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.

Ya, actually I'm inclined to agree with that now, since it says the IC counts as part of the unit and there's no further clarification to anything....ya, your opponent would be shooting at "Squad X" and not "Squad X with Attachment A". Hm...very....odd. More survivability for Characters with the IC rule though.

When an IC joins a unit he becomes part of the unit for all rules purposes. So, when you shoot at the unit you are also shooting at the character. So if you kill all of the other members of the unit can still charge the remaining survivor regardless of who he is.

I don't think that the unit of the IC is a sufficiently distinct entity from the unit of the squad joined by the IC to prevent it from being charged. Sure, the squad is gone - but the unit of combined squad and IC isn't really gone at all, and he didn't shoot the squad, he shot the combined unit.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
When an IC joins a unit he becomes part of the unit for all rules purposes. So, when you shoot at the unit you are also shooting at the character. So if you kill all of the other members of the unit can still charge the remaining survivor regardless of who he is.

No, you actually can't, because you shot at a squad that doesn't exist. He becomes a part of it until he's the last one or dies before they do (or leaves voluntarily), when you end your shooting phase and that (for instance) IG troop squad no longer exists but the IC is still standing there, at the start of the assault phase he is no longer counted as part of that troop squad and is back to being his normal HQ self which you did "not" shoot at, you shot at the troop unit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Pyrian wrote:
I don't think that the unit of the IC is a sufficiently distinct entity from the unit of the squad joined by the IC to prevent it from being charged. Sure, the squad is gone - but the unit of combined squad and IC isn't really gone at all, and he didn't shoot the squad, he shot the combined unit.

There is no "combined unit", he is for all intents and purposes an upgrade character of the squad while he is joined. When the squad is wiped he is no longer part of the squad and is back to being his own unit, which is separate from the one he joined in all respects.

 Kevin949 wrote:
There is no "combined unit", he is for all intents and purposes an upgrade character of the squad while he is joined.

That's creative, but it doesn't solve the problem: that model, which was part of that unit, is still on table. And a unit is a group of models.

 Kevin949 wrote:
When the squad is wiped he is no longer part of the squad and is back to being his own unit, which is separate from the one he joined in all respects.

If he's part of the squad, then it wasn't wiped, was it? If a model from that squad is still around, it's not separate in all respects, is it? Your very text argues against itself. No single point of view can prevent the IC from being charged, you have to embrace a contradiction.

Pyrian wrote:

 Kevin949 wrote:
There is no "combined unit", he is for all intents and purposes an upgrade character of the squad while he is joined.

That's creative, but it doesn't solve the problem: that model, which was part of that unit, is still on table. And a unit is a group of models.

 Kevin949 wrote:
When the squad is wiped he is no longer part of the squad and is back to being his own unit, which is separate from the one he joined in all respects.

If he's part of the squad, then it wasn't wiped, was it? If a model from that squad is still around, it's not separate in all respects, is it? Your very text argues against itself. No single point of view can prevent the IC from being charged, you have to embrace a contradiction.

And he's not part of the unit at the start of the assault phase. I don't see what's so hard to grasp about that aspect.

He's not part of the squad at the start of the next phase, whichever one that may be. Because of that the rest of your statement is invalid. My text argues against itself? I fail to see how it does, I think you're just not understanding joining and separation of independent characters. Sure I agreed with your stance earlier, but simply because I glossed over the little statement of "at the beginning of the next phase".

So tell me, if according to the rules he is part of the unit in the shooting phase but then not part of the unit in the assault phase and is his own unit then, how would you get to assault? Heck, even the transport rules have to make an exception that you can do it but the independent character rule does not. Also, if he's part of the unit for all intents and purposes then how can you possibly claim to be shooting at two units? You're not, you're shooting at Unit A. And unit A ceases to exist when all non-ic members are dead. There is no Unit A+B otherwise you'd be breaking the [standard] rules and shooting at two units.

The IC is still "the unit that it targeted during that turn's Shooting phase." As he was a part of that unit when the shots were fired.

 DeathReaper wrote:
The IC is still "the unit that it targeted during that turn's Shooting phase." As he was a part of that unit when the shots were fired.

Was, yes. Is not at the assault phase.

The key thing here is that he was a part of that unit and not the other way around. You shoot at Troop A, they cease to exist during shooting phase, Character IC remains and is now a separate unit.

"the unit that it targeted during that turn's Shooting phase." was the Librarians unit.

The librarian was a part of the unit they targeted, so he is able to be assaulted.

 Kevin949 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
The IC is still "the unit that it targeted during that turn's Shooting phase." As he was a part of that unit when the shots were fired.

Was, yes. Is not at the assault phase.

The key thing here is that he was a part of that unit and not the other way around. You shoot at Troop A, they cease to exist during shooting phase, Character IC remains and is now a separate unit.

