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.

 FlingitNow wrote:

End of their movement phase being the end of their move. Not the end of the entire movement phase

Citation. You keep making this claim with no rules support.

"Citation" isn't a magic word you can just use to substitute any real rules argument. It has been cited. Further more it has been demonstrated. Go back and read the thread please.

You however have failed to demonstrate that ICs join at the end of the entire movement phase. The Independent Character rules show this isn't the case.

Please come up with an actual rule to support your claim, follow the forum tenants, and please stop substituting a proper argument by just posting "citation" when it has already been given on more than one occasion.

 grendel083 wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

End of their movement phase being the end of their move. Not the end of the entire movement phase

Citation. You keep making this claim with no rules support.

"Citation" isn't a magic you can just use to substitute any real rules argument. It has been cited. Further more it has been demonstrated. Go back and read the thread please.

You however have failed to demonstrate that ICs join at the end of the entire movement phase. The Independent Character rules show this isn't the case.

Please come up with an actual rule to support your claim, follow the forum tenants, and please stop substituting a proper argument by just posting "citation" when it has already been given on more than one occasion.

But the rules you have quoted have said nothing about what "their Movement Phase" means. You have made a claim to its meaning that is different to what the BrB tells us it means by "Movement Phase" but please cite the rules that support your made up definition of "their Movement Phase" or concede.

I have demonstrated that they join at "the end of their Movement Phase" and shown where I have got the definition for "Movement Phase". Prove that the IC rules aren't correct and that Movement Phase =/= Movement Phase.

 FlingitNow wrote:
But the rules you have quoted have said nothing about what "their Movement Phase" means. You have made a claim to its meaning that is different to what the BrB tells us it means by "Movement Phase" but please cite the rules that support your made up definition of "their Movement Phase" or concede.

It's been cited to death, and demonstrated more than once.
The rules show that things can happen after the IC joins. Not simultaneously, but actually after. If its the end of the entire Movement phase, then what's after the end? The Shooting phase? More movement in the shooting phase? I hope you can see how incorrect this is.
If it was in fact the end of the entire movement phase they would use the term "the" I stead of repeated use of "their" and "its".

I have demonstrated that they join at "the end of their Movement Phase" and shown where I have got the definition for "Movement Phase". Prove that the IC rules aren't correct and that Movement Phase =/= Movement Phase.

You've claimed many things, demonstrated nothing, proven less.
Your only argument has been "citation". That's not an argument. Especially considering things have been cited.
And now your new argument is "citation or concede"?
I'm sorry, I can no longer take you or your non-existent arguments seriously.

It's been cited to death, and demonstrated more than once.
The rules show that things can happen after the IC joins.

This has not been shown nor is it in the rules. You claim denial of permission to do one act is permission to others. Please show permission to do stuff after the end of "their Movement Phase".

I've said citation because you have a made up definition of "their Movement Phase", and you refuse to cite where you got this definition. The clear reason being is that the rules do not contain this definition of "their Movement Phase" as you have completely made that up. Definitions you make up yourself should not be used in rules arguments.

 Happyjew wrote:
Except (and I'm not an English Major, so I could be wrong), isn't "their" plural, whilst "Independent Character" is singular? So it could also be read as

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 (the IC and unit's) Movement Phase.

If I'm wrong, like I said I'm not an English Major (heck, I ain't even an English Minor).

You're sort of correct. English does not have a proper neuter-singular pronoun ("she" is feminine-singular, for example). In light of this lack, most folk use the word "they" when unsure of the gender of the subject, or when there's the potential for either gender occurring. "I met someone at the store." "Oh, what were they wearing?"
But since "they" is also plural, it could be read either way.
There ARE a few female ICs out there, and so the game team was just leaving open the possibility that a 40k player would actually USE one of those female ICs.

Personally, I would've said "his movement phase" if referring solely to the IC, and "their" if referring to both the IC and the squad....but what THEY did was still understandable, if a bit unclear.

 FlingitNow wrote:

It's been cited to death, and demonstrated more than once.
The rules show that things can happen after the IC joins.

