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.
I actually read it (present tense) the same as Blaktoof. But they probably meant it the way others are saying. It's just weird that they're giving permission for a model that Runs to Charge without actually having an ability that allows it to do so.
But could we maybe chill on calling each other "willfully obtuse" when both sides are logical readings? Outside the context of "For Russ, For Glory" there is another part to the Wulfen rule that the wulfen can benefit from without being restricted by the IC being present. Within the context of "For Russ, For Glory," both rulings are just weird, though consistent with each other.
Maybe we need to be thinking in terms of Disordered Charge, meaning the IC prevents the Wulfen from benefiting from the +1 attack, Rage or any potential Hammer of Wrath that might be present...it's a stretch I admit but it could be what the FAQ is failing show.
I don't break the rules but I'll bend them as far as they'll go.
Feel free to keep trying to push your old failed lines of reasoning, but the writings on the wall here . . .
No, my point is there is no reasoning behind their FAQ. There is no logic. I disproved your points then, and I can disprove them now. You are stuck on a phrase that is a condition of possession being miraculously translated to being one of granting. The only thing that is granted in Stubborn is an effect, not a rule. You could not bring anything to support your position then that wasn't addressed, though you ignored it and then presented a case based on false premises based on ignoring what was presented, if you did not outright lie about what they were saying. Considering the illusion that you think you "shown" me these things is ridiculous when you demonstrated nothing that was not disproven. Bringing this up now in such a manner could also be seen as attacking the poster.
col_impact wrote:Incorrect. The Space Wolves FAQ has made it abundantly clear that you can indeed run and declare a charge with the unit minus the attached ICs.
Spoiler:
Q: If an Independent Character joins a unit from a Space Wolves Deathpack Formation, can they still benefit from the For Glory, For Russ! special rule (for example, Run and then still be able to charge the same turn)?
A: The attached character does not benefit, but nor does he prevent the unit he is attached to from doing so, provided that all models in the unit (including the Independent Character) maintain unit coherency at all times.
Then care to explain how to do this based on the rules in the rulebook while still following these rules?
Spoiler:
• If possible, a charging model must move into base contact with an enemy model within reach that is not already in base contact with another charging model. If there are no such enemy models in reach, the model must move into base contact with an enemy model that is already in base contact with a charging model.
• If a charging model cannot reach any enemy models, it must try to move within 2" horizontally or 6" vertically of one of its own unit’s models that is already in base contact with an enemy. If this is impossible, it must simply stay in unit coherency.
Remember the conditions that the models must stay in coherency AND move as close to base contact as possible by both the rulebook and the FAQ. Outside of the 2" Charge where the IC is also very close and not strung out in the back, how is this supposed to actually work?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/10 03:04:16
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
People, make sure when you are posting your arguments that you are doing it without the added "you're just being wilfully obtuse" garbage. It doesn't make your point any stronger to insult others, and is in direct violation of rule 1. So stop it.
I wish I had time for all the game systems I own, let alone want to own...
Funny thing is if the answer had been 'no' it would have been clear cut and rather blunt,
The answer we have been given so far is 'yes' with a 'but' which is why I'm more and more leaning towards a disordered charge type scenario where the Wulfen can charge they just lose all the charging bonuses because the IC can't charge with them.
I don't break the rules but I'll bend them as far as they'll go.
I know what you're saying and I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm trying to figure out where some of the other guys are at, especially some of the ones who disagree, they see the 'yes' but they're still trying to make a 'no'.
I don't break the rules but I'll bend them as far as they'll go.
While we wait for clarification, I'll present to my opponent the FAQ and my interpretation of it, and if he disagrees I'll be happy to roll for it. It is a game after all.
NightHowler wrote: While we wait for clarification, I'll present to my opponent the FAQ and my interpretation of it, and if he disagrees I'll be happy to roll for it. It is a game after all.
I don't think we need a clarification.
The problems people have stem from a misquoting or misremembering of a rule by truncating the latter half of it . . .
Spoiler:
While an Independent Character is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes, though he still follows the rules for characters.
The Draft FAQ has reminded us that the portion in red cannot be dropped off. The rules for Characters include a section on movement that allows the Characters to move individually and is an exception to the 'counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes'.
Spoiler:
CHARACTER AND MOVING
Characters follow the movement rules for models of their type, whether Infantry, Jump Infantry, Bikes, etc. However, remember that they must maintain unit coherency with any unit they are in.
Consider all these FAQ answers in light of the Character rule that people have forgotten . . .
Spoiler:
Q: Can a Jet Pack unit that has joined a different unit (e.g. a Necron Destroyer Lord joining Canoptek Wraiths) still use its jet pack move in the Assault phase?
A: Yes, but the model cannot leave its unit and must stay in unit coherency.
Spoiler:
Q: When it states that all models in the unit must use the same movement type, does that restrict Independent Characters with the Bike unit type joining Jump or Jetbike units, for example?
A: Sometimes a unit will contain models that move at different speeds. When this is the case, each model can move up to its maximum movement allowance so long as it remains in unit coherency.
Spoiler:
Q: How does a unit consisting of a mix of Cavalry, Bike, Jump Pack and Infantry models move, Run, Turbo-boost and charge? Do they all use their respective rules while maintaining squad coherency?
