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.

 doctortom wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:


I should point out that Librarians can reference two things, a model and a unit. They are not always the same thing. The key point you seem to be missing is the need to be ignoring the Librarian unit. It is only if we consider "counts as" to be replacing its membership from the Librarian unit to membership in the Tactical Squad unit on a temporary basis, that this phrase can work.

Incorrect. The Librarian never loses his unit status. That status is merely being overridden by the unit status of the Tactical Squad and not replaced. No where do the rules say that the Librarian's unit status is replaced by unit membership in the tactical squad. This is key because any rule that circumvents the 'counts as part of the unit' clause can access the Librarian's unit status which he never lost.

I don't see how you differentiate between being overridden and being replaced. If it's overridden it would be replaced for the duration of its being overridden, at least for rules purposes. And it doesn't matter if he retains his unit status outside of rules purposes.

Overridden does not involve any replacing. The unit status of the Tac Marines is being applied over the unit status of the Librarian when the Librarian joins the unit of Tacticals. The Librarian never loses his own unit status - that status is always there, underneath, and is recoverable by rules.

This is key because instead of being a model that is pulled out of his unit to be put into the unit of Tacticals, the IC is a unit that becomes encapsulated into a unit of Tacticals.

Soulburst, Kill Point, Psyker Rules, the IC Special Rules rule all recognize and access the underlying unit status of the IC.

I went over the literal definitions of the words.
He counts as, is a part of, as a whole, the unit he has joined.

What part of that is unclear?
Nothing tells you he is no longer a librarian unit, he is always a librarian unit. Just like the plasma gun can fire in overwatch, just because it counts as does not prevent it from being what it is. But since he counts as and is included, which is synonymous to counts, we already determined by the English language that he is a part of a whole and is included means that they are all part of the same unit being part of a whole is not a one way relationship, your entire argument consists on this point that the relationship is one way and the definitions of the words do not reflect your assertion.

You are now shooting at the unit that contains the librarian, you follow the wound rolls for that entire unit.
Nothing tells you to ignore him, nothing has too. Because he counts as, the special rule supercedes you counting him as a single standalone unit.
Wounds then get allocated to the nearest model. I am totally fine with you saying you can shoot at him directly because the counts as stipulation causes the wounds to be allocated to whatever he joined.

Whenever a creature or weapon has an ability that breaks or bends on of the main game rules, it is represented by a special rule.
While an IC is part of a unit, he counts as a part of the unit for all rules purposes, though he still follows the rules for characters.

The librarian is a unit. True.
You can shoot a unit. True.
You want to shoot the librarian, True.
You roll and get hits. True.
You roll and get wounds. True.
The librarian counts as the unit he joined. True.
This conflicts with the fact that the librarian is a unit. True.
This is a special rule. True - rule broken.
Wound allocation rules specify that the nearest model to the origin of the shooting/blast take wounds first. True

So if there are 3 tactical marines between your shooter and the librarian, the wounds are resolved to those units because he COUNTS AS that unit for rules purposes.

Target him all you want.

Ceann wrote:
I went over the literal definitions of the words.
He counts as, is a part of, as a whole, the unit he has joined.

What part of that is unclear?

For the reading deficient, "the part where he stops being part of his old unit, or stops having his old unit recognized".

Ceann wrote:
Nothing tells you he is no longer a librarian unit, he is always a librarian unit.

Ah, see here is part of the problem, you are conflating the model with the unit. When you purchase a Librarian unit, it comes with a Librarian model. As far as the game is concerned, they are not the same thing.

This is more demonstratable with the Captain unit from Codex Marines. The Captain unit comes with a Captain model, but it can be upgraded to the Chapter Master model. If you purchase the upgrade, you know have a Captain unit with a Chapter Master model.

Once you recognize the differences between model and unit, you realize that while the Librarian MODEL may have joined the Tactical Squad, the Librarian UNIT has performed no such measure. Therefore, just because the MODEL becomes part of the other unit, the same cannot be said of the UNIT.

Do you understand this concept?

Ceann wrote:
Just like the plasma gun can fire in overwatch, just because it counts as does not prevent it from being what it is.

I have no idea why you are bringing up a Rapid Fire Weapon, I was talking about Pistols.

But if you meant Plasma Pistol, if "counts as something else" means it no longer is recognized as what it was before hand, then, no, you cannot Shoot a Plasma Pistol in Overwatch any more then you could shoot a Chainsword.

Ceann wrote:
But since he counts as and is included, which is synonymous to counts, we already determined by the English language that he is a part of a whole and is included means that they are all part of the same unit being part of a whole is not a one way relationship, your entire argument consists on this point that the relationship is one way and the definitions of the words do not reflect your assertion.

Because the actual statement is one way. The IC counts as being part of the unit it joined, not the other way around. By making those Marines and Sergeant part of the Librarian unit, you are basically not following the direction as stated by the game.

What unit/model he is, is irrelevant.

Whether he is a model or a unit is irrelevant.

COUNTS as, is not BECOMES, it is an addition, counts as, is a permissive not an absolute. Just like your drivers license counts as a form of identification, you don't need it and the identification card, one serves both purposes.