This has not been shown nor is it in the rules. You claim denial of permission to do one act is permission to others. Please show permission to do stuff after the end of "their Movement Phase".

Here you go. Again.

BRB page 39 "Independent Character wrote:Note that, after an Independent Character joins a unit, that unit can move no further that Movement phase

By your unsupported argument there is no further movement phase as it happens at the end. Here the rule shows the Movement phase is still on going.
I've made nothing up.
And still see no rules to your argument.

None of this Movement Phase definition stuff matters a damn bit regarding the Grimoire if the Grimoire is used at the end of the player's Movement phase, as the owning player whose turn it is gets to decide which occurs first at the same point in a phase.

So it's the End of my Movement Phase, the IC(s) join a unit of mine at the End of my Movement Phase, and then I Grimoire the newly improved unit now containing the IC as the End point of my Movement Phase (that's included in ANY point in the Movement Phase).

This is consistent with a psyker already on the table Blessing a unit that just arrived from Reserves, as both of those occur at the same point (the beginning) of the Movement Phase.

By your unsupported argument there is no further movement phase as it happens at the end. Here the rule shows the Movement phase is still on going.
I've made nothing up.
And still see no rules to your argument

There was no permission granted in your quote to do anything. Just a restriction against moving. As there can be many things triggered at the end of the phase it is perfectly possible for those things to occur after the IC joined.

That was at best a hint that the "end of their Movement Phase" =/= "the end of the Movement Phase". However if we take that as true then ICs can NEVER join units as we have no definition of "their Movement Phase" and therefore no way of knowing when it ends. So either it happens at the end of THE Movement Phase or it does not happen at all. Using your made up definition as a house rule to resolve your weird reading is still just that a house rule using a definition you have literally made up yourself.

 FlingitNow wrote:
There was no permission granted in your quote to do anything. Just a restriction against moving.

Yes there's a restriction. But the fact that it had to be restricted shows that things can potentially happen after an IC has joined. Including further movement (otherwise there is no need to restrict that units movement).

As there can be many things triggered at the end of the phase it is perfectly possible for those things to occur after the IC joined.

By your logic, not true. Unless you're finally agreeing with me?
If the IC joins at the "end of the Movement phase" then nothing can happen after, as it is now the Shooting phase. Things can happen simultaneously with the "end of the Movement phase", but nothing after. You're disproving your own theory here.

Note, in the rule quoted previously it says "after the IC joins". That is sequential. Not Simultaneous.
What is "after" the "end of the Movement Phase"?
The shooting phase.
Is the rule saying the unit can move no further in the shooting phase? Obviously not, but by your logic yes.
Fortunately it states Movement phase.
So we have something occurring after the IC joins, which very neatly proves that the IC did not join at the end of the movement phase, but before then.

Yes there's a restriction. But the fact that it had to be restricted shows that things can potentially happen after an IC has joined. Including further movement (otherwise there is no need to restrict that units movement).

So GW has never written redundant rules now? Sorry but that does not prove you can do stuff after.

By your logic, not true. Unless you're finally agreeing with me?
If the IC joins at the "end of the Movement phase" then nothing can happen after, as it is now the Shooting phase. Things can happen simultaneously with the "end of the Movement phase", but nothing after. You're disproving your own theory here.

Actually the rules cover that you resolve simultaneous events seqyencially and covers how you do this in different incidences. Check Outflank and reserves rolls for instance...

Note, in the rule quoted previously it says "after the IC joins". That is sequential. Not Simultaneous.
What is "after" the "end of the Movement Phase"?
The shooting phase.
Is the rule saying the unit can move no further in the shooting phase? Obviously not, but by your logic yes.
Fortunately it states Movement phase.
So we have something occurring after the IC joins, which very neatly proves that the IC did not join at the end of the movement phase, but before then

Why the obviously not answer to a question that must be yes. OK let's assume you are right and "end of their Movement Phase" =/= "end of the Movement Phase". Then ICs can NEVER join units as we have no definition of when "end of their Movement Phase" occurs.

 FlingitNow wrote:
So GW has never written redundant rules now?