A: Yes. Models move individually, so in the Movement phase each model in this improbable unit can move up to their maximum movement allowance so long as the unit is in unit coherency at the end of the move. If the unit elects to Run, no models in the unit may shoot. The unit doesn’t benefit from the Cavalry model’s Fleet rule, as that only applies if every model in the unit has the Fleet rule. If the unit Runs, the Bike may Turbo-boost, but must finish its move in unit coherency. When charging, the Jump model may use its jump pack (if it did not do so in the Movement phase) to re-roll the charge distance for the unit.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/12 20:42:30
The problems people have stem from a misquoting or misremembering of a rule by truncating the latter half of it . . .
Spoiler:
While an Independent Character is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes, though he still follows the rules for characters.
The Draft FAQ has reminded us that the portion in red cannot be dropped off. The rules for Characters include a section on movement that allows the Characters to move individually and is an exception to the 'counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes'.
Spoiler:
CHARACTER AND MOVING
Characters follow the movement rules for models of their type, whether Infantry, Jump Infantry, Bikes, etc. However, remember that they must maintain unit coherency with any unit they are in.
Consider all these FAQ answers in light of the Character rule that people have forgotten . . .
Spoiler:
Q: Can a Jet Pack unit that has joined a different unit (e.g. a Necron Destroyer Lord joining Canoptek Wraiths) still use its jet pack move in the Assault phase?
A: Yes, but the model cannot leave its unit and must stay in unit coherency.
Spoiler:
Q: When it states that all models in the unit must use the same movement type, does that restrict Independent Characters with the Bike unit type joining Jump or Jetbike units, for example?
A: Sometimes a unit will contain models that move at different speeds. When this is the case, each model can move up to its maximum movement allowance so long as it remains in unit coherency.
Spoiler:
Q: How does a unit consisting of a mix of Cavalry, Bike, Jump Pack and Infantry models move, Run, Turbo-boost and charge? Do they all use their respective rules while maintaining squad coherency?
A: Yes. Models move individually, so in the Movement phase each model in this improbable unit can move up to their maximum movement allowance so long as the unit is in unit coherency at the end of the move. If the unit elects to Run, no models in the unit may shoot. The unit doesn’t benefit from the Cavalry model’s Fleet rule, as that only applies if every model in the unit has the Fleet rule. If the unit Runs, the Bike may Turbo-boost, but must finish its move in unit coherency. When charging, the Jump model may use its jump pack (if it did not do so in the Movement phase) to re-roll the charge distance for the unit.
No, we are not "misquoting or misremembering of a rule" or a Draft FAQ. We are remembering ALL the rules and their interactions, not just cherry-picking what we want to remember. Do not blur the definition between model and units as that comes some very dangerous territory.
Most movement actions are applied on a unit level, while the actual movement distance is based at the model level.
Keep in mind several things which the Draft FAQ does not errata, but House Rules, and that is:
Running is a Unit level action.
Turbo-boosting is a Model level action.
Jumping is a Unit level action prevented if all models in the unit cannot do so.
Charging is a Unit level action.
Thrusting is a Unit level action.
What they need to do is errata these sections to meet with what these FAQs seem to indicate as RAI. That when a unit Runs, the models can Turbo-boost, etcs, and that Jumping indicates all Jump models in the unit and all the models in the unit, and Thrusting is a Model level action. All this needs to be properly addressed, not just hand-waved away.
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
No, we are not "misquoting or misremembering of a rule" or a Draft FAQ. We are remembering ALL the rules and their interactions, not just cherry-picking what we want to remember. Do not blur the definition between model and units as that comes some very dangerous territory.
Most movement actions are applied on a unit level, while the actual movement distance is based at the model level.
Keep in mind several things which the Draft FAQ does not errata, but House Rules, and that is:
Running is a Unit level action.
Turbo-boosting is a Model level action.
Jumping is a Unit level action prevented if all models in the unit cannot do so.
Charging is a Unit level action.
Thrusting is a Unit level action.
What they need to do is errata these sections to meet with what these FAQs seem to indicate as RAI. That when a unit Runs, the models can Turbo-boost, etcs, and that Jumping indicates all Jump models in the unit and all the models in the unit, and Thrusting is a Model level action. All this needs to be properly addressed, not just hand-waved away.
No. The Character rules for movement mean that IC are not a part of the unit for the purposes of movement.
Do not confuse these two rule statements . . .
Spoiler:
While an Independent Character is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes,
Spoiler:
While an Independent Character is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes, though he still follows the rules for characters.
The latter statement is why a unit of Wulfen with an IC attached can still benefit from the Bounding Lope rule. The Wulfen unit Runs and charges per its units special rules and the attached IC is bound by the rules of movement for its unit type.
col_impact wrote: No. The Character rules for movement mean that IC are not a part of the unit for the purposes of movement.
Do not confuse these two rule statements . . .
Spoiler:
While an Independent Character is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes,
Spoiler:
While an Independent Character is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes, though he still follows the rules for characters.
The latter statement is why a unit of Wulfen with an IC attached can still benefit from the Bounding Lope rule. The Wulfen unit Runs and charges per its units special rules and the attached IC is bound by the rules of movement for its unit type.
Simple stuff.
You missed a rules quote there to support your first statement. Where does it state that Characters are not part of the unit for rules purposes?