But they also shot at the IC.

In the shooting phase they shot at Unit X, which was composed of Unit Y (the IC) and Unit Z (the normal squad). If Unit Z was wiped in the shooting phase then they could still charge Unit Y as he was a part of the combined Unit X and so was targeted in the shooting phase.

 DeathReaper wrote:
"the unit that it targeted during that turn's Shooting phase." was the Librarians unit.

The librarian was a part of the unit they targeted, so he is able to be assaulted.

No, it was a Unit A with a librarian attached who counts as Unit A while attached. He's no longer attached when they're gone and is a librarian again, but the opponent shot at Unit A which no longer exists.

Ugh, this (the rules) is so stupidly annoying sometimes.

Right; we know that the Librarian counts as a member of the unit while he's joined to it.

If a Librarian is attached to a Tactical squad, he is part of that Tactical squad until he leaves it. It's not a "Tactical & Librarian Squad"; it's just a Tactical Squad, which happens to include a Librarian. If you used Cato Sicarius to give that Tactical Squad Counter-Attack at the start of the game, the Librarian would benefit from that rule while he was joined to them. If you then shot that unit in the shooting phase so that all the actual Tac Marines died, do you think the Librarian would still benefit from Counter-Attack in the following Assault Phase?

Based on the 6th ed rulebook phrasing, to me it appears that he wouldn't, because he's no longer part of that Tactical Squad which had that special rule.

So by the RaW, I do think it looks like you might not be able to charge the Libby in this situation.

That being said, I think GW does mean for conjoined units like this to have some sort of mutual coexistence, as evinced by the Hunters from Hyperspace ruling in the Necron FAQ. I just don't think they've expressed it well in the main rulebook.

Another question for the FAQ.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Kevin949 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
The IC is still "the unit that it targeted during that turn's Shooting phase." As he was a part of that unit when the shots were fired.

Was, yes. Is not at the assault phase.

The key thing here is that he was a part of that unit and not the other way around. You shoot at Troop A, they cease to exist during shooting phase, Character IC remains and is now a separate unit.

But they also shot at the IC.

In the shooting phase they shot at Unit X, which was composed of Unit Y (the IC) and Unit Z (the normal squad). If Unit Z was wiped in the shooting phase then they could still charge Unit Y as he was a part of the combined Unit X and so was targeted in the shooting phase.

See above (my post, though mannihans is good too). Everything you're using is past tense on a unit that doesn't exist by the time he's back to his one man unit.

Let's put it this way then....you shot at a combined unit that has two separate units in it that now count as 1. If the attachable unit (a troop choice, for example) is destroyed that combined unit no longer exists, which also means you can't assault them. The issue is that you'll probably counter with "Well what if the IC dies instead?" to which I'll say, he was a part of unit A and not the other way around so for all intents and purposes you shot at a troop choice, not an HQ.

Would your answer change if the Librarian was wounded during the attack? If not then how was he wounded in the first place (since he wasn't being shot at). If so then he was part of the unit being shot at and therefore subject to being charged.
Although not RAW I think that this is similar to a transport being the target of the shooting phase and the unit inside being an eligible target once the transport has been destroyed.

An Independent Character can leave a unit during the Movement phase by moving out of unit coherency with it. He cannot join or leave during any other phase - once shots are fired or charges are declared, it is too late to join in or duck out!

This defines leaving a unit. Note it does not have any reference to voluntary or involuntary only that he leaves during the movement phase. The check for coherency is in the movement phase, if he's no longer in coherency with his squad (they're dead at his feet) then he has now left the squad.

If an Independent Character joins a unit, and all other models in that unit are killed, he again becomes a unit of one model at the start of the following phase.

This is clarifies the leaving a unit ruling above. If an IC can only leave during the movement phase then there is a redundancy in the English language in stating this again two paragraphs down. There is no need to state that the following phase means the following movement phase as we've been told an IC can ONLY leave during the movement phase.

If we use the ruling that the IC becomes his own unit pretty much as soon as everyone else dies then eg. Farseer casting Fortune on his unit that would lose Fortune as soon as he becomes his own unit as he is now a different unit from the one he cast Fortune upon.
He can't be a different unit for being charged but the same unit for buffs etc.

 Mannahnin wrote:
Right; we know that the Librarian counts as a member of the unit while he's joined to it.

If a Librarian is attached to a Tactical squad, he is part of that Tactical squad until he leaves it. It's not a "Tactical & Librarian Squad"; it's just a Tactical Squad, which happens to include a Librarian. If you used Cato Sicarius to give that Tactical Squad Counter-Attack at the start of the game, the Librarian would benefit from that rule while he was joined to them. If you then shot that unit in the shooting phase so that all the actual Tac Marines died, do you think the Librarian would still benefit from Counter-Attack in the following Assault Phase?

