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.

 BlackTalos wrote:
I can relate to blacktoof's point though. This is RaW:

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.

It only ever mentions the 1 IC, so we have no RaW on how to deal with 2 IC (3+) in a single Unit.

There are two options:
A) As you described it Kriswall, "all other models" includes the second IC, therefore we are stuck in a loop.
If the game ends with both Inquisitors alive, the enemy would NOT get Victory points for the Tac Squad.

B) We read the Rule as Blacktoof does:
"If five(an) Independent Character joins a unit, and all other models in that unit are killed, five(he) again becomes a unit of five(one) model at the start of the following phase."
And the Unit becomes a Unit of Independant Characters, the Tac Squad is dead and awards Victory Points.

Now in my opinion, "A" and "B" are both interpretations, and i do not see why one would be much better than the other.
If you do believe "A" is stronger: The Subject is 1 IC + 1 Unit. "all other models" referes to the Unit. How can you assert 100% that this must include the second IC? We now for a fact this rule refers to a SINGLE IC and joining a Unit.

I believe "A" is stronger because it's supported by the rules. Option "B" is not supported by the rules. The relevant rule is "all other models". For "B" to be correct, you'd need to demonstrate that IC#2 is not an "other model" from IC#1's perspective. Impossible to do.

 Kriswall wrote:

I believe "A" is stronger because it's supported by the rules. Option "B" is not supported by the rules. The relevant rule is "all other models". For "B" to be correct, you'd need to demonstrate that IC#2 is not an "other model" from IC#1's perspective. Impossible to do.

Supported by what rules? the ones i have quoted in my post? They have ambiguity as showed.

"all other models" is in the Case of 1 IC. Both cases need an assumption:

A) "all other models" includes the second IC.
B) The "If an Independent Character joins a unit" rule is referring to what "all" ICs do. "all other models" = Those not IC

Sure, A is Occams Razor, but i stay by the fact that i understand Blacktoof.

 BlackTalos wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

I believe "A" is stronger because it's supported by the rules. Option "B" is not supported by the rules. The relevant rule is "all other models". For "B" to be correct, you'd need to demonstrate that IC#2 is not an "other model" from IC#1's perspective. Impossible to do.

Supported by what rules? the ones i have quoted in my post? They have ambiguity as showed.

"all other models" is in the Case of 1 IC. Both cases need an assumption:

A) "all other models" includes the second IC.
B) The "If an Independent Character joins a unit" rule is referring to what "all" ICs do. "all other models" = Those not IC

Sure, A is Occams Razor, but i stay by the fact that i understand Blacktoof.

I also understand what blaktoof is arguing for. However, I think that if you have a unit with 12 models and you ask one of them "how many other models are in the unit" you should reasonably expect an answer of 11. You should not receive an answer of "well, that depends on what you mean by 'other'". In the absence of a rule explicitly defining 'other' to mean something different than the standard definition, we use the standard definition... i.e., all the models that are not you!

Blaktoof's position ONLY works if 'other' doesn't mean other. It also creates an enormous issue.

Assume a unit of Space Marine Tactical Marines with an attached Blood Angels Captain and an attached Dark Angels Captain. The Tactical Marines all die. The two Captain are still in coherency with each other and neither moves during the turn in question. At the end of the phase, what Faction is the resulting unit - a unit currently composed of two Captains from different Factions? The method I argue for would say it's still a Space Marine Faction unit since the unit never disbanded and there are still models alive. Blaktoof's method doesn't appear to have an answer.

Well that would be the same case if a Blood Angels Captain joined a Dark Angels Captain. I suppose if you look at them Turn 2 and ask "what Faction?", you'd have to look back at Turn 1 to see who joined first.
Same for the 2 of them in a Marine Squad: the entire Squad is dead, "what faction?", you'd check who joined first.

 Kriswall wrote:
I think that if you have a unit with 12 models and you ask one of them "how many other models are in the unit" you should reasonably expect an answer of 11.

Yes, but if you ask *the IC* "how many other models are in the unit", he would answer 11. If he was the only IC.
In the case of 2 IC, the above rule would not apply (not exist) because it only does in the case of 1 IC and a Unit.
If you ask *the 2 ICs* "how many other models are in the unit", they would answer 10.

And as i posted before, which this whole point relies on:
Can you assert to me 100%, "If an Independent Character joins a unit, and all other models in that unit are killed,..." applies to 2 IC in 1 Unit?

Applying it to 2 IC will have an effect, and will change the rule itself. Either in the way you see it, or in the way Blacktoof sees it. But i see no wrongs...