Movement rules are determined by the other unit types associated with the model, not with being a Character. Remember that a significant number of Character models cannot be disassociated from the unit as they come with the unit either as default (Marine and AM Sergeants) or as an upgrade (Eldar Exarchs and Orc Nobs). So, separating the Character from the unit for movement makes zero sense.
Here, let me show you what it says for Characters and Movement:
Characters follow the movement rules for models of their type, whether Infantry, Jump Infantry, Bikes, etc. However, remember that they must maintain unit coherency with any unit they are in.
Nothing in this quote allows you to separate the Character from the unit for movement. Indeed, the underlined portion indicates otherwise. If they are not part of the unit for movement, they would not need to stay in coherency, but yet, this statement clearly indicates that they are.
Also, they must still follow the rules of their Type, which means they do not get a free pass just because they are a Character, much less an Independent Character.
What GW is telling us with these Draft FAQs is these rules for Movement are allowed to be translated for the purposes of mixed units to allow all of the unit to do their special moves, be it Jumping, Thrusting, or even Running, just so long as they do not separate while doing so. From a functionality aspect, I do not have a problem with this, but from considering it from a language aspect, they need to properly make the erratas to fit this adjustment.
What does this have to do with IC and Wulfen? Well, the Unit runs and then the Unit can Charge in the same turn, right? This is not limited to the models in the unit, though. But the Drunken Monkeys would have you believe that it is. The rules for Charging only restrict the UNIT from the Charge if the UNIT Runs, not the Models. The IC is also part of the unit, having to stay in Coherency with the unit at all times except when intending to leave during Movement or the rest of the unit is destroyed (a bit obvious on that last one), so is under those same considerations that every other model in the unit is under consideration for when the UNIT does something or receives a benefit.
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
If the IC were part of the unit for all rules purposes, the IC would not retain its individual Unit Type - an IC on a Bike attached to a Jump unit would acquire the Jump unit type and lose the Bike unit type. All rules purposes means all rules purposes, right?
However, importantly we do not truncate the last part of the rule . . .
Spoiler:
While an Independent Character is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes, though he still follows the rules for characters.
The latter part of the rule means the IC can move individually as if he were an individual unit per his unit type while the unit he is joined to is free to move according to its unit type. The only restriction is that the IC retain coherency with the unit he is attached to during any phases that are not the movement phase.
If in the movement phase the IC unit uses its individual movement to move out of coherency with the host unit then the IC unit detaches from the host unit. The coherency restriction is not in effect during the movement phase according to the IC rules.
When attached to a unit, the IC is a 'unit in a unit'. If he were not a 'unit in a unit' then he could not move according to his own unit type or move out of coherency in the movement phase.
col_impact wrote: If the IC were part of the unit for all rules purposes, the IC would not retain its individual Unit Type - an IC on a Bike attached to a Jump unit would acquire the Jump unit type and lose the Bike unit type. All rules purposes means all rules purposes, right?
No. Nothing says he takes on the unit type of the unit. Just that he is part of the unit. With the cases where Sergeants, Nobs, and Exarchs are concerned, they already have two unit types listed in every unit. So, the unit type of the model does not get to change when it joins a unit since we are not told or even implied to do so.
When the unit gets shot, the IC is part of the unit for when Wounds are Allocated. When a unit Runs, the IC is part of the unit and can make that move. When determining if a unit can use Fleet, the IC is considered part of the unit and can prevent its use. When a unit looks to use Stubborn, the IC is considered part of the unit and can not have its Leadership reduced in certain circumstances.
col_impact wrote: However, importantly we do not truncate the last part of the rule . . .
Spoiler:
While an Independent Character is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes, though he still follows the rules for characters.
The latter part of the rule means the IC can move individually as if he were an individual unit per his unit type while the unit he is joined to is free to move according to its unit type. The only restriction is that the IC retain coherency with the unit he is attached to during any phases that are not the movement phase.
If in the movement phase the IC unit uses its individual movement to move out of coherency with the host unit then the IC unit detaches from the host unit. The coherency restriction is not in effect during the movement phase according to the IC rules.
When attached to a unit, the IC is a 'unit in a unit'. If he were not a 'unit in a unit' then he could not move according to his own unit type or move out of coherency in the movement phase.
No, it does not state or imply this. I have already pointed out that the Character rules change absolutely nothing in regards to movement, and still consider Characters as part of the unit for all considerations.
Units make the move action, models do the actual movement. From the Movement Phase section:
In your turn, you can move any of your units – all of them if you wish – up to their maximum movement distance. Once a unit has completed all of its movement, you can select another unit and move that one, and so on, until you have moved all of the units you wish to move.
MOVEMENT DISTANCE Models move up to 6" in the Movement phase. This represents most creatures moving at a reasonable pace but stopping several times to scan the surrounding landscape for enemies, communicate with their commanders, identify the best lines of advance and so on.
This applies to Charging, too.
DECLARE CHARGE Choose a unit in your army that is declaring a charge and nominate the enemy unit(s) it is attempting to charge. A unit can never declare a charge against a unit that it cannot reach, nor can it declare a charge against a unit that it cannot see, though it is allowed to charge an enemy unit it is impossible for it to harm. This means that a charge can usually only be declared on a unit up to 12" away (the maximum charge range for most models, as we’ll discover later).