If you shoot at the librarian unit, containing the librarian model, it COUNTS AS a part of the tactical unit. It doesn't need to be any other way because if you aren't trying to shoot him then no one cares, it works the one way it needs too.

No ,you are following the game, because Independent Character is a special rule and as is notated in the BRB - Whenever a creature or weapon has an ability that breaks or bends one of the main game rules, it is represented by a special rule.

You may not like that the wound allocation rules will put the wounds on the unit he counts as which is the tactical squad, but there isn't anyway for you get around it short of precision effects. It says counts as for ALL rule purposes, is being a unit a purpose? Yes. Is shooting a purpose? Yes. Is wound allocation a purpose? Yes.

It may not work the way you like it to work, but it works and the rules support it.

Ceann wrote:
What unit/model he is, is irrelevant.

Whether he is a model or a unit is irrelevant.

Oh, it is VERY relevant to this situation. In fact it is very relevant to every single interaction with an Independent Character and its interaction with a unit.

Ceann wrote:
COUNTS as, is not BECOMES, it is an addition, counts as, is a permissive not an absolute. Just like your drivers license counts as a form of identification, you don't need it and the identification card, one serves both purposes.

I never said it was an absolute, and you'd be hard pressed to find where I said that. In fact, I said it was temporary a few posts back. You do know the difference between "temporary" and "absolute" is, correct?

For the purposes of rules interactions, "counts as" means to temporarily change to the noted situation. When the Assault Phase starts, all Pistols exchange their Range, Str, AP, and Type to becoming a Close Combat Weapon. When the Assault Phase ends, the Pistol counting as a Close Combat Weapon, then reverts back to being able to use its original Range, Str, AP, and Type that is listed in the Pistol's profile. If they kept their Range, etc, during the Assault Phase, then we would be ADDING to their profile, not counting it as something else.

This concept is the only way in which "counts as" will allow us to take an Independent Character, attach it to another unit, and no longer recognize that IC's unit as being on the table. When the IC model counts as part of the unit it joined, it stops being recognized as a part of his original unit. The IC's unit has no models on the table, so it cannot be recognized until the "counts as" ends. It is the only concept that will work in coherency with the rest of the rulebook.

Ceann wrote:
If you shoot at the librarian unit, containing the librarian model, it COUNTS AS a part of the tactical unit. It doesn't need to be any other way because if you aren't trying to shoot him then no one cares, it works the one way it needs too.

Absolutely wrong. No where does it state that the Independent Character unit counts as part of the unit it joins. A rule only operates on a model unless it specifically states it affects the unit. Read the introduction to Special Rules, including the portion called "What Special Rules Do I Have?".

At no point do the Independent Character rules ever refer to the the Independent Character as a unit, therefore, it is only speaking of the model. The MODEL joins the other unit and counts as part of the unit. The IC's UNIT is never stated as doing anything when joined and is only referenced at one single point (when the rest of the models of the joined unit have been removed as casualties).

Ceann wrote:
No ,you are following the game, because Independent Character is a special rule and as is notated in the BRB - Whenever a creature or weapon has an ability that breaks or bends one of the main game rules, it is represented by a special rule.

This sentence makes no sense. You are responding to a question that you did not bother to quote or make yourself. And do not bother trying to lecture me on something I said. It is most disingenuous.

Ceann wrote:
You may not like that the wound allocation rules will put the wounds on the unit he counts as which is the tactical squad, but there isn't anyway for you get around it short of precision effects. It says counts as for ALL rule purposes, is being a unit a purpose? Yes. Is shooting a purpose? Yes. Is wound allocation a purpose? Yes.

But I am not applying Wounds to the unit he joined. I am applying them to the unit that he is. That unit only has one model. The only way that IC's unit could have another model is if another IC joined HIM, not if he joined another unit.

Ceann wrote:
It may not work the way you like it to work, but it works and the rules support it.

Right back at ya. You have conflated the interaction of rules between model and unit, a very important interaction that is carried throughout the rulebook. You have repeatedly introduced instructions which do not exist and tried to pass them off as written rules. You have repeatedly misquoted the rules and misrepresented them. So, the rules do not work the way you think they work. In fact, a good portion of the rules do not work if you take them literally.

Ok do you try to argue this in games??

If you do then you can´t be playing many games.

If you don´t then this is just a troll post where you are arguing for language which is irrelevant and I just won´t bother listening to anything you ever have to say again.

Good day to you sir/troll

 rawne2510 wrote:
Ok do you try to argue this in games??

If you do then you can´t be playing many games.

If you don´t then this is just a troll post where you are arguing for language which is irrelevant and I just won´t bother listening to anything you ever have to say again.

Good day to you sir/troll

This is a rules debate forum . Unless asked or divulged you have no idea how people play , because this is 100% rules discussion and not how would i play it ( HWIPI ) . Your attack of "If you do then you can´t be playing many games. " Is not an argument. If you wish to know how people play things , ask HWIPI , most are forthcoming , but again this has no bearing on what the rules actually say. People here debate the actual written language of the rules.

