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.

Correct. And per the rule you just quoted cannot join any unit with a mc... Even if it is joined last..

Lshowell wrote:
Correct. And per the rule you just quoted cannot join any unit with a mc... Even if it is joined last..

The Though, and the necessity of the sentence altogether, says otherwise.

An IC cannot join a unit containing an MC, but can join another IC(Which is already allowed) though. O'Vessa is an IC and an MC, and thus may be joined as can any unit containing O'Vesa.

You still cannot join a standard Riptide, but you can join O'vesa because the second sentence allows for the specific restriction(You can also Join a Vehgicle IC if one were ever to exist).

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
(You can also Join a Vehgicle IC if one were ever to exist).

What, you mean like a CCB?

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

Lshowell wrote:
Correct. And per the rule you just quoted cannot join any unit with a mc... Even if it is joined last..

The Though, and the necessity of the sentence altogether, says otherwise.

An IC cannot join a unit containing an MC, but can join another IC(Which is already allowed) though. O'Vessa is an IC and an MC, and thus may be joined as can any unit containing O'Vesa.

You still cannot join a standard Riptide, but you can join O'vesa because the second sentence allows for the specific restriction(You can also Join a Vehgicle IC if one were ever to exist).

Sorry but by that logic ICs can join MCs and units containing MCs "Independent Characters can join other units" units including MCs are still other units. If general allowance over rules specific restrictions then no restrictions ever work. There is a general allowance to join other units and ICs there is a restruction against those units (and ICs) containing MCs or Vehicles.

Naw wrote:

 Commander_Farsight wrote:

Lshowell wrote:
It can't happen, anyone attempting to do this wants a nearly unstoppable unit in an already over powered army.

Thats an opinion, not helpful to the thread

When the rule says IC's can't join units containing MC's, why do you try to argue that they can? Is the intent not clear enough?

Because join is not the same as joined to. ICs join units; units do not join ICs.

Naw wrote:

PolecatEZ wrote:

Naw wrote:
If it was obvious then why does this topic come up all the time?

Because people.

After a thorough reading of the RAW, it looks like so long as you say the MC IC joined last in reserves, or he actually moved to join the unit last during play, all is well.

And you feel that this makes perfect sense, that the rule is meant to work like this??

If the intent was to not allow IC's and MC's be joined together, why do you believe that via rules bending it must be possible? I am sorry, but I do not subscribe to that way of thinking. Maybe that then makes me "less experienced".

In the specific case of O'Vesa being both an IC and MC, and with conflicting rules, I'm saying there is no way to discern their intent in that specific case. Hence why they have a number of options when the FAQ does come out where it could go either way. I see two "intents" by GW that are conflicting:

- They obviously did not want "super units" of joined MC's
- They obviously intended for O'Vesa to be "one of the pack mates" for Farsight and company and for them to fight together.

So...until they FAQ it, RAW that is how it goes.

PolecatEZ wrote:

Naw wrote:

PolecatEZ wrote:

Naw wrote:
If it was obvious then why does this topic come up all the time?

Because people.

After a thorough reading of the RAW, it looks like so long as you say the MC IC joined last in reserves, or he actually moved to join the unit last during play, all is well.

And you feel that this makes perfect sense, that the rule is meant to work like this??

If the intent was to not allow IC's and MC's be joined together, why do you believe that via rules bending it must be possible? I am sorry, but I do not subscribe to that way of thinking. Maybe that then makes me "less experienced".

In the specific case of O'Vesa being both an IC and MC, and with conflicting rules, I'm saying there is no way to discern their intent in that specific case. Hence why they have a number of options when the FAQ does come out where it could go either way. I see two "intents" by GW that are conflicting:

- They obviously did not want "super units" of joined MC's
- They obviously intended for O'Vesa to be "one of the pack mates" for Farsight and company and for them to fight together.

So...until they FAQ it, RAW that is how it goes.

You aren't taking a straight RAW approach. You are a suggesting an awkward sequence of steps that gets around RAW limitations.

The conservative approach and the one that BAO and Nova will almost certainly take will be to not allow it.

