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.

So I believe ICs have to declare that they are leaving a unit, but what if the unit moves away from them and you wish for the IC to stay put.
You still have to declare that they are leaving, but would they count as moving if the model physically does not move?

Specific situation I am trying to figure out is Daemon Exalted Flamers in a big unit of Furies. Turn 1 all 9 EFs are joined to the Furies and the unit moves up, then runs. The unit is arranged so that each EF is at least 2.5" away from any other EF. Turn 2 the Furies move outside of 2" from the EFs, the EF's declare they are leaving the unit, but do not themselves move.
Now each EF is by themselves (and thus can target separate units) and did not move, allowing them to fire their Heavy weapon.

Would this be a viable tactic to get the EFs in place turn one with some sort of defense buff and spare wounds to LOS!, then on turn 2 they are in place to fire their weapons at different targets.
Since Grimoire is done in the movement phase, you could even Grimoire them first, then move the Furies away and all the E-Flamers would still have the bonus.

-

This is fine. In 7th edition whether or not a Heavy Weapon can fire at full BS or Snap Shots is determined by the model's movement, not the unit's. Thus, a Missile Launcher in a squad of Space Marines can fire at full BS so long as the model with the Missile Launcher didn't move, even if the rest of his unit did.

 Yarium wrote:
This is fine. In 7th edition whether or not a Heavy Weapon can fire at full BS or Snap Shots is determined by the model's movement, not the unit's. Thus, a Missile Launcher in a squad of Space Marines can fire at full BS so long as the model with the Missile Launcher didn't move, even if the rest of his unit did.

Right, I guess my question is whether the "declaration of leaving the unit" counted as movement.

 Galef wrote:

 Yarium wrote:
This is fine. In 7th edition whether or not a Heavy Weapon can fire at full BS or Snap Shots is determined by the model's movement, not the unit's. Thus, a Missile Launcher in a squad of Space Marines can fire at full BS so long as the model with the Missile Launcher didn't move, even if the rest of his unit did.

Right, I guess my question is whether the "declaration of leaving the unit" counted as movement.

Well, that I'm not sure of. I don't believe any movement is required, but I do think that the unit of the IC will count as moving, even if the model hasn't. Still, no rulebook in front of me, so I can't confirm nor deny this. However, specifically in the case of the Heavy Weapon, whether or not the unit moved is inconsequential - it's just whether or not the model did.

I thought the IC had to move in order to leave. Not have the unit move around it?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
I thought the IC had to move in order to leave. Not have the unit move around it?

I think that is what I'm trying to figure out. I'll have to check my BRB when I get home, but I know that in 6th ed joined a unit (or not joining) was dependent of the finally movements at the end of the phase.
Basically, at the end of the movement phase, if you ICs were within 2" of a unit, they were considered joined, or not joined if outside 2". This meant that the unit could move around them.
But I think the wording is different in 7th ed.

Is it the IC joining the unit or the unit joining the IC? Can the unit leave the unit by leaving the IC behind? Huh?

Naw wrote:
Is it the IC joining the unit or the unit joining the IC? Can the unit leave the unit by leaving the IC behind? Huh?

Well, I believe the correct way to resolve would be like this:
1) Declare you are moving the unit that has ICs
2) Move all none IC models at least 2.5" away from the IC models
3) Declare that all IC models are "leaving the unit" and opting to remain stationary.

 Galef wrote:

Naw wrote:
Is it the IC joining the unit or the unit joining the IC? Can the unit leave the unit by leaving the IC behind? Huh?

Well, I believe the correct way to resolve would be like this:
1) Declare you are moving the unit that has ICs
2) Move all none IC models at least 2.5" away from the IC models
3) Declare that all IC models are "leaving the unit" and opting to remain stationary.

That should work. The rules say move out of coherency with the unit, but if the unit is moving, you can "move out of coherency" merely by not moving when the rest of the unit does. As you say, declare the ICs are leaving the unit by opting to remain stationary.

 doctortom wrote:

 Galef wrote:

Naw wrote:
Is it the IC joining the unit or the unit joining the IC? Can the unit leave the unit by leaving the IC behind? Huh?

Well, I believe the correct way to resolve would be like this:
1) Declare you are moving the unit that has ICs
2) Move all none IC models at least 2.5" away from the IC models
3) Declare that all IC models are "leaving the unit" and opting to remain stationary.

That should work. The rules say move out of coherency with the unit, but if the unit is moving, you can "move out of coherency" merely by not moving when the rest of the unit does. As you say, declare the ICs are leaving the unit by opting to remain stationary.