Applying wounds is a rule and it has a purpose, shooting is a rule and it has a purpose, being a model or a unit is a purpose. If it counts as for ALL purposes then the rule meets all of the circumstances you are proposing.

As for your plasma pistol issue you are 100% correct about what it says.

However there are rules for Overwatch BRB pg 45.

An overwatch attack is resolved like a normal shooting attack and uses all the normal rules for line of sight, cover saves and so on.

So in order for an overwatch attack to take place the pistol still has to access the weapons profile, it just counts as a ccw otherwise. The overwatch rule is providing an exception to the base circumstances.

RULE #1 IS MANDATORY!

NOTE: Calling other posters names - such as troll - would be against RULE #1 - always address the points of the post, and do not attack the poster.

Thanks!

rawne2510 wrote:Ok do you try to argue this in games??

If you do then you can´t be playing many games.

If you don´t then this is just a troll post where you are arguing for language which is irrelevant and I just won´t bother listening to anything you ever have to say again.

Good day to you sir/troll

Then you haven't read what I have posted. I have stated how I play it several times now. What I am exploring the is the RAW of the rules, and trying to help others see just how crazy and incomplete it is if we took it too literally. In addition, it is a great way to show how the rules interact. Very few rules are ever taken in a vacuum in 40K, especially with Independent Characters.

Since I have stated such, I can only consider this to be a troll post or a deliberate attack against me.

Ceann wrote:Applying wounds is a rule and it has a purpose, shooting is a rule and it has a purpose, being a model or a unit is a purpose. If it counts as for ALL purposes then the rule meets all of the circumstances you are proposing.

A pointless statement as you do not seem to understand how the interactions work. Wound Allocation is performed against the unit which received the attack. Marines cannot be part of the Librarian unit. A Chaplain can, a Captain can, but not Marines or a Sergeant.

Ceann wrote:As for your plasma pistol issue you are 100% correct about what it says.

However there are rules for Overwatch BRB pg 45.

An overwatch attack is resolved like a normal shooting attack and uses all the normal rules for line of sight, cover saves and so on.

So in order for an overwatch attack to take place the pistol still has to access the weapons profile, it just counts as a ccw otherwise. The overwatch rule is providing an exception to the base circumstances.

No, it counts as a CCW for the Assault PHASE, not the Combat Sub-Phase. Overwatch is in the Assault Phase. We don't switch Phases for Overwatch, we just reference back to the instructions for it.

col_impact wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:


I should point out that Librarians can reference two things, a model and a unit. They are not always the same thing. The key point you seem to be missing is the need to be ignoring the Librarian unit. It is only if we consider "counts as" to be replacing its membership from the Librarian unit to membership in the Tactical Squad unit on a temporary basis, that this phrase can work.

Incorrect. The Librarian never loses his unit status. That status is merely being overridden by the unit status of the Tactical Squad and not replaced. No where do the rules say that the Librarian's unit status is replaced by unit membership in the tactical squad. This is key because any rule that circumvents the 'counts as part of the unit' clause can access the Librarian's unit status which he never lost.

I don't see how you differentiate between being overridden and being replaced. If it's overridden it would be replaced for the duration of its being overridden, at least for rules purposes. And it doesn't matter if he retains his unit status outside of rules purposes.

Overridden does not involve any replacing. The unit status of the Tac Marines is being applied over the unit status of the Librarian when the Librarian joins the unit of Tacticals. The Librarian never loses his own unit status - that status is always there, underneath, and is recoverable by rules.

Overriding means that, for rules purposes, you ignore the unit status of the IC. Ignoring it is functionally the same as replacing it. There is no functional difference between replacing and overriding in this case. Special rules for the IC cover him becoming his own unit again, whether you treat it as "overridden" or "replaced". You are trying to make a distinction where there is none.

I understand the point he is trying to make but I don't think his assertions have a leg to stand on.

Again you are not saying, as you have literally put, but implying, that counts as, is a becomes, and that by counting as something else it no longer is what it originally was. You are not saying it you are implying it. Since overwatch refers back to the rules for the shooting phase you use the rules from the shooting phase.

My statement is not pointless and I do understand how it works. Special rules bend and break the rules of the game the BRB even notated as such. In this circumstance all of the assertions and statements you are making about a librarian as a model or a unit apply normally. However a special rule is superseding all of the circumstances you are supplying, because it counts as for all rules purposes. So for rules purposes the librarian effectively does not exist, but technically does exist, the application of all purposes prevents you from interacting with him directly.

 doctortom wrote:


Overriding means that, for rules purposes, you ignore the unit status of the IC. Ignoring it is functionally the same as replacing it. There is no functional difference between replacing and overriding in this case. Special rules for the IC cover him becoming his own unit again, whether you treat it as "overridden" or "replaced". You are trying to make a distinction where there is none.

Incorrect. Override means that for rules purposes the unit status of the Tac squad takes precedence over the unit status of the IC.

This is key to understand. The unit status of the Librarian is buried under a more specific rule (the IC rule), but the unit status of the Librarian is always there. No rule exists that takes it away or replaces it. A rule is applied on top that takes precedence.