If you don't count the other IC's as part of the unit are you treating them as part of the unit for all rules purposes?

Gravmyr wrote:
If you don't count the other IC's as part of the unit are you treating them as part of the unit for all rules purposes?

Once they have joined, yes. But again, this rule is "Singular". It does not involve 3 IC in 1 Unit.

There is only one part about multiple-IC Units, and it doesn't even link them to other Units....

 BlackTalos wrote:
Well that would be the same case if a Blood Angels Captain joined a Dark Angels Captain. I suppose if you look at them Turn 2 and ask "what Faction?", you'd have to look back at Turn 1 to see who joined first.
Same for the 2 of them in a Marine Squad: the entire Squad is dead, "what faction?", you'd check who joined first.

 Kriswall wrote:
I think that if you have a unit with 12 models and you ask one of them "how many other models are in the unit" you should reasonably expect an answer of 11.

Yes, but if you ask *the IC* "how many other models are in the unit", he would answer 11. If he was the only IC.
In the case of 2 IC, the above rule would not apply (not exist) because it only does in the case of 1 IC and a Unit.
If you ask *the 2 ICs* "how many other models are in the unit", they would answer 10.

And as i posted before, which this whole point relies on:
Can you assert to me 100%, "If an Independent Character joins a unit, and all other models in that unit are killed,..." applies to 2 IC in 1 Unit?

Applying it to 2 IC will have an effect, and will change the rule itself. Either in the way you see it, or in the way Blacktoof sees it. But i see no wrongs...

Of course it doesn't apply to two ICs. It applies to each IC individually. A model dies. First IC asks if all the other models in the unit died. No? He stays. Second IC asks if all the other models in the unit died. No? He stays. There is no rule wherein 2 ICs collectively ask if all other non-IC models in the unit died. We don't need such a rule because the existing IC rules work just fine.

And I can definitely assert with 100% conviction that the rules apply in a situation with multiple ICs in that the rules apply to each IC individually. Thinking otherwise would require wirtten rules specifically telling us to handle a unit with multiple attached ICs differently. In the absence of a rule telling us to interpret "all other models" as "all other non-IC models", we have to assume that all means all and that "all other models" includes other ICs who happen to be in the unit.

Then you need to back up the assumption that multiple IC's need to be treated differently then 1 IC in the unit. Without that treating other IC's as part of the unit is RAW, not an assumption. Without the rules giving you separate rules for multiple IC units the rules for single is all you have to go by along with the rule of Part of the unit for all rule purposes.

Well that would be the same case if a Blood Angels Captain joined a Dark Angels Captain. I suppose if you look at them Turn 2 and ask "what Faction?", you'd have to look back at Turn 1 to see who joined first. 
Same for the 2 of them in a Marine Squad: the entire Squad is dead, "what faction?", you'd check who joined first. 

In case 1 there is no way to determine faction (they always join simultaneously) in case 2 the faction would be the same as the marine squad.

 Kriswall wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
Well that would be the same case if a Blood Angels Captain joined a Dark Angels Captain. I suppose if you look at them Turn 2 and ask "what Faction?", you'd have to look back at Turn 1 to see who joined first.
Same for the 2 of them in a Marine Squad: the entire Squad is dead, "what faction?", you'd check who joined first.

 Kriswall wrote:
I think that if you have a unit with 12 models and you ask one of them "how many other models are in the unit" you should reasonably expect an answer of 11.

Yes, but if you ask *the IC* "how many other models are in the unit", he would answer 11. If he was the only IC.
In the case of 2 IC, the above rule would not apply (not exist) because it only does in the case of 1 IC and a Unit.
If you ask *the 2 ICs* "how many other models are in the unit", they would answer 10.

And as i posted before, which this whole point relies on:
Can you assert to me 100%, "If an Independent Character joins a unit, and all other models in that unit are killed,..." applies to 2 IC in 1 Unit?

Applying it to 2 IC will have an effect, and will change the rule itself. Either in the way you see it, or in the way Blacktoof sees it. But i see no wrongs...

Of course it doesn't apply to two ICs. It applies to each IC individually. A model dies. First IC asks if all the other models in the unit died. No? He stays. Second IC asks if all the other models in the unit died. No? He stays. There is no rule wherein 2 ICs collectively ask if all other non-IC models in the unit died. We don't need such a rule because the existing IC rules work just fine.