Based on the 6th ed rulebook phrasing, to me it appears that he wouldn't, because he's no longer part of that Tactical Squad which had that special rule.

So by the RaW, I do think it looks like you might not be able to charge the Libby in this situation.

That being said, I think GW does mean for conjoined units like this to have some sort of mutual coexistence, as evinced by the Hunters from Hyperspace ruling in the Necron FAQ. I just don't think they've expressed it well in the main rulebook.

Another question for the FAQ.

Same question, but with two or more ICs being joined to the same squad. The ICs were both attached to the parent unit and not each other, so what would happen if just the parent unit dies leaving the two ICs alone together?

To continue with Mannahnin's example:

If two Librarians are attached to a Tactical squad, they are part of that Tactical squad until they leave it. It's not a "Tactical & Two Librarian Squad"; it's just a Tactical Squad, which happens to include two Librarians. If you used Cato Sicarius to give that Tactical Squad Counter-Attack at the start of the game, those Librarians would benefit from that rule while they were joined to them. If you then shot that unit in the shooting phase so that all the actual Tac Marines died, do you think the Librarians would still benefit from Counter-Attack in the following Assault Phase?

This does raise the further problem of what becomes of those two (or more) ICs. Do they each become their own unit as the unit they were both joined to, in this case the Tac Squad, died? Do they stay joined together in a multi-character unit? Something else?

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
Would your answer change if the Librarian was wounded during the attack? If not then how was he wounded in the first place (since he wasn't being shot at). If so then he was part of the unit being shot at and therefore subject to being charged.
Although not RAW I think that this is similar to a transport being the target of the shooting phase and the unit inside being an eligible target once the transport has been destroyed.

Getting wounded or not has no bearing on him being an IC when he's counted as part of the unit while he's joined. It does not change the end result at all. I'm not saying he never was part of the squad, I'm saying he's not at the start of the next phase.

I'm sure that they intended it to be similar to transports but they could have easily added in a line similar to the transport section for IC's, but they did not and thus it's not relevant to the topic.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Foxfyre wrote:

An Independent Character can leave a unit during the Movement phase by moving out of unit coherency with it. He cannot join or leave during any other phase - once shots are fired or charges are declared, it is too late to join in or duck out!

This defines leaving a unit. Note it does not have any reference to voluntary or involuntary only that he leaves during the movement phase. The check for coherency is in the movement phase, if he's no longer in coherency with his squad (they're dead at his feet) then he has now left the squad.

If an Independent Character joins a unit, and all other models in that unit are killed, he again becomes a unit of one model at the start of the following phase.

This is clarifies the leaving a unit ruling above. If an IC can only leave during the movement phase then there is a redundancy in the English language in stating this again two paragraphs down. There is no need to state that the following phase means the following movement phase as we've been told an IC can ONLY leave during the movement phase.

If we use the ruling that the IC becomes his own unit pretty much as soon as everyone else dies then eg. Farseer casting Fortune on his unit that would lose Fortune as soon as he becomes his own unit as he is now a different unit from the one he cast Fortune upon.
He can't be a different unit for being charged but the same unit for buffs etc.

1. Well, except that you can only "move" in your "movement phase" so it would "have" to be voluntary.

2. No, there is no reason to leave out the word "movement" before "phase" if that was their intention, but they did so that is not how the rule reads. To take it any other way is incorrect.
You should also re-read the ongoing effects section, that answers your....example quite nicely.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Evil Lamp 6 wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:
Right; we know that the Librarian counts as a member of the unit while he's joined to it.

If a Librarian is attached to a Tactical squad, he is part of that Tactical squad until he leaves it. It's not a "Tactical & Librarian Squad"; it's just a Tactical Squad, which happens to include a Librarian. If you used Cato Sicarius to give that Tactical Squad Counter-Attack at the start of the game, the Librarian would benefit from that rule while he was joined to them. If you then shot that unit in the shooting phase so that all the actual Tac Marines died, do you think the Librarian would still benefit from Counter-Attack in the following Assault Phase?

Based on the 6th ed rulebook phrasing, to me it appears that he wouldn't, because he's no longer part of that Tactical Squad which had that special rule.

So by the RaW, I do think it looks like you might not be able to charge the Libby in this situation.

That being said, I think GW does mean for conjoined units like this to have some sort of mutual coexistence, as evinced by the Hunters from Hyperspace ruling in the Necron FAQ. I just don't think they've expressed it well in the main rulebook.

Another question for the FAQ.

Same question, but with two or more ICs being joined to the same squad. The ICs were both attached to the parent unit and not each other, so what would happen if just the parent unit dies leaving the two ICs alone together?