When a Librarian joins a Tactical unit he becomes a unit within a unit and it is the encapsulating unit that takes precedence.

Soulburst, Kill Point, Psyker Rules, the IC Special Rules rule all recognize and access the underlying unit status of the IC.

It is treated as part of the unit for all rules purposes (except for exceptions specifically mentioned in the IC rules). That means, for all rules purposes, his is part of one unit. He is not his own unit, but is part of the unit he has joined. There is no "unit wihtin a unit" if for rules purposes you are part of another unnit.

 doctortom wrote:
It is treated as part of the unit for all rules purposes (except for exceptions specifically mentioned in the IC rules). That means, for all rules purposes, his is part of one unit. He is not his own unit, but is part of the unit he has joined. There is no "unit wihtin a unit" if for rules purposes you are part of another unnit.

Incorrect. The IC being part of the Tac unit merely takes precedence over the IC being his own unit. The IC never stops being his own unit.

This allows specific exceptions to still be able to work on the IC's buried unit status.

If you have a problem with this you have a problems with the BRB. I am merely presenting how the rules work in this case according to the BRB.

col_impact wrote:
The IC never stops being his own unit.

In which case you will be unable to ever carry out any action with that unit that requires you to resolve one unit at a time. Because the moment you try to do something with the IC, you are trying to affect two different units simultaneously.


It simply doesn't work. There is no rules basis for this nested hierarchy that you're suggesting. The IC can not be still considered part of another unit if he is being considered a part of this unit for all rules purposes.

 insaniak wrote:

col_impact wrote:
The IC never stops being his own unit.

In which case you will be unable to ever carry out any action with that unit that requires you to resolve one unit at a time. Because the moment you try to do something with the IC, you are trying to affect two different units simultaneously.


It simply doesn't work. There is no rules basis for this nested hierarchy that you're suggesting. The IC can not be still considered part of another unit if he is being considered a part of this unit for all rules purposes.

It sounds like you need to review what 'takes precedence over' means.

The two rules statements co-exist and are fully present, yet one rule statements takes precedence over the other.

In fact the logic of precedence requires that the IC's unit status is still there so that the more advanced rule can take precedence over it.

Soulburst, Kill Point, Psyker Rules, the IC Special Rules rule all recognize and access the underlying unit status of the IC.

It started as a unit. Nothing has said it stops being a unit. Ergo it must still be a unit.

However as I said before this can only matter when testing for presence of the unit. As soon as you try to interact with it in any way (targeting, affecting, charging, whatever) you trigger the part of the joined unit clause and that supercedes its status as a unit in its own right. So while the IC is still a unit within a unit, rules that interact with a unit will ignore that and only interact with the joined unit as instructed.

If you have a joined IC and the following turn you wish to move him out of the unit, it would require him to still possess the considering of being an individual unit, otherwise once an IC joined a unit they could then never leave as you would have no way to move him out individually.

Ceann wrote:I understand the point he is trying to make but I don't think his assertions have a leg to stand on.

Which one, me, or Col_Ignored?

If it is me, I have explained my How I Play it at several points up to know, and that it is how I explained how "counts as" works. I do acknowledge it for what it is, but I also recognize the literal rules as they are written.

Ceann wrote:Again you are not saying, as you have literally put, but implying, that counts as, is a becomes, and that by counting as something else it no longer is what it originally was. You are not saying it you are implying it. Since overwatch refers back to the rules for the shooting phase you use the rules from the shooting phase.

"Counts as" means that It is no longer what it was until the time comes to revert back to what it is. That is how the rulebook uses it. And yes, I am saying this, and I have also implied that this is not explicitly written as such.

You go back to the Shooting Phase for the rules, but you do not change back to the Shooting Phase itself, but stay remaining in the Assault Phase. We are not instructed to treat Overwatch as a Shooting Phase in the written rules, "counting as" or otherwise.

And since we are in the Assault Phase, then you don't have a Ranged Weapon, but a Close Combat Weapon, which cannot be fired as a Shooting Weapon.

Ceann wrote:My statement is not pointless and I do understand how it works. Special rules bend and break the rules of the game the BRB even notated as such. In this circumstance all of the assertions and statements you are making about a librarian as a model or a unit apply normally. However a special rule is superseding all of the circumstances you are supplying, because it counts as for all rules purposes. So for rules purposes the librarian effectively does not exist, but technically does exist, the application of all purposes prevents you from interacting with him directly.

Yes, it was pointless because you are making assumptions based on what you want, but not what is written.

Yes, Special Rules DO break the basic game rules, I know because I posted that. BUT the problem with the rest is that I do not have instruction nor permission to transfer Wounds from one unit to another, even if the model is part of both units. Wounds are only allocated to the unit which received the shots, period. The IC rules say nothing on being able to transfer Wounds between units, so it is breaking nothing there.

The IC rules do not literally state that the IC unit is ignored, so by requiring your enemy to ignore it, you are either adding to the rules, or operating based on an assumption.