Of course they do. But can you prove this rule is redundant?
Without some way of proving this rule has no use, we must asssume it is not redundant.

Actually the rules cover that you resolve simultaneous events seqyencially and covers how you do this in different incidences. Check Outflank and reserves rolls for instance...

Point is this isn't a simultaneous event. It happens after an event. Note the use of the word "after" in the rules.

Then ICs can NEVER join units as we have no definition of when "end of their Movement Phase" occurs.

You realise there is no definition of "end of the movement phase" either? If you want to start using that logic then no phase can ever end, as none of them have an end of phase definition.

You realise there is no definition of "end of the movement phase" either? If you want to start using that logic then no phase can ever end, as none of them have an end of phase definition

But the movement phase is defined and when it occurs is defined. An ICs own "Movement Phase" is not defined any where. So if "their Movement Phase" =/= "the Movement Phase" then we have no way of knowing when "their Movement Phase" occurs.

Of course they do. But can you prove this rule is redundant?
Without some way of proving this rule has no use, we must asssume it is not redundant.

No you have to prove it does something. All it says is the ICs unit can't do something after a set point you are claiming that therefore other things can do something after said point. Which is not how a permissive rule set works.

Point is this isn't a simultaneous event. It happens after an event. Note the use of the word "after" in the rules.

When do you roll for what side a unit arrives from outflank? Oh yes after you have rolled for them to arrive successfully, one event is dependant on the other so happens after it yet they are both simultaneous...

Regardless of all this if we assume you are right what does "end of their Movement Phase" mean in the rules and where is that defined.

 FlingitNow wrote:
But the movement phase is defined and when it occurs is defined. An ICs own "Movement Phase" is not defined any where. So if "their Movement Phase" =/= "the Movement Phase" then we have no way of knowing when "their Movement Phase" occurs.

So the end is not defined?
Since there is no game definition would it be unreasonable to assume that the "end of the Movement phase" is in fact the end of the Movement phase?
Again there is no game definition of "their Movement phase", so what do we do? Taking into account there is only one Movement Phase, would it be unreasonable to assume that this means "their movement within the Movement phase"?
This fits the language, and the rules, causing nothing to be redundant.
If we assume it to mean "end of the Movement phase", suddenly we have rules breaking (events happening after the end), or whole sections of the rule becoming redundant, and wording that simply doesn't fit this meaning ("their" and "it's", but never "the").
Simply put, two possible meanings of the phrase. One fits all the rules, the other causes rules to break.
I'm proposing the definition that fits the rules: "Their Movement phase = their movement within the Movement Phase"
Your proposal simply breaks.

No you have to prove it does something. All it says is the ICs unit can't do something after a set point you are claiming that therefore other things can do something after said point. Which is not how a permissive rule set works.

Actually that is how a permissive ruleset works. Once permission has been given, you then need to deny that permission. There we have that denial, so there was a permission. The permission being the movement phase itself, since as shown many times, we're not at the end of it.
And no I don't need to prove a rule is a rule. It's in the rules. Prove it isn't please.

When do you roll for what side a unit arrives from outflank? Oh yes after you have rolled for them to arrive successfully, one event is dependant on the other so happens after it yet they are both simultaneous...

That's still two parts of a simultaneous action. Again this isn't a simultaneous action. Joining a unit is one action. Movement is another. These are sequential actions, not simultaneous. The IC rules show this isn't simultaneous, so once again you're claiming something can happen after the end of the Movement phase. And you should know how wrong that is.

Again there is no game definition of "their Movement phase", so what do we do? Taking into account there is only one Movement Phase, would it be unreasonable to assume that this means "their movement within the Movement phase"?

Finally you admit this is your made up definition of "their Movement Phase". So you admit you are not arguing RAW. Which is fine but why didn't you just say that earlier?

Also this definition of "their Movement Phase" causes all sorts of problems with the Psychic Powers rules where as the RAW definition causes no problems other than making one part of a sentence redundant.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Finally you admit this is your made up definition of "their Movement Phase". So you admit you are not arguing RAW. Which is fine but why didn't you just say that earlier?