Moving Charging Models Charging units must attempt to move into base contact with as many opposing models in the enemy unit as possible with as many of their models as possible – no holding back or trying to avoid terrain! All of the models in a charging unit make their charge move – up to the 2D6 distance you rolled earlier – following the same rules as in the Movement phase, with the exception that they can be moved within 1" of enemy models. Charging models still cannot move through friendly or enemy models, and cannot move into base contact with enemy models from a unit they are not charging (a unit can charge more than one enemy unit by declaring a multiple charge – this is described in the Multiple Combats section).
So, here we see that while the Units initiate the action, it is the models actually performing those actions. So, that allows the IC and the models inside to do their range.
The problem is when we get in to Unit Types, they either give special names to actions separating them out from the standard (turbo-boost), require the whole unit to do so (Jump), or require the unit to be identified as that type (Jet Pack). But even then, NOTHING is stated that ICs out as being separate from the unit in these actions.
The Drunken Monkeys forget how they have written their rules and then just try to wave it away instead of addressing it properly.
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
You actually have to point to a rule in the BRB that takes away the unit status of an IC that joins a unit. Even though he becomes part of a unit, the IC still retains separable unit status because no rule exists that takes the unit status away. The IC is simply a unit that is part of another unit.
The IC never stops being a unit. The ICs have their own ALE. They have their own unit type. The Character Movement rules allow them to follow the movement rules found on their ALE.
When they join a unit they do not lose their ALE or the unit type on their ALE which they would if they were part of the unit for all rules purposes.
When they join a unit they do not lose the ability to move independently of the unit. They can move freely out of coherency with the unit during the movement phase. If they were part of the unit for all rules purposes they would not be able to move out of coherency.
ICs are a unit in a unit. An ALE coexisting with a host ALE. A unit in a unit that can move independently and break off at any movement phase.
So a Jet Pack IC unit that is attached to an infantry unit still has access to the Thrust move since the Jet Pack IC is a unit in its own right and can move independently and only has to maintain coherency since its not the normal movement phase.
Spoiler:
Q: Can a Jet Pack unit that has joined a different unit (e.g. a Necron Destroyer Lord joining Canoptek Wraiths) still use its jet pack move in the Assault phase?
A: Yes, but the model cannot leave its unit and must stay in unit coherency.
Spoiler:
THRUST MOVE
A Jet Pack unit that is not locked in combat or charging can move up to 2D6" in the Assault phase, even if they have shot or Run in the preceding Shooting phase or arrived by Deep Strike that turn. When Jet Pack units move in the Assault phase and do not charge, they move just as they would when using their jet packs in the Movement phase.
In the scenario where a Destroyer Lord is attached to a unit of Wraiths, Jet Pack unit refers to the Destroyer Lord. The Destroyer Lord never discarded his unit status.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/13 21:49:02
col_impact wrote: You actually have to point to a rule in the BRB that takes away the unit status of an IC that joins a unit. Even though he becomes part of a unit, the IC still retains separable unit status because no rule exists that takes the unit status away. The IC is simply a unit that is part of another unit.
The IC never stops being a unit. The ICs have their own ALE. They have their own unit type. The Character Movement rules allow them to follow the movement rules found on their ALE.
When they join a unit they do not lose their ALE or the unit type on their ALE which they would if they were part of the unit for all rules purposes.
When they join a unit they do not lose the ability to move independently of the unit. They can move freely out of coherency with the unit during the movement phase. If they were part of the unit for all rules purposes they would not be able to move out of coherency.
ICs are a unit in a unit. An ALE coexisting with a host ALE. A unit in a unit that can move independently and break off at any movement phase.
So a Jet Pack IC unit that is attached to an infantry unit still has access to the Thrust move since the Jet Pack IC is a unit in its own right and can move independently and only has to maintain coherency since its not the normal movement phase.
Spoiler:
Q: Can a Jet Pack unit that has joined a different unit (e.g. a Necron Destroyer Lord joining Canoptek Wraiths) still use its jet pack move in the Assault phase?
A: Yes, but the model cannot leave its unit and must stay in unit coherency.
Spoiler:
THRUST MOVE
A Jet Pack unit that is not locked in combat or charging can move up to 2D6" in the Assault phase, even if they have shot or Run in the preceding Shooting phase or arrived by Deep Strike that turn. When Jet Pack units move in the Assault phase and do not charge, they move just as they would when using their jet packs in the Movement phase.
In the scenario where a Destroyer Lord is attached to a unit of Wraiths, Jet Pack unit refers to the Destroyer Lord. The Destroyer Lord never discarded his unit status.
We have been over this in other threads.
1) There are zero rules for units operating or being recognized inside another unit. None. Zip. Zero. Nadda.
2) The IC counts as being part of the joined unit for all rules purposes for the duration of the joining, not just what you pick and choose to recognize. That is the part in the BRB which provides the link which you ignore.
3) The final tally with that is when an IC is joined to a unit, you are disallowed from recognizing that IC's individual unit status for the duration of the joining.
If you think an IC can be treated as a separate unit while inside another unit, let me ask you this:
"Can I shoot at a Warboss inside a Green Tide unit of Boyz without them being able to have Wounds Allocated to them? Why?"
If I can select out a Destroyer Lord unit in a unit of Wraiths to do a Thrust move, my opponent can just as easily choose to shoot at that Destroyer Lord unit. If he does so, those Wounds accumulated will not be able to be Allocated to anything but the Destroyer Lord. This leads to also not being able to use Look Out Sir! those Wound Allocations (Wraiths are not part of the Destroyer Lord unit).