Sweet. I'm try to make E-Flamers work. The mandatory Furies Auxiliary may come in handy for this since both they and the EFs are Jump infantry.
Have the whole unit move up to mid field, run to get into optimum positioning, then Turn 2 have the Furies move away from most of the EFs (leaving 1-2 in the Fury unit). Now you can threaten more than just 1 unit with all those Str 10 shots or Str6 torrents.

I am hoping this will be particularly effective against a Drop Pod army. Protect all the EFs by being in the larger unit, then target each unit the Dropped separately.

 Galef wrote:

Naw wrote:
Is it the IC joining the unit or the unit joining the IC? Can the unit leave the unit by leaving the IC behind? Huh?

Well, I believe the correct way to resolve would be like this:
1) Declare you are moving the unit that has ICs
2) Move all none IC models at least 2.5" away from the IC models
3) Declare that all IC models are "leaving the unit" and opting to remain stationary.

I'm fairly certain that step 2 above breaks the rules. You're effectively moving a unit and breaking coherency. Only the IC has the option of moving and breaking coherency. If the IC model doesn't move, it can't choose to break coherency and therefore leave the unit.

You might want to double check the rules, but I'm fairly certain leaving a unit includes and element of movement. Standing still isn't movement.

 Kriswall wrote:

I'm fairly certain that step 2 above breaks the rules. You're effectively moving a unit and breaking coherency. Only the IC has the option of moving and breaking coherency. If the IC model doesn't move, it can't choose to break coherency and therefore leave the unit.

You might want to double check the rules, but I'm fairly certain leaving a unit includes and element of movement. Standing still isn't movement.

Yeah, this is what I need to check when I get home. I know that you don't have to move IC's first, so it is perfectly legal to move all non-IC's first, then when you start "moving" the IC's, you declare them as breaking coherency by staying stationary. I'll need to read the exact ruling to see if this requires movement. Otherwise no E-Flamers for me.

exact quote

"An Independent Character can leave a unit during the Movement phase by moving out of unit coherency with it."

now it boils down to how you interpret moving out of unit coherency, as Galef properly says refusing to move and end 2" away of the unit on the movement phase also makes the IC be no longer part of the unit.

The IC is "active" in that sentence. It has to move.

Lord Perversor wrote:
exact quote

"An Independent Character can leave a unit during the Movement phase by moving out of unit coherency with it."

now it boils down to how you interpret moving out of unit coherency, as Galef properly says refusing to move and end 2" away of the unit on the movement phase also makes the IC be no longer part of the unit.

If the IC remains stationary, it has not MOVED out of unit coherency. Yes, it is no longer in unit coherency, but it hasn't moved out of unit coherency... and moving is how he leaves a unit.

I couldn't find anything in the FAQ, so even though one could interpret "moving out of coherency" as just ending up outside 2" of the unit, it is too easy to say the IC has to actually "move"

I guess EFs either need cheap Fury units to join to just to sit in cover by themselves

This shouldn't be a problem in a friendly game. If you run into an unfriendly game Pivot the IC on the spot and make the argument that the pivot requires you to stay 1" away from an enemy and as a result counts both as remaining stationary and moving. Just be careful where you pivot that flamer.

 DJGietzen wrote:
If you run into an unfriendly game Pivot the IC on the spot and make the argument that the pivot requires you to stay 1" away from an enemy and as a result counts both as remaining stationary and moving. Just be careful where you pivot that flamer.

You may wish to read 'Pivoting on the Spot' (pg. 18, main rulebook).

 Ghaz wrote:

 DJGietzen wrote:
If you run into an unfriendly game Pivot the IC on the spot and make the argument that the pivot requires you to stay 1" away from an enemy and as a result counts both as remaining stationary and moving. Just be careful where you pivot that flamer.

You may wish to read 'Pivoting on the Spot' (pg. 18, main rulebook).

Thanks for this, guys. I'll have to check that rule out. If it's wording like you suggest, I may be able to use the "pivot on the spot" to actively "Move" out of coherency while remaining stationary to fire heavy weapons.

-

The reason I recommended he read that rules passage was because it shows why what he was suggesting does not work.

So here is a question then:
If you leave an IC out of coherency by not moving them, what happens?
Is it illegal in the same way as leaving a non-IC model out of coherency?
Does it force the IC to count as having moved even if it physically did not?

-

 Galef wrote:
So here is a question then:
If you leave an IC out of coherency by not moving them, what happens?
Is it illegal in the same way as leaving a non-IC model out of coherency?
Does it force the IC to count as having moved even if it physically did not?