Not at all. When there is no game definition of a term, what do you use? The actual meaning of the word.
Your interpretation fails at this, and fails to fit the rules.
My interpretation fits the rules, breaking non.

Also this definition of "their Movement Phase" causes all sorts of problems with the Psychic Powers rules where as the RAW definition causes no problems other than making one part of a sentence redundant.

What problems? Name one.
And the RAW definition as you put it isn't RAW.
The definition you propose breaks rules, and is also not defined. Don't start saying its a RAW definition when it most definitely is NOT. Your interpretation is far more "made up" than mine.

Blessings are used at the start of [the psykers] movement phase. If "their Movement phase" refers to the movement of the model, then any other models can move before the casting of powers. Also, due to the FAQ "start of their movement phase" is the same time as "start of the turn".

It breaks the Psychic power rules as Happyjew has posted. It is a definition you have literally made up.

My interpretation breaks no rules, makes 1 rule redundant, and uses the rulebooks definition of "Movement Phase" and is consistent with the Psychic Power FAQ on the definition of "their Movement Phase".

 Happyjew wrote:
Blessings are used at the start of [the psykers] movement phase. If "their Movement phase" refers to the movement of the model, then any other models can move before the casting of powers. Also, due to the FAQ "start of their movement phase" is the same time as "start of the turn".

That is an inconsistency with the wording.
The FAQ does indeed show that start of their Movement phase is the same as start of the Movement phase. You're quite right there.
The IC rule still doesn't add up with it being the end of entire Movement phase however.
They definitely could do with some better, more consistant wording with this rule.

That is an inconsistency with the wording.
The FAQ does indeed show that start of their Movement phase is the same as start of the Movement phase. You're quite right there.
The IC rule still doesn't add up with it being the end of entire Movement phase however.
They definitely could do with some better, more consistant wording with this rule

But it is consistent. If you work from the premise that when GW say "Movement Phase" they mean "Movement Phase"... The IC rule completely adds up to "their Movement Phase" = "the Movement Phase" they even remind you that you can't move any further because the phase is over.

 FlingitNow wrote:
The IC rule completely adds up to "their Movement Phase" = "the Movement Phase"

It's been show many times that the rule definitely does NOT add up to this definition. That definition doesn't fit at all.

they even remind you that you can't move any further because the phase is over.

Wrong, the rule says no such thing. It shows the opposite that the phase isn't over. Following the rules, the unit can't move because a member of the unit (the now joined IC) has completed a move (see page 10).

Maybe you guys could go with the interpretation of "Their Movement Phase" to mean the movement phase in which the IC can act, as opposed to the opponent's movement phase.

Maybe you guys could go with the interpretation of "Their Movement Phase" to mean the movement phase in which the IC can act, as opposed to the opponent's movement phase

Yes that is literally the only RAW way to read the statement and indeed is what GW has told tjey mean when they say "their Movement Phase". Grendel for some reason thinks that for this rule only GW mean something different and we are expected to magically make up our own definition...

 FlingitNow wrote:

Maybe you guys could go with the interpretation of "Their Movement Phase" to mean the movement phase in which the IC can act, as opposed to the opponent's movement phase

Yes that is literally the only RAW way to read the statement and indeed is what GW has told tjey mean when they say "their Movement Phase". Grendel for some reason thinks that for this rule only GW mean something different and we are expected to magically make up our own definition...

Pot kettle black?
That statement was so incorrect, it's not "literally the only RAW way to read it" considering that fails to fit what the rule says. And GW said what? Stop making these statements up to cover your lack of rules and argument.
And you are also making up a definition, one that doesn't fit the rule.

 grendel083 wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

Maybe you guys could go with the interpretation of "Their Movement Phase" to mean the movement phase in which the IC can act, as opposed to the opponent's movement phase

Yes that is literally the only RAW way to read the statement and indeed is what GW has told tjey mean when they say "their Movement Phase". Grendel for some reason thinks that for this rule only GW mean something different and we are expected to magically make up our own definition...

Pot kettle black?
That statement was so incorrect, it's not "literally the only RAW way to read it" considering that fails to fit what the rule says. And GW said what? Stop making these statements up to cover your lack of rules and argument.
And you are also making up a definition, one that doesn't fit the rule.