So, to keep sanity in gameplay, I cannot separate out the IC for its own unit actions unless I am intending to separate it from the unit itself. The Drunken Monkeys state otherwise, and it is your choice to listen to them.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/14 03:48:30
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
1) There are zero rules for units operating or being recognized inside another unit. None. Zip. Zero. Nadda.
2) The IC counts as being part of the joined unit for all rules purposes for the duration of the joining, not just what you pick and choose to recognize. That is the part in the BRB which provides the link which you ignore.
3) The final tally with that is when an IC is joined to a unit, you are disallowed from recognizing that IC's individual unit status for the duration of the joining.
If you think an IC can be treated as a separate unit while inside another unit, let me ask you this:
"Can I shoot at a Warboss inside a Green Tide unit of Boyz without them being able to have Wounds Allocated to them? Why?"
If I can select out a Destroyer Lord unit in a unit of Wraiths to do a Thrust move, my opponent can just as easily choose to shoot at that Destroyer Lord unit. If he does so, those Wounds accumulated will not be able to be Allocated to anything but the Destroyer Lord. This leads to also not being able to use Look Out Sir! those Wound Allocations (Wraiths are not part of the Destroyer Lord unit).
So, to keep sanity in gameplay, I cannot separate out the IC for its own unit actions unless I am intending to separate it from the unit itself. The Drunken Monkeys state otherwise, and it is your choice to listen to them.
Again, you are conflating these two statements . . .
Spoiler:
While an Independent Character is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes.
Spoiler:
While an Independent Character is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes, though he still follows the rules for characters.
The difference between these two statements is why an Independent Character can move independently of the unit. The Character and Movement rules provide the exception to the "counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes".
If there were Character and Shooting rules that allowed the Character to shoot independently of the host unit or to be shot at independently of the host unit then those would also provide exception to the "counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes". But there isn't any to that effect.
That's why a Destroyer Lord attached to a unit of Wraiths doing a Thrust move doesn't open up the Pandora's Box you are worried about. Nice try.
Moreover, it is up to you to show a rule that takes away the unit status of the Destroyer Lord when he joins the unit of Wraiths. You are assuming that he loses his unit status. But no rule says this.
The FAQ writers are being very logical and consistent here. You have read into the rule in the past and have failed to notice the exceptions to the "counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes".
Rather than adjust your argument you are stubbornly holding onto your old lines of thinking and accusing the FAQ writers of being Drunken Monkeys when in fact you are the one being a Stubborn Monkey.
You are both reading waaaAAAAAaaaay too much into this. We have seen enough GW rules, rules contradictions, FAQs, and FAQ contradictions to know beyond any shadow of a doubt that the GW rules writers do not think this deeply about the rules they write. So for us to think this deeply about it becomes a little ludicrous at a certain point.
The unit with attached IC can run and charge because the FAQ says they can.
Not because it makes any kind of sense.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/14 05:07:47
col_impact wrote:Again, you are conflating these two statements . . .
Spoiler:
While an Independent Character is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes.
Spoiler:
While an Independent Character is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes, though he still follows the rules for characters.
I do not think "conflate" means what you think it means. Look it up and you will realize that it does not mean how you are attempting to use it.
I do recognize that the IC still follows the rules for Characters, the point is that they really do nothing for this discussion.
col_impact wrote:The difference between these two statements is why an Independent Character can move independently of the unit. The Character and Movement rules provide the exception to the "counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes".
If there were Character and Shooting rules that allowed the Character to shoot independently of the host unit or to be shot at independently of the host unit then those would also provide exception to the "counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes". But there isn't any to that effect.
That's why a Destroyer Lord attached to a unit of Wraiths doing a Thrust move doesn't open up the Pandora's Box you are worried about. Nice try.
Moreover, it is up to you to show a rule that takes away the unit status of the Destroyer Lord when he joins the unit of Wraiths. You are assuming that he loses his unit status. But no rule says this.
I have already demonstrated to you on how being a Character makes zero difference in this case and you refused to address or acknowledge it.
Characters and Movement does absolutely nothing to allow for independent movement for a Character since there are numerous Characters that cannot be separated from a unit. Only the Independent Character special rule allows for any capacity of that. And even then, the Characters and Movement section still refers you back to the rules in the Unit Types and makes zero exceptions to that. What makes it possible for a Biker IC to Turbo-boost when the unit Runs is that the Biker model is allowed to do it instead of Running. Actual movement is based on what the model can do, as I have shown. However, the Jump and Jet Pack special action rules are not listed as being performed by individual models alone, but being done by the unit or all the models in the unit.
So, going by that, I sort of repeat, where does it allow you to treat the IC joined to a unit as a separate unit for movement, but not for being shot at? Specific rules quotes only please.
col_impact wrote:The FAQ writers are being very logical and consistent here. You have read into the rule in the past and have failed to notice the exceptions to the "counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes".
Rather than adjust your argument you are stubbornly holding onto your old lines of thinking and accusing the FAQ writers of being Drunken Monkeys when in fact you are the one being a Stubborn Monkey.