By being part of a unit for all rules purposes does not necessarily stop what happens with the original unit. By literal statement (without consideration of what other definitions of "counts as" could be), that just means that when the unit does something or has something done to it, the IC is affected at the same time. It does not mean that anything that happens to the IC's unit happens to the unit he joins, since they are two separate entities. A Librarian unit is not a Tactical Squad nor can be included as being part of a Tactical Squad by any instructions in the IC rules.

Fhionnuisce wrote:It started as a unit. Nothing has said it stops being a unit. Ergo it must still be a unit.

A point I brought up many times and no one has provided with a literal answer. It is only by considering "counts as" under as an assumption based on numerous other uses in the rulebook that we are able to consider the temporary "loss" of the IC's unit, or at least not recognizing that it is there "for all rules purposes".

Fhionnuisce wrote:However as I said before this can only matter when testing for presence of the unit. As soon as you try to interact with it in any way (targeting, affecting, charging, whatever) you trigger the part of the joined unit clause and that supercedes its status as a unit in its own right. So while the IC is still a unit within a unit, rules that interact with a unit will ignore that and only interact with the joined unit as instructed.

Except you have as much permission to ignore for targeting as you do when testing for the presence of the unit. It counts for ALL rules purposes, so what is applied for one, is applied for the other.

One should note that Multiple Charge requirements do test for the presence of a unit, as does checking for a unit to Shoot...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ceann wrote:
If you have a joined IC and the following turn you wish to move him out of the unit, it would require him to still possess the considering of being an individual unit, otherwise once an IC joined a unit they could then never leave as you would have no way to move him out individually.

That doesn't follow any rule in rulebook.

The Independent Character rule applies only to the model, not the unit. If you want to see a Special Rule that applies to the unit, go read Stubborn. So, requiring him to possess his unit identity, or even requiring it to be recognized, while joined to another unit is not required. The model has permission to leave the unit, period. It does not require a unit identity when it leaves. Fortunately, it is available when he does leave.

There is no conflict with it being both a unit itself and pay off the joined unit when you are counting units. There's only a conflict when we are trying to interact with a unit, at we point we choose what takes priority.

And where have the rules used counts as to mean it loses its prior qualities? You keep claiming the pistol rules, but I haven't seen anything that says they lose the ranged profile, they are simply prevented from using a ranged profile in CC. So they remain a pistol with a ranged profile but also count as a CC weapon with the generic CC profile​.

Ceann wrote:Again you are not saying, as you have literally put, but implying, that counts as, is a becomes, and that by counting as something else it no longer is what it originally was. You are not saying it you are implying it. Since overwatch refers back to the rules for the shooting phase you use the rules from the shooting phase.

Charistoph wrote:"Counts as" means that It is no longer what it was until the time comes to revert back to what it is. That is how the rulebook uses it. And yes, I am saying this, and I have also implied that this is not explicitly written as such.

You go back to the Shooting Phase for the rules, but you do not change back to the Shooting Phase itself, but stay remaining in the Assault Phase. We are not instructed to treat Overwatch as a Shooting Phase in the written rules, "counting as" or otherwise.

And since we are in the Assault Phase, then you don't have a Ranged Weapon, but a Close Combat Weapon, which cannot be fired as a Shooting Weapon.

I think that this here properly reflects our divergence. As I see it the count's as is supplementary, not a replacement.
I see it as the plasma pistol gaining the close combat weapon profile, but only for the duration of the assault phase, which allows you to use it as a melee weapon, it does not remove its existing profile.

In the case of the Librarian, it gains the model/unit profile for the Tactical Squad, allowing you to allocate wounds to the squad, it retains its existing profile.

Do you have a more clear example of where the rules clearly show that "count's as" is a replacement of the units current status and supplementing it with another?

Fhionnuisce wrote:There is no conflict with it being both a unit itself and pay off the joined unit when you are counting units. There's only a conflict when we are trying to interact with a unit, at we point we choose what takes priority.

Why is there a conflict? Technically speaking there is no actual conflict. Any conflict is the only type that you choose to bring in to the situation.

Fhionnuisce wrote:And where have the rules used counts as to mean it loses its prior qualities? You keep claiming the pistol rules, but I haven't seen anything that says they lose the ranged profile, they are simply prevented from using a ranged profile in CC. So they remain a pistol with a ranged profile but also count as a CC weapon with the generic CC profile​.

First off, there is no note of switch profiles during this interaction, nor is there any note that this is added on to it. It can only be for the entire time that is noted as there is no option mentioned for anything else.

Second, if one can fire a Pistol in Overwatch, then I can shoot the Librarian unit while the model is joined to a Tactical Squad. If the Pistol's profile is completely available during a time when it is counting as something else, then the Librarian unit is completely available with the Librarian model in it when its model is counting as a part of another unit, and that includes for being shot at and being Charged.

Ceann wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

Ceann wrote:Again you are not saying, as you have literally put, but implying, that counts as, is a becomes, and that by counting as something else it no longer is what it originally was. You are not saying it you are implying it. Since overwatch refers back to the rules for the shooting phase you use the rules from the shooting phase.

