[/]) that all models on table form units, even the solo ones.

Right - but you asserted he had to leave his unit to join another unit, but the reserve rules forbade that.
The actual rules don't forbid that at all. Do read his post and the rules involved please.

However, since the pile in is just 3" it is unlikely that it would do him any good to reach the combat zone.

I think that the one question that I would really like answered is if the restrictions on assaulting on arrival from reserve is a 'persistent effect'? To me it is, because it is applied at the start of movement, but applies to a phase later in the game.

It can be inferred from the earlier examples given, less blind because it mentions models, that even though the IC unit ceases to exist, the effects still go with the model, eg soul blaze, enfeeble or forewarning to name a few. This shows that the elimination of the unit does not eliminate any effects on the affected components, ie models.

Cheers

Andrew

 AndrewC wrote:
However, since the pile in is just 3" it is unlikely that it would do him any good to reach the combat zone.

The entire situation is unlikely in the extreme. Damn, I answered another hypothetical.

I think that the one question that I would really like answered is if the restrictions on assaulting on arrival from reserve is a 'persistent effect'? To me it is, because it is applied at the start of movement, but applies to a phase later in the game.

I don't think so - his unit was not the "target of a beneficial or harmful effect". It just arrived from Reserves.

Hey, all life's a hypothetical. I'm worried that I'm getting a marked exam paper at the end of it.

I don't think that the 'target' part is helpful to either side. For example, the Tau Invocation rules apply to all units within 12", no word of targeting.

Here's another hypothetical for you, in a weeks time, this rule may not even exist!!

Cheers

Andrew

 AndrewC wrote:
I don't think that the 'target' part is helpful to either side. For example, the Tau Invocation rules apply to all units within 12", no word of targeting.

I wasn't taking that single word. I quoted the whole phrase for a reason.

Even using the entire phrase doesn't really help. Is being in a particular place or performing a specific action worthy of that phrase?

Cheers

Andrew

 AndrewC wrote:
Even using the entire phrase doesn't really help. Is being in a particular place or performing a specific action worthy of that phrase?

Yes - by standing there you were targeted by a specific effect.
By arriving from Reserves you weren't targeted by any effect - you simply arrived.

So the rule says that units that arrived from reserves may not charge, that sounds to me like a targeted unit to me.

Cheers

Andrew

PS I'll pick up again later, got to go to work. Those figs don't buy them themselves.

 AndrewC wrote:
So the rule says that units that arrived from reserves may not charge, that sounds to me like a targeted unit to me.

Targeted by what? What action was taken by someone to say "That unit right there suffers from this effect."?
Not a hypothetical - you have to be able to answer it to legitimately say it's a targeted unit.

I would like someone to explore Nem's earlier idea a little more.

Let's say there's a piece of wargear that prevents a model from ever declaring a charge. My HQ buys this Retardinator armour, and joins a unit of Marines.
There is a single model who, because of wargear, cannot charge. The rest of the models may charge.

Question: Can the unit declare a charge?
And if your answer concerning wargear conflicts/agrees with your answer concerning IC rules, please explain!

For some reason, it feels like a completely different scenario to me, but I couldn't elucidate why atm...

Naw wrote:

Tactical_Genius wrote:

Naw wrote:

I am not in disagreement with this, I have not claimed otherwise. My point is that I read the rules to forbid joining a new unit on the turn the IC arrives from the reserves, quoting rules to support my view.

Umm...

BRB p.124 wrote:
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.

Emphasis mine.
Even if ICs had to "leave" their own unit, it's entirely irrelevant for this, as they are not forbidden from doing so, because they did not join a unit in reserves.

Do read my post regarding this. It is clearly said that the IC forms its own unit then. Also, page 3 demands (uses word must) that all models on table form units, even the solo ones.

Actually, I'll just paste it here:
pg 124 on Reserves, direct quote: Independent Characters are also counted as a single unit regardless whether they have joined another unit or not

Context is important here for that quote on P124. "If an IC has joined a unit in reserve .. cannot choose to leave the unit". (emphasis mine) - Which unit is "the" unit? The one it joined in reserves. Did a lone IC join a unit in reserves? No? good. This rule does not apply.

In the question posed here, to claim the IC must "leave the unit" it is in (itself) would also mean that the IC can never, ever join another unit as it cannot move out of coherency with itself (ie : leave its unit) as the IC must leave one unit in order to join another. Except that the IC rules expressly allow it.

The IC, coming in from reserves as a single model unit, is expressly allowed by the IC rules to join a new unit by moving within 2" coherency.

rigeld2 wrote:

 AndrewC wrote:
So the rule says that units that arrived from reserves may not charge, that sounds to me like a targeted unit to me.

Targeted by what? What action was taken by someone to say "That unit right there suffers from this effect."?
Not a hypothetical - you have to be able to answer it to legitimately say it's a targeted unit.

I disagree that someone has to take an action in order for a unit to be targeted. The rules provide a specific set of circumstances that must be met in order for a restriction to be enforced. To me, that sounds an awful lot like a targeted unit. However a precise answer is that it is targeted by the rules. For instance, blind is a persistent effect applied to a unit, and is suffered by simply being hit.

Please do me the courtesy of answering your own question, where in the rules does it say that a unit may only be targeted by the actions of someone?

Cheers

Andrew

 AndrewC wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 AndrewC wrote:
So the rule says that units that arrived from reserves may not charge, that sounds to me like a targeted unit to me.

Targeted by what? What action was taken by someone to say "That unit right there suffers from this effect."?
Not a hypothetical - you have to be able to answer it to legitimately say it's a targeted unit.

I disagree that someone has to take an action in order for a unit to be targeted. The rules provide a specific set of circumstances that must be met in order for a restriction to be enforced. To me, that sounds an awful lot like a targeted unit. However a precise answer is that it is targeted by the rules. For instance, blind is a persistent effect applied to a unit, and is suffered by simply being hit.

... being hit by an attack of course. And attacks are, wait for it - targeted. Oh, sorry - that doesn't fit your world-view apparently.

Please do me the courtesy of answering your own question, where in the rules does it say that a unit may only be targeted by the actions of someone?

By the choice of words. I'm honestly amazed that you assume "the rules" can target a unit with an effect without any words even hinting towards that. Seriously. That's a ballsy statement.