No, there is no logic when they ignore the relationship they established in the game with an IC and a unit they joined. Just because you don't want it to work, doesn't mean your points carry any weight. Either an IC is part of the unit he is in or he is not. If he is, why can he not benefit from Bounding Lope? If he is not part of the unit, then when did this disassociation occur? Why is the IC part of the unit when receiving the benefits of Stubborn, but not when Bounding Lope hands out its benefits?
These questions have been asked in one form or another on this very question, and no one has given a satisfactory answer that attends to any logical basis or from anything in the rulebook. It only applies to "I don't want it to work since it could be too powerful, make it stop!" or the use of Drunken Monkeys flinging darts at a dart board.
NightHowler wrote:You are both reading waaaAAAAAaaaay too much into this. We have seen enough GW rules, rules contradictions, FAQs, and FAQ contradictions to know beyond any shadow of a doubt that the GW rules writers do not think this deeply about the rules they write. So for us to think this deeply about it becomes a little ludicrous at a certain point.
The unit with attached IC can run and charge because the FAQ says they can.
Not because it makes any kind of sense.
It needs to make sense in order for future rules to be properly parsed and used. Or should the Space Wolves wait another 2 years to get an FAQ on their next codex?
Another question this brings up is, what happens to the IC? Are they stuck in place while the Wulfen charge ahead? If they didn't move during the Run, can they also move when Moving the Chargers?
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
col_impact wrote:Again, you are conflating these two statements . . .
Spoiler:
While an Independent Character is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes.
Spoiler:
While an Independent Character is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes, though he still follows the rules for characters.
I do not think "conflate" means what you think it means. Look it up and you will realize that it does not mean how you are attempting to use it.
Conflation is when you treat two distinct statements as if they were the same statement, i.e. you are not attending to the meaningful differences in the statements I have posted.
I do recognize that the IC still follows the rules for Characters, the point is that they really do nothing for this discussion.
col_impact wrote:The difference between these two statements is why an Independent Character can move independently of the unit. The Character and Movement rules provide the exception to the "counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes".
If there were Character and Shooting rules that allowed the Character to shoot independently of the host unit or to be shot at independently of the host unit then those would also provide exception to the "counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes". But there isn't any to that effect.
That's why a Destroyer Lord attached to a unit of Wraiths doing a Thrust move doesn't open up the Pandora's Box you are worried about. Nice try.
Moreover, it is up to you to show a rule that takes away the unit status of the Destroyer Lord when he joins the unit of Wraiths. You are assuming that he loses his unit status. But no rule says this.
I have already demonstrated to you on how being a Character makes zero difference in this case and you refused to address or acknowledge it.
Characters and Movement does absolutely nothing to allow for independent movement for a Character since there are numerous Characters that cannot be separated from a unit. Only the Independent Character special rule allows for any capacity of that. And even then, the Characters and Movement section still refers you back to the rules in the Unit Types and makes zero exceptions to that. What makes it possible for a Biker IC to Turbo-boost when the unit Runs is that the Biker model is allowed to do it instead of Running. Actual movement is based on what the model can do, as I have shown. However, the Jump and Jet Pack special action rules are not listed as being performed by individual models alone, but being done by the unit or all the models in the unit.
So, going by that, I sort of repeat, where does it allow you to treat the IC joined to a unit as a separate unit for movement, but not for being shot at? Specific rules quotes only please.
Spoiler:
While an Independent Character is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes, though he still follows the rules for characters.
The rules for characters are provided as an exception to the clause 'counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes'. Remember, the unit status of the IC is never discarded, unless you can provide a rule for that (specific rules quote only please). So when it comes to movement time the IC has exception to the 'counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes' and can move as a unit onto himself.
col_impact wrote:The FAQ writers are being very logical and consistent here. You have read into the rule in the past and have failed to notice the exceptions to the "counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes".
Rather than adjust your argument you are stubbornly holding onto your old lines of thinking and accusing the FAQ writers of being Drunken Monkeys when in fact you are the one being a Stubborn Monkey.
No, there is no logic when they ignore the relationship they established in the game with an IC and a unit they joined. Just because you don't want it to work, doesn't mean your points carry any weight. Either an IC is part of the unit he is in or he is not. If he is, why can he not benefit from Bounding Lope? If he is not part of the unit, then when did this disassociation occur? Why is the IC part of the unit when receiving the benefits of Stubborn, but not when Bounding Lope hands out its benefits?
These questions have been asked in one form or another on this very question, and no one has given a satisfactory answer that attends to any logical basis or from anything in the rulebook. It only applies to "I don't want it to work since it could be too powerful, make it stop!" or the use of Drunken Monkeys flinging darts at a dart board.
As I have shown, the relationship they have established is that ICs count as part of the unit for all purposes except for the rules for characters which include movement, so an IC can move according to its own unit status (having never fully relinquished it).
Your argument that ignores the IC Special Rules rule, fails to find anything specific in the Stubborn rule that confers the Special Rule, and that tries to re-cast Special Rules as Ongoing Effects is just an ill-conceived argument that was obviously not going to be supported by the FAQ. Your argument had little if any relationship to the rules in the BRB. I find your campaign to discredit the Draft FAQ writes especially amusing in light of the complete untenability of your Stubborn argument.
This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2016/08/14 21:51:30
col_impact wrote: Conflation is when you treat two distinct statements as if they were the same statement, i.e. you are not attending to the meaningful differences in the statements I have posted.