"Counts as" means that It is no longer what it was until the time comes to revert back to what it is. That is how the rulebook uses it. And yes, I am saying this, and I have also implied that this is not explicitly written as such.

You go back to the Shooting Phase for the rules, but you do not change back to the Shooting Phase itself, but stay remaining in the Assault Phase. We are not instructed to treat Overwatch as a Shooting Phase in the written rules, "counting as" or otherwise.

And since we are in the Assault Phase, then you don't have a Ranged Weapon, but a Close Combat Weapon, which cannot be fired as a Shooting Weapon.

I think that this here properly reflects our divergence. As I see it the count's as is supplementary, not a replacement.
I see it as the plasma pistol gaining the close combat weapon profile, but only for the duration of the assault phase, which allows you to use it as a melee weapon, it does not remove its existing profile.

In the case of the Librarian, it gains the model/unit profile for the Tactical Squad, allowing you to allocate wounds to the squad, it retains its existing profile.

Do you have a more clear example of where the rules clearly show that "count's as" is a replacement of the units current status and supplementing it with another?

If it is supplementary, then the Librarian unit is completely available with its original model, and can be Shot without affecting the rest of the unit the model joined. Being supplementary means the Librarian model is part of both the Librarian unit and Tactical Squad at the same time. It does not mean one is lost or ignored for whim or convenience.

As for similar situations with "counts as", where to start? Try Flying Monstrous Creatures, Flyers Hover Mode, Relentless, and Slow and Purposeful.

 Charistoph wrote:

Fhionnuisce wrote:And where have the rules used counts as to mean it loses its prior qualities? You keep claiming the pistol rules, but I haven't seen anything that says they lose the ranged profile, they are simply prevented from using a ranged profile in CC. So they remain a pistol with a ranged profile but also count as a CC weapon with the generic CC profile​.

First off, there is no note of switch profiles during this interaction, nor is there any note that this is added on to it. It can only be for the entire time that is noted as there is no option mentioned for anything else.

Second, if one can fire a Pistol in Overwatch, then I can shoot the Librarian unit while the model is joined to a Tactical Squad. If the Pistol's profile is completely available during a time when it is counting as something else, then the Librarian unit is completely available with the Librarian model in it when its model is counting as a part of another unit, and that includes for being shot at and being Charged.

I suggest you read the rules.

The rules says this . . .



The rules do not say this . . .




The rules also make clear that the switch in profiles happens when the pistol is explicitly used as a close combat weapon.



So there is no problem at all with using a pistol for Overwatch. Since you are not using the pistol as a close combat weapon at that time, the pistol's shooting profile is entirely available.

Charistoph wrote: If it is supplementary, then the Librarian unit is completely available with its original model, and can be Shot without affecting the rest of the unit the model joined. Being supplementary means the Librarian model is part of both the Librarian unit and Tactical Squad at the same time. It does not mean one is lost or ignored for whim or convenience.

And if he is part of both at the same time, wound allocation rules force you to apply them to the nearest unit to unit contact from the origin of the attack. His "count's as" status permits him to do this regardless of your shooting at him directly.

col_impact wrote:

 doctortom wrote:
It is treated as part of the unit for all rules purposes (except for exceptions specifically mentioned in the IC rules). That means, for all rules purposes, his is part of one unit. He is not his own unit, but is part of the unit he has joined. There is no "unit wihtin a unit" if for rules purposes you are part of another unnit.

Incorrect. The IC being part of the Tac unit merely takes precedence over the IC being his own unit. The IC never stops being his own unit.

This allows specific exceptions to still be able to work on the IC's buried unit status.

If you have a problem with this you have a problems with the BRB. I am merely presenting how the rules work in this case according to the BRB.

No, you are presenting your theory on how it works. That doesn't mean that it's what the rules say. The fact remains that whether you call it overriding, taking precedent or whatever, "for all rules purposes" (except as specified in the IC rules) he is part of a unit and is treated only as being part of one unit. For rules purposes (except for exceptions specified in the IC ruels) he is not treated as a unit in a unit.

Ceann wrote:

Charistoph wrote: If it is supplementary, then the Librarian unit is completely available with its original model, and can be Shot without affecting the rest of the unit the model joined. Being supplementary means the Librarian model is part of both the Librarian unit and Tactical Squad at the same time. It does not mean one is lost or ignored for whim or convenience.

And if he is part of both at the same time, wound allocation rules force you to apply them to the nearest unit to unit contact from the origin of the attack. His "count's as" status permits him to do this regardless of your shooting at him directly.

Incorrect. Nothing about Wound Allocation or Look Out Sir states this at all.

Remember, you Shoot Units, not Models. Wounds are then allocated to models in the unit shot. Here's the summary. You can check against the actual instructions and see if there is anything else that would change this. Hint: there isn't.