And I can definitely assert with 100% conviction that the rules apply in a situation with multiple ICs in that the rules apply to each IC individually. Thinking otherwise would require wirtten rules specifically telling us to handle a unit with multiple attached ICs differently. In the absence of a rule telling us to interpret "all other models" as "all other non-IC models", we have to assume that all means all and that "all other models" includes other ICs who happen to be in the unit.

Agreed. Just as Blacktoof was assuming "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." can be made plural in the case of more than 1 IC.

Both assumptions are understandable, i'd probably go with the first by RaW, but use the other when playing.

 BlackTalos wrote:
There are two options:
A) As you described it Kriswall, "all other models" includes the second IC, therefore we are stuck in a loop.
If the game ends with both Inquisitors alive, the enemy would NOT get Victory points for the Tac Squad.

Yes you would, in Purge the Alien at least.

Since the ICs are individual units for this rule, the Tac Squad doesn't exist.

B) We read the Rule as Blacktoof does:
"If five(an) Independent Character joins a unit, and all other models in that unit are killed, five(he) again becomes a unit of five(one) model at the start of the following phase."
And the Unit becomes a Unit of Independant Characters, the Tac Squad is dead and awards Victory Points.

Yes, adding or changing words changes the outcome. Who'da thunk.

Now in my opinion, "A" and "B" are both interpretations, and i do not see why one would be much better than the other.

I don't understand how adding words and changing the meaning of the sentence is an "interpretation". If that's the case, I interpret the rules to say that rigeld2 can never fail armor saves.

If you do believe "A" is stronger: The Subject is 1 IC + 1 Unit. "all other models" referes to the Unit. How can you assert 100% that this must include the second IC? We now for a fact this rule refers to a SINGLE IC and joining a Unit.

Because, as the rules state, the second IC is part of the unit for all - note that word - ALL rules purposes. Is this a rules purpose? If so (and it is) why are you attempting to treat him as something other than part of the unit?

"- note that word - ALL rules purposes"

Is Purge the Alien not a rules purpose?

"Remember that Independent Characters and Dedicated Transports are individual units and award Victory Points"
Only applies to: "if they are destroyed."

But they are still alive, so the Unit is too? I mean, Inquisitor A seems to think the Marine Squad is still there. Oh and so Does Inquisitor C.



As for the other interpretation, it's not adding rules.
(an) ; (he) ; and (one) are already there when it refers to 1 IC.
Why can it not Refer to the 3 IC that did the Joining?

 BlackTalos wrote:
"- note that word - ALL rules purposes"

Is Purge the Alien not a rules purpose?

"Remember that Independent Characters and Dedicated Transports are individual units and award Victory Points"
Only applies to: "if they are destroyed."

But they are still alive, so the Unit is too? I mean, Inquisitor A seems to think the Marine Squad is still there. Oh and so Does Inquisitor C.

PtA is an explicit exception - because it says they're individual units. You know, that whole basic vs advanced thing.
And you've broken the sentence down incorrectly.

"Remember that Independent Characters and Dedicated Transports are individual units" and "award Victory Points if they are destroyed"

Two separate phrases. Your method awards victory points if they're destroyed or not which is obviously incorrect, in addition to not being how English works.

As for the other interpretation, it's not adding rules.
(an) ; (he) ; and (one) are already there when it refers to 1 IC.
Why can it not Refer to the 3 IC that did the Joining?

Because as you've noted, the rule refers to 1 unit and 1 IC. Changing words to plural isn't an interpretation, it's literally changing words. Why are you changing words to make your "interpretation" work? What basis do you have for that?

rigeld2 wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:
"- note that word - ALL rules purposes"

Is Purge the Alien not a rules purpose?

"Remember that Independent Characters and Dedicated Transports are individual units and award Victory Points"
Only applies to: "if they are destroyed."

But they are still alive, so the Unit is too? I mean, Inquisitor A seems to think the Marine Squad is still there. Oh and so Does Inquisitor C.

PtA is an explicit exception - because it says they're individual units. You know, that whole basic vs advanced thing.
And you've broken the sentence down incorrectly.

"Remember that Independent Characters and Dedicated Transports are individual units" and "award Victory Points if they are destroyed"

Two separate phrases. Your method awards victory points if they're destroyed or not which is obviously incorrect, in addition to not being how English works.

I have it as:
"Remember that Independent Characters and Dedicated Transports are individual units if they are destroyed."
+
"Remember that Independent Characters and Dedicated Transports award Victory Points if they are destroyed."
=
"Remember that Independent Characters and Dedicated Transports are individual units and award Victory Points if they are destroyed."

rigeld2 wrote:

As for the other interpretation, it's not adding rules.
(an) ; (he) ; and (one) are already there when it refers to 1 IC.
Why can it not Refer to the 3 IC that did the Joining?