Nope, not true. Conflate means to combine two or more separate things to form a whole.
I am not including a portion of a statement because its relevance has yet to be determined as important. In other words, I am truncating for brevity.
charistoph wrote:So, going by that, I sort of repeat, where does it allow you to treat the IC joined to a unit as a separate unit for movement, but not for being shot at? Specific rules quotes only please.
Spoiler:
While an Independent Character is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes, though he still follows the rules for characters.
The rules for characters are provided as an exception to the clause 'counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes'. Remember, the unit status of the IC is never discarded, unless you can provide a rule for that (specific rules quote only please). So when it comes to movement time the IC has exception to the 'counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes' and can move as a unit onto himself.
Sorry, that says abslutely nothing about allowing you to treat the IC joined to a unit as a separate unit for anything. It references the Characters section of the Unit Types portion of the rulebook. Where in that section does it provide support for your theory that an IC is treated separately while the Wulfen Pack Leader would not?
Please be consistent. Either it applies to both Wulfen Pack Leader and the IC or it does not. If it does not, the reference to following the rules for characters is a red herring.
col_impact wrote: As I have shown, the relationship they have established is that ICs count as part of the unit for all purposes except for the rules for characters which include movement, so an IC can move according to its own unit status (having never fully relinquished it).
Shown where in this thread? You have referenced the Characters section (but failed to quote the relevant passage) as being the key here, but as I have countered twice already, it carries no relevance to the discussion at hand.
Your argument that ignores the IC Special Rules rule, fails to find anything specific in the Stubborn rule that confers the Special Rule, and that tries to re-cast Special Rules as Ongoing Effects is just an ill-conceived argument that was obviously not going to be supported by the FAQ. Your argument had little if any relationship to the rules in the BRB. I find your campaign to discredit the Draft FAQ writes especially amusing in light of the complete untenability of your Stubborn argument.
So if Stubborn doesn't work, then you aren't following rules as they are written. Either make your point properly and in this thread with quote support or do no post. Referencing previouss posts in which I countered your points and you did not listen is hardly a valid tactic. It just comes across as obnoxious.
My argument follows the IC Special Rules rule in its entirety, and I even (briefly) went over those points when I made the argument. We are told to consider how Stubborn works for the exception, but not given any external specifics before using it as a reference. I then explained how Stubborn works. It's not my fault that the Draft FAQ writers do not even read their own rules before answering. They have literally contradicted the actual written rules too many times to be considered final.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/15 18:32:00
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
col_impact wrote: Conflation is when you treat two distinct statements as if they were the same statement, i.e. you are not attending to the meaningful differences in the statements I have posted.
Nope, not true. Conflate means to combine two or more separate things to form a whole.
I am not including a portion of a statement because its relevance has yet to be determined as important. In other words, I am truncating for brevity.
Allow me to school you on the finer art of google searching and the well-known logical fallacy of conflation . . .
charistoph wrote:So, going by that, I sort of repeat, where does it allow you to treat the IC joined to a unit as a separate unit for movement, but not for being shot at? Specific rules quotes only please.
Spoiler:
While an Independent Character is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes, though he still follows the rules for characters.
The rules for characters are provided as an exception to the clause 'counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes'. Remember, the unit status of the IC is never discarded, unless you can provide a rule for that (specific rules quote only please). So when it comes to movement time the IC has exception to the 'counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes' and can move as a unit onto himself.
Sorry, that says abslutely nothing about allowing you to treat the IC joined to a unit as a separate unit for anything. It references the Characters section of the Unit Types portion of the rulebook. Where in that section does it provide support for your theory that an IC is treated separately while the Wulfen Pack Leader would not?
Please be consistent. Either it applies to both Wulfen Pack Leader and the IC or it does not. If it does not, the reference to following the rules for characters is a red herring.
At no point does the Wulfen Pack Leader have unit status apart from the unit he is in.
The IC, on the other hand, never loses its unit status. Or did you forget that the rules fully support my argument?
col_impact wrote: As I have shown, the relationship they have established is that ICs count as part of the unit for all purposes except for the rules for characters which include movement, so an IC can move according to its own unit status (having never fully relinquished it).
Shown where in this thread? You have referenced the Characters section (but failed to quote the relevant passage) as being the key here, but as I have countered twice already, it carries no relevance to the discussion at hand.
Again, the IC never loses its unit status. The Character rules are exception to 'counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes' which allows the IC to move as an independent unit according to its own unit movement rules and freely able to break unit coherency in the movement phase.
Your argument that ignores the IC Special Rules rule, fails to find anything specific in the Stubborn rule that confers the Special Rule, and that tries to re-cast Special Rules as Ongoing Effects is just an ill-conceived argument that was obviously not going to be supported by the FAQ. Your argument had little if any relationship to the rules in the BRB. I find your campaign to discredit the Draft FAQ writes especially amusing in light of the complete untenability of your Stubborn argument.
So if Stubborn doesn't work, then you aren't following rules as they are written. Either make your point properly and in this thread with quote support or do no post. Referencing previouss posts in which I countered your points and you did not listen is hardly a valid tactic. It just comes across as obnoxious.
My argument follows the IC Special Rules rule in its entirety, and I even (briefly) went over those points when I made the argument. We are told to consider how Stubborn works for the exception, but not given any external specifics before using it as a reference. I then explained how Stubborn works. It's not my fault that the Draft FAQ writers do not even read their own rules before answering. They have literally contradicted the actual written rules too many times to be considered final.