The Shooting Sequence
1. Nominate Unit to Shoot. ...
2. Choose a Target. The unit can shoot at an enemy unit that it can see.
3. Select a Weapon. ...
4. Roll To Hit. ...
5. Roll To Wound. For each shot that hit, roll again to see if it wounds the target. The result needed is determined by comparing the Strength of the firing weapon with the majority Toughness of the target unit.
6. Allocate Wounds & Remove Casualties. Any Wounds caused by the firing unit must now be allocated, one at a time, to the closest model in the target unit. A model with a Wound allocated to it can take a saving throw (if it has one) to avoid being wounded. If a model is reduced to 0 Wounds, it is removed as a casualty. Wounds are then allocated to the next closest model. Continue to allocate Wounds and take saving throws until all Wounds have been resolved.
...

You shoot units, and then Allocate Wounds to the Target Unit. If I shoot a Librarian unit, any Wounds are Allocated only to the Target Unit. Nothing in the IC rules state the unit joined becomes part of the IC's unit, only the IC joining the joined unit.

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.

Not even Look Out Sir makes any changes to this factor of Wound Allocation.

When a Wound is allocated to one of your non-vehicle characters, and there is another model from the same unit within 6", he is allowed a Look Out, Sir attempt. This represents the character ducking back further into the unit, holding a comrade in the line of fire, or being pushed aside by a selfless ally. If no model is in range, then you cannot make a Look Out, Sir attempt.

Wounds reallocated by Look Out Sir are still within the same unit that was Attacked.

Even in a Multiple Combat, you cannot Allocate Wounds to a unit that did not receive the Attacks.

Directing Attacks
In multiple combats, during a model’s Initiative step, the following extra rules apply:
• A model that is in base contact with, or engaged with, just one enemy unit when it comes to strike must attack that unit.
• A model that is in base contact with, or engaged with, more than one enemy unit when it strikes blows, can split its Attacks freely between those units. Declare how each model is splitting its attacks immediately before rolling To Hit. Wounds from Attacks that have been directed against a unit in a multiple combat cannot be transferred to another unit, even if the original target unit is completely destroyed (in this case, any excess Wounds are simply discounted and have no further effect).

So there is zero support for transferring Wounds from one unit to another.

Therefore:
* Any concept that attacks directed at an IC unit can be Allocated to a unit the IC model joined is a fabrication.
* The concept that the unit joins the IC's unit is a fabrication.
* The only way to prevent any such actions is to prevent the IC's unit from being recognized by the enemy unit.
* No such literal instructions exist to remove the IC's unit from recognition. It is only by taking the implications of "counts as" as removing the IC's unit from recognition by virtue of lacking any models whatsoever as its model is now part of another unit, is this even a possibility.

Your interpretation has separated the IC unit entirely from the joined unit and ignored the party if the joined unit instruction. Since it's unit status is simultaneously the IC unit and the unit it joined, when you target the IC unit you have also targeted the joined unit. If you recognized both unit affiliations in the target then wound allocation works as normal.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
To elaborate, I'll break down how this works without ignoring the part of the joined unit requirement.

ICs begin the game as their own unit. Nothing in the instructions for joining a unit removes this unit status so the remain their own unit even when joined to another. Based on this you use that as justification to directly target the IC unit with a shooting attack.

You now have your target unit selected, however your target unit is associated with two units, the IC unit and the joined unit. Both are valid and you were given permission to choose the target unit but to not which unit association within that unit the attack resolves against, therefore both must be considered in continuing to resolve the attack. There are two ways to proceed, but both lead to the same result:

1) You have a rules conflict since you are targeting two units with an attack that rules only allow to target one. In this case you go to the counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes clause since it is explicit instruction and resolve the attack against the joined unit.

2) You continue to resolve the attack taking into consideration both units. To wounds will be rolled against majority toughness from both units and allocation will be to closest model, so effectively the same as if resolving against the joined unit.

You are quoting the rules exactly as the are, but disregarding that he COUNTS AS that unit for ALL purposes. It is a special rule and takes precedence over the basic unit rules you are quoting.

The argument you are presenting is tantamount to saying that a scout squad shooting a sniper rifle cannot target a specific model in a unit because the basic shooting rules don't say that they can do it. Snipers have a special rule that allow them to choose the unit.

Just like an IC has a special rule that allows them to COUNT AS the unit they joined, hence the wounds have to go onto the joined unit. Without you interpreting the "count as" rule in a way that gives you the ability to make an argument, your argument has no leg to stand on. In order for you to actually have a point you have to prove that COUNTS AS does not function this way and until you can do that, you cannot make an argument based on what the basic rules state.

Col_impact also demonstrated that you were not properly interperting the plasma pistol correctly as RAW so that is no longer a valid point to use as a "counts as" example that is somehow contradictory.

Fhionnuisce wrote:Your interpretation has separated the IC unit entirely from the joined unit and ignored the party if the joined unit instruction. Since it's unit status is simultaneously the IC unit and the unit it joined, when you target the IC unit you have also targeted the joined unit. If you recognized both unit affiliations in the target then wound allocation works as normal.

My interpretation has only done what is stated. I have done nothing but what is instructed. I have actually addressed this already. Special Rules only affect a unit when they say they affect a unit, otherwise, they only affect the model. Read the Introduction to Special Rules, including WHAT SPECIAL RULES DO I HAVE? for more information.