As pointed out I'm not making up a definition the BrB contains my definition. See pages 9-11, what page(s) is your definition on? Also see the FAQ for psychic powers as has been pointed out where GW define that "their Movement Phase" = "the Movement Phase". So we can take what GW define as "Movement Phase" and that they tell us "their Movement Phase" = "the Movement Phase" or we can make up our own definition of "their Movement Phase" and claim that what GW says "doesn't fit" because it makes one rule redundant in a rule set with literally hundreds of redundant rules...

Page 39 you'll find the definition.
You still can't prove the rule on that page is redundant. Your "interpretation" still doesn't fit the rules.

And being that "after" the "end of the Movement phase" is the shooting phase, you're claiming the rule states:
"Note that, [during the shooting phase], that unit can move no further that Movement phase"
Your interpretation doesn't make the rule redundant, it makes it an incorrect mess.

Sorry but page 39 does not contain the definition you have been posting. That is an out right lie unless you'd like to quote it.

So the redundant rule states "Note that (generally meaning this is not a new rule but something you should have picked up already), after the end of the Movement Phase, that unit can move no further that movement phase."

Seems a straight forward reminder to me. As illustrated by the "Note that" beginning.

Why are you ignoring:

A) What the BRB tells us it means by "Movement Phase".
B) That the FAQ tells us "their Movement Phase" = "the Movement Phase"

Please disprove either A or B or concede. To be honest given we both know A & B are true it is baffling that you persist with the attitude that rules you literally made up are RAW.

 FlingitNow wrote:
That is an out right lie

By all means disagree with my interpretations, but calling me a liar know? You should know the forum rules on personal attacks, an apology is in order.

So the redundant rule states "Note that (generally meaning this is not a new rule but something you should have picked up already), after the end of the Movement Phase, that unit can move no further that movement phase."

After the end.
So in the Shooting phase, the unit can move no further that Movement phase.
That seems straight forward? You see nothing wrong with that statement?
This shows very clearly your interpretation is flawed.

A) What the BRB tells us it means by "Movement Phase".

I'm not ignoring this. I'm following the rules for IC's, I've shown how my interpretation fits both this rule and the ICs rule. Something your interpretation fails to do.

B) That the FAQ tells us "their Movement Phase" = "the Movement Phase"

This is incorrect, the FAQ does no such thing. It shows that GW are inconsistent with their terms (no surprise there) and at most shows that "start of their Movement phase" is the same time as start of the Movement phase.

Please disprove either A or B

Done.

or concede.

This again? I can only assume this is the classic bluff of getting your opponent to surrender when you have no real hope. Enough with this "or concede" please.

To be honest given we both know A & B are true it is baffling that you persist with the attitude that rules you literally made up are RAW.

Since A has been disproven, B is outright false, your interpretation makes an incorrect mockery of a rule you are unable to disprove and your incorrect reading of FAQ's I think I have good reason to persist.
Also I did not "literally make up" rules thank you. It's my interpretation of a rule. Much like you are putting forward an interpretation. Difference being my interpretation works neatly with the rules. As proven many times yours does not.

Now that you're resorting to personal attacks, I'd respectfully suggest you find a new thread to post in, and stop flogging this very dead horse of an interpretation.

Well Grendel you made a claim we both know to be false. I apologise for any offense caused. But we both know your definition does not occur on page 39.

A has been disproven? Exactly how have you disproven that pages 9-11 define the movement phase. Please enlighten me?

B is outright false? Yet it is fact that the FAQ proves "their Movement Phase" = "the Movement Phase".

Please use some actual rules to show your interpretation of "their Movement Phase" is defined anywhere in the rules. I've shown where my definition of "the Movement Phase" is and proven that "the Movement Phase" and "their Movement Phase"are the same thing. The fact that you are making claims you know to be false and disregarding clear facts shows how strong your argument is.

Well we're simply not going to agree.
I think we should both leave it at that.

Edit: Appology accepted.

Cool I genuinely didn't mean to insult