Go ahead and post on the BAO thread and ask Reecius if its allowed then.

An IC and MC cannot be in the same unit as the rules now stand.

No, an IC cannot join a unit containing an MC as the rules now stand. There is nothing forbidding being joined, only joining.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
An IC and MC cannot be in the same unit as the rules now stand.

No, the rules do not state that. At all.

Join != joined by.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 Dozer Blades wrote:
An IC and MC cannot be in the same unit as the rules now stand.

No, the rules do not state that. At all.

Join != joined by.

Again, only if you ignore context and defintion

 Happyjew wrote:
No, an IC cannot join a unit containing an MC as the rules now stand. There is nothing forbidding being joined, only joining.

This is a loophole at best and not a good one. Are there any major events allowing this? I really doubt it tbh.

 Dozer Blades wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
No, an IC cannot join a unit containing an MC as the rules now stand. There is nothing forbidding being joined, only joining.

This is a loophole at best and not a good one. Are there any major events allowing this? I really doubt it tbh.

And you are ignoring the permission that is granted directly after the restriction.

You are only reading and quoting 1/2 the rule.

The 'super unit' is pointless anyway. Adding more characters than necessary jsut ties up points in a slow unit.

However, you can just have O'vesa + Aun'va - unquestionably a legal unit - if you want an invulnerable back-field unit. This has the added bonus of being majority T6.

But as to the rules: RAW, O'vesa may join any non-MC unit and this unit may not be joined by any more IC's. The RAI is debateable, as AFAIK O'vesa is the only IC MC in the game.

IMO he is designated an IC so that you can create a single fluff unit of Farsight's 8 - which is then clearly intended that he can be in the same unit as other IC's.

Trasvi wrote:

But as to the rules: RAW, O'vesa may join any non-MC unit and this unit may not be joined by any more IC's. The RAI is debateable, as AFAIK O'vesa is the only IC MC in the game.

Again, this is not even RAW, though it does work also. It ignores the fact that IC's are given explicit permission to join other IC's. Since O'vessa is an IC, he can join other IC's like you said, or other IC's can join him. There is no need for an "order" everyone must join in. Otherwise the part explicitly stating IC's are allowed to join other IC's is worthless filler and serves no purpose. And the "though" in the rule indicates its an exception to the preceding restriction.

IMO he is designated an IC so that you can create a single fluff unit of Farsight's 8 - which is then clearly intended that he can be in the same unit as other IC's.

This is spot on though. They were intended to be allowed to run as one single unit.

 Steel-W0LF wrote:

Trasvi wrote:

But as to the rules: RAW, O'vesa may join any non-MC unit and this unit may not be joined by any more IC's. The RAI is debateable, as AFAIK O'vesa is the only IC MC in the game.

Again, this is not even RAW, though it does work also. It ignores the fact that IC's are given explicit permission to join other IC's. Since O'vessa is an IC, he can join other IC's like you said, or other IC's can join him. There is no need for an "order" everyone must join in. Otherwise the part explicitly stating IC's are allowed to join other IC's is worthless filler and serves no purpose. And the "though" in the rule indicates its an exception to the preceding restriction.

The allowance to join other IC's does not negate the restriction from joining MC's. Both are still in effect, and thus even though O'Vesa is an IC (and thus can be joined) he is a MC (and so can't be joined) resulting in an inability to join.
(But GW rules aren't written tightly enough to deal with an edge case like this so trying to take guidance from RAW in this situation is silly)

Trasvi,
Aun'va starts with 2 'bodyguards' that are Xeno level toughness, so majority would still be less then 6 unless you take the expensive shielded-missile drones.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Steel-wolf,
It could of been specific permission to deal with the whole 'can not join units always found as a single Model' thing that 6th Edition had, but could be pointed at as specific Permission to join a Monstrous Creature Independent Character in the same way....

JinxDragon wrote:
Trasvi,
Aun'va starts with 2 'bodyguards' that are Xeno level toughness, so majority would still be less then 6 unless you take the expensive shielded-missile drones.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Steel-wolf,
It could of been specific permission to deal with the whole 'can not join units always found as a single Model' thing that 6th Edition had, but could be pointed at as specific Permission to join a Monstrous Creature Independent Character in the same way....