-

My reading says it's illegal in the same way as leaving a non-IC out of coherency during a move. ICs are only able to leave a unit by "moving" such that they end the move more than 2" away from any units they could potentially be joined to. My understanding of the word "moving" does not allow it to refer to the act of "not moving".

So...

"If you leave an IC out of coherency by not moving them, what happens?" - You have broken a rule.

"Is it illegal in the same way as leaving a non-IC model out of coherency?" - Yes, it is illegal in that the rules don't allow you to break unit coherency and the IC has not performed a move in order to leave the unit, thus remaining a part of the unit and subject to the coherency rules.

"Does it force the IC to count as having moved even if it physcially did not?" - Reference the above. Unless the IC actively moves and ends the move out of coherency, it is still a part of the unit and must maintain unit coherency. There is no situation (other than being the last surviving member of a unit) where an IC can remain stationary, but leave the unit he was a part of. If all other models in the unit have been removed as casualties, he can remain stationary and then will revert to being his own "IC unit" at the start of the next phase.

It's a little silly, but these are how the rules are written. A house rule allowing an IC to remain stationary but count as moving while his unit walks away from him as a new method of leaving a unit seems reasonable... but it's still a house rule and violates the core rules. Don't expect strangers or organized play events to allow it. The IC rules are pretty clear on when you can and can't join/leave a unit.

If an IC was allowed to leave an unit by the unit moving away the IC would count as moving. The unit moves, the IC is still part of the unit when you choose to move then ove the models which are not the IC away.

However the rules say the IC has to move out of coherency. If the unit moves from the IC, the IC did not move out of coherency, because the IC did not move. If something requires a move, it has to move to do so.

blaktoof wrote:
If an IC was allowed to leave an unit by the unit moving away the IC would count as moving. The unit moves, the IC is still part of the unit when you choose to move then ove the models which are not the IC away.

However the rules say the IC has to move out of coherency. If the unit moves from the IC, the IC did not move out of coherency, because the IC did not move. If something requires a move, it has to move to do so.

I think you hit it on the head with the first statement. The IC would count as moving no matter what he does (even if he moves 0"), since he was part of the unit when the unit said it was moving. It wouldn't matter if he hadn't changed position, he counts as having moved as he was part of the unit when it moved, and he ends up outside coherency.

 doctortom wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
If an IC was allowed to leave an unit by the unit moving away the IC would count as moving. The unit moves, the IC is still part of the unit when you choose to move then ove the models which are not the IC away.

However the rules say the IC has to move out of coherency. If the unit moves from the IC, the IC did not move out of coherency, because the IC did not move. If something requires a move, it has to move to do so.

I think you hit it on the head with the first statement. The IC would count as moving no matter what he does (even if he moves 0"), since he was part of the unit when the unit said it was moving. It wouldn't matter if he hadn't changed position, he counts as having moved as he was part of the unit when it moved, and he ends up outside coherency.

That interpretation would make the 'Which Models are Moving' (pg. 18, main rulebook) rule meaningless and do absolutely nothing.

The point I was trying to make was not clear.

The models in the unit do not permission to leave coherency with each other as a general rule. See maintaining coherency.

ICs specifically have permission to move out of coherency.

The unit cannot move from coherency of the IC because there is no permission to do so, and they are restricted from doing so by the maintain coherency rules. The IC has permission to move out of coherency to leave an unit from the rules for ICs leaving and joining units.

I feel like people are playing semantics games. The rule allows ICs to leave a unit by "moving" out of coherency. If you never touch the model and it's in the same exact position it was at the start of the movement phase, it hasn't moved. It may count as moving for certain in game purposes, but hasn't actually moved. Leaving a unit requires "moving".

I miss the simplicity of the 6th ed IC rules. It didn't mater who moved or didn't, "at the end of the movement phase" if the IC was within 2" of a unit it had to join, or if it was outside 2" it had to leave. Movement on the part of the IC was not necessary.

I am having a really hard time trying to make EFs work for a Warpflame Host. At them end of the day, I just don't think they do. You can use them to corrupt objectives and be good overwatch but that's it.

I wish 40k used the AoS approach to characters. They can't join units at all, but have increased survivability built in. It would solve so many issue in the game. Oh well. I man can dream.

 EnTyme wrote:
I wish 40k used the AoS approach to characters. They can't join units at all, but have increased survivability built in. It would solve so many issue in the game. Oh well. I man can dream.

Amen. This would be ideal and would solve so many issues. It works great in Age of Sigmar. I'm sure it would work fine with some tuning in 40k. In fact, I'd be ecstatic if 40k got an AoS w/General's Handbook treatment. The rules are a total nightmare right now.