I did not say that Stubborn does not work. I said that your argument about Stubborn doesn't work.
1) You fail to adhere to the BRB provided definition of Special Rules as abilities
2) You fail to account for how Stubborn is conferred (since you miss that Special rules are abilities which can confer no problem)
3) You fail to find anything specific in the Stubborn rule which allows it to confer (the set logic in the rule entirely escapes you)
4) You try to shoe-horn Special Rules as Ongoing Effects (confusing the Blind Special rule with the harmful effect that the Special Rule bestows on its victims) and run completely afoul of the rules in the BRB.
I think the problem you are having with the Draft FAQ writers stems from your personal disconnect from the rules in the BRB in your own thinking.
I have been very happy with the Draft FAQ writers since my arguments adhere closely to the BRB. The Draft FAQ writers have supported 90% of my arguments.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/08/15 19:12:22
The difference between these two statements is why an Independent Character can move independently of the unit. The Character and Movement rules provide the exception to the "counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes".
Actually, that's not why the Independent Character can move independently. He moves with the unit as part of the unit, but the IC has special rules for joining and leaving a unit. If he's not joining or leaving a unit, he will follow the movement rules for the unit. Since the movement rules break down to models moving, and there's a rule for dealing with models with different movement rates, you follow that. As long as you aren't leaving the unit you aren't moviing independently of the unit.
You're emphasizing the last part, but are actually ignoring the first part of the sentence at the end of Joining and Leaving a Unit - "While an Independent Character is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit.... Note it says he counts as part of the unit for rules purposes, not that he counts as a unit by himself while being part of the unit. he retains character rules, but that's for the things like joining and leaving a unit. It doesn't say anything in the IC rules about counting as a separate unit for rules purposes when it is joined to a unit - it is only part of a unit. If for rules purposes it still counted as a separate unit it could be picked out and targeted with ranged weapons. Since this isn't allowed, there's a clue that he's not counting as a separate unit, at least until he uses his Joining and Leaving Units rule to leave the unit during the movement phase. When he's charging, he is part of the unit for movement purposes; he's not an independent unit that can be left behind since he can only leave a unit during the movement phase.
The BRB, and the FAQ both state explicitly the unit runs, if the unit runs.
The FAQ further clarifies if models do not move, or turboboost instead of running, the unit still counts as running and models may not shoot.
If the unit still counts as running, the IC still counts as running, regardless of its movement mode per the BRB and the FAQ.
We can convolute and draw intentions from things all we want, but its ignoring the rules as written that state otherwise. The IC is running even if the IC is on a bike and does not move if the unit runs.
The SWFAQ for wulfen still states the IC may not benefit from bounding lope.
...so yeah the draft of the FAQ says the wulfen can still use bounding lope. It also explicitly states the attached IC cannot benefit at all. The FAQ does not directly answer either way if the unit can run and charge, nor does it directly say that you can assault with part of an unit and not the rest. Which is against the rules in the BRB and other places of the FAQ.
So the FAQ does not really answer the question other then to say the IC cannot benefit at all. If you are letting the IC get into assault after running is it benefiting at all? I would say yes. Does this FAQ answer need some revision before the final draft? Probably.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/08/15 20:25:56
The difference between these two statements is why an Independent Character can move independently of the unit. The Character and Movement rules provide the exception to the "counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes".
Actually, that's not why the Independent Character can move independently. He moves with the unit as part of the unit, but the IC has special rules for joining and leaving a unit. If he's not joining or leaving a unit, he will follow the movement rules for the unit. Since the movement rules break down to models moving, and there's a rule for dealing with models with different movement rates, you follow that. As long as you aren't leaving the unit you aren't moviing independently of the unit.
You're emphasizing the last part, but are actually ignoring the first part of the sentence at the end of Joining and Leaving a Unit - "While an Independent Character is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit.... Note it says he counts as part of the unit for rules purposes, not that he counts as a unit by himself while being part of the unit. he retains character rules, but that's for the things like joining and leaving a unit. It doesn't say anything in the IC rules about counting as a separate unit for rules purposes when it is joined to a unit - it is only part of a unit. If for rules purposes it still counted as a separate unit it could be picked out and targeted with ranged weapons. Since this isn't allowed, there's a clue that he's not counting as a separate unit, at least until he uses his Joining and Leaving Units rule to leave the unit during the movement phase. When he's charging, he is part of the unit for movement purposes; he's not an independent unit that can be left behind since he can only leave a unit during the movement phase.
You have failed to address that the IC never relinquishes his unit status.
The IC is a unit that is part of a unit.
The Character Movement rules are an exception to the 'counts as part of the rules for all purposes' so the IC is free to exercise his unit status in the context of movement.
...so yeah the draft of the FAQ says the wulfen can still use bounding lope. It also explicitly states the attached IC cannot benefit at all. The FAQ does not directly answer either way if the unit can run and charge, nor does it directly say that you can assault with part of an unit and not the rest.
The FAQ answers 'Yes' that the Wulfen can still use Bounding Lope, not 'Yes and no' or 'Yes, but ...' so the FAQ requires you to resolve the situation with the Wulfen being allowed to fully implement the Bounding Lope special rule.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/15 20:35:31