Because as you've noted, the rule refers to 1 unit and 1 IC. Changing words to plural isn't an interpretation, it's literally changing words. Why are you changing words to make your "interpretation" work? What basis do you have for that?

Because there is no existing rule for plural ICs. Either you make the rule plural ("B"), or the setting plural ("A"). Both are changing the RaW...

 FlingitNow wrote:

Well that would be the same case if a Blood Angels Captain joined a Dark Angels Captain. I suppose if you look at them Turn 2 and ask "what Faction?", you'd have to look back at Turn 1 to see who joined first. 
Same for the 2 of them in a Marine Squad: the entire Squad is dead, "what faction?", you'd check who joined first. 

In case 1 there is no way to determine faction (they always join simultaneously) in case 2 the faction would be the same as the marine squad.

Joining is always an active thing. If a BA Cap'n moves into coherency with a DA Cap'n, the resulting unit would be a DA Faction unit. If the DA Cap'n moves into coherency with a BA Cap'n, the resulting unit would be a BA Faction unit. The rules don't support the notion of "simultaneous joining", but I see this assertion over and over, so it's clear that a subset of players don't understand how joining works in relation to multiple ICs.

 BlackTalos wrote:
I have it as:
"Remember that Independent Characters and Dedicated Transports are individual units if they are destroyed."
+
"Remember that Independent Characters and Dedicated Transports award Victory Points if they are destroyed."
=
"Remember that Independent Characters and Dedicated Transports are individual units and award Victory Points if they are destroyed."

Which, as I said, is incorrect. And is used to connect two clauses, the second of which results from the first.
So the fact that they award Victory Points if they are destroyed is a result of the fact that they're individual units.

rigeld2 wrote:

As for the other interpretation, it's not adding rules.
(an) ; (he) ; and (one) are already there when it refers to 1 IC.
Why can it not Refer to the 3 IC that did the Joining?

Because as you've noted, the rule refers to 1 unit and 1 IC. Changing words to plural isn't an interpretation, it's literally changing words. Why are you changing words to make your "interpretation" work? What basis do you have for that?

Because there is no existing rule for plural ICs. Either you make the rule plural ("B"), or the setting plural ("A"). Both are changing the RaW...

No, "A" doesn't change a single word. At all. Why are you insisting the RAW is that the sentence is only parsed/tested once? You have 2+ ICs that all must follow that rule.

First sentence:

Joining and Leaving a Unit
An Independent Character can (...)

This entire ruleset and paragraphs are referring to 1 model. How can you suddenly say this rule applies in a case where there are 2 IC in 1 Unit?

"and all other models in that unit are killed"

That Unit refers to the Unit that 1 IC has joined.
The rule can be parsed/tested twice, if you think so, but then "That Unit" will be parsed twice, as the Unit not being the ICs.

 BlackTalos wrote:
First sentence:

Joining and Leaving a Unit
An Independent Character can (...)

This entire ruleset and paragraphs are referring to 1 model. How can you suddenly say this rule applies in a case where there are 2 IC in 1 Unit?

Because you're misunderstanding me.
The rule doesn't read to apply to more than one IC.
But more than one IC has the rule. Agreed?
If more than one IC has the rule, more than one IC must invoke/check the rule, agreed?

"and all other models in that unit are killed"

That Unit refers to the Unit that 1 IC has joined.
The rule can be parsed/tested twice, if you think so, but then "That Unit" will be parsed twice, as the Unit not being the ICs.

Correct! Now you've got it! "The Unit" is the unit minus the IC parsing the rule. Saying that it's "The Unit" minus all ICs is incorrect, as the ICs not parsing the rule are members of The Unit for all rules purposes.

 BlackTalos wrote:
First sentence:

Joining and Leaving a Unit
An Independent Character can (...)

This entire ruleset and paragraphs are referring to 1 model. How can you suddenly say this rule applies in a case where there are 2 IC in 1 Unit?

"and all other models in that unit are killed"

That Unit refers to the Unit that 1 IC has joined.
The rule can be parsed/tested twice, if you think so, but then "That Unit" will be parsed twice, as the Unit not being the ICs.

"That unit" is defintely parsed twice. It simply has the exact same models in it both times, so you get the same result. "That unit" certainly refers to the Unit that the IC has joined. In our example, "That unit" is composed of 10 Tactical Marines and 2 ICs. Are you arguing that the ICs are not a part of the unit? Because they are. For all rules purposes. Including checking whether or not all other models have been killed.