To continue with Mannahnin's example:

If two Librarians are attached to a Tactical squad, they are part of that Tactical squad until they leave it. It's not a "Tactical & Two Librarian Squad"; it's just a Tactical Squad, which happens to include two Librarians. If you used Cato Sicarius to give that Tactical Squad Counter-Attack at the start of the game, those Librarians would benefit from that rule while they were joined to them. If you then shot that unit in the shooting phase so that all the actual Tac Marines died, do you think the Librarians would still benefit from Counter-Attack in the following Assault Phase?

This does raise the further problem of what becomes of those two (or more) ICs. Do they each become their own unit as the unit they were both joined to, in this case the Tac Squad, died? Do they stay joined together in a multi-character unit? Something else?

They would be their own separate units. Nothing lets them join together outside of the controlling players movement phase, there is only the one allowance of them becoming a standard IC unit of 1 during shooting or assault.
And to further iterate the point, the IC's could have joined together previously as 1 unit but when they choose to join the tac squad they do so as two separate Characters, not one Character (IC) squad.

Things to remember:
1 IC's although they act like an upgrade to a squad they are NOT simply an upgrade to a squad. They have their own rules regarding them. So comparing them to any normal survivor of a squad is irrelevant.

2. If they are still part of the squad even if the squad is dead you could run into IC's Claiming objs on a last turn wipeout of a squad.

3. IC's in a squad are NOT transport vehicles, inferring such just gets confusing.

Im glad to see this finally got some legs and has caused quite the discussion. In our case two days ago we decided to simply roll off to see what happens.

 Kevin949 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
"the unit that it targeted during that turn's Shooting phase." was the Librarians unit.

The librarian was a part of the unit they targeted, so he is able to be assaulted.

No, it was a Unit A with a librarian attached who counts as Unit A while attached. He's no longer attached when they're gone and is a librarian again, but the opponent shot at Unit A which no longer exists.

Ugh, this (the rules) is so stupidly annoying sometimes.

That really makes no sense at all. Dooley's opponent should have been able to charge his IC.

 Dozer Blades wrote:

 Kevin949 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
"the unit that it targeted during that turn's Shooting phase." was the Librarians unit.

The librarian was a part of the unit they targeted, so he is able to be assaulted.

No, it was a Unit A with a librarian attached who counts as Unit A while attached. He's no longer attached when they're gone and is a librarian again, but the opponent shot at Unit A which no longer exists.

Ugh, this (the rules) is so stupidly annoying sometimes.

That really makes no sense at all. Dooley's opponent should have been able to charge his IC.

Well, you should read everything else to put that comment into context, it was but a small snippet of re-iterating the lengthy conversation from earlier.

How does it not make sence. I think the way he described the situation makes perfect sence

You obviously have a strong bias. RAW is iffy at best while RAI doesn't support your claim.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
You obviously have a strong bias. .

That was the point

 Dozer Blades wrote:
You obviously have a strong bias. RAW is iffy at best while RAI doesn't support your claim.

You throw those words around like they mean something here, but the rules are written such as has been posted multiple times over.

Also, I have no strong bias one way or another for this. I simply read and try to interpret what is in the book. Sometimes I'm right, sometimes I'm wrong. But in this scenario it seems that more and more people are understanding how the rule *is* written, whether they like it or not is a different story. I couldn't care either way, honestly, whether it's allowed or not. But I'm certainly bringing it up to my gaming group next time.

And please show me how it doesn't support my claim when quite a few others have already said why it does.

The way it is now, I would certainly allow a roll off pre-game to decide how it is handled if I cannot come to terms with my opponent. If he chooses not to play at all, that's fine too.

What if a model is shot, and the removal of that model means that the IC is out of coherence with the rest of the squad. Does the IC remain part of that squad? If not when does it leave?

It is still part of the squad, and is considered to be so until the end of its next Movement phase if it moves out of coherency.

Indeed, what happyjew said is correct. The only stipulation allowing the IC to leave the unit outside of his movement phase is if the "entire" squad is destroyed and he is left by himself.

 Kevin949 wrote:
Indeed, what happyjew said is correct. The only stipulation allowing the IC to leave the unit outside of his movement phase is if the "entire" squad is destroyed and he is left by himself.

And that I believe is why they included the second paragraph. There are many times where an IC is involuntarily "moved" more than 2" from a unit he was attached to. Models dieing from shooting or close combat are the main ones. The second and more specific rule of all models dieing overrides the general rule of only leaving during the movement phase.

What about a Necron Overlord, Destroyer Lord with resurrection orbs or even Nemesor Zahndrekh (has orb as part of wargear)? Does the orb become useless if the unit is destroyed around them?
I only ask because the orb only applies to the IC and his unit; so if his unit is destroyed and he becomes a unit of one then that would mean the rest of his (former) unit wouldn't benefit.

RPP/EL is checked at the end of each phase so this wouldnt happen