You are right that it could be. But that "cannot join single models" restriction is now longer a rule. And as such, if that statement that says "They can join other Independant Characters, though.." does not over ride the preceding restriction, then it does absolutely nothing.

This is a case just like you referenced in another thread, where you said "Permission to do X does not negate restriction Y unless its specifically mentioned"... or something close to that. The way its worded reads like the permission to join IC's together is being linked back to the restriction, to over ride it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Trasvi wrote:

 Steel-W0LF wrote:

Trasvi wrote:

But as to the rules: RAW, O'vesa may join any non-MC unit and this unit may not be joined by any more IC's. The RAI is debateable, as AFAIK O'vesa is the only IC MC in the game.

Again, this is not even RAW, though it does work also. It ignores the fact that IC's are given explicit permission to join other IC's. Since O'vessa is an IC, he can join other IC's like you said, or other IC's can join him. There is no need for an "order" everyone must join in. Otherwise the part explicitly stating IC's are allowed to join other IC's is worthless filler and serves no purpose. And the "though" in the rule indicates its an exception to the preceding restriction.

The allowance to join other IC's does not negate the restriction from joining MC's. Both are still in effect, and thus even though O'Vesa is an IC (and thus can be joined) he is a MC (and so can't be joined) resulting in an inability to join.
(But GW rules aren't written tightly enough to deal with an edge case like this so trying to take guidance from RAW in this situation is silly)

Let me reword the rule in question into something totally non-40k related, it was the first example that popped into my head.

"It is illegal to fire a weapon at another human being. In cases of self defense, though, use of deadly force is authorized."
Worded the exact same, and you cant tell me that the second sentence is not providing you a permission that over-rides the restriction.

Fragile wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 Dozer Blades wrote:
An IC and MC cannot be in the same unit as the rules now stand.

No, the rules do not state that. At all.

Join != joined by.

Again, only if you ignore context and defintion

I'm ignoring nothingim just refusing to change the words to fit my argument, which is what you're doing.

JinxDragon wrote:
Trasvi,
Aun'va starts with 2 'bodyguards' that are Xeno level toughness, so majority would still be less then 6 unless you take the expensive shielded-missile drones.

O'Vesa comes standard with 2 shielded missile drones.

Let me reword the rule in question into something totally non-40k related, it was the first example that popped into my head.

"It is illegal to fire a weapon at another human being. In cases of self defense, though, use of deadly force is authorized."
Worded the exact same, and you cant tell me that the second sentence is not providing you a permission that over-rides the restriction.

This is not at all worded exactly the same. You've significantly altered the sentence structure.
Rulebook:
Sentence 1: General Permission: Independent Characters can join other units.
Sentence 2: Exception to general permission: They cannot, however, join units that contain vehicles or Monstrous Creatures.
Sentence 3: Alternative permission (, though,) useless flavour text: They can join other Independent Characters, though, to form a powerful multi-character unit!

Compare to your structure:
Sentence 1: General restriction: It is illegal to fire a weapon at another human being
Sentence 2: Define exception (, though,) action allowed in exceptional case In cases of self defense, though, use of deadly force is authorized.

The rulebook could drop the 'though' and everything after it and still make sense. It could drop the entire third sentence and still play out the same. Your example, could not do that.

You've removed the first (general) permission, and significantly altered the third sentence to make it an explicit exception to the second and not a new permission in its own right. Plus I can come up with equally value-laden statements using the same wording and no context:
"You are allowed to watch videos while at work. You cannot, however, watch videos containing pornographic material. You can watch educational videos, though, and this is highly recommended!" - does not give you permission to watch 'instructional' videos at work.
"You are allowed to drink anything in the fridge. You cannot, however, drink any alcohol. You can drink fruit juice, though, and they are yummy!' - does not give you permission to make cocktails.


In my reading the 'though' is there to express an alternative to the 'however' exception in the previous sentence.

In my reading the 'though' is there to express an alternative to the 'however' exception in the previous sentence.