The references to "independent characters" in the Independent Character USR never reference a unit, and so only reference a model. To put it more explicitly "While an Independent Character (model) is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes, though he still follows the rules for characters." At no point are we to consider it as "While an Independent Character (unit) is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes, though he still follows the rules for characters.".

Fhionnuisce wrote:ICs begin the game as their own unit.

Correction. ICs begin the list building stage in a unit of one model. All Special Rules listed on a Datasheet are applied to the models in the unit per the legends for datasheets and army list entries in ever single codex.

Also, for clarity, ICs can begin the game already joined to a unit, either declared joined and in Reserves, Embarking the Transport another unit is in, or by being deployed in Coherency with another unit on the table.

Fhionnuisce wrote:Nothing in the instructions for joining a unit removes this unit status so the remain their own unit even when joined to another. Based on this you use that as justification to directly target the IC unit with a shooting attack.

Because if the IC's unit is recognized at any point on the table it can be shot, per the instructions for Shooting.

Fhionnuisce wrote:You now have your target unit selected, however your target unit is associated with two units, the IC unit and the joined unit.

Already demonstrated that this is a false assertion. The correct phrase is "You now have your target unit selected, however the target unit has a model associated with two units, the IC unit and the joined unit".

I see this happen a lot. People conflate the concepts of unit and model. They are not conflatable. To put it simply, you Shoot a unit, but the models are Wounded. Units do not have Wounds, models do. Units Run, models are moved.

Fhionnuisce wrote:Both are valid and you were given permission to choose the target unit but to not which unit association within that unit the attack resolves against, therefore both must be considered in continuing to resolve the attack.

I have been "given permission to choose the target group, but not which group association within that group the attack resolves against"? Show me where the term "association" is used in this context within the Shooting or Assault Phase.

To put it simply, units are a group of models. The models are associated together, so a unit is an association of models. An association of units has a different name, though, it is called "a detachment". Look it up. An no point is an association of units ever defined as a unit. If you can prove otherwise, please quote and reference.

Since your premises are flawed from the word go, any other considerations you make using it are equally as flawed, if not more so.

Ceann wrote:You are quoting the rules exactly as the are, but disregarding that he COUNTS AS that unit for ALL purposes. It is a special rule and takes precedence over the basic unit rules you are quoting.

I am disregarding NOTHING. In order to demonstrate that a special rule is breaking a rule, you need to demonstrate the rule that is broken. And to restate, a model counting as a member of another unit does not literally mean that he stops being a member of his own unit, nor does it literally mean the IC's own unit is no longer recognizable. Counting as a member of another unit only means that what affects the unit it joined affects it, too.

To put it another way, all elk are deer, but not all deer are elk. You are saying that because all elk are deer, then all deer are elk.

Ceann wrote:The argument you are presenting is tantamount to saying that a scout squad shooting a sniper rifle cannot target a specific model in a unit because the basic shooting rules don't say that they can do it. Snipers have a special rule that allow them to choose the unit.

Incorrect on several terminologies, and this demonstrates where your premise is wrong.

Every unit with a ranged weapon has basic rules that allow them to shoot any unit they can see. This makes your final statement of, "Snipers have a special rule that allow them to choose the unit", is either misstated or msiconcepted.

What the Sniper and Precision Strikes/Shots state is:

Wounds from Precision Shots are allocated against a model (or models) of your choice in the target unit, as long as it is in range and line of sight of the firer, rather than following the normal rules for Wound allocation.

Nothing in there states that I can shoot any specific model. What it states is that I, as the owner of the Shooting model, can determine where those Wounds are Allocated, which changes the normal Wound Allocation from being the nearest one. Nor does the Precision Strikes rule stop Line of Sight from happening.

Also, I never stated anything about only Shooting a specific model in my statements, except when I was talking about Shooting a unit which only contains one, single model. There is a HUGE difference in connotations and operations between the two statements that you do not seem to comprehend.

Ceann wrote:Just like an IC has a special rule that allows them to COUNT AS the unit they joined, hence the wounds have to go onto the joined unit. Without you interpreting the "count as" rule in a way that gives you the ability to make an argument, your argument has no leg to stand on. In order for you to actually have a point you have to prove that COUNTS AS does not function this way and until you can do that, you cannot make an argument based on what the basic rules state.

Again, you are conflating the IC UNIT with the IC MODEL. The "Independent Character' is never referenced as a unit, so can only be referencing the model. The MODEL counts as being a member of the unit they joined, but nothing is stated about the IC's UNIT in these interactions except for when it states, "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." That's it. And while this tells us it after the fact, nothing tells us what to do before the fact. Any decision on what is done before the fact is based on implications and assumptions, aka HYWPI.

Ceann wrote:Col_impact also demonstrated that you were not properly interperting the plasma pistol correctly as RAW so that is no longer a valid point to use as a "counts as" example that is somehow contradictory.

Col_Ignored also regularly misstates terms and phrases and has lied about what others have said. I have him on Ignore for a very good reason. Using him as a standard is not a sign of endorsement for the consideration, and usually a reason to consider it in the opposite light.