Ummm yeah..... That "though" that is there expressing an alternative (that allows IC's to join each other) to the "however" (that says MC's cant be joined).....

So if that "though" is an alternative to the "however", then it says exactly what I've been saying it does and IC's can join O'vessa, not just O'vessa joining other IC's.


And to your examples..... You believe GW writes rules with no purpose then, i don't think they write things into rules for no reason at all that don't do anything.

 Steel-W0LF wrote:

In my reading the 'though' is there to express an alternative to the 'however' exception in the previous sentence.

Ummm yeah..... That "though" that is there expressing an alternative (that allows IC's to join each other) to the "however" (that says MC's cant be joined).....

So if that "though" is an alternative to the "however", then it says exactly what I've been saying it does and IC's can join O'vessa, not just O'vessa joining other IC's.

Sorry, I made an error there. They're saying "You can do X. However, you can't do Y, though you can do Z." The 'however' and 'though' are modifications to the first sentence, the general permission. Apologies for not being clearer.

And to your examples..... You believe GW writes rules with no purpose then, i don't think they write things into rules for no reason at all that don't do anything.

My examples were just showing that YOUR example of substituting other nouns was fallacious. Especially if you change the sentence structure at the same time.
GW often writes clarifications in to their rules, which (by definition) don't strictly need to be there. I don't believe that GW intentionally writes rules for no reason - they intend for everything the rules to have a purpose, it just happens that they don't know their own rules enough (or don't care enough) that they miss out some very important interactions.
The statement "They can join other Independent Characters to form a powerful multi-character unit" is a useful clarification to what would be a frequently asked question, but it is not strictly necessary for the rules to function.

If we take your view that this rule was written with an express purpose to give an exception to the previous restriction, what are the implications of that? That GW noted that there is a class of IC MC's (one model in the game in a supplement codex), and they wrote the contended sentence as the answer to that. Instead of taking the explicit route to solve to problem and saying "Though you can obviously join MC's which are also IC's", they wrote a sentence which apparently everyone but you is interpreting to be a clarification of a different problem. Now that is something which beggars belief.

Travi,
You are right, he does.

Trasvi wrote:
The 'super unit' is pointless anyway. Adding more characters than necessary jsut ties up points in a slow unit.

However, you can just have O'vesa + Aun'va - unquestionably a legal unit - if you want an invulnerable back-field unit. This has the added bonus of being majority T6.

But as to the rules: RAW, O'vesa may join any non-MC unit and this unit may not be joined by any more IC's. The RAI is debateable, as AFAIK O'vesa is the only IC MC in the game.

IMO he is designated an IC so that you can create a single fluff unit of Farsight's 8 - which is then clearly intended that he can be in the same unit as other IC's.

Right, one thing that you can do is just use him as a LOS blocker because then you have a Riptide that just cant be killed, not bad at all.

I flat out refuse to play anyone that tries to pull this kind of stunt.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
I flat out refuse to play anyone that tries to pull this kind of stunt.

So are you saying that you are refusing to play the game then? Because RAW allows it. How someone interprets it is different, but by not playing that person, you are then just singling out rules you want to play with, and dont want to play with.

delete

The general permission does not over ride the specific restriction.

They can join other IC's is just garble in case someone forgets a lone IC is a unit in it's own right - or there's no point in the restriction, just have the MC join another IC then it's all gravy!

Joining is not the same as being joined to. (Though It would not surprise me if that rule or Ov got a FAQ to clarify).

Go ahead, its a very expensive unit to sit in a tar pit, tactical objectives make slow super units much less useful, you can save giving away character points in case your opponent rolls them I guess.

 Nem wrote:
The general permission does not over ride the specific restriction.

They can join other IC's is just garble in case someone forgets a lone IC is a unit in it's own right - or there's no point in the restriction, just have the MC join another IC then it's all gravy!

Joining is not the same as being joined to. (Though It would not surprise me if that rule or Ov got a FAQ to clarify).

Go ahead, its a very expensive unit to sit in a tar pit, tactical objectives make slow super units much less useful, you can save giving away character points in case your opponent rolls them I guess.

THANK YOU! This is exactly my point